Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001 04 24 PC
i / I Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California April 24, 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 2001-048 Beginning Minute Motion 2001-009 CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call IL 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 April 10, 2001 B. Department Report V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA «�001 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-697 Applicant........... RGC Courthomes, Inc. Location............ Northeast corner of Camino Quintana and Calle Mazatlan within Santa Rosa Cove Country Club Request ............. Review of architectural plans (compatibility review) for two new prototype residential units Action ............... Resolution 2001- B. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-698 Applicant........... Jerry Walker Location............ Northwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111, within Point Happy Commercial Center Request ............. Review of development plans for a Del Taco restaurant. Action ............... Resolution 2001- C. Item ................... TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, EXTENSION #1 Applicant........... Lundin Development Company Location............ Northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and 501h Avenue Request ............. One year extension of time for a tentative tract map which creates 103 single family lots on 33 acres. Action ............... Resolution 2001- D. Item ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 Applicant........... Lundin Development Company Location............ Northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and 501h Avenue in Rancho Cielo Shopping Center Request ............. Review of development plans for a 74,080 square feet of commercial buildings Action ............... Resolution 2001- E. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-414, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-076, ZONE CHANGE 2001- 099, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-053, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30096 Applicant........... Puerta Azul Partners, LLC Location............ 57-325 Madison Street, north of Avenue 58 Request ....... 1. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2. Amend the General Plan and Zoning Land Use designation from Tourist Commercial to Medium Density Residential; 3. Review of development standards and design guidelines for 127 resort villa units; and 4. Review of a Tentative Tract map to subdivide 19.64 acres into 127 residential lots Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001- , and Resoluti � 001- PC/AGENDA i"- V L VII VIII IK4 X BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................... Applicant........... Location............ Request ............. Action.............. MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2001-014 James C. Belknap Construction Throughout the Cove area. Review of development standards for the Cove Residential area. Minute Motion 2001- CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of April 17, 2001. ADJOURNMENT 003 PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA April 10, 2001 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 Butler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Steve Robbins. C. Staff present: Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of March 27, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 9, Item #10 be corrected to read, "...since the traffic information..."; Page 11 Item #23 he referenced Washington Street not Highway 1 1 1; and Page 18, Item #7 "...plan of the previous approved tract...". There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None. V. PRESENTATIONS: None. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Conditional Use Permit 2001-057 and Site Development Permit 2001- 695; a request of USA Petroleum Corporation for review of use and development plans for a gasoline facility, convenience market and automated tunnel car wash to be located at northwest corner of Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, within Specific Plan 99-036 (La Quinta Corporate Center). G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd f -f.J 010 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to verify that no changes were made to the previously approved plan. Staff clarified there were design modifications requested as part of the conditions of approval and the applicant has made those changes. Commissioner Tyler asked if the size and placement of the flagpole had been determined. Staff stated there was a condition requiring them to keep the pole at 22 feet in the front setback as proposed. Commissioner Tyler asked why more turf was being proposed. Staff explained it was to be in conformance with the Highway 1 1 1 Design Guidelines to provide more of a mix of the ground cover and turf. Commissioner Tyler questioned Condition #11 and #42.A and the inconsistencies regarding shared driveways on Highway 111 and Dune Palms Road, that had not be resolved. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated they should indicates a shared driveway on Dune Palms Road and staff would make that correction to be consistent. Commissioner Tyler asked when the sign program would be submitted. Staff stated it would be approved by staff. 3. Chairman Robbins questioned the height of the tower as it appeared to be higher than previously approved. Staff clarified it was the same height as initially proposed. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Mark Mcllvain, representing USA Petroleum, stated he agreed with the recommendations and was available to answer any questions. 5. Commissioner Abels asked when they would begin construction. Mr. Mcllvain stated they hoped to start within the month. 6. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on this project. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 2 •� `% r Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-046 approving Conditional Use Permit 2001-057, as recommend ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-047 approving Site Development Permit 2001-695, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Chairman Robbins. ABSTAIN: None. Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and NOES: None. ABSENT: None. C. Environmental Assessment 94-287 Addendum, Specific Plan 94-025 Amendment #1, Conditional Use Permit 99-047, and Tentative Parcel Map 28617; a request of Agiotage Limited/Mainiero, Smith and Associates for Certification of an Environmental Impact Report Addendum allowing a new access road for an approved master planned residential community of 277 hours; Development of a private road on a hillside slope exceeding 20 percent; 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 a Tentative Parcel Map subdividing 330.70 acres into four parcels and other lettered street lots located at the bisection of the future Jefferson Street, approximately one half mile south of Avenue 58. 1. Commissioner Tyler asked Assistant City Attorney Ramirez that since they had just been handed this multi -page document pertaining to this project and somehow they were to absorb it and let it inter their thinking as they make a determination on this project, did they have to acknowledge the contents. He has objected previously and is objecting again to these fifth hour submittals and his question are: a) do they have consider at this late entry; and b) if they do need to consider it, can they continue it to allow adequate time to consider it. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated staff and his office have had time to review the letter and digest its contents and he will have comments on this letter during the hearing process. They will provide the pi V G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 3 �J Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Commission with an assessment of the letter as well as the impact, or reported impact, on the previously adopted EIR and Addendum before the Commission. The Commission does have to consider it at this late time as it has been provided prior to the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Tyler stated that may be well and good but staff and the Attorney's office are not the ones voting on the project. The Commissioners are and they have not had the time to digest its contents. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated he understood this and certainly it was not an ideal situation. Staff always encourages early participation but it is not always the case and the only thing staff can do is help the Commission understand the contents and impact of the contents. Commissioner Tyler stated he appreciated the advice, but his immediate reaction is to put it aside and dwell only on the information that was given to him in his agenda packet. 2. Chairman Robbins stated that sometimes the purpose of a late entry is to get the Commission to postpone their decision. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated the Commission could ask Mr. Hogan of the Center for Biological Diversity, who wrote the letter, why it was so late. 3. Commissioner Butler stated he concurred with Commissioner Tyler's comments and strongly resented the letter being presented at the last hour. If they have the ability to produce a document such as this they also have the ability to get it to the City in a timely for them to review it and not have to rely on staff to read and digest it for them. As he is voting on this tonight, he agrees with Commissioner Tyler, that he would reject the document based on the basis that he has never had the opportunity to even read it, although he recognizes that is nothing they can deal with at this meeting. He would like them to know if it happens again, don't come. 4. Commissioner Kirk stated he does not completely agree with his colleagues as he has been on the other end and often, and he is sure the Commission will hear from Mr. Hogan, and it is one mitigating factor, that they don't just have a letter but also have a person testifying and addressing the issues. Sometimes you do not have the time to prepare for public hearings and there may be factors the Commission is unaware of. It would be nice to receive G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wpd 4 0 r' -1 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 notices in advance. However, the law is very clear on this issue. If it is submitted a minute before the hearing it is required that the Commission address and considered the contents during the hearing process. Therefore, he would strongly suggest the Commission not reject it out of hand. 5. Commissioner Butler stated he did not disagree with what Commissioner Kirk stated. What he does disagree with is the opportunity to absorb the contents himself and he does understand that late arrivals do create more interest. 6. Commissioner Kirk stated he concurred and it would be nice to have the letter in advance, but again, the Commission is obligated under the law to consider everything presented. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez, stated that as the Commission goes through the staff report, staff and the City Attorney's office views that the letter does not impact the Addendum at all which obviously the Commission has had time to review. 7. 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. 8. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Butler asked staff if this area was part of the area where the Commission had taken a field trip. Staff stated yes and showed the area on the map. 9. Commissioner Kirk asked where the grades were on the proposed roadway and where the 20% slope began and ended. Senior Engineer Steve Speer indicated on the map, the location where the road would cut into the toe of slope. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City had permitted road cuts in this type of slope. Staff stated something similar at the Tradition, but did not cross a ridge line. We have shaved across the face of slopes in various locations, the Point Happy project is the most recent. Commissioner Kirk asked if the right of way asphalt was noted by the grey on the map. Staff stated yes and explained the road. 10. Commissioner Butler asked staff to clarify that this road was being requested because they could not gain access through the Quarry. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained there were two issues in regard to the Quarry. First was a vacation of right-of-way. G1\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 5 •"' fl 0 J Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Officially this property had had accessed the street right of way. There were no street improvements. Adams Street right of way was west of this location and Avenue 58 use to extend across the north side of the Quarry. As a condition of vacating that right of way and taking away access to the Green property, the Quarry is obligated to enter into an agreement with this property to provide access. However, the two property owners have never been able to come to terms on what the cost sharing would be. Second, technically the Quarry is in default. They have never recorded the street vacation. When the City approved the final tract map for the Quarry they were again conditioned to provide access and it was to be mutually agreed upon between the two parties. They do have their map, but the street vacation has never been officially recorded and therefore, officially there is still street right of way at the Quarry passing through their golf course and several lots. 1 1 . Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain what "default' means and why it occurred. Staff stated that when a street right of way is vacated, the City approves the concept with conditions and the developer has to satisfy the conditions before they have a final project. In this instance, the right of way is not considered vacated until it is recorded. The Quarry has never recorded the street vacation because they have never perfected the requirement of providing access to the property that will be denied access. 12. Commissioner Abels asked if there was any time line to complete the recording. Staff stated there was no timeline placed on them to complete the requirements. 13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the City had the ability to force the road so a road would not have to be constructed through the hill. Staff stated this may be the opportunity to do that. 14. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was an opportunity to condition the Quarry which is where the problem lies. Staff stated the issue before the Commission is the road which is the applicant's alternative as a result of not being able to reach a solution with the Quarry. This issue of the Quarry denying access to the Green property has come up time and time again. Staff has spoken with the attorney for Mr. Green where the Quarry was denying access to real estate people to show the property whereas before the Quarry allowed this. G:AWPDOCSVPC4-10-01 .wpd 6 %1-� () 0 9) Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 15. Commissioner Tyler asked if this application of the road opened the whole Environmental Assessment process. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that to the extent the Commission was taking about potential impacts to habitat and the like, his answer would be no. It would not open up the conclusions drawn on the EIR or the Addendum. Commissioner Tyler stated the road only encompasses a small portion of the project. Is that what they are to limit their focus to. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated that to the extent the Addendum and project before the Commission is this road, not the alternative right of way or the condition that was imposed on the Quarry. Commissioner Tyler asked if any issue other than the road was open for discussion at this time. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated no, but as issues are discussed he can clarify whether or not it pertains to this application. 16. Commissioner Kirk asked, somewhat in jest if there was anything to stop someone from walking on that public right of way for Avenue 58 even though it was within the Quarry. Staff stated the public right of way exists, but he is sure someone would try to stop anyone from entering. Commissioner Kirk asked legal counsel if this was possible. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated it was a question of right versus practicality. Certainly as a public right of way you would have every legal right to be on that public right of way, but obviously to the extent there are physical barriers that would be a practical impediment. 17. Ms. Saundra Jacobs, SFC Consultants, gave a presentation on the EIR Addendum prepared for this project. 18. Chairman Robbins asked if the Commission denied the Addendum, it would only deny the road to the ten lots but the remainder of the project that was previously approved could proceed. Ms. Jacobs stated that was her understanding. 19. Commissioner Kirk questioned the Army Corp nation-wide permit process of a tenth of an acre. Ms. Jacobs stated that was correct based on their engineering calculations. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if they have had any conversations with the Corp regarding this project. Ms. Jacobs stated not with the Corp directly. However, as it moves through the process and should the applicant need a streambed alteration permit, the Corp will be consulted on that process and if the Corp decides it is more than G:\W PDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wpd 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 a tenth of an acre based on their analysis, then there will need to be a modification in the road alignment or another alternative. Commissioner Kirk asked based on the Supreme Court's action, does staff believe the Corp has jurisdiction over this project. Ms. Jacobs stated that if they find that there is a blueline stream on the property, they will need to do a wetland analysis or wetlands delineation to decide that and then the Corp would review that application for a nation wide permit. Commissioner Kirk asked if this was a navigable body of water. Ms. Jacob stated it was a blueline on the U.S.G.A. map. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff was familiar with the U. S. Supreme case. Ms. Jacobs stated she was not. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his understanding that there had been some changes in Corp policy. Has staff or legal counsel had any interaction with them regarding this. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he is aware of the case cited, but is not aware of any Corp policy changes in response to the case. He would argue that this was a case where they lack jurisdiction. Without knowing the Corps reaction to the case he is somewhat limited on providing information as to where they stand on the issue. Commissioner Kirk stated this is only one of the issues that the applicant may have many of. Ms. Jacobs added it is the same streambed crossing that the Quarry crossed when they developed. 20. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Marvin Roos, Director of Planning Services for Mainiero Smith, engineer representing the project, stated they were in agreement with most of the conditions. They would prefer to have taken access through the Quarry, but it is difficult to get two private parties to agree. 21. Commissioner Tyler stated this proposal is before them because no agreement could be reached between the two private parties; has everything possible been done in good faith to achieve this? Mr. Roos stated Mr. Green's attorney has been diligently working on this, but to no avail. They are before the Commission at this time as one of the things they believe necessary to create an atmosphere where they can reach a closure on this issue. They need to be able to negotiate from a position of having some rights as opposed to begging for rights. This is why they have asked for the road. It can be done very sensitively. It is their hope to not do the road, but if they have to, they are prepared to do so. G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-Ot.wpd g 0il Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 22. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Bill Morrow, representing the Quarry, stated they have been in every one of the discussions with Mr. Green and Mr. Schlecker over the last seven years and at no time has any proposal ever been made by Mr. Green to him as to what they would or would not do with regard to getting into their property. They are perfectly amenable and agreeable to allowing that to occur as it part of the agreement they reached in 1993, when they first developed the property and that has not changed. As late as last week he made the tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth proposal to Mr. Green and he did not respond to it. So, at no time have they made any contradiction, action, proposal, anything whatsoever to the Quarry and they have done it over and over again. So I think the conversation you are hearing from these folks is really coming out of the side of their mouth because they are agreeable to doing this. To run a road up here and change the City's hillside ordinance and so forth, to satisfy their needs, I think strictly has to do with money and they are not that difficult to deal with if they will come up with a proposal. They have not done so and he has done so over and over again and have no comment back from them. This has gone on for year after year after year. What the Commission is hearing is one side of the coin, but actual side of the coin is that they will do anything that is necessary to make this work and they do not believe this road is the proper answer. They have stated they are not here for the purpose of building the road, but or the purpose of negotiating with him and that should not have been necessary, hasn't been necessary. If they make a proposal, he will be glad to listen to it. 23. Mr. Bob Mainiero, Mainiero Smith and Associates representing Agiotage, stated he too has attended four meetings in Palm Desert with representatives of the Quarry and in his opinion there was never an effort to negotiate in good faith. Each time they left the meeting, with the conclusion was that there was going to be a lawsuit and Mr. Green did not want to pursue that avenue. 24. Mr. David Hogan, Center for Biological Diversity, offered an apology for the late date of the letter. It was an honest mistake. He had confused the date between the City Council hearing in May with this meeting and he apologized for submitting it so late. Obviously he would prefer they have the time to consider the points they brought up. He would like to request time to rebuttal to the City's attorney discussion after Mr. Hogan's presentation. G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 9 r 01 ,•� Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Chairman Robbins stated that was not proper. He would be allowed an opportunity to make comments and the City would have theirs. Mr. Hogan stated his primary purpose in appearing is to request the Commission deny certification of the Environmental Impact Report Addendum for the Green and to request of the applicant submission of a subsequent EIR addressing new information and changed circumstances regarding the Peninsular Big Horn Sheep prior to reconsideration by this Commission and City Council. Some of the point are that the project applicant needs to prepare a subsequent EIR due to substantially changed circumstances and the availability of new information. He will hit on that information very quickly. That information includes substantial decline in the Martinez Canyon ewe group of Big Horn Sheep since consideration of this project in the original EIR. It also includes a listing of the species as a Federally Endangered Species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since listing there was the formation of a recovery team which came up with what's known as an "Essential Habitat Boundary" which includes the Green property in its entirety. The term "essential" relates to basically all habitat which is considered necessary for the survival and recovery of the species. That is why the recovery team developed the term and map that included essential habitat on the Green project as well as obviously elsewhere throughout the range of the species. The last point he would like to make on new information is that there has been a major comprehensive study on the effects of urbanization on Peninsula Big Horn Sheep produced by the Big Horn Institute and that contains a lot of new data about the effects, not only direct impacts from development, but the effects from lighting, noise, landscaping, all these things basically called edufacts on Big Horn Sheep populations and unfortunately are negative. All this information, the decline of the ewe group, decline of the Peninsula Big Horn Sheep numbers throughout the species range, Federal listing and the urbanization study are clearly changed circumstances. Federal listing of the Peninsula Big Horn Sheep as an endangered species also triggered a mandatory finding of significance not present during the CEQA review process. According to the case law right now, regardless of what is on the table tonight, the City has the obligation to consider any new information relating to this project and go back and require a subsequent EIR if that information has become available and has he has said it has become available. The last point is that there were many, many points made by the Department of Fish and Game on this project back on when they commented back in 1995. They commented both on the draft EIR as well as the Final G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 10 013 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 EIR and found there was significant flaws in those documents and those documents did not respond adequately to those comments. That is another reason they would ask that this be revisited today Regarding the Corp jurisdiction issue, there has been no new regulations in response to the Supreme Court decision. The Salton Sea is a navigable body of water. This is a tributary to the Salton Sea Clean Water Act which places Corp jurisdiction over all waters of the U.S. which are navigable and tributaries to navigable waters in the U.S. is his understanding. The Corp jurisdiction really has nothing to do with CEQA responsibility here to go back and do a subsequent Environmental Impact Report because they are completely separate processes. Corp jurisdiction falls under the Clean Water Act and this is a CEQA issue that is being considered now. There was also the assertion made that mitigation addresses all the new information that has come up since 1995. Unfortunately, as indicated by Fish and Game and in their comment letter, there has never been any release of the specifics of that mitigation. There is going to be what is called a "Habitat Management Plan", but Fish and Game pointed out in their comment letters, and he reiterates that tonight, that that plan was never presented for public review and comment and without that they do not know if that plan is going to be adequate to mitigate impacts to the sheep and that is probably one of the most important reasons for revisiting this. Ultimately, this project can proceed but it is going to be how the impacts of this project are mitigated, especially those edge -effects and the way light, increased human presents, as well as whether or not there is going to be any compensation for the direct loss of habitat. 25. Commissioner Tyler stated there was an article in the local newspaper stating how happy everyone was that the Big Horn Sheep were alive and well and thriving and had more Iambs this season than ever before: How does that equate to the picture he is painting here. Mr. Hogan stated he has not seen the article, but there certainly are not more Iambs than there ever were before. The sheep have undergone a precipitous decline since 1973 when it was originally listed under Fish and Game Code. There has been fluctuation in population numbers, but the overall trend has been downward. In the early 1990's was when there was the most significant decline and that was when the Martinez Canyon ewe group, which is found basically south of Highway 74 in the southern Santa Rosa Mountains took the biggest hit and that population has not recovered and this is based on a conversation G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 he had today with Jim DeForge at the Big Horn Institute. Commissioner Tyler asked if his organization was publicly funded or private. Mr. Hogan stated they were a nonprofit private conservation organization endangered species advocacy habitat protection. It is membership funded as well as from foundations. 26. Commissioner Kirk asked if any further information had been received from Fish and Game relating to the Addendum. Ms. Jacobs stated yes, they reviewed and concurred with the Addendum and had comment and that was the mitigation measure concerning the lake and streambed alteration permit. Commissioner Kirk stated Mr. Hogan indicated that going back to the 1995 letter which did express some concerns regarding the commitment or lack thereof of mitigation measures, have they repeated those concerns. Ms. Jacobs stated not during the course of this Addendum EIR. Any of the original concerns dealt with the Travertine property and how close it was to the Martinez Rock Slide south of it. The Habitat Management Plan is still a requirement for the project, but has not been prepared yet and any and all information that is available for the consultant who eventually prepares it will be made available. Keep in mind it is the applicant of the project who is responsible for that preparation. The City is not required to prepare it. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any requirement for Fish and Game or other agency oversite to the substance of the Habitat Management Plan. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated Fish and Game has to approve the Habitat Management Plan. Commissioner Kirk asked if that was for both specific Plans. Staff stated yes and there is an outline as to what is to be contained within the Management Plan and that outline came from Fish and Game. Commissioner Kirk stated that presumably if the Department of Fish and Game had any concerns about the details or lack thereof, of mitigation measures, they could address them through the Habitat Management Plan and/or streambed alteration permit process. Staff stated yes and this Habitat Management Plan has to be approved by Fish and Game prior to issuance of a grading permit. Mr. Hogan stated this is a subject of significant confusion because Fish and Game when they do the streambed alternation permit also has to also do the CEQA analysis. He is very confused about the process and has a feeling that they are more dropping the ball than agreeing actually to what is going on given their lack of staffing. His concern is that they will come in two months from now and G:\WPDOCS\PC4-1 0-01 . wpd 12 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 say wait, wait, wait, we have these concerns and we have to do a CEQA analysis and it is their problem, but that is something that there would be no streambed alteration permit until CEQA was completed. 27. Commissioner Kirk asked if the Commission could ask the two parties to address the negotiations. 28. Chairman Robbins stated he heard two opposing positions on what had taken place in regard to negotiations and he did not know whether or not it would be beneficial to hear from the two parties. 29. Commissioner Kirk stated it is very confusing because one side says specific proposals have been put on the table and the other side stated no, perhaps they haven't. Perhaps he is confused by the facts in this case. Mr. Bill Morrow stated he has made proposals specifically in writing to Mr. Green on more than one occasion and have never ever once had any response in writing or verbally with a proposal back from him at any time. Mr. Mainiero stated he saw one proposal early on in the process. Independently he was asked by Mr. Green to prepare a cost estimate for what he believed to be the improvements related to access to the ten lots in the northwest corner and he did that. What he recalls is that Mr. Green offered three times what he calculated and that still was not acceptable. The proposal he saw from the Quarry had items that did not relate to access and no agreement was ever reached. In his opinion, as an engineer, the City should never have approved the final map without that compensation being resolved. Approving it and leaving it to the parties to resolve brings us here today. 30. Mr. Jack Becker, stated he was one of the owners of the Green property, and the thing that has motivated him most to speak was the commentary by the party representing fish and game. As he understands Fish and Game is a State entity, is that correct? Chairman Robbins clarified that Mr. Hogan did not represent Fish and Game. Mr. Becker asked if Fish and Wildlife was a Federal agency. Chairman Robbins stated that was correct. Mr. Becker stated he has owned the land for 20 years and envisioned what the Quarry eventually did only they did a fantastic thing out of a gravel pit. He envisioned a beautiful cove that he owns, a nice beautiful golf course with very low density which has happened ,Ta 0 1 G G:\WPDOCS\PC4-1 0-01 .wpd 13 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 literally everywhere. At that time there was only 100 flat acres and they basically had a couple hundred acres of Santa Rosa Mountains and has often wished the Quarry would buy that one little twelve acre section and forget these problems. Years ago he was trying to work out something to trade the Santa Rosa portion of their half section, approximately 200 acres of Santa Rosa Mountains, for some of the flat area that is contiguous to his land that belongs to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Section 32 is south of his property and there is a triangular section that is 70-75 acres. In the process he got a hold of Fish and Game, Mr. John Sorrow, who was in charge of accessing property for Fish and Game. He had several meetings with him and they walked his property. He was concerned about the Big Horn Sheep and all the other biological aspects involved in a big piece of property. He asked Mr. Sorrow if they could make a trade for the Santa Rosa Mountains for the flat area. Mr. Sorrow stated the land belongs to BLM and he would see what he could. He has the documents to back up these conversations. Mr. John Sorrow sent him a document stating that the actual property in Section 29 did not in any way affect the Big Horn Sheep and therefore they are not interested in acquiring the property. They were in favor of trading those mountains and keeping them as they are, for that land. He then contacted Ed Hasty at BLM in California, and Mr. Hasty called him and at that time Section 32 was part of a Wilderness Proposal and anything in that status with the Federal government can have nothing done to it. Even though it would have been a beautiful arrangement to trade off those mountains and let the BLM have them and let us have the 75 acres, we would of had enough land to have all the flat with the aesthetics of the mountains. It was a great thought, but because of the status of Section 32 it fell by the wayside. The point he is trying to make is that Fish and Game said this part of the Santa Rosa Mountains have no affect on the Big Horn Sheep. He did not hear all the dialog given by Mr. Hogan, but If he is trying to deny this request on the basis of Big Horn Sheep, he is trying to create a situation that has already been resolved by virtue of his former meeting with Fish and Game. He sat with the founders of the Quarry in make shift Council meetings before they ever built the Quarry. He loves the Quarry, but they did have an agreement. If they vacated Avenue 58 and Adams Street to public streets and give them access to their 12 acres, that was part of the agreement. He has been through the Quarry gate a lot of times and there has been times when they have G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 14 017 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 denied him access even though the rule is they cannot deny him access. He does not want to get into that type of hassle. What bothers him is that the same person who built the Quarry did the specific plan on their property. If they can't come up with the exact figures there is something wrong somewhere. What is wrong with allowing them to build their road. 31. There being no further public participation, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and opened the subject to Commission discussion. 32. Commissioner Kirk stated Mr. Hogan has made some good points. Staff and the consultant have done a good job on the Addendum, but there have been some new issues that have cropped up. The other consideration he has is the comment that was made that suggested if the Commission did approve this perhaps negotiations would speed along between the two parties. Frankly, that wasn't a factor that he considered and maybe ought not to consider, it is interesting that if they were to approve a freeway to get to that site, maybe negotiations would immediately come to pass. He does have concerns about development over the toe of the slope and in particular over a ridge line, so the concerns raised several years ago by the Department of Fish and Game and more recently raised by Mr. Hogan do resinate with him. He would be interested in hearing how the rest of the Commission feels about these issues at the same time. 33. Commissioner Butler stated this is an issue bigger than approving an access to ten lots. If the Commission concentrates on access to ten lots and the toe of the slope issue, as brought up by Commissioner Kirk, he believes they have mitigated to some extent the issue about access to the ten lots in the path they have chosen to access those ten lots. The overall picture is that if they are approving the access to the ten lots, is it a negotiating tool to sell the ten lots to the Quarry. He is uncomfortable with the whole situation. It is not just saying yes on the basis of what we are presented by staff, this is what we should make our decision on. He gets conflicting messages that the owners of the Quarry are willing to allow access to the ten lots and if this were true, then this road would not have to go forward. He is confused. 34. Commissioner Tyler asked if the whole crux of this hearing has to do with the road that requires the Conditional Use Permit approval. If the CUP were denies the rest of it would be moot. Assistant G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 15 r r Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 City Attorney John Ramirez stated that was right, it is an extension of a package of entitlements before the Commission. The CUP is a necessary component of the road. To the extent there is a scenario that envisions the lessening a lessening of the grade perhaps that would ameliorate the need for a CUP, but as proposed, a CUP is required. Commissioner Tyler asked if the CUP was not approved the other resolutions would not be necessary. Assistant City Attorney Ramirez stated that if the CUP were not approved, the project would not go forward. The other approvals to some extent, are intertwined, but to another extent they stand on their own merit. Does the Commission want him to address the comments made by Mr. Hogan on the EIR? 35. Chairman Robbins asked legal counsel to address the comments made by Mr. Hogan. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated there were three comments. One may be relevant or irrelevant, but as a quick background, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against BLM some time ago seeking to close a number of public access trails including the Boo Hoff Trail at the north end of the Cove. The lawsuit was slated to be settled by stipulation by the former U.S. Attorney's office and the Center just days prior to the prior presidential administration leaving office. A number of affected entities in the Valley were informed of this at the 11 th hour by the local office of the BLM and filed a brief in opposition to that stipulated settlement. Certainly the City encourages and does in fact encourage broad public participation of a wide variety of individuals and groups including the Center for Biological Diversity. Given the lack of participation by the Center with respect to other City projects for years prior, he raised the issue as to whether or not there is some nexus with the City's brief filed in that case which was merely five or six weeks ago and their participation here. That aside and dealing with the legal issues in the letter there are really two issues. The first is the original EIR adopted in 1995 for Specific Plan. That EIR studied thoroughly the impact to the Peninsular Big Horn Sheep and although there is documentation throughout the EIR, Pages 3.8-5 to 3.8-10, he thinks are particularly relevant including the finding as expressed in the EIR that potentially impacts to Big Horn Sheep are considered significant. This was included in the 1995 EIR. That EIR, as the Commission knows, was adopted on the basis of overriding considerations specifically dealing with the significant impact to the Peninsular Big Horn Sheep. To the extent the letter is trying to raise an issue as to the adequacy of the study, that is time barred by Public Resources Code Section 21 167.2. Certainly the Public Resources Code and the Guidelines make quite clear oil G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wod 16 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 that one is not able to reopen previously approved EIR's when those EIRs considered the issue we have here which is the impact to Peninsular Big Horn Sheep. With respect to the allegations in the letter that there are changed circumstances, the City Attorney's office has reviewed along with staff and consultants and they believe there are no changed circumstances. The impact, as stated earlier, was studies in the 1995 EIR. A couple cases are relevant here, Sierra Club vs. Gilroy City Council, 1990 Court of Appeals decision 222 Cal.App.3d3O was a case involving the allegation that a discovery of an endangered species on a project site years after an EIR was adopted required a new EIR as opposed to an Addendum, and the Court rejected the Addendum on the basis that the previously approved EIR fully studied the significant impact to endangered species. A second case, Chaparral Greens vs. City of Chula Vista, 1996, 50 Cal.App.4th 1134, again the allegation that new information exists does not reopen the EIR when the previously adopted EIR studied the impacts to species or habitat. Significantly, the consultant recognized the trustee agency, California Fish and Game has been working with the City on the mitigation measures. This is the agency that is statutorily obligated and charged with the enforcing the endangered species act. They have worked with the City and provided their thoughts on the Addendum and as the consultant stated earlier, the only issue they raised was with respect to the Streambed Alteration Permit requirement. The allegation that the 1995 letter and the issues contained therein were not resolved is simply wrong. In the comments received in the Response to Comments prepared in conjunction with 1995 EIR, there is ample documentation with respect the comments raised by the Fish and Game and responded to by the lead agency in the EIR. And finally, he might add, in reference to the allegation of impact and where we are with respect to the status of Big Horn Sheep, Jim DeForge's name was referenced with respect to the latest study, the latest newspaper article Commissioner Tyler referred to which is April 9, 2001, the heading is "Valley's Big Horn population is thriving". Jim DeForge is quoted, "the numbers are up in both ranges. So to the extent that there is an allegation of decline, this is not supported by this study, nor is it supported in the Recovery Plan adopted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. So based on our review we think the Addendum is both adequate and appropriate. 36. Commissioner Tyler stated that if there was a written signed agreement between the two developers stating they have been unable to settle the issue, and the road is the only alternative, he would feel a lot different about it. We have double talk and dialog, G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wod 17 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 but no hard facts have been presented. He shares Commissioner Kirk's concern about approving a road that goes over the toe of slope and ridgeline. There is nothing in the CUP as written that even limits it to a specific plan to show exactly where the road will go. Right now he cannot endorse the CUP. 37, Commissioner Butler stated he would agree with most of what Commissioner Tyler stated, but by the same token the Commission is being put into a position where they are denying access to a property owner which we have approved for the purpose of development. It is getting to a grey area whether they access it through Quarry or they access it through their own property. He is uncertain whether in fact we accept the toe of slope and access route they have chose, but he does not know if the Commission can stop them from accessing their own property. He does not disagree with the points made, but with all other issues aside, the Commission does have to deal with the fact that this gentleman has the right to get to his ten lots. From that standpoint the Commission has to consider it and not just say no that CUP will not allow it. Once we say no, we have isolated his ten lots and if he does not settle with the Quarry, we are creating a problem. 38. Commissioner Tyler stated the Commission has considered it on various occasions in the past and the City Council has considered it. It is not a new issue. It has been around for many years. 39. Commissioner Kirk stated this issue does arise if we do have to allow some sort of development if that is the only development allowed. However, it is his understanding that because the Green Specific Plan includes lots of other developable area, this would not be considered a taking, at least not under the current interpretation of the law, because there is other land that can be developed. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated yes, and we said we have vision access to prior processes which makes it a little different. He would generally agree. Commissioner Kirk stated he is concerned about the process at this meeting. The Commission has heard him address issues of signage, for example, chain stores versus the small businesses, and we have something similar here and it just came up in terms of the process. When staff receives correspondence it is generally included in the agenda packet and if those letters address issues they generally address those in the staff report. The Commission received a letter, at the last minutes, from the Center for Biological Diversity and it is an organization he is somewhat familiar with and for the most part, G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wod 18 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 generally do not agree with their tactics or substance of their issues; personally or politically. At the same time he is really concerned about the process. Mr. Hogan asked if he could rebut the likely comments made by our City Attorney. We held off on the City Attorney comments until after the public participation portion of the hearing and to him that is wrong. He finds that disagreeable, unfair, and if City staff did that on every letter that came in they would have a lot of unhappy residents and justifiably so. The Assistant City Attorney did a fine job of rebutting the issues and was very articulate and he had a very well prepared rebuttal to Mr. Hogan's points and that should have been made in the staff report to give Mr. Hogan a chance to address those issues. Therefore, he has a real concern about this and he hopes this does not happen in the future. He finds it certainly inappropriate at the best. 40. Commissioner Abels stated there was no time for this to have been included in the staff report. 41. Commissioner Kirk stated he agreed but yet the City Attorney had time to prepare a well planned verbal response that should have been included in the staff report to give to those in the public a chance to rebut or address those issues. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated they could reopen the public participation of the hearing if the Commission wanted to provide for nominal rebuttal time. Commissioner Kirk stated he has significant concerns. He does not think that is fair. I do not think the Commission should do that to people who go out of their way to come to the public hearing and don't have a chance to address the issue. He would leave it up to the Chair as to whether he would reopen the public hearing. 42. Chairman Robbins stated everyone has been focusing on the EIR portion and no one has made any comment on the Specific Plan or whether any of the addendum or changes to the Specific Plan are appropriate and he would like to say that we also need to look at the Specific Plan changes and one of the changes he has found significant is that it does not address landscape guidelines or any other issues. If they get the point of approving this project, he would like to add some conditions that they develop landscape guidelines that conform with the City's landscape ordinance. He has a questioned as to whether approving the Addendum opens the 30-day review process for the entire EIR to challenge. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he does not know the statue as to challenging the Addendum. It perhaps is 30 days, but G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wod 19 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 certainly it does not open up a challenge to the previously adopted EIR. Chairman Robbins stated his concern was that by approving the road be reopening the EIR for challenge. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.2 and others perhaps, it is quite clear that the previously EIR is time barred from subsequent challenges. Chairman Robbins clarified that only the relevant issues to the Addendum could be challenged. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated the question is that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines is the Addendum a permissible way to go under CEQA. Chairman Robbins stated it has been intimated by one side or the other that the Quarry is not cooperating with this whole process and there is a whole issue with the Quarry with public right of way going through their golf course and several of their lots. Is it at the discretion of the Commission that if a future request came through for the Quarry for a approval of something, that the Commission could deny any future approvals on the Quarry until matters of right of way, vacation, and access were resolved. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated he was hesitate to answer this in the absence of a specific project or scenario. Certainly, he would recommend that the Commission look at this project in isolation. Obviously, there is background that is relevant, but he is uncomfortable answering as to what future options there are to condition the Quarry. As he understands the previous condition, it is something akin to agreeing to agree and obviously by all accounts, has not happened yet. Chairman Robbins stated Mr. Hogan made some comments relative to what essential habitat is and he would like to comment that to his understanding, essential habitat has absolutely no legal standing under the law and it was a term developed specifically and exclusively for use in the Big Horn Sheep. The law has critical habitat which has since been established which has a different boundary than the essential habitat and the essential habitat was something made up for the purposes of the Big Horn Sheep Recovery Plan. He also has had the opportunity to discuss Big Horn Sheep issues with Fish and Wildlife personnel and have discussed Big Horn Sheep close to this property and in all his discussions, the Green property was not of concern with Fish and Wildlife while the Travertine was of grave concern to Fish and Wildlife. The last issue he would like to raise is that he would like to apologize to Commissioner Kirk and the other Commissioners, after listening he agrees with Commissioner Kirk and should have conducted the meeting differently and that would have been the proper way to do it. G:AWPDOCSVPC4-10-01 .wpd 20 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 43. Commissioner Kirk stated he had a creative or foolish suggestion. As pointed out, the Commission is in a difficult position. He would therefore, suggested continuing this and ask the parties to work together on the access issue with a neutral third party present. He would then like to see them come back with an arbitrator or City Attorney's third party assessment and perhaps with some support from the City Engineer on the value of the access and appropriate maintenance cost and the like. That could influence their decision in the future. If they do not do this at this stage, he agrees with Commission Tyler that he would not be comfortable with the application. There are too many questions that have been raised and he would vote against it at this stage. 44. Commissioner Abels concurred and he would like to make a motion that this be continued to another date that would be agreeable with the two parties concerned so they can resolve this issue. 45. Chairman Robbins asked the Assistant City Attorney if the Commission could make such a motion. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated they can vote to continue the hearing and provide guidance as to what the Commission wants brought back. 46. Commissioner Tyler stated he seconded the motion. 47. Commissioner Butler asked if they decided to vote at this meeting, it was obvious that they would unanimously deny this effort, and if it moved on to the City Council for their decision, are they pushing the applicant to meet and mediate with their neighbor? By going this way they are opening the time frame to allow them to resolve the issue. 48. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like to ask the applicant and he is not sure it is a unanimous disapproval and he is not sure if they came back, based on a neutral parties assessment, how he or others would vote. He asked the two parties for their opinion. Mr. Bob Mainiero asked the Commission wanted it back or would they prefer to go forward. Discussion followed regarding the options. Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:04 p.m. 49. Chairman Robbins asked Mr. Mainiero what they would prefer. Mr. Mainiero stated that in the interest of good faith and cooperation they are willing to try negotiations. Mr. Morrow G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 21 S Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 stated he made a proposal to Mr. Green just last week which was not responded. He would be glad to meet with Mr. Green at any time with a 24-hour notice. He has no interest in meeting with an engineer or attorney. He would like to meet with the principal, the person who can make the decision. If he would like to do that he would be more than pleased to do that. If the Commission would like a referee in the room to not necessarily negotiate, but to hear both sides and make suggestions, that would be fine. He is available at any time as he has been for the last seven years. 50. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to continue this item to May 8, 2001. Unanimously approved. D. Zoning Code Amendment 2000-068; a request of the City for an Amendment to Section 13.20.115 - Amending Maps, of the Municipal Code to allow approval of final maps by the Community Development Director. 1 . Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked what initiated this. Staff stated map changes were requested to be made by the applicant under a lot line adjustment. This does not allow for a public hearing. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained that an amending map is done when there is a map recorded and you want to change the configuration. There are two levels of amending maps. If there is something technically wrong, it is doe at the staff level. If there is a reconfiguring of the lots it has to go to a public hearing and in the amending map process you can only focus on the issues of what is being done to the map. You can no longer condition the map. If you do not like what they are doing you can deny the map and in that case the applicant could go back through the tentative tract map processing process and then conditions could be added. Because it is limited only to the changes that are being made to the map, and we do want some type of public hearing process, G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wpd 22 J Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 staff is trying to take it to the Director's level rather than through two legislative bodies. To amend a map you have to own all the lots in the property or have consent from all the property owners in the tract, therefore, it usually is limited to a developer because they have control over all the lots. 3. Chairman Robbins asked if under the amending process are you allowed to create any additional lots. Staff stated no. 4. Commissioner Tyler commented on the staff report. 5. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there was any Commission discussion. 7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-051 recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2001-068, as submitted. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of April 3, 2001. IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held April 24, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:18 p.m. on April 10, 2001. G:\wPDOCS\PC4-10-01 .wpd 2) Planning Commission Minutes April 10, 2001 Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC4-10-01.wpd 24 1" 0l7 U �„ LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING HELD JOINTLY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 4, 2001 A special joint meeting of the La Quinta City Council and Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor John Pefia, who led the pledge of allegiance. CITY COUNCIL ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena ABSENT: None PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, Chairman Robbins ABSENT: None PUBLIC COMMENT - None CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA - The agenda was confirmed by all present. PRESENTATIONS Steve Robbins, representing the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), introduced District Board Members Corky Larson and Peter Nelson. He then delivered a power -point visual presentation outlining the various sources of water utilized by CVWD. He discussed the declining water levels in the Coachella Valley, stating an overdraft of 32,000 acre feet exists in the upper valley and an overdraft of 104,000 acre feet exists in the lower valley. Mr. Robbins discussed the components of the CVWD Water Management Plan which were considered: 1.) No Project; 2.) Pumping restrictions; 3.) Demand management; 4.) Ground water recharge; 5.) Source substitution and finally a combination of the alternatives. He advised the elements decided upon for the plan were water conservation measures, source substitution and ground water recharge. In response to a question from Commissioner Butler, Mr. Robbins said a large scale recharge plant is being Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 Page 1 02S planned for a federal site located south of Lake Cahuilla to recharge the water tables in the lower valley. Coachella Valley Water District Board Member Russ Kitahara arrived at 6:15 p.m. Council Member Sniff stated he feels the recharged water needs to be introduced in an area that roughly parallels Washington Avenue. Mr. Robbins stated an additional 800,000 acre feet of water is needed in the future. He advised the Colorado River will yield 155,000 acre feet, a transfer from MWD will yield 100,000 acre feet, and the rest will be provided by increased re -cycled water use, additional purchases of water and desalting agricultural drain water. The Council and Commission discussed the problems which arise from over - drafting and Mr. Robbins advised that the subsidence occurring in the valley, at this point, is very minor and has only been taking place for about 4-5 years. He stressed that conservation will help take care of the current overdraft problem but in order to recharge the ground water, all of the plan. needs to be implemented. Commissioner Kirk asked what action the District took in the instance of the water skiing lake project in Indio. Mr. Robbins replied the District requested a ruling from the State Water Resources Board with regard to the appropriateness of recreational use of such a large body of water in the desert. He said that a ruling was not forth -coming and in light of that, CVWD negotiated use of canal water for this recreational lake use. In conclusion he advised the implementation of the plan elements is expected to begin in 2002. Council Member Adolph asked if the golf course communities are required to tap into the canal water for landscape irrigation. Mr. Robbins responded they use canal water for the golf courses only, not for the residential landscaping. Council Member Adolph also questioned the depth of the wells. Mr. Robbins responded the wells go 600 to 900 feet in La Quinta. Commissioner Tyler asked the reasons for the unkempt condition of the CVWD well sites and stated the ones in La Quinta are "eye sores". He requested the CVWD Board take steps to improve the appearance and safety conditions of their well sites. Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 Page 2 RECESS Mayor Pena called a brief recess at 7:02 p.m. JOINT STUDY SESSION A joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:17 p.m. All members of the City Council were present and all members of the Planning Commission were present. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 1. DISCUSSION OF DRAFT MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT GENERAL PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT. Community Development Director Jerry Herman introduced Nicole Criste of Terra Nova Planning and Research, Inc., the City's consultant for the General Plan and members of the Community Development staff in attendance. Ms. Criste presented an overview of the General Plan process and advised that the Housing Element will immediately follow the adoption of the General Plan. Members of the Council and Commission expressed concern about the size of the planning area shown. Staff responded that the planning area is only a method of looking at future development in areas adjoining the City and the impacts they may have on La Quinta's infrastructure and environment. She said the size of the area designated, in no way indicates the City's annexation intentions. Ms. Criste stated there are relatively few major changes to the Environmental Assessment. She stressed the document has been streamlined and the Draft General Plan has enlarged the planning area significantly. Land Use Designations Ms. Criste discussed the use of the agriculture overlay and the low density designation. Council Member Henderson asked if there is an equestrian overlay component in the plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated he will be addressing the meetings held with the equestrian community residents at a later point in the meeting. Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 Page 3 Commissioner Tyler expressed the opinion that the size of the planning area and the low density designation may be misunderstood by the residents of the Vista Santa Rosa community. Council Member Adolph and Commissioner Butler concurred. Director Herman reported that meetings have been held with the Vista Santa Rosa Community of Interest residents and he distributed an outline of a rural equestrian (RE) land use designation for the Community of Interest area. The permitted uses they desire are: minimum five acre lots; one primary unit per 5 acres; ten horses per acre; all related equestrian uses permitted per primary residence; golf country clubs with interior multi -purpose trails; residential developments with interior multi -purpose trails; and caretaker housing. They also suggested a number of conditional uses for the area and streets be limited to two lanes except Airport Boulevard, Monroe Street, Jackson Street and Harrison Street. Mr. Herman stated he believes this area can be addressed with an RE land use designation. Chairman Robbins questioned why there can't be an agricultural land use with a low density overlay. Ms. Criste responded that the land use designation is used to determine traffic volumes for the transportation and circulation plan and therefore the highest traffic generator should be the land use. Commissioner Kirk asked if there is anything in the law that would preclude having a low density overlay with an agricultural designation. Ms. Criste said she was not aware of anything in the law that precludes this type of plan but strongly suggested that the map prepared be the one transmitted with the EIR. She said alternatives can be addressed during the Public Hearing process. Council Member Henderson requested that the maps used for the public hearings be prepared with colored acetate overlays. Commissioner Kirk suggested a "power -point" presentation could also show the underlying maps and show overlays of the other components such as the land use designations, specific overlays, boundaries, etc. Commercial Land Use Designations Nicole Criste then outlined the commercial land use designations. On the existing General Plan the land on the east side of Washington Street between 48th and 47th, is shown as Community Commercial (CC) and the suggested change will be to Neighborhood Commercial (NC). Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 Page 4 ••� 031 Mayor Pena asked if the map indicates the recent general plan amendments such as the re -zoning for the Arnold Palmer Restaurant. Director Herman and Ms. Criste confirmed that all of the most recent amendments to the general plan need to be added to the map. Chairman Robbins asked if the federally -owned property being considered by CVWD for a recharge facility can be designated Major Community Facility (MC) in the planning area. Traffic and Circulation The consultant, Ms. Criste reviewed the roadway classifications and the multi -purpose trails. Council Member Perkins suggested that the sections of Highway 1 1 1 that narrow down to two lanes in each direction, be looked at for three lanes since Hwy. 111 carries a Major Arterial designation. Council Member Sniff stated the City was assured that those sections could be striped for three lanes (both directions) when necessary, without having to acquire additional right-of-way. Ms. Criste said the final major change to the roadway general plan is the addition of the Phase 1 golf cart routes. Commissioner Tyler commented on what he feels is a lack of adequate planned golf cart routes in the North East section of the city. Staff advised the schedule for future action is as follows: Release of the Notice of Presentation 4-16-01 Release of the Environmental Impact Report 5-25-01 Start of the Public Hearings 7-17-01 Ms. Criste recommended the public hearings be conducted jointly by the Council and Planning Commission. She stated this has worked out well in other communities and cuts down the amount of time the public needs to spend attending the hearings of both bodies. Council Member Henderson proposed that only the first public hearing be a joint one to allow the Council an ample opportunity to consider the comments of the Commission. Questions and Comments Council Member Henderson requested the language in the Administrative Element of the draft reflect La Quinta's Charter City status. Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 Page 5 Mayor Pena requested that Policy 2 on Page 7 include Tribal Councils. Commissioner Kirk said he feels the use of Specific Plans should be reserved for larger properties with one ownership and not used for smaller, single uses such as a restaurant. Ms. Criste referred to Policy 4, Page 16 as the appropriate place to make such a modification. Mayor Pena questioned if Policy 4 and 4.1, Page 16 should address over- flights. Commissioner Tyler felt this is in the purview of the FAA. Mayor Pena also stated he the language, "target golf courses" contained in Program 3.3 on Page 16, should be rephrased. Commissioner Kirk, in regard to Program 4.2, Page 16, questioned if the City has ever allowed parks fee credits for golf courses. He felt this is an area that should be researched. Council Member Sniff commented he is still unconvinced that joint Council/ Commission public hearings are a good idea and that he would like to have more time to review the comments made by the Planning Commission before the Council addresses the matter. Commissioner Abels stated he feels, since this is something that has worked successfully in other communities, he would like to see the City of La Quinta try it. Commissioner Tyler read a list of his concerns regarding the age of some of the data being used in the General Plan document. He also objected to references in the Traffic and Circulation element to Avenue 44, since the name was changed to Fred Waring Drive some time ago. Ms. Criste requested any corrections noted by the Council and Commission, be provided to staff to insure the final draft incorporates them. Commissioner Kirk related a concern that whenever an image corridor approaches the Village he feels the Village design standards should be imposed. He also addressed a 'regional" need to construct a roadway parallel to Highways 1 1 1 and 86 that would diagonally connect to the old Indian trail shown on the Cultural Resources Map (Exhibit 9.1) He felt this is essential to the traffic circulation element for the lower valley as a whole. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, it was moved by Council Member Sniff, seconded by Council Member Henderson to adjourn the City Council meeting at 9:02 p.m. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 Page 6 033 It was moved by Commissioner Butler, seconded by Commissioner Tyler to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:03 p.m. The motion was unanimously carried. Respectfully submitted, June S. Greek, CIVIC City Clerk, City of La Quinta, California Minutes - CC/PC April 4, 2001 page 7 PH #,A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT GTr 9:11lwLlW49191 CASE NUMBERS: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-697 APPLICANT: RGC COURTHOMES, INC. (PATRICK J. BROWN) PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LAND HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED REQUEST: REVIEW OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (COMPATIBILITY REVIEW) FOR TWO NEW PROTOTYPE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CAMINO QUINTANA AND CALLE MAZATLAN IN TRACT 14496-1 (LOTS 206-21 1); 77-290 THROUGH 77-340 CAMINO QUINTANA WITHIN THE SANTA ROSA COVE COUNTRY CLUB ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: SDP 2001-697 IS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 121-E FOR WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (#41) WAS CERTIFIED BY THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE IN 1979. SINCE CERTIFICATION, VARIOUS AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL WITH THE LAST REVIEW OCCURRING IN 1997 (AMENDMENT #4). NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT EIR. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: EXISTING PARKING AREA FOR NEWLY CONSTRUCTED TWO STORY ATTACHED RESORT CASITAS UNITS (PHASE #2 OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97-607) SOUTH: ACROSS CAMINO QUINTANA, EXISTING SANTA ROSA COVE CONDOMINIUMS (ONE STORY) SR PC sdp697 RGC - 48 Greg T. (R 4/10; 4/18) Page 1 of 4 %u0 j5 EAST: EXISTING SANTA ROSA COVE HOUSES (ONE STORY) WEST: ACROSS CALLE MAZATLAN, EXISTING ONE STORY CONDOMINIUM UNITS BACKGROUND: Site History The property is located at the northeast corner of Camino Quintana and Calle Mazatlan in the Santa Rosa Cove Country Club within the boundaries of Specific Plan 121-E (La Quinta Resort Specific Plan) and Tract 14496-1 . Tract 14496-1 (circa 1981) is a recorded map of 211 single family lots on approximately 45 acres to the south of the hotel and resort casita units which was approved by the County of Riverside in 1979 (Attachment 1). The development consists of attached single story condominiums in multiple plan types, ranging in size from approximately 1,389 square feet (2 bedrooms/2 baths) up to 2,286 square feet (3 bedrooms/3 baths), surrounded by common open space. Existing houses were built in 1982 through 1986 and have front -loaded two car garages and in some cases detached guest houses. These six lots were left vacant. Development of the project site will complete the Santa Rosa Cove community. REQUEST: The project site is approved for six single family houses on existing private streets (Attachment 2 - Site Plan). Two prototype house plans are proposed ranging in size from 2,037 square feet to 2,353 square feet on lots ranging in width from 30 to 40 feet by 100 feet long using California Mediterranean architectural features. The plans are one-story, not exceeding 18' high, with each plan having one district facade. Plan types are as follows: Santa Rosa Cove Plan 1 (4 units) Plan 2 (2 units) Sq. Footage 2,037 2,353 Bedrooms 3 3 Garage Parking Spaces 2.5 Front Loaded (503 sq. ft.) 2.5 Front Loaded (494 sq. ft.) Each plan type offers a staggered facade and stucco arched entry, providing access to either a private courtyard (Plan 1), or side entry front door (Plan 2). Plan 1 proposes a facade using flat roofs for garage elements and gable roof beyond, while Plan 2 002 SR PC sdp697 RGC - 48 Greg T. (R 4/10; 4/18) •��,Ps geypf, Q, U �J1� utilizes a shed roof design on approximately half of the building. The houses average 33 feet wide (inside living areas) and have an offset ridge line based on the changing roof designs and house widths. Decorative stucco plant-ons encase rectangular and fan -topped windows. Exterior building materials consist of plaster walls and roofs topped with S-shaped concrete roof tile in 4:12 and 3.5:12 pitches. Color schemes are in light shades of brown. An exterior material and color sample board of each theme will be available at the meeting. Public Notice - This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on April 13, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRCI The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of April 18, 2001, and due to an absence by Committee Member Cunningham and conflict by Committee Member Reynolds who lives within 500 feet of the development, this case has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for final action without a recommendation. FINDINGS: The findings needed to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached recommended conditions. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-, approving Site Development Permit 2001-697, subject to the attached findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Tract 14496-1 Exhibit 2. Proposed Site Plan 3. Architectural Exhibits - Commission Members Only 003 SR PC sdp697 RGC - 48 Greg T. )R 4/10; 4/18) Page :3 of 4 n ry Prepared by: Submitted by: Christine di lorio, ,Planning Manager 004 SR PC sdp697 RGC - 48 Greg T. (R 4/10; 4/18) - 0 3 S Page 4 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TWO PROTOTYPE UNITS IN TRACT 14496-1 (SANTA ROSA COVE) CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-697 APPLICANT: RGC COURTHOMES, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24`h day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of RGC CourtHomes, Inc. to approve architectural plans for two prototype residential plans (Plans 1 and 2) to be constructed on private streets located at the northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana in Specific Plan 121-E, pursuant to Section 9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Code. The site's legal described is: Lots 206-211 of Tract 14496-1 WHEREAS, Site Development Permit 2001-6697 is within Specific Plan 121-E, a master planned community of single family houses oriented around the La Quinta Resort and Club and existing golf course fairways on 622 acres. SP 121-E was approved by the County of Riverside in 1979 by adoption of Environmental Impact Report #41 . Since adoption various updates to the Plan have been approved by the La Quinta City Council with the last review occurring in 1997 under SP 121-E, Amendment #4. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information has been provided which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent Environmental Impact Report. WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map 14496 (Santa Rosa Cove) was approved by the County of Riverside in 1979 and Phase 1 of the Tract was recorded on April 22, 1981, consisting of 211 single family lots on 45+ acres located on the west of Eisenhower Drive at 501h Avenue in a portion of SP 121-E. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. The proposed units are of a compatible architectural design, colors, and materials to the existing units in the Santa Rosa Cove community. The units utilize similar architectural features such as concrete S-tile roofs, exterior plaster, arches, popout stucco surrounds, inset windows, decorative eaves and lighting. 005 A:\ResoPC Courthomempd Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-697 RGC CourtHomes, Inc. April 24, 2001 Page 2 2. The future landscaping plan shall provide a minimum of one 24" box size tree in the front yard area. All units will have at least one additional tree and other shrubs and groundcover. Corner lots require a minimum of five trees with one tree a 24" box specimen in compliance with Section 9.60.300 (Item 14). 3. No two story residences are proposed, nor are there any existing in Tract 14496-1 . 4. Stuccoed walls are proposed between units and will be compatible with existing walls in the development, unless a substitute material is allowed by the City of La Quinta. 5. The size range of the existing residences in the Santa Rosa Cove development are 1,389 to over 2,286 square feet in Tract 14496. The proposed units vary from 2,037 square feet to 2,353 square feet with 2.5 car garages. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2001-697 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 24`h day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California A:\ResoPC Courthomempd 006 .J„ 0"g Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Site Development Permit 2001-697 RGC CourtHomes, Inc. April 24, 2001 Page 3 ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 007 A:\ResoPC Courthome.wpd '"' U41 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-697 RGC COURTHOMES, INC. APRIL 24, 2001 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL GENERAL 1 . 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 at its sole discretion. The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The Site Development Permit shall expire within two years from approval, unless building permits are issued pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Ordinance. Time extensions may be granted pursuant to Section 9.200.080. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following City Departments or affected public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading/Encroachment Permits) • Community Development Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES CondSDP 697CourtHomes Final - 48 Greg T. Page l of 3 - 042 (109 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-697 RGC COURTHOMES, INC APRIL 24, 2001 construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 4. Detailed front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits. The landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District and Riverside County Agriculture Commissioner prior to submittal to the final plans to the Community Development Department. 5. Prior to issuance of building permits, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department, including the following: A. Front yard landscaping shall consist of a minimum turf, two trees, ten 5- gallon shrubs, and groundcover. A minimum of one tree per interior lot shall be 24" box in size having a minimum 1.5 inch caliper (or larger) measured three feet up from grade level after planting (i.e., 10 feet tall once planted). Corner lots require two specimen trees and three 15- gallon trees (i.e., 0.75 inch caliper or larger). Lodge poles (2" diameter) shall be used to stake trees. All shrubs and trees shall be irrigated by bubbler or emitters. B. Stucco privacy walls shall be constructed for each house, unless a material change is allowed by the Community Development Director. 6. Mailboxes shall be provided within the project in compliance with the requirements of the U.S. Postal Service. 7. The developer shall comply with all applicable conditions of Tract 14496 and Specific Plan 121-E. 8. Project lighting shall be approved by the Building and Safety Department during plan check review. 9. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be 009 CondSDP 697CourtHomes Final - 48 Greg T. OF41 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_ SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-697 RGC COURTHOMES, INC APRIL 24, 2001 planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development Department. FEES AND DEPOSITS 10. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 010 CondSDP 697CourtHomes Final - 48 Greg T. l; �Ptage 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS 011, w � V N F-- th C 1100 ul Kp$ a$ F- �t Attachment 1 a VCR , y3i^v�}-rrjs�� - l tR tRRt`\ • � � � ! V r\ I tC - ti 012 Attachment 2 R a a w H 0-4 W a a 013 O47 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 24, 2001 CASE NOS.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-698 REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR DEL TACO RESTAURANT LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: THREE AMIGOS PROPERTIES REPRESENTATIVE: JERRY WALKER ZONING: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2000-395 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2000-043, POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS AND NO NEW INFORMATION IS PROPOSED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS (CC) COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SOUTH: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) EAST: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WEST: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) ' 04 A:\PCstaff rpt SDP2001-698.del Taco.wpd ••• �• The currently vacant project site (Attachment 1), located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, consists of .53 acres. The project site is within Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043, adopted by City Council on May 5, 2000, which establishes guidelines and standards in a focused development plan for the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The design guidelines portion of the Plan provides specific design criteria which includes architectural guidelines utilizing a contemporary interpretation of Colonial Spanish style architecture; and landscape guidelines that complement and accent the project with perimeter landscaping which is consistent the Highway 111 Design Guidelines. The request is for approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a restaurant with a drive thru lane on .53 acres (Attachment 2) within the Point Happy Commercial Center Specific Plan 2000-043. The project consists of a 2,879 square foot building with a 588 square foot outdoor dining patio. Site Plan The site has frontage on Washington street with access to Point Happy Commercial Center located at the northeast portion of the site on Washington Street. Parking will be provided by Madison Development as they will be constructing on -site improvements for the entire commercial center (parking, parking lot lighting, parking lot planter landscaping) as the first phase of improvements. The landscaping plan identifies a pallette of plant material consisting of shrubs, groundcover, and trees for the on -site parking planters and the building planters. Plant material along the north and east perimeter of the site is proposed to have Acacia trees, Ruella, and Red Bird of Paradise; plant material includes Texas Ranger, Lantana, Ocotillo, and Ruella, and Hopseed Bush. The planter area between the drive- thru lane and the outdoor patio will have California Fan Palms with Hopseed Bushes, Ruella, and Baja Fairy Dusters. Planter areas around the perimeter of the building are proposed to have Ocotillo and Texas Ranger. The landscape plan is consistent with the Point Happy Specific Plan and complements the Highway 111 landscaping. Architectural Design The structure is basically rectangular in shape. Wall material consists of exterior hand troweled pearl white stucco. The parapet roof is highlighted with a light brown stucco cornice trim with four flat concrete tiled gabled towers are all at 23' 1 " in height. U 0 21 0AAPCstaff rpt SDP2001-698.del Taco.wpd r! The proposed south elevation (main entrance) proposes a double door entry inset under double columns with a canvas canopy over large sectional pane glass windows with anodized frames. Each elevation proposes decorative light fixtures and canvas canopy over windows. The east elevation proposes a double door entry with a canopy over windows which will be sectional pane glass with anodized frames decorative opening to an outdoor dining area with patio fence mounted on concrete with custom bollards. The north elevation proposes an accessible drive thru window as a structural pop -out covered with a concrete tiled canopy supported with wood beams. Sign Plan Proposed are two building mounted signs using internally illuminated individual channel letters and each has an internally illuminated sunrise and mountain logo (Attachment 3). Proposed copy reads "Del Taco". The letters color will be red with matching red returns. The logo will have a green colored mountain and a yellow sunrise. The south elevation sign, proposed to be mounted on the front entrance tower, is 3'11" high and 8'11" in length totaling approximately 35 square feet. The east elevation sign is 2'7" high and 6'0" in length totaling approximately 15 square feet. It will be mounted on the east tower visible from Washington Street. One internally illuminated freestanding 7'7" high menu board (mounted on a 1'8' stand) measuring 5' 8 ''/2" high and 7'4 9/16" wide (40.25 square feet). Two double sided directional signs, with white letters with a red background, are proposed; each 3' wide 1 % ' height mounted on cream color 2' high poles. One sign located at the drive thru entrance with copy reading "Drive Thru"; and one located at the drive thru exit with reading "Thank You" on one side and "Do Not Enter" on the reverse side. The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of April 18, 2001 (Attachment 4). The Committee unanimously adopted Minute Motion 2001- 017, recommending approval with a Condition of Approval to provide a metal vertical landscaped trellis mounted to the wall on the south elevation. COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES: The applicant's request was sent to City departments and affected public agencies on April 2, 2001, requesting comments be returned by April 13, 2001 . All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. A:\Kstaff rpt SDP2001-698.del Taco.wpd 1;1l11-3SLOL 1614141 This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on April 24, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the Site Development Permit, as conditioned, can be made per Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code as noted in the attached Resolution. There are no issues. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , approving development plans for a drive-thru restaurant building and outdoor dining patio of 3,467 square feet, subject to conditions. ATTACHMENTS 1. Project Location Exhibit (Parcel Map 29736) 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Sign Program 4. Draft Minutes of the ARLC meeting of April 18, 2001 Prepared by: Fred Baker, AlOP Principal Planner Submitted by: thrist' e di lorioning Manager 04 051 A:\PCstaff rpt SDP2001-698.de1 Taco.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001- 698 APPLICANT: JERRY WALKER WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the, 24`h day of April, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a drive-thru restaurant building and outdoor dining patio of 3,467 square feet, on .53 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street; and WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 18`h day of April, 2001 hold a public meeting to review building elevations, site and landscape plans for a drive-thru restaurant building and outdoor dining patio of 3,467 square feet, on .53 acres generally located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, more particularly described as: PARCEL MAP 29736, PARCEL NO. 1 WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). The City Council certified Environmental Assessment 2000-395 for Specific Plan 2000-043, Point Happy Commercial Center. No changed circumstances or conditions and no new information is proposed which would trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental assessment pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit 2001-698. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the City's General Plan in that the property is designated Community Commercial (CC). The Land Use Element (Policy 2-3.1) of the 1992 General Plan Update allows retail business. The project is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Point Happy Specific Plan in that the project is a permitted use and complies with the development standards and design guidelines. A:\PC RESO. SDP2001-698.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-698 APRIL 24, 2001 3. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the City's Zoning Code in that development standards and criteria contained in the Point Happy Specific Plan 2000-043 supplement, replace or, are consistent with those in the City's Zoning Code. 4. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the commercial development in the area, and accommodates site generated traffic at area intersections. 5 The landscape design of the proposed project, as conditioned by the ALRC, complements the building and the surrounding commercial area in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area and uses a high quality of materials. 7. The architectural design of the project is compatible with surrounding development and development in the area in that it is similar in scale to the development in the area; the building materials are a durable, aesthetically pleasing, low maintenance, and a blend of surfaces and textures are provided. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does approve Site Development Permit 2001-698 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 20 day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 006 A:\PC RESO. SDP2001-698.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-698 APRIL 24, 2001 STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO. SDP2001-698.wpd r, 7 V U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-698 APRIL 24, 2001 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing 5 or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing 5 or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (N01) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RIGHT 3. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. 008 A:\PC COA SDP2OO1-698.wpd '•� r �.i 4. Applicant shall comply with the major arterial right of way setback requirement of 20- feet, as outlined in the General Plan. 5. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures. 6. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets from all frontage except access points described herein. 7. 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. 8. Prior to placement of any privately -owned buildings or other costly structures in the City's drainage easement along Washington Street, the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for that purpose. The permit will require that in the event the City finds it necessary to construct, reconstruct or maintain facilities therein, the applicant shall indemnify the City from expenses exceeding those which would have been incurred with hardscape or landscaping. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 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. 9. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 10. 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. A:\PC COA SDP2001-698.wpd II�i9 056 11. 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. 12. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 13. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 14. 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 15. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage plan for Point Happy Commercial Center, Specific Plan 2000-043. Nuisance water shall be retained on -site and disposed of in facilities approved by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 16. 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. 17. 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. 1110 A:\PC COA SDP2001-698.wpd 057 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 18. Parking facilities shall conform to the requirements of LQMC Chapter 9.150 19. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices. 20. 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)• 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 24. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 25. 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 011 A:\PC COA SDP2001-698.wpd City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 26. 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. QUALITY ASSURANCE 27. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 31. 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 32. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 33. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 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. U59 rl� A:\PC COA SDP2001-698.wpd 34. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super fire hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2- 1/2"x 2-1/2") located not less than 25-feet, or more than 165-feet, from any portion of the buillding(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 35. Blue retro-reflective shall be placed in the street 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify the fire hydrant locations. 36. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 37. Install portable fire hydrants per NFPA, pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. 38. A U.L. 300 hood duct fire extinguishing system must be installed over the cooking equipment. The wet chemical extinguishing system must provide automatic shutdown of all gas and electrical components and outlets under the hood upon activation. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 39. Install a KNOX key lock box, model 4400,3200, or 1300. Key lock box is to be installed, to the right side of the front door, six feet from top of box to finished grade. Special forms are available from the Fire Department for the ordering of KNOX equipment, this form must be authorized and signed by the Fire Department for the correctly coded system to be purchased. MISCELLANEC�US 40. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the landscape plan shall be revised to include a metal vertical landscaped trellis mounted to the wall on the south elevation. 41. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall specify opaque material for the red vinyl background on both sides of all directional signs. 013 AAPC COA SDP2001-698.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 non [CPT i nrnTlnlVl SO 014 ATTACHMENT #4 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 18, 2001 project. Therefore, there was no discussion and staff would v—the Pler3Rifla--C-ommmssian without a recommendation. C. Site Development Permit 2001-698; a request of Jerry Walker for review of building elevations and landscaping plans for Del Taco drive through restaurant located at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street within Point Happy Specific Plan. 1. Principal Planner Fred Baker presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to identify the location of the building. Staff noted the location on the site plan. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would like to see the same architectural treatment on the south elevation as what was required on the Starbucks building. Staff stated a condition would be added to require the metal trellis. 3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Bobbitt/Reynolds to adopt Minute Motion 2001-017 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-698, subject to the conditions as amended: a. A metal trellis shall be installed on the south elevation Unanimously approved. D. Villa Use Permit 2001-007; a request of KSL Development Corporation for revs of landscaping plans for the perimeter residential and office componen f a 33 acre sit located on the north side of Calle Tampico, between Aven' a Bermudas and Eisenhower Drive. 1. Planning Man er Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the luiff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Developrtte,,nt Department. 2. Mr. Forrest Haag, represent KSL, presented the landscaping plan. G:\WPDOCS\ALRC4-18-OI.wpd 4 662 J a N ZE z W Rom a U n oC_ 1 ©II a Z U 0 0 N iO 1J 6 _-_ LLI O............ r zd CD co a�d z AK oz O gi YV Oil Q Wcr FF_ O - u LL_ U63 Z 0 W w N SIN ego *A IR N m Z 0 Q w J W z 2 N J N H Z 0 0 U0:3 /\ qMFM j (4 ! A ƒ � 1 « L, k b 93 Owe n � � 2 Ix ( CL § ¢ W§ §§k S akf / ■�§ § 910� �§ ■? $§_ § ®?k � S �d� k k¥§ w 20 § G§a b§§ J §§t )§ |||| Lii \\ ) §■||| «_ §��|| !|�| Al|!|||§ H63 O � pm� \ n W c 0 , 6�3 O < ) � § } \ \ . #§ j « § & § 2= k §? § E§ 8 §5; §/ % /§$/ /§ RCN §40 E 0 { C k )'o C? k /2R/ $ 20§g.=Q § >§Z\ (/ 0 o (ozoo= a@po#] � � qM ) 8i w,. UmQ rL / 22 ±19-117 2L 1717 } 0 x« §\ qz 10 a a VZ�- OWN p [\ � ��)) CL in 2 / \ ),\ 20, § z kix\\ )§ . LU 3- o a§$a )0CD< §ez � §\( 3 E^2 & =z E $ k 7§2 k2± § (�) T p- oQ9-, 9q �IPA RgRaa§PPA� ss. ..... Hil xv aagxgg€Yg€8g> g€cam8m��5$tF�Ep''"�sF ssx�m�e&8 3�az7E..Rsss ew 5e;^ gga¢38�s $€k9R,pa Sa ��� g � ��� g Y �€g5aae�3sra�� � e �� g�➢a a €a s�R s � ffis s� g egyaa W �Fgmfi€ate 2��dA�mmt3��sd�:;€€ac s"se pss sqg ash.o €R3s���C�a€ HIM IT144001 PIN, lip m ��;gg�SR xawYy��'sr5S8rFa!g�s r��src>'^ gagsasegP r�At 4�og�3�9a gr. A ��''a4d���s €x ����raa��gda�$ gR$ 9 a� yyy 9"a All age€ € Oil a 7s �s se��eg�mRe.� �s3ia��ae Smfi�Sx�`k -; ae��a§au^®�SR�ana a-a$��6 x mq j��€ g aea 3"v"va-s a s's6a add 5 �eqj��pp p"���% jj ; 3� � 2 $�eaeavaaaa � R 7 $ mmq �A Alp ggg YAg 9$F N m D I 3 D HENS desto, H L O r � D - —I D DESIGN CONSUL 17th Street, Ste. D CA. 95354 C� 2 m Z bEY-eoal Pmr: (m) 62Y—fir. N �� ti l� a CP Cl D c Ai <+ �o C r T -� - �I�801 ) Modesto, 5 5 a g r" cni ��% YaY) D D O aa3�w'' § § \ \\Q A`� /V) ® w { � | §■E q§ G# / §) ° 0 o »n nc _ ,*m` _ \i m _wee . a _. ��■:,. ¥ ® )f / \ Modesto, TM _ _. c. n D 0 � DESIGN CONSULTANTS 801 17 Street, Ste. DI Modesto, CA. 95354 Modestosto,, (200) 522-8091 FAX: (209) 522-4790 a ,zRR�osdm x € op cm �g Z � qq � � � ��� Qv ��� � � aaa•+ "' � 1�"$;' §R§6t6tBsB� � Fp�pa 3@ 4 tl A fe 1 e a i� c E- v x g N e• N g_ r ff 4 P n � a m OWENS DESIGN CONSULTANTS x z 8 17th Street, Ste. DI W - c p �E �s`s Modesto, CA. 95354 " s g m n n CDl i a s' (2m) 522-B091 PAIL, (209) 522-4799 N N�°"'°ne33w" e , « (a ! |!•! I ; \.l. /#/. / � )) � d \ zs/ w2 m r ƒ! C� % i W !I ƒ)/! \ ` m� oeDESIGN CONSULTANTS m 17th Street, Ste. = E-4 \ Modesto, a 95354 _622-8 %e _ 522-4738 000.00-o�oo� ®0.'xk'* � �I - a 8 g _ Y a 3 F 0 gig b �°m P E� 6 g Q t d (1 D 117 pt ji D T— ,��,FR a_ OVENS DESIGN CONSULTANTS 801 17th Street, Ste. DI y c yy x� • Modesto, CA. 95354 (Mg) ba-UMI FM-.12N) 622-4M PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 24, 2001 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE REQUEST: ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP WHICH CREATES 103 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 33+ ACRES. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-375 WAS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 1, 1999, FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-060, ZONE CHANGE 98-060, SPECIFIC PLAN 98-034 AND PARCEL MAP 29052 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT APPROVAL AND NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2-4 D.U./AC) p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 1 pc rpt.wpd t, 0 7 SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH SOUTH rw-'Vw WEST: BACKGROUND: RL / GOLF COURSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN RANCHO LA O.UINTA COUNTRY CLUB TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) / VACANT LAND AND CC / SP 98-034 SITE CC AND COMMERCIAL / SP 98-034 SITE AND VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIO RL / VACANT LAND The property, northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and 50th Avenue, is vacant with the southern portion previously used as a citrus grove and now demolished residence. Adjacent to the south and east of the property is the commercial site proposed for a shopping center under Specific Plan 98-034. The City Council approved this tentative tract map for 103 single family on June 1, 1999. At the same time a general plan amendment and zone change from Community Commercial to Low Density Residential was approved to allow this tract map. Project Request Proposed is a one year extension of time to record the final tract map. The Tentative Tract has 103 single family lots varying from 7,704 to 11,857 square feet (average 9,009 square feet) at a density of 3.1 dwelling units per acre. The majority of lots are 80 feet wide and a minimum of 105 feet deep. The tract has unsignalized street access from Jefferson Street, with a signal allowed at the 500' Avenue access. These accesses are connected and act as a collector street for culs-de-sac. Streets are to be private and gated at Jefferson Street and 50' Avenue. A 3.9 acre irregularly shaped retention basin lot and .5 acre Coachella Valley Water District well site lot are shown at the southeast corner of the site adjacent to the proposed shopping center. Other miscellaneous lots will be created for the private streets, and common area landscaping, including 20 foot deep lots adjacent to 5O`h Avenue and Jefferson Street. Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on April 13, 2001, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment, with any pertinent comments ireceived incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. U 'J p:\stan\tt 290,53 ext 1 pc rpt.wpd Mti l jl I v STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS• Findings necessary to recommend approval of the one year extension of time can be made as noted in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council, approval of extension #1 to Tentative Tract 29053, subject to conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 3. Tentative Tract Map 29053 (large maps for Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by. - Christine di lorio, Fklanning Manager 003 p:\stan\tt 2905:3 ext 1 pc rpt.wpd .U„ 079 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ALLOWING 103 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 33 NET ACRES CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14TH day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Lundin Development Company for approval of a one year extension of time for a Tentative Tract Map which creates 103 single family lots and miscellaneous lots on 33 net acres in the RL Low Density Residential Zone, located northwest of the intersection of Jefferson Street and 50" Avenue, more particularly described as: Portions of Section 32, TSS, R7E, SBBM WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1 ST day of June, 1999, adopt Resolution 99-74, approving this Tentative Tract Map, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, said Tentative Tract Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 98-375 was certified by The City Council on June 1, 1999, For Tentative Tract Map 29053, General Plan Amendment 98-060, Zone Change 98-060, Specific Plan 98-034 And Parcel Map 29052 in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. This request is in conformance with that approval and no changed circumstances or conditions exist which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review 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 of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said extension to the Tentative Tract Map: 1 . The map is consistent with the General Plan in that with the redesignation and rezoning the lots will be designated and used for Low Density Residential use. The development and improvements of the lots will comply with applicable 005 p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 1 pc res.wpd 6181 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Tract Map 29053 Extension #1 development standards regarding setbacks, height restrictions, density, grading, access, streets, etc. 2. The design and proposed improvements of the map is consistent with the General Plan in that the development and improvements of the lots will comply with applicable development standards regarding setbacks, height restrictions, density, grading, access, streets, etc. 3. The design of the subdivision and improvements are not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, or wildlife, or cause serious public health problems since the project is surrounded by development, or other urban improvements, and mitigation is required by the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA 98-375), including noise mitigation adjacent to Jefferson Street and 50`h Avenue. This will be provided by berming, lowering of the adjacent residential pads, and construction of garden and retaining walls. 4. The design of the map or types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public; health problems because the development of the land will require complliance with all health related requirements including provisions for sewers and water. 5 The design of the map will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the Map since none presently exist and new easements as needed will be provided and recorded. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Ouinta, 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 recommend approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 29053 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14T" day of April 2001, by the following vote, to wit: p:\stan\tt 2905-2 ext 1 pc res.wpd 006 082 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Tract Map 29053 Extension #1 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\tt 29053 ext 1 pc res.wpd 007 0os3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION 41 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 GENERAL 1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 29053 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC). 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, or approval of the final map by the City Council, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 008 P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd Page I of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 4. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. PROPERTY RIGHTS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. Jefferson Street - 60-foot half of a 120-foot right of way. In addition, the Owner shall make an irrevocable offer to grant an additional 17 feet of right of way, (not to exceed 250 feet in length), for future southbound turn lanes at the Avenue 50 intersection. B. Avenue 50 - 50-foot half of a 100-foot right of way C. Interior Collector Street - 41 feet undivided, 67 feet for divided sections. D. Other interior Street Lots - 37 feet plus additional for turn knuckle. E. Culs de sac radii - Forty -five -feet. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant interim easements to those areas within 60 days of written request by the City. 009 P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd P- �3 �. l 0 �l PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the concurrence of IID. 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. Jefferson Street - 20 feet B. Avenue 50 - 20 feet The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 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 vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map.. 12. 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. 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAPIS) P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd 010 ��n �+ Page 3 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 15. 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 and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 18. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. Oil P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd 4113 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 19. Depending on the timing of development of the parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to reimburse the City or others for the cost of the improvements, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. 20. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 21. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 22. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., a Site Development Permit), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 23. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manneir or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement ((gy�pp UI? P:ASTAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd aJ , U O Q Page 5 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 24. The applicant's obligations for portions of the required improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. 25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is located within or immediately adjacent to a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all building pads, including basement and garage areas, are above the level of the project flood. Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which are so located, the applicant shall receive Conditional Letters of Map Revision based on Fill (CLOMR/F) from FEMA. Prior to final acceptance by the City of subdivision improvements, the applicant shall have received final LOMR/Fs for all such lots. 26. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a 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. The plan must be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 27. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontal9e, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 29. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in 013 P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd ^n Page 6 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 30. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by a civil engineer or surveyor. The certifications shall list approved pad elevations, actual elevations, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 32. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 33. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 34. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2%2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 35. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 37. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolaition rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 014 P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd ,Pa c o 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 38. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 39. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City Engineer. The sand filter and leechfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft. 40. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s)• No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 41. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel or the Whitewater Drainage Channel, the applicant and, subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention prograrn, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 42. 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 stands, to ensure optimum placement for aesthetic as well as practical purposes. 43. Existing and proposed wire and cable utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 44. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd 8 of 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 45. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. Any property within this development which has not been subdivided in accordance with this tentative map 60 days after the program is in effect shall be subject to the program as determined by the City. 46. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1 I Jefferson Street (Major Arterial) - Construct 51-foot half of a 102-foot improvement (travel lanes plus median) plus a 6-foot meandering sidewalk. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 38-foot half of a 76-foot improvement (travel lanes plus median) plus a 6-foot meandering sidewalk. 3) Jefferson Street/Avenue 50 Intersection - Responsibility for 17.5% of the cost of signal improvements plus a proportionate share, with the remainder of the specific plan area, of any other improvements or modifications which may be warranted by the timing and traffic loadings imposed by development of the specific plan area. 4) Avenue 50/Lot I Intersection - Responsibility for 50% of the cost of signal and other intersection improvements. This responsibility may be shared with the adjacent property on this side of the street if that property is allowed and utilizes shared access to this intersection. 5) In the event any of the above improvements are constructed by the City prior to the applicant recording a final map, the applicant shall reimburse the City, at the time the final map is approved by the City Council for the cost of that portion of the improvements constructed by the City that are required by these conditions of approval. B. ON -SITE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC (Private) 1) Collector Street - Divided sections shall have 20-foot-wide opposing travel lanes with an 18-foot median. The remainder shall have a forty -foot travel width. 016 P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd Page 9 of I : i , A ..J , 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 2) Cul de sac Streets - Thirty six-foot travel width plus additional for turn knuckle. 3) Cul de sac curb radius: Forty five feet. 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. 47. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Jefferson Street at Lot I - Right & left in/right out. B. Avenue 50 at Lot I - Full -turn access (with signal). C. Connection of Lot I with Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 29052 - As granted by the owner of that property and approved by the City Engineer 48. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 49. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements. 50. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 51. Street right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 52. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 53. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated 017 P:ASTAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd Page 10 o113 09? PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 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" 54. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 55. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPING 56. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 57. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer. 018 P:ASTANVtt 29053 pc coa.wpd Page I 1 of 13 11 09 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 58. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 59. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements if and as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60. The applicant shall employ construction quality assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 61. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 62. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans and specifications. 63. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all public improvement and private street plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 64. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site and perimeter setback improvements. This shall include formation of a homeowner's association or other enforceable arrangement acceptable to the City. The applicant shall maintain public improvements until expressly released from that responsibility by the City. P:\STAN\tt 2905:3 pc coa.wpd rI] 9 Page 12 ci i31 0 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29053 EXTENSION #1 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 FEES AND DEPOSITS 65. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 66. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification of boundaries of the property or lots subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost of the reapportionment. 67. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or any earth moving activities, applicant shall pay a fringe -toed lizard mitigation fee of $600.00 per acre to the City of La Quiinta. 68. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the property owner/developer shall comply with the Parkland Dedication requirements by payment of in -lieu fees as set forth in Section 13.48 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. FIRE MARSHAL 69. Fire hydrants in accordance with CVWD Standard W-33 shall be located at each street intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction, with no portion of any lot frontage not more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire floe shall be 1000 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi residual. 70. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. 71. Prior to issuance recordation of final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department". 72. The required water system, including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. 020 P:\STAN\tt 29053 pc coa.wpd Page 13 •f I 0 9 r PH #D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 24, 2001 CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ARCHITECTS: COURTNEY + LEE ARCHITECTS, INC. AND MBH ARCHITECTS ENGINEER: WARNER ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RAY LOPEZ ASSOCIATES REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR 74,060 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND 50TH AVENUE IN RANCHO CIELO SHOPPING CENTER ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLAN 99-034 AND IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED, PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 65457 (A). A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS CERTIFIED ON JUNE 1, 1999, BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR SP 99-034. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT APPROVAL AND NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST OR NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd 097 SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH: RL / VACANT LAND SOUTH: TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) / VACANT LAND EAST: COMMERCIAL / VACANT LAND IN THE CITY OF INDIO WEST: RL / VACANT LAND BACKGROUND: This project site is a part of Specific plan 99-034, a shopping center approved by the City Council on June 1, 1999. The specific plan, consisting of design guidelines and development standards for the center, allows approximately 111,000 square feet on 12.5 acres. This is the first review of development plans for the buildings in the center, and includes an Albertsons/Sav-on and shop buildings on either side of the Albertsons/Sav-on as a part of Phase I. The total building square footage of this phase is approximately 74,060 square feet. PROJECT PROPOSAL: SITE DESIGN: The site is somewhat rectangular with extended ends along 50T" Avenue and Jefferson Street (Attachment 1). The first phase of buildings are located at the northwest corner of the site, diagonally facing the street intersection. The southerly in line lease spaces will be adjacent to the supermarket, while the easterly in line lease spaces will be separated by the pharmacy drive -through lane. Since the Specific Plan approval in 1999, the plan has been slightly modified to reduce the square footage of the shopping center from approximately 110,950 to 102,370 square feet. The site plan notes that the north -south drive aisle west of pads "D" and "E" will have a keyed gate for neighboring residential use only. This residential use refers to Tentative Tract 29053 to the north and west. This access was originally ungated to provide shopping center patrons access to Jefferson Street. ARCHITECTURE: The applicants have submitted plans for the 57,560 square foot Albertsons and Sav- on pharmacy and the adjacent 16,500 square feet of in line tenant buildings on either side. They have also submitted the preliminary landscaping plans for the common areas of the site and around the proposed buildings (Attachment 2). P:\STAN\sdp 2.001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd ,. Q y J d 0 16 "" The Albertsons/Sav-on portion of the project is primarily a rectangular structure with Mediterranean architectural accents on the facade and side elevations. The facade uses gable end clay tiled towers over the supermarket entries, tied to mansard tile roofs with exposed wood rafters along most of the store front. This creates an arcade across the front of the building. At the north end of the building visible to the front and side is a hip roofed tower. Between this tower and the mansard roof on the front is a wood trellis attached to the wall. Circular archways with pre -cast concrete bases or columns are incorporated along the facade of the building. A decorative cornice treatment is provided at the top of the parapet and will extend around all sides of the building. The right or north side of the supermarket building will have a drive -through pharmacy window with two lanes lone for drop-off and one for pick-up). Covering the pick-up lane is a poirte cochere designed to be architecturally similar to the towers over the store entries. Pop -out arches and a wood trellis complete the treatment on this side of the building. The south or left side of the supermarket building utilizes the pop -out arches near the rear. The front half of this side will be covered by the adjacent in line tenant building. The rear of the supermarket has the cornice treatment scored plaster treatment at the top and scored wainscot along the bottom. This scoring treatment is used on all sides of the building. The in line tenant buildings on either side of Albertsons/Sav-on are slightly different lengths, but are architecturally identical. Approximately 40% of the facade and 50% of the exterior side is provided with a tile mansard roof with exposed wood rafters. The balance of the building side has a parapet wall with a decorative cornice treatment. The facade creates an arcade over the store fronts. The rear and side walls next to the supermarket are treated with score lines and a colored wainscot with no cornice. The exterior colors for the supermarket and in line tenant buildings are the same with primarily beige and sand colored plaster walls, blue accents, white and gray bases and columns, and a three color red/rust blend clay tile roof. The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping including the perimeter along 50T" Avenue and Jefferson Street and within the Phase I area. The plant pallette includes love water and native type of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers. Most tree sizes are 24'" box size, except for palm trees. No lawn is proposed within the project. Along Jefferson Street and 50Th Avenue a meandering sidewalk and mounding is included. Mounding is provided with shrub planting on it in areas adjacent to most parking areas. Three recessed retention basins are provided adjacent to Jefferson Street, with the bottom proposed to be raked earth. Three tree wells are provided in P:ASTAN\sdp 2001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd �� front of the market, with two small planters provided adjacent to the wood trellis. No planters are provided in front of the in line tenant buildings, except for one at the extreme west end of the westerly most building. SIGNS: The proposal includes the signs for the supermarket and ancillary uses in the building. At the time of specific plan approval, the supermarket was to be a Luckys. Since that time Albertsons bought out Luckys. Sav-on was and remains the originally proposed pharmacy. The primary sign has therefore, been revised from that originally shown. These signs will be internally illuminated. The Albertsons logo "A" is five feet high by nine feet long with "Albertsons" a maximum four feet high by approximately 29 feet long. "Sav-on Pharmacy" is proposed at the end of and below "Albertsons" will be four feet high by 9'-3" long (37 square feet). The total square footage would be approximately 198 square feet. This sign will be on the plaster facade of the taller tower. The colors of the logo "A" sign will be two shades of blue to match their standards colors, with the copy "Albertsons"' a lighter shade of blue. "Sav-on Pharmacy" will be a modified uni-letter cannister type sign with red letters and a white background. The specific plan approval permits three ancillary information signs on the supermarket building. The proposal includes the following internally illuminated information signs: 1. A "future bank" sign (1.5' long by 15.5' high - 23.25 square feet) 2. A "Starbucks Coffee logo sign (four feet in diameter - 12.5 square feet) 3. A"RX Drive thru" sign (7'-6.5" long by 3.5' high - 26.6 square feet). The elevation plan shows a forth "RX Drive thru sign on the side of the porte cochere. The "bank" :sign will be on the plaster facade between the two towers. The specific bank, colors, etc. is not identified. The "coffee" logo sign is the standard green, white, and black logo sign and shown at the easterly or right end of the shorter tower on the plaster facade. The "RX" sign has the "drive thru" within a arrow cannister pointing to the drive through lane. This sign is placed on the tower wall at the east end of the building, next to the drive through lane. This sign is red with the "drive through letters white. Because of the one way use of the drop off and pick up lanes small non -illuminated "clearance" and "drop off' and "pick up" signs (6" by 2.5') are proposed on the south or front side of the porte cohere. Additionally, an internally illuminated" entrance" sign (1.5' high by 6' long) cannister sign with white letters on a red background is proposed on the entry side of the porte cohere. vQ4 P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd y n1) .J� 1 l� The main monument sign design which would have the "Albertsons and Sav-on Pharmacy copy has been submitted and is in compliance with the size allowance of the approved specific plan. The monument would be 9'-6" wide and slightly over 12 feet in height, with the text 7' by 7'. One sign would be at the Jefferson Street and 50TH Avenue intersection, with one at each main street access driveway. The colors will match those used on the building with a blue background. EXTERIOR LIGHTING A parking lot lighting plan has been submitted showing light standards that are 20 feet high to the top of the light fixture. The fixtures are a box type with a dropped lens. The light standards in front of the supermarket have a supplemental flood type light on top which is pointed at the supermarket. Building security lighting and a photometrics lighting level study has not been submitted. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION: The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) considered this request at its meeting of April 18, 2001, and recommended approval on a 2-0 vote, subject to conditions which are included in the recommended conditions (Attachment 3). FINDINGS: The Findings required by Section 9.210.010 (Site Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolution provided the following conditions are imposed: 1. Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The supermarket building is proposed as a contemporary box structure with Mediterranean architectural accents on the facade and side elevations which uses a variety of materials and colors. Due to the plant -on style of the facade, the ALRC recommends Condition #8B which requires redesign of the parapet wall connection with the facade in the area between the two main supermarket towers above the store entry. The in line tenant buildings on either side of the supermarket lack compatible architectural articulation on the sides that are not facing the front parking area. Staff recommends in Condition #8A that the cornice treatment match that used on the market with it provided on all sides not against the market. Furthermore, the scoring and paint pattern shall match to the extent possible that used on the market. 05 P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd ,,. � r,� 2. Site Desion- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the site design complies with applicable site design requirements and is designed to be compatible with the center and surrounding future neighborhood. Vehicular access from the shopping center to the street to the north which will allow left turns in at Jefferson Street is necessary to provide adequate vehicular movements and to insure safe on site traffic circulation for patrons and emergency vehicles. Condition #17 requires that the gate be removed. Condition #13 requires a recessed or flush mounted lens and some shielding on the parking lot light fixture to ensure that they do not create a nuisance for surrounding properties. Also recommended is Condition #16 requiring removal of the flood lights facing the supermarket to minimize glare. 3. Landscape Desion- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. The landscaping has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding area, complement the proposed improvements and provide required shading of the parking area. Planters for vines, shrubs and groundcover should be provided adjacent to the front of the shop buildings to soften and enhance the project as recommended in Condition #9A. Additionally, the plans only indicate limited use of groundcover or decomposed granite in planter areas. Most of the perimeter areas (streets and rear of project) do not indicate any other than raked earth. Condition #9B Recommends that decomposed granite or comparable groundcover be provided in all planting areas. Without a detailed review of the grading plans, it is not possible to determine whether the parking lot will be adequately screened by the use of mounding with shrubs only. Condition #9C recommends that short masonry screen walls be provided if it is determined that the screening as proposed is not adequate. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd U06 lO2 4. Sian Program- With use of the existing sign program, the building will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and be in harmony and visually related to the proposed buildings provided the pharmacy sign on the side end of the drive through lane is removed as recommended in Condition #11 and the modifications are made as recommended in Condition #10. In conclusion, the findings needed to approve this request can be made provided the recommended conditions of approval are imposed. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 2001-_, approving Site Development Permit 2001-696, subject to the recommended conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Plan exhibits (large plans) 3. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee minutes for the meeting of April 19, 2001 Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted by: Christine di lorio, Plan ing Manager U 7 P:ASTAN\sdp 2001-696 et al pc rpt.wpd w'iQ� �, 103 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN RANCHO CIELO, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 APPLICANT: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14' day of April, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider the request of LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY to approve the construction plans for a 74,060 square feet of commercial buildings in the Rancho Cielo Shopping Center, located at the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and 50T" Avenue, more particularly described as: A portion of Parcel Map 29052 WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on April 18, 2001, at a regular meeting, adopted Minute Motion 2001-015, recommending approval of the architectural and landscaping plans for the new building, subject to conditions; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan- The General Plan designates the project area as Community Commercial. The proposed commercial buildings are consistent with the commercial designation of the property. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code- The proposed commercial building is designed to comply with the Zoning Code requirements, including but not limited to, height limits, parking, lot coverage, and signs. 3. Compliance with CEQA- This application is within Specific Plan 99-034 and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as Amended, per Public Resources Code Section 65457 (A). A Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified on June 1, 1999, by the City Council for SP 99-034. This request is in conformance with that approval and no changed 008 p:\stan\sdp 2001-696 pc res.wpd .JV 1.04 Resolution 2000- 012 Site Development Permit 2000-667 April 11, 2000 circurnstances or conditions exist and no new information has been submitted which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. 4. Architectural Design- With the recommended changes, the design of the project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. The supermarket building is a contemporary box structure with Mediterranean architectural accents on the facade and side elevations which uses a variety of materials and colors. The in line tenant buildings on either side of the supermarket are compatible and acceptable with the recommended conditions. 5. Site Desian- The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city in that the site design complies with applicable site design requirements and is designed to be compatible with the center and surrounding future neighborhood with the conditions pertaining to access and lighting. 6. Landscape Design- Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. The landscaping will be compatible with the surrounding area, complement the proposed improvements and provide required shading of the parking area with the recommended conditions. 7. Sian Program- With use of the existing sign program and recommended conditions, the buildings will be consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code and be in harmony and visually related to the proposed buildings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 009 p:\stan\sdp 2001-696 pc res.wpd 1 U ^- Resolution 2000- 012 Site Development Permit 2000-667 April 11, 2000 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 2000-667 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 11" day of April, 2000, 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 010 p:\stan\sdp 2001-696 pc res.wpd rjcol PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City'), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretiion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. Projects disturbing 5 or more acres, or smaller projects which are part of a larger project disturbing 5 or more acres require a project -specific NPDES permit. The applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent (N01) prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm 'Water Pollution Protection Plan (SWPPP) is available for inspection at the project site. 3. Applicant shall comply with the approved Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 98-034 and Tentative Parcel Map 29052. P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 po coa.wpd Printed April 20, 2001 Page 1 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 GRADING 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit verification by the Water Quality Control Board that they have submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) as required by the NPDES permit requirement. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT 5. Parking lot design shall conform with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 9.150 6. Applicant shall reimburse City for City's cost of acquisition of Jefferson Street right of way for the Jefferson Street Improvement Project. 7. Where meandering sidewalk touches the back of the curb, radius sidewalk to the curb as approved by the City Engineer. ARCHITECTURE 8. Prior to issuance of building permits for the building authorized for this property, final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Final drawings shall be revised to include the following: A. The cornice treatment on the in line tenant buildings shall match that used on the supermarket and that it be provided on all sides not against the market. Furthermore, the scoring and paint pattern on the in line tenant buildings shall match to the extent possible that used on the supermarket. B. The applicant shall work with the Community Development Department to reduce the impact of the "plant -on" look of the supermarket facade in the area between the two main towers (i.e., specifically, the small area of parapet wall in relationship to the adjacent tower pitched roofs). LANDSCAPIf\ , 9. Prior to issuance of building permits for the building authorized for this property, final landscape working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Compliance with the City Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance shall be included. Tree caliper sizes per industry standards shall be specified. Clearance from the Coachella Valley Water District P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 pc coa.wpd U12 Printed April 20, 2001 Page 2 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 and Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner shall be submitted. Final plans shall be revised to include the following: A. A minimum of four planters for vines, shrubs and groundcover shall be provided adjacent to the front of the shop buildings. B. Decomposed granite or comparable groundcover be provided in all planting areas not proposed for spreading groundcovers.. C. Two to three foot high masonry screen walls shall be provided if it is determined by the Community Development Department that the perimeter screening (mounding with shrubs) as proposed is not adequate. D. The applicant shall specify that all canopy trees are to be double staked wiith minimum 2" diameter wood stakes tied with "Z" lock type ties or an equivalent. SIGNS 10. Final sign plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval based on this approval, and shall include all details, colors, and materials with the following modifications: A. All cannister signs and monument signs for supermarket related signs shall have an opaque background. B. All trim caps and returns for the supermarket related ancillary information signs shall be the same color to the satisfaction of the Community development Department . 11 . There shall be no pharmacy drive through sign on the side of the port cochere LIGHTING 12. A parking lot lighting photometrics study shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval prior to issuance of first building permit authorized by this approval complying with applicable minimum required lighting levels. J t 10 '' U 13 P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 pc coa.wpd Printed April 20, 2001 Page 3 of 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-696 LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY APRIL 24, 2001 11 The parking lot fixtures shall have a recessed or flush mounted lens, rather than a dropped lens. 14. All exterior wall mounted security lights for the supermarket and shops shall use shoebox type down shining light fixtures with recessed or flush mounted lenses. 15. All parking lot lights adjacent to Tentative Tract 29053 shall be provided with shields to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department to minimize glare towards the tract. 16. The flood lights facing the supermarket shall be removed. MISCELLANEOUS 17. The vehicular drive aisle west of pads "D" and "E" shall not be gated at the north end. •_:! i 11. fl 014 P:\STAN\sdp 2001-696 pc coa.wpd Printed April 20, 2001 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT #1 HIGHWAY I 111 AVENUE 48 RANCHO LA OUINTA COUNTRY CLUB SIT LA OU/NrA COUNTRY CLUB Z CITRUS COURSE U LA QUINTA 3 50 INDIO 0 AVENUE Lu AVENUE 52 VICINI T Y ` MAP CASE MAP I CASE No. N O R T F SDP 2001-696 SCALE: LUNDIN DEVELOPMENT CO NTS'- 11 15 ATTACHMENT #3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEE1fING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hal 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA / April 18, 2001 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Architectural and Lapidscaping Committee was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Planning Ma ter Christine di lorio who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bi} Bobbitt and Frank Reynolds. It was moved and seconded by Commi lee Members Reynolds/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Cunningham. C. Staff present: Planning Mager Christine di lorio, Principal Planners Stan Sawa and Fred Baker, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONE=IRMATION OF THEXAGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR` A. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of March 21, 2001. There being no further c ctions, it was moved and seconded by Co rs obbitt/Reynolds to approve su mitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2001-696; a request of Lundin Development (/J Company for review of development plans for a 74-080 square foot commercial building in Rancho Cielo Shopping Center located at: the northwest corner of Avenue 50 and Jefferson Street. 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. 016 O:AWPDOCSVALRC4-18-01.wpd 1 112 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 18, 2001 2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked staff to explain Condition #3. Staff explained that until the final drawings are reviewed staff will not know if the parking lot is adequately screened therefore, this condition assures that it will be properly screening. Mr. Mike Smith, engineer for the project, stated they want to use mounding where they can. 3. Committee Member Reynolds stated he had a problem with the location of the retention basin. He would prefer it be moved to the rear of the project. In its current location, it will be a maintenance problem. Staff stated this was addressed in the Specific Plan approval. Mr. Mike Smith stated it is difficult to meet the landscaping and retention requirements and still make it work. 4. Mr. Ray Lopez, landscape architect for the project, stated this type of retention is used in other locations in the Valley, but not in the same type of soils. They are located in the front and they use desert materials. Mr. Smith suggested they use a gravel bottom. 5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if they could be conditioned to ensure it is done. Mr. Greg Bever, developer for the project, stated they will record a common area maintenance agreement that pertains to this. Staff stated it is a part of the engineering conditions. 6. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the entrance off Jefferson Street, where there is a left turn lane going north, is there also a right turn only? Staff stated that was correct. There is a left turn in on Avenue 50. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City of Indio was going to build the market as advertised. Staff stated it is unknown whether building pans had been submitted. 7. Committee Member Bobbit asked about the facade elevation to the east of the Albertsons sign frontage could be changed. Mr. Roger Watson, representing Albertsons, stated that as long as they can retain the roof height, they could make any changes on the front elevation. They do not, however, want to take from the tower element. Planning Manager Christine di lorio asked what the height of the parapet was from the flat root to the top. Mr. Bever stated it was 23 feet. Mr. Watson stated the tower was to create interest. The area in question does have a trellis. Staff asked if it could be dropped out. Mr. Watson stated they could ask the G:\WPDOCS\ALRC4-18-01.wpd 2 017 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes April 18, 2001 architect to address this. Committee Member Bobbitt asked that a condition be added to require the applicant to work with staff to resolve the look. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern regarding the staking of the parking lot shade trees. Mr. Ray Lopez stated this was a problem in the City of Palm Desert as well and they are: now requiring metal stakes. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that if they are planted properly with doble metal stakes on the upwind side with ties they will last. Maintenance is a important. Mr. Forrest Haag stated the problem is the shallow water to support the crown. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the biggest problem is enough room in the planter to allow the growth. 9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Member Reynolds/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 2001-015 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2001-696, subject to the additional conditions: a. Condition #4: The applicant shall work with the Community development Department to reduce the impact of the "plant - on" look of the supermarket facade in the area between the two main towers, (i.e., specifically, the small area of parapet wall in relationship to the adjacent tower pitched roofs). b. Condition #5: The applicant shall specify that all canopy trees are to be double staked with a minimum two inch diameter stake tied with "Z" lock type ties or an equivalent. Unanimously approved. B. \ Site Development Permit 2 00-697; a request of RGC Courthomes, Inc. for ompatibility review of architectural plans for two new prototype resident) nits with one facade located at the northeast corner of Camino Quintan Calle Mazatlan within the Santa Rosa Cove Country Club. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell pre ted the information contained in the staff report, a cgpy of which is on file in the Community Development Depar{ment. 2. Staff noted there was no quorum due to the absence of i Committee Member Cunningham and the potential conflict of interest witfi Committee Member Reynolds residential proximity to G:\ W PDOCS\ALRC4-18-0 Lwpd 3 •' \ ' PH #E STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: APRIL 24, 2001 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-414 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-076 ZONE CHANGE 2001-099 SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-053 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30096 REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2) AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; 3) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR 127 RESORT VILLA UNITS, AND 4) APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 19.64 ACRES INTO 127 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATION: 57325 MADISON STREET (MADISON, NORTH OF AVENUE 58) APPLICANT:: PUERTA AZUL PARTNERS L.L.C. REPRESENTATIVE: MARK ROCKWELL PROPERTY OWNER: PUERTA AZUL PARTNERS L.L.C. ZONING: TOURIST COMMERCIAL (CT) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: TOURIST COMMERCIAL(TC) 411=9111011ul f ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) A:1PC staff rpt.Puerta Azul.wpd BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW• A Sculpture Park on the relatively flat 19.64 acre site, located on Madison Street, north of Avenue 58 (Attachment 1) was approved by the City in 1993. Improvements remaining since the closure of the facility include: a single family house and another building, a swimming pool, a lake, an interior concrete driveway and walkway, remnant sculpture pieces, and an entry gate. �•. • •Vient.11633" • General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone The applicant is requesting to change the General Plan and Zoning use designation from Tourist Commercial to Medium Density Residential. The site is bordered on all sides by Low Density Residential (LDR) development. The Medium Density Residential allows 4-8 units per acre; the proposal is for 127 units on 19.64 acres which yields a density of 6.46 units per acre. Specific Plan The request is for approval of the "Puerta Azul Specific Plan" establishing guidelines and standards in a focused development plan including the distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The Specific: Plan proposes an enclave of 127 detached resort villas with centrally located common amenity areas, pools and spas and a recreation and vacation leasing facility, the "Great House". The Great House will also contain space for exercise and wellness activities and games for kids, social areas, and employee areas. The applicant proposes to cater to the repeat resort visitor; the project design and development standards are calculated to accommodate a transient user and not a permanent residential occupant. Each unit will be separately owned and available as vacation rental unit managed by a rental agency. Illustrative elevations and floors plans for the resort villa clusters are provided in the document (Attachment 2). ' • • • • •I ILGIM Along the 662 foot frontage on Madison Street, the proposed Circulation Plan shows two gated driveway access points each with two car stacking capacity: a primary entrance with right -in and right -out access, and full turning movement access to enter I13 a�uw AAPC staff rpt.Puerta Azul.wpd and exit the project. A 28 foot wide private residential loop road serves as access to driveways for each cluster of housing units and the unit's one car garage; 80 additional off-street guest parking spaces will be provided designed with a 9 foot by 17 foot stall design. At the easterly end of the project, private street lots "C" and "D" will be required to allow emergency vehicle access and turn -around. The turn -around areas will be required to have decorative brick pavers. The Parking 'Study in the Specific Plan (p. 24) utilizes the proposed product types with anticipated vehicle use to calculate parking demand. A total of 208 spaces is needed to meet the resort villa parking requirement: 127 spaces individual unit garage parking (one car garage per unit), and 80 spaces of off-street parking. The "Great House" will be provided with 15 spaces. The project will have 223 total spaces. Development Standards Development standards proposed for the Specific Plan must be consistent with the General Plan development standards. Some development standards proposed for the Specific Plan differ from the Zoning Code. The Specific Plan proposes variations in standards that are tailored to this site location and the proposed resort villa use. The following table represents the proposed Specific Plan development standards which differ from Zoning Code development standards for Medium Density Residential: Minimum Lot Size Minimum Liveable Floor Area Minimum Front Yard Setback Parking Design Guidelines 3,000 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. 15 ft. To Street curb/ 10 ft. To pkg. stall curb 1 space enclosed per unit/ .637 spaces per unit off street Existing 5,000 sq. ft. 1,400 sq. ft. 20 ft. 2 spaces per unit in a garage/ .5 spaces per unit if no on - street parking The Puerta Azul Specific Plan proposes site planning guidelines to achieve the resort villa environment including: private enclosed courtyards for each unit, covered patios, arcades, trellises, extended roof overhangs, a variety of building forms, side and front yard garages, easy access for guest parking, articulation of side and rear unit elevations visible from public spaces within the development, and prohibiting the addition of storage sheds and similar outbuildings. The architectural style of the project will be early California Mission and Spanish inspired themes existing in La Quinta. Building materials include smooth finish stucco or stucco wall system with white cream, tan and other earth tone colors, wood tile, and wrought iron. A variety of roof forms, heights, and articulated roof lines are used for the project area. Roof material includes barrel or flat tile in terra cots or other earth tones. 003 A:\PC staff rpt.Puerta Azul.wpd ���� `. 117 Each clustered set of units proposes to have a building entry focal point using roof elements, columns, porches, recesses, and architectural projections. Courtyards and or patios provide a transition point from public to private living space. Proposed are special design treatment for windows, chimneys, garage doors, shutters, screening mechanical equipment, and other decorative detail elements which will provide a visual interest to the to the buildings' facade. The Landscape Design concept proposes appropriate planting for the desert climate. Four distinct concept areas are proposed: Image Corridor zone which includes the 20 foot landscape setback on Madison Street, Amenity Landscaping zone within the center project area, Streetscape zone along the projects' loop road, and Private Landscape zone for courtyards and patios. A palette of landscape material is provided for each zone. Tentative Tract Tentative Tract 30096 (Attachment 3) proposes 170 total lots on 19.64 acres vvith 127 residential lots and one clubhouse facility lot; four street lots; 30 common driveway lots, and eight open space/landscape lots. All 127 residential lots are proposed to have driveway access from the internal loop road. Residential lot sizes range from 3,000 to 5,690 square feet. There exists a 30 foot right-of-way dedication for Madison Street; an additional 25 feet will be required to complete a full 110 foot of right-of-way for a Primary Arterial. Identified is the required 150 foot building setback from Madison Street for buildings over 22 feet high and the required 20 foot landscape setback. A homeowners' association will be formed to maintain retention basins, common landscaped areas, private roads, perimeter landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Based on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, staff prepared Environmental Assessment (EA) 2001-414 for the project. The Noise Assessment Study, prepared for the EA, recommends certain noise control mitigation measures including a minimum nine feet in height noise barrier which can be achieved with a three foot berm and six foot wall. Staff recommends certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Cd0Lrilul-Wit The project was sent out for comment to City departments and affected public agencies on February 20, 2001, requesting comments be returned by March 9, 2001. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval. .� -1 1 gib 0 4 A:1PC staff rpt.Puerta Azul.wpd PUBLIC NOTE: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on, April 2, 2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice as required by the La Quinta Municipal Zoning Code. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: There are no issues with this request and findings required to approve this request can be made as noted in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission 2001-_ recommending to the City Council certification of an Environmental Assessment 2001-414. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of a General Plan Amendment 2001-076; and, 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of a Zone Change 2001-099; and, 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2001-053 subject to the attached conditions. 5. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 30096 subject to the attached conditions ATTACHMENTS 1 . Location Map 2. Puerta Azul Specific Plan 3. Tentative Tract Map 30096 (Large copy Planning Commission only) Prepared by: Submitted by: 'ik� 5jt�--- red Baker, ICP Principal Planner Christine di lbrio, Planning Manager A:\PC staff rpt.Puerta Azul.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-076, ZONE CHANGE 2001-099, SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-053, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30096 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-414 APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of April, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2001-414 for General Plan Amendment 2001-076, Zone Change 2001-099, Specific Plan 2001-053 and Tentative Tract 30096 herein referred to as the "Project" for Puerta Azul Partners L.L.C.; and, WHEREAS, said Project has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-414) to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment unless mitigation measures are implemented, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact could be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or directly, in that appropriate mitigation measures have been imposed which will minimize project impacts. 2. The proposed Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 1" 006 A:\PC RESO EA 2001-414.wpd � 4- �j Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmentall Assessment 2001-414 April 24, 2001 3. Considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals as no significant effects on environmental factors by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed Project will not have environmental effects directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 6. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect setforth in 14 CAL Code Regulations §753.5(d). 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record, including EA 2001-414 and the comments received thereon, that the project will have a significant impact upon the environment. 8. EA 2001-414 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. 9. The location and custodian of the record of proceedings relating to this project is the Community Development Department of the City of La Quinta, located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 99-386 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. A:\PC RESO EA 2001-414.wpd 007 6, y Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Environmental Assessment 2001-414 April 24, 2001 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th 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 A:\PC RESO EA 2001-414.wpd 008 12� Environmental Checklist Form 1 . Project Title: General Plan Amendment 2001-076, Change of Zone 2001-099, Specific Plan 2001-053, Tentative Tract Map 30096 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Fred Baker, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: West side of Madison Street, north of Avenue 58, and south of Airport Blvd. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and.Address: Puerta Azul Partners, LLC 17700 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd., Suite 100 Portland, OR 97227 6. General Plan Designation: Current: Tourist Commercial Proposed: Medium Density Residential 7. Zoning: Current: Tourist Commercial Proposed: Medium Density Residential 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to allow clustered resort residential units at a density of approximately 6.5 units per acre on a 19.64 acre parcel. Specific Plan to establish development standards and guidelines for the construction of resort residential units, a central recreational and open space area, two pools, a clubhouse and associated facilities. Tentative Tract Map to divide what is currently one parcel into 128 numbered lots, and lettered lots to allow for streets, driveways and common areas. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North, west and east: Existing PGA West development; golf course and residential South: Vacant desert lands designated for single family residential development. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) P:\FRED\PuenaAzuI EAC kI st.WPD 009 1 - 123 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hazards and Hazardous Public Services Materials Agriculture Resources Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation Air Quality Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic Biological Resources Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings Geology and Soils Population and Housing Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Fred Baker, Principal Planner F n u !f- �--o Date CITY OF LA OUINTA _ P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EAC klsl. WPD Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) 'Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from `Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance P:\FRED\PuertaAz a IEACklst.WPD 3 � 6� Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving AESTHETICS: Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit CIR-5) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs) III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Specific Plan Project Descr.) P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EACk lst. W PD Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X 7 X X X X X X pp u12 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Specific Plan Project Descr.) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, Exhibit 5-1) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 5-2 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta Municipal Code; General Plan) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-5) V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CRM Tech, September 2000) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological. resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CRM Tech, September 2000) c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Paleontologic: Assessment, San Bernardino Museum, August 2000) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Historic/Archaeological Survey, CRM Tech, September 2000) P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EACklst. W PD m X X X X X X X X X 013 Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan FIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, January 2001) iv) Landslides? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, January 2001) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, January 2001) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Geotechnical Investigation, Sladden Engineering, January 2001) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-32) VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application Materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application Materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application Materials) d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.:5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) P:\FRED\PuertaAzulEACkIst. W PD X X X X X X X X X X X F9 X 014 i) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 6-11) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-26, 6-27) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off - site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, Mainiero, Smith & Assoc., March 2001) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, Mainiero, Smith & Assoc., March 2001) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Preliminary Hydrology Study, Mainiero, Smith & Assoc., March 2001) 0 Place housing; within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or redirect flood fllows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13) IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project Description) P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EACklst. W PD X 94 X X M X X M f7 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- 5) X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-2.9) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29) Xl. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Noise Assessment, Wieland Associates, March 2001) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Noise Assessment, Wieland Associates, March 2001) c) A substantialtemporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Noise Assessment, Wieland Associates, March 2001) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Master Environmental Assessment) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General Plan, page 2-144) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EACklst. W PD 0 ro M X X X X X 0 X X XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need) for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. ) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. ) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. ) XIV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?(T'raffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000) X X X X X X X X X X X X X P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EACldst. WPD XVI. UTILITIES A14D SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, pg. 4-24 ). b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24 ) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES. X 0 X X X X X 94 91 X Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used. U' O P:\FRED\PuertaAzul EACklst. WPD 11 Jim 10 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. SOURCES: Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992. SCAQMD CEQA Handbook. General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992. City of La Quinta Municipal Code Puerta Azul Vacation Villas Traffic Impact Analysis, Endo Engineering, December 2000 Noise Assessment and Noise Control Recommendations, Wieland Associates, Inc., March 2001 Preliminary Hydrology Report, Mainiero Smith and Associates, March 2001 Geotechnical Investigation Puerta Azul Resort Development, Sladden Engineering, January 2001 Paleontologic Assessment Puerta Azul Specific Plan, Section of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, August 2000 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report Former La Quinta Art Park, CRM Tech, September 2000 P:\FRED\PuertaAzulEACk1st.WPD Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-414 I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for the area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the project site. These standards will mitigate the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. III. c) & d) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. The proposed General Plan amendment and Change of Zone will result in a change from Tourist Commercial to Medium density residential. Generally, tourist commercial land uses generate higher numbers of trips, and therefore higher concentration of air pollutants, than residential land uses. The traffic study prepared for the proposed project estimates that the project at buildout will generate 1,630 trips'. As shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 63.1 2.43 12.9 -- 0.27 0.27 5 5 Daily Threshold 550 75 100 150 Based on 1,630 trips/day and average trip length of 7.5 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated into the following mitigation measures: Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, December, 2000. P:\FRED\PuertaAzulEA-Add.WPD 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity or, the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. P:\FRED\Puert@ AZul EA -Add. W PD U? �. -,13' 14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at the time of development. With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project site are not included in the analysis. Further, the air quality impacts from the proposed project fall within what was studied in the General Plan EIR. The City determined at that time that air quality impacts associated with the buildout of the City required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulatively significant when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its boundaries. V. b) A cultural resource survey and testing program was conducted for the subject propeirty2. The survey found no resources on the site. The report further finds that it is possible that buried artifacts could be encountered during the construction process. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the Historic Preservation Commission recommends the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1 . A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to occupancy. V. c) A paleontologic resource survey was prepared for the project site'. The survey report states that the probability of paleontologic resources is high on the subject property. The report recommends the following mitigation measure to mitigate the potential impacts to paleontologic resources on the site: 1 . A qualified paleontologic monitor shall be present during all earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to occupancy. Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey, prepared by CRM Tech, September 2000. Paleontologic Assessment, Puerta Azul Specific Plan, prepared by the San Bernardino County Museum, August, 2000. 7 n 13r UG.4 P:\FR ED\PuertaAzul EA -Add. W PD VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. In order to protect the City from this hazard, the City hias adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site-specificgeotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. This will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. VI. b) & c) A geotechnical analysis was performed for the proposed project°. The study found that the site is composed primarily of silty sands. Sandy soils must be properly compacted prior to construction to assure long-term stability. The geotechnical engineer recommends the over -excavation of the project site to mitigate this potential impact. The following mitigation measures will be required in order to reduce the impacts of unstable soils on the proposed site: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any structure on the proposed site, the applicant shall submit, for review and approval by the City Engineer, a detailed, site specific soil study, which shall include recommendations designed for the specific structure(s) being constructed. 2. Remedial grading, including over -excavation to a depth to be specified by the project geotechnical engineer and approved by the City Engineer, and recompaction shall be required for all building areas on the proposed site. VIII. b) All development adds to demand for groundwater. Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The project will be required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm water into the ground. The project proponent will be required to implement the C:ity's stanclards for water conserving plumbing fixtures. Finally, the proposed project will Ibe required to meet the requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient. These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 4 Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Sladden Engineering, January, 2001. 023 P:\FRE D\PuertaAM EA -Add. W PD V111. c)-e) The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots, will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain event. The project site is located in an X Flood Zone. The project will,be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on - site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The preliminary drainage study completed for the proposed project includes recommended retention area sizes on the proposed project site. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. XI. a) b) & c) A noise impact analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis found that noise levels will exceed the City's standard and that mitigation measures will be required. Noise impacts exceeding the City's standards will also occur during construction activities. Construction and operational mitigation measures are offered below. These mitigation measures will ensure that impacts from noise are reduced to less than significant levels. 1 . Noise barriers of a minimum of 9 feet in height will be constructed along the eastern property line, and along the north and south property links to a distance of 80 feet from the eastern property line. In order to meet the City's standards, this height level shall be achieved by a combination of walls and berms, with walls not to exceed 6 feet in height. 2. All residential structures shall be constructed to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL. The level of construction improvements required shall be determined with the completion of precise grading plans. 3. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XIII. a) The construction of the proposed project will result in short-term potential impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and off -set the potential impact to police and fire service. The project will also be required to pay school fees, as required by law. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. 5 Noise Assessment and Noise Control Recommendations, prepared by Wieland Associates, March, 2001. 13S 0� P:\FR ED\PuertaAzul EA -Add. W PD XV. a) & b) A traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed projects. The analysis found that the proposed project will generate approximately 1,630 trips per day at buildout. The analysis found that surrounding intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service, with or without the proposed project. Ultimately, the intersections of Madison with Avenue 54 and 58 will require improvement, with or without the project. In order to mitigate the project's impact on these intersection, the following mitigation measure shall be required: 1 . The project proponent will participate in the City's Impact Fee program. XVI. a)-f) The construction of the proposed project will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the business operators for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. 6 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Endo Engineering, December 2000. P:\FR ED\PuertaAzul EA-Add.WPD e / _ ■ / a ■ } \ / / \/ ;q K@ Eu \� $ � ® .) \) (7 / \ /B �, t® �& �) [\ � � 2£ � })k ) )\ . 02G \ \ \ w F a 0 um zQ a ax U W Ox U U x LU U d G � bA G O U G U 6 U 7 :tt U U U o on L G N N L N L L a O E c c ZF U py z z L L c o r °G° o tQ G to to E G E o [� FG b-0 b ^ N N G Lr- > Qr w F a c U m zQ aw U W O� U U L L O y � z o 0 aE+ iF� oq ao G G Q Q o a C o 0 zz o Q a E z E L E a E a um C)I:) c G N vi W G N o c W Gx U E E O i° CC a U Lf U > C"i U .L N N IW1 C� Q 'O O�v t6V w 027 41 4we \� uu r ` \d u \ \\ 736 2; i }\EE I th & ± \/ tb * - / Bo / Lr 2 s ) .k .§ .§ » E & » c 2 s G § /- _ j — ,� \) \ / 2 � E� \ 2 2 � \ \}\ y ®\ a \\ z2 E ■ / / / \ = c - \ ( k 2 - \\ k \ \ \\ \ \ \ -- 028 Ica ;22 2 \ \/ �u \) 2 � \ u u _ \ \ \ y - - � {\ƒ \ 2E3 \ )_ z _ � \ \ / / 2 § \ ¥§ ) \ ) 2 ) d \ { 3 9 / \° « \ � § \ \ 7 k \\ 4 « E/ )¥ ƒ) }\ \� !3 §_ eg ( \( § E ]b \ [ § 7 ) } . ) 4 b y / \ \/ \� 2 u u ) } / § \\ \z B/ \{ @ 3 & c ( ( §z ) [� » � \ / \ k t \ \ \ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL (TC) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) ON APPROXIMATELY 19.64 ACRES LOCATED AT 57325 MADISON STREET, LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2001-076 APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 2.4`h day of April, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Puerta Azul Partners, L. L.C. for a General Plan Amendment as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N. 761- 090-008; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify a recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is a residential design, scale, and density though will accommodate a residential transient user and is a continuation of the adjacent residential development. 2. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because it is residential. 3. The proposed Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land use does not exceed the allowable density in the Medium Density Residential category. 4. That the General Plan Amendment is within an area that will be provided with adequate utilities and public services to ensure public health and safety. 030 A:\PC RESO GPA 2001- 076.wpd +� l Planning Commission Resolution 2001- General Plan Amendment 2000-077 April 24, 2001 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described General Plan Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the LF Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 2e 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 031, AAPC RESO GPA 2001- 076.wpd 8 mmmmmff� MONROE STREET m Li chc cc MADISON ST. C14 -E Lo Lo Lo La JEFFERSON ST. z co Ln 0 LU m z LU 0 LU 2 LU 0 0 Go 1 0 CD CA w rl CL D z a0 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM TOURIST COMMERCIAL (CT) TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) TO ON APPROXIMATELY 19.64 ACRES LOCATED AT 57325 MADISON STREET, LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2001- 099 APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24"' day of April, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to consider the request of Puerta Azul Partners, L. L.C. for a Zone Change as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N. 761- 090-008 ; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This 7_one Change is consistent the General Plan being amended, in that the Zone Change categories proposed are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan. 2. The Zone Change is suitable and appropriate for the property involved because it is an extension of the existing residential development. 3. The Zone Change is compatible with standards in the proposed Specific Plan 2001-053. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Zone Change request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. 033 A:\PC RESO ZC 2.001-099.wpd 147 Planning Comrnission Resolution 2001- Zone Change 2001--099 April 24, 2001 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 241h 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 - 034 4..j 14 A:\PC RESO ZC 2001-099.wpd MONROE STREET c J m La > W > > ~ O MADISON ST C M Lo Z ta 9 Q J Q g JEFFERSON ST. o Z Go an F5- O LU L r a z U w O o J o U W o "1 O a cc a LU W 0 oim LU o U °f o U Q N r 0D N 0 Q Of r ig5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF1 THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 127 RESORT VILLA UNITS AND RECREATIONAL AMENITIES CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 200p-053 APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL L.�.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of April, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Puerta Azul Partners, L. L.C. for establishing guidelines and standards in a focused development plan including tl e distribution of land uses, location and sizing of supporting infrastructure, development standards, and requirements for public improvements. The project areas located on Madison, north of Avenue 58, more particularly described as: A.P.N.: 761- 090-008; anc�, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan 2001 53 has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality�Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83-68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initi�l Study (EA 2001-414), and determined that the Specific Plan will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upoin 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 of approval to justify a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan: 1 . That 'the proposed Specific Plan is consistent wit F� the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is de ignated Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed for the proper Y. 2. That the Specific Plan is compatible with the existing and anticipated area development in that the project, as conditioned, provides adequate circulation. 3. That the proposed Specific Plan will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting resort villa units will require Planning Commission review and a proval of future development plans under a Site Development Permit, which ill ensure adequate conditions of approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Specific Plan 2001-053 April 24, 2001 4. That the proposed Specific Plan is conceptual; further review will be required under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be attached to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001- 414, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan will not result in any significant environmental impacts as mitigated by the recommended Conditions of Approval; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan request 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 24th 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 City of La Quinta, California A:\PC RESO SP2001-053.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-053 APRIL 24, 2001 GENERAL 1 . The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES storrnwater discharge permit. This project requires a project -specific NPDES permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. PROPERTY RI(,HT 3. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 4. All lettered lots shall have minimum 28-foot width of frontage on the streets. AAPC COA SP2001-053.wpd 5. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial): 55-foot half of the 1 10-foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 11 Residential: Lots A, C, and D. 31-foot width with rolled curb configuration. Right of way may reduced to 29-ft with vertical curbs. On - street parking is prohibited and the applicant must make provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions. 6. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 7. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 8. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 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. Madison Street (Primary Arterial): 20-foot The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 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. 1 1. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd 12. 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. 13. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer," .,surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 15. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are :signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City 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 1(�4 0 AAPC COA SP2001-053.wpd prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 18. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 19. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 20. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 21. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings OJIM A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 22. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 24. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 25. The appllicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restrictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring - owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 26. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 27. 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. A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd 28. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 29. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 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'/z acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. 31. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 33. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 34. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1 . Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 35. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in dry wells, or as approved by the City Engineer. 36. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s)• No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 37. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the u43 AAPC COA SP2001-053.wpd 157 costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 38. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility liners 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. 39. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 40. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 41. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General (Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot improvement (curb face to curb face) plus 6-foot sidewalk meandering sidewalk. Applicant to construct median modifications to allow left -turn in from Madison Street as required by the Traffic Impact Analysis. 2) Applicant shall enter a secured agreement for the deferred installation of a traffic signal at the southernmost site access. Applicant's share will be 50%. 014 A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: All private residential streets to have 28-foot travel width measured gutter flowline to gutter flowline with on -street parking prohibited. The applicant will provide for perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the homeowners association. 2) Gated Entries: Provide minimum 2-car stacking for inbound traffic. 3) Intersections of Street "C" and Lot "O" and Street "D" and Lot "L" shall have 25-foot radius corners. C. CULS DE SAC 1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38- foot curb radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. 42. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid - block street lighting is not required. 43. The appllicant 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). 44. 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. 45. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. M. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical 0 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. u45 .., „ 159 A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd 47. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 48. 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. 49. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 50. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (North Access): Right turn in, right turn out. B. Secondary Entry (South Access): No turning restrictions. Note: should signal warrants require signalization of the intersection in the future, applicant shall be required to pay for 50% of the signalized intersection. LANDSCAPIN(a 51. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 52. 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 0 4 G A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd 3. 6 q 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. 53. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVI(�ES 54. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASS I RAN E 55. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 56. 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. 57. 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. 58. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE 59. 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 60. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. -- 047 161 A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd FIRE MARSHALI 62. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. MISCELLANEQU-S 63. Lots "C" and "D" will be required to allow emergency vehicle access and turn -around areas. Thie turn -around areas will be required to be have decorative brick pavers. 64. Parking Space Design (7.7) on page 26 of the Specific Plan shall be modified to read: "Parking spaces shall be 9 feet by 17 feet with a 2 foot overhang. The travel way between parking spaces shall be 26 feet in width." 65. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&R's) for the project shall include a provision which states that the project is one intended for vacation use and that permanent residency within the project is prohibited. The CC&R's shall further provide that when any owner is not in residence at his unit, said owner may rent his unit, provided however, that said owner shall be required to collect and pay to the City transient occupancy tax on such rental in accordance with the City's then existing ordinances. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, applicant shall submit a copy of final CC&R's to the City for compliance review of this condition. 048 162 A:\PC COA SP2001-053.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A 127 LOT SUBDIVISION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENITY LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 19.64 ACRES LOCATED ON MADISON STREET, NORTH OF AVENUE 58 CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 30096 APPLICANT: APPLICANT: PUERTA AZUL, L.L.C. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24`h day of April, 2001, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing , to consider the request of Puerta Azul Partners, L. L.C. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as: A.P.N. 761-090-008; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said Tentative Tract Map 30096: A. The proposed map is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan. The project is a Medium Density Residential (MDR) District per the provisions of the General Plan; therefore, all provisions of Land Use Element (Chapter 2) shall be met. Tentative Tract Map 30096 is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure consistency with the General Plan and mitigation of environmental consequences pursuant to Environmental Assessment (EA) 2001-414. B. The design, or improvement of, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Specific Plan, and Subdivision Ordinance. All streets and improvements in the project conform to City standards contained in the General Plan, Specific Plan and Subdivision Ordinance as designed. Access for the single family lots will be provided from a street built under the tentative tract map. 49 AAPC RESO TT 30096.wpd t ) 163 Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Tract Map 30096 April 24, 2001 The design of the proposed lots is consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the subdivision has on -site drainage, flood water retention, and internal circulation system acceptable to the City Engineer. C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development in that the slope and topographic relief is acceptable, and the soil type is suitable for residential development. D. The design of the lots, or type of improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially and unavoidably injure fish, or wildlife, or their habitats in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for EA 2001-414. E. The design of the lot, or type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the Fire Marshall, Sheriff's Department, and the City's Building and Safety Department have reviewed the proposal for public health, conditions and the project is conditioned as appropriate. F. The design of the lot, or type of improvements, will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision in that the proposed internal streets will be privately owned and maintained, and that there will be no publicly - owned improvements within the tentative tract map. 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 recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 30096 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 24`h day of April, 2001, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: 16' A:\PC RESO TT30096.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT 30096 APRIL 24, 2001 GENERAL 1 . The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This tentative map and any final maps thereunder shall comply with the requirements and standards of § §66410 through 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC)• 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant :shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. This project requires a project -specific NPDES permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site. 4. Final maps under this tentative map shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of final map approval. A:TC COA TT 30096.wpd u52 165 19. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 20. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City. 21. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions. If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 22. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels created by this map and the status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are obligations of this map, to secure the cost of the improvements for future construction by others, or a combination of these methods. In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City, the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a map or other development or building permit, reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements. 23. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a ol5ilsr A Inc con 1T 30096.wl)a Planning Commission Resolution 2001- Tentative Tract Map 30096 April 24, 2001 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California 167 PROPERTY RIGS 5. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary for construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential improvements. 6. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. 7. Right of way dedications required of this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial): 55-foot half of the 1 10-foot right of way. B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Residential: Lots A, C, and D. 31-foot width for rolled curb configuration. Right of way may be reduced to 29-ft with vertical curbs. On -street parking is prohibited and the applicant must make provisions for ongoing enforcement of the restrictions 8. Right of Nay geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 10. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the rights of way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by the City. 11. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the express concurrence of IID. 12. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows (listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved): i�5 1.6,R ATC COA TT 30096.wpd A. Madison Street (Primary Arterial): 20-foot. The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes. 13. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 14. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the approved tentative map. 15. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 16. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties or notarized letters of consent from the property owners 17. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval of this tentative map by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. FINAL MAPS) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 18. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map. IMPROVEMENT PLAN 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. A TC COA 'PT 30096.wpd (154 160 certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 24. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 25. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 26. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 27. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 28. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. i�56 17 r� ATC COA TT 30096-wpd 35. Storm flovv in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated, unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route. 36. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or passed through to the overflow outlet. 37. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate shall not exceed two inches per hour. 38. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1 . Maximum retention depth shall be six feet for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention. 39. Nuisance water shall be retained on site and disposed of in dry wells, or as approved by the City Engineer. 40. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City Engineer. 41. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this tentative map excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make previsions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations. UTILITIES 42. 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. 43. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from this requirement. 5P71 ARC COA TT 30096.wpd 29. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within a tract or parcel map, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed five feet. The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and more restriictive limits may be imposed in the map approval or plan checking process. If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring - owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 30, Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 31. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.\ DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the following: 33. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. 34. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC. A:TC COA TT 30096.wTd i►57 172 44. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 45. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Construct 43-foot half of 86-foot improvement (curb face to curt) face) plus 6-foot meandering sidewalk. Applicant to construct median modifications to allow left -turn in from Madison Street as required by the Traffic Impact Analysis. 2) Applicant shall enter a secured agreement for the deferred installation of a traffic signal at the southernmost site access. Applicant's share will be 50% of the signal cost. B. PRIVATE STREETS 11 Residential: All residential streets to have 28-foot travel width measured gutter flowline to gutter flowline with on -street parking prohibited. The applicant will provide for perpetual enforcement of the restriction by the homeowners association. 2) Gated Entries: Provide minimum 2-car stacking for inbound traffic. 3) Intersections of Street "C and Lot "0" and Street "D" and Lot "L° shall have 1 5-foot radius corners. C. CUL.S DE SAC 1) Use Riverside County Standard 800 (symmetric) or 800A (offset) with 38- foot curb radius. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer. t�59 173 AMIC COATI 30096.wpd 46. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid - block street lighting is not required. 47. 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)• 48. 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. 49. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 50. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be vertical 0 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. 51. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials): Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b. Collector 4.0"/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50" 52. 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. 53. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly A:TC COA 1T 30096.wpd 61 . 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. 62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions. MAINTENANCE= 63. 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 DE IOSITS 64. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 65. FIRE MAfiSHALL Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must 'be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding Fire Marshall conditions should be directed to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (760) 863-8886. MISCELLANEC)US 66. Lots "C" and "D" will be required to allow emergency vehicle access and turn -around areas. The turn -around areas will be required to be have decorative brick pavers. 67. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions ("CC&R's) for the project shall include a provision which states that the project is one intended for vacation use and that permanent residency within the project is prohibited. The CC&R's shall further provide that when any owner is not in residence at his unit, said owner may rent his unit, provided however, that said owner shall be required to collect and pay to the City transient occupancy tax on such rental in accordance with the City's then existing ordinances. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, applicant shall submit a copy of final CC&R's to the City for compliance review of this condition. US A_TC COA'fT 30096.wpd MONROE STREET d J m La Wuj~ La a ujZ a G- a a MADISON ST C M � N Lo Lo W Z W 4 JEFFERSON ST. Z t ;° O Q U O J F- U W n O a (163 17!- maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. 54. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (North Access): Right turn in, right turn out. B. Secondary Entry (South Access): No turning restrictions. Note: should signal warrants require signalization of the intersection in the future, applicant shall be required to pay for 50% of the signalized intersection. LANDSCAPING 55. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common lots, and park areas. 56. 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. 57. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets. PUBLIC SERVICES 58. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline Transit and approved by the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURAN E 59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 60. 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. ARC COA TT 30096.wpd o6] 177 `buy, °f' 4G'Qxmfw MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: APRIL 24, 2001 SUBJECT: MASTER DESIGN GUIDELINES 2001-014 The Zoning Code requires additional development standards for the Cove Residential area called Master Design Guidelines. Design Guidelines are required for any developer/applicant constructing five or more houses in the RC District. Therefore, when a developer wants to pull a permit for the fifth house, the Guidelines must have been reviewed and accepted by the Planning Commission. James C. Belknap Construction seeks building permit approval for its fifth house. Enclosed is a copy of the Master Design Guidelines from the developer. Proposed are three prototype housing units. The Guidelines contain information as to hove the developer intends to vary the exterior of the units through changes in architectural style, roof types, window and entry treatments and setbacks. Staff has reviewed the Guidelines and determined that each prototype provides the architectural variety as required per Section 9.50.090 of the Zoning Code. These Guidelines, if approved by the Planning Commission will be used to evaluate each building permit application from this developer for compliance with the approved Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2001- approving the Master Design Guidelines as presented. Prepared and Submitted by: 4",�; Christine di lorio, tanning Manager l7S CITY OF LA Q UINTA Community Development Department 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA, CA 92253 760-777-7125 Case No. ©� — / (Check one) e Residential permit $100.00 RCD Date Ca Accepted: 1'b ' �'� —Master Design Guidelines - $250.00 Cove Residential Adjustment - $300.00 Fee required: $ — h'C DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RC Development (RCD) applications are governed by Section 9.50.090 of the Zoning Code ( copy attached). Allsingle family residences in the RC District shall be reviewed pursuant to the Cove Residential Design Procedures. Review and approval by the Community Development Director for application is required.n n A Nature of Request: Lot No: yd� Block No: 2y(2 Unit No: Assessor's Parcel No: ff 2 (List additional lots involve Street Locations)/address: Additional Information: (Additional written material can be submitted separately) ARCHITECTURAL PLANS - Three sets containing the front and, if applicable, street side yard architectural elevations, building floor plan and landscape/irrigation plan shall be submitted with this application unless otherwise determined by Department staff. Color scheme for the proposed unit(s) must also be provided in an appropriate format. ***************************************************************************************************************** (print Name) (Phone/Fax) ' ► C . �1 GRANT DEED, ESCF OW INSTRUCTI0 R OT UITABLE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP IS REQUIRED**** Signature of Applicant} Date: Authority for this app c n i Hereby given: � r // r Signature of Property Any false or misleading irr rmation given in this application shall be gr Signatures and addressesll property owners by this applic submittal. Separate le tersof authorization can be to APR 16 2001 C:\Wrkgrp\Forms\RCDappjic.wpd TY OF (A QUIN FINANCE DEPT