Loading...
2009 01 27 PCCity of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org OF 119 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JANUARY 27, 2009 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2009-002 Beginning Minute Motion 2009-002 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 13, 2009. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman will invite individuals who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. Any person may submit written comments to the Planning Commission before a public hearing, may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-116, ZONE CHANGE 2008- 136, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31434 Applicant........... Monroe Dates Location............ Northeast Corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61. Request ............. Consideration of a Request to Subdivide ±30.26 into 94 Single -Family Residences. Action ............... Resolution 2009 , Resolution 2009-, Resolution 2009-, and Resolution 2009 VI. BUSINESS ITEM: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on February 10, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, January 27, 2009 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on Friday, January 23, 2009. DATED: January �23, 2009 LY W CAROALKER, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty- four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 13, 2009 7:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chairman Ed Alderson who asked Commissioner Weber to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Katie Barrows, Paul Quill, Mark Weber, and Chairman Ed Alderson. Absent: Commissioner Robert Wilkinson. C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Assistant City Manager Doug Evans, Associate Planner Jay Wuu, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chairman Alderson asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of December 9, 2008. There being no changes, or corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Quill, Weber, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Commissioner Wilkinson V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Conditional Use Permit 2005-094, Extension #1; a request by the La Quinta Country Club for consideration of a one-year time extension for use of temporary modular clubhouse facilities while the permanent La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse is being construction at the northeast corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. P:\Reports - PC\2009\1-27-09\Draft Minutes 1-13-09.doc Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. There being no further questions, or public comment, Chairman Alderson closed the public participation portion of the meeting and opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber commented on the nice renovation work being done at the La Quinta Country Club. He mentioned the maintenance building looked completed and the clubhouse was still in progress. He acknowledged the applicant's effort to work with IID on incorporating some energy efficiency measures. He said he was very pleased with the progress made and the direction it was moving towards_._ - There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Quill/Barrows to approve Resolution 2009-001 accepting Conditional Use Permit 2005-094, Extension #1 as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrow, Quill, Weber, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Wilkinson. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Silverrock Clubhouse and Site Plan; a request by the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for review of landscape and site plan for the Silverrock Clubhouse located north of Avenue 54, South of Avenue 52, and west of Jefferson Street. Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Assistant City Manager Doug Evans presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Commissioner Weber asked about the height of the low wall of the event lawn. Assistant City Manager Evans replied the wall would be six to eight feet high depending on the grade level. The idea was to provide screening from the noise and headlights of the cars coming down Silverrock Way. P: Reports - PC,2009=1-27-09'11}raft Minutes 1-13-09 doc 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked about the dimensions of the event lawn. Staff responded with the information. Commissioner Quill said he had worked with the landscape architects before and recognized their design style. He noted their design philosophy was the project should look finished on the day the plants were put in. However, he explained that a one -gallon lantana or gold lantana has a five-foot diameter in one season. Thus, his experience had been that the number of plants could be reduced by fifty percent with no significant impact to the overall look of the property. He commented on applicants having to go back to do an enormous amount of thinning because of too many plants. He then gave an example of what happens when a lantana gets too dense. Commissioner Quill strongly suggested that staff ask the landscape architects to cut back on the plant material. Assistant City Manager Evans replied staff had already had that discussion with them in refining the number of plants, shrubs, and trees. He mentioned there had been pretty strong criticism of the existing Silverrock plant pallet in a number of locations. However, he noted Commissioner Quill's comment and said staff would have further discussion about the number and size of the suggested plants as well as the associated cost. Commissioner Quill said the above was his only comment and other than that, he thought the entire project was absolutely fabulous. Chairman Alderson said there were two predominant types of trees in the parking lot; Mesquite and the Palo Verde. His concern was that these types of trees were not wind resistant when first planted. They have the tendency to tip over during high winds. The parking lot would be an area of high wind exposure. Assistant City Manager Evans replied there were two main problems; one was if the trees were in a larger container and the trees did not break out and get their tap roots down, when irrigated at the surface, they never really take root. He said the irrigation system would have to be executed right and good plant material would have to be obtained. He agreed with Commissioner Quill's comment that, in the desert environment, it would be better to use younger plants and let them grow by irrigating them well. The second problem was thinning the trees properly. He said in the past when a few trees were lost at Silverrock it was because they had not been thinned properly and were too top-heavy and tipped over during a high wind. P:;?eprts - PC.20090-27-09',Draft Minutes 1-13-09 (inc 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Chairman Alderson asked what were the types of trees that fell down. Assistant City Manager Evans replied both Mesquites and Palo Verdes were lost. He stated staff was very cognizant of these problems and would try to avoid having that happen. A missing tree in this project would be very noticeable. Chairman Alderson commented if correct caliper specifications were followed, it would minimize the chances of that happening. Staff responded that the key was to ensure the canopy was not too thick for the root structure which required aggressive maintenance. Commissioner Weber asked if the CVWD requirement, noted on Attachment 3, of a minimum of eight feet wide was their standard. Staff replied it was their standard. Staff added they would be discussing certain areas with CVWD and asking that the standard be reduced for those areas because of the subsurface irrigation and the -_ concern of overspray. He stated staff was conducting regular meetings with CVWD to discuss water conservation and this matter would be closely examined by CVWD staff. He added that further water calculations were needed on the overall resort before staff could submit for approval with CVWD, to ensure the plan was drawn right and to avoid having to re -draw the plans again. Assistant City Manager Evans commented on the Commission's prior concern regarding the building being environmentally designed and currently it was evaluated as a LEED certified building. Staff was hoping to raise that evaluation to Silver. The main credits were for installing solar panels and interior/exterior lighting. Staff worked very closely with IID on interior lighting. Staff's goal was to invest in energy conservation methods that would add long term value to the project. Staff said the City had spent over a million dollars in energy upgrades in the building, meeting and exceeding the requirements of Title 24. Commissioner Barrows thanked staff for conscientiously limiting the lawn area and reducing the water feature by twenty percent. Commissioner Barrows asked about the purpose of the small turf areas located east of the fountain, and east of the drive way entrance along the hardscape. Assistant City Manager Evans replied that part of the turf area was planned at the shuttle drop off area. People could cut across the grass to get to the sidewalk and the designers found it was better to use turf than to use decomposed granite or shrubs. The rest of the area was along a thirty foot wide driveway for buses and golf carts. P;',?eports - PC'%20090-97-0TDrah Minutes 1-1 a 09.11oc 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Commissioner Barrows said she was pleased to see that the types of trees being used for the parking lot were the Mesquite and the Palo Verde. She agreed with Chairman Alderson's concerns and Commissioner Quill's suggestion to use smaller plant material and avoid the possibility of any problems by ensuring correct irrigation. Chairman Alderson asked about the ALRC suggestion to add more palm trees in the entryway of the Clubhouse. Assistant City Manager Evans explained the layout of the palm trees on the landscaping plans and also addressed the ALRC's comments on the types of bougainvillea identified in the plans. He explained the design team's intent in using those types of bougainvillea was in response to current complaints about the landscaping being too much of a desertscape and lacking color. Chairman Alderson thanked Assistant City Manager Evans for incorporating the ALRC comments into his report. Commissioner Webber asked if the thirty feet radius of the parking lot was sufficient for the buses to turn. Assistant City Manager Evans replied the design team felt comfortable that a thirty feet radius was enough. Planning Director Johnson noted that the item being discussed was a business item and not a public hearing item and the Commission could hear any public comments. Assistant City Manager Evans thanked the planning staff for assisting the RDA with preparing the staff report, particularly Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco. Chairman Alderson said the presentation and the report were very well executed. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Quill to approve Minute Motion 2009-001 recommending approval of the Silverrock Clubhouse and Site Plan as submitted. AYES: Commissioners Barrow, Quill, Weber, and Chairman Alderson. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Wilkinson. Pr,Reports - PC,2009r1-27-09k3ra't Mmjtrss 1-13-09 doc 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Planning Director Johnson commented on the materials for the 2009 Planners Institute which was distributed to the Commissioners. He strongly encouraged them to attend. The event would be held in Anaheim, California, on March 25, 2009, through March 27, 2009. Planning Director Johnson asked the Commissioners to notify the planning staff, as soon as possible, whether or not they would be attending. Chairman Alderson asked staff if the agendas from previous sessions had been cross-referenced with this year's agenda and if so were there any new items or have the topics remained the same. Planning Director Johnson replied that the vast majority of the sessions were new, concurrent sessions for this year. Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Commissioner Weber reported on the City Council Meeting of December 16, 2008, including the details on the amendment of the project scope for the Village Design and the Strategic Plan. Planning Director Johnson explained staff was trying to ensure that the development regulation standards and Village Design guidelines were emphasizing the right characteristics for the Village. Staff was trying to hone in and further define some of the strong points in regards to pedestrian orientation, appropriate mass and scale for structures, and the types of land uses, to better define the Village in the future. Chairman Alderson asked if the new Council Member was introduced during the last Council meeting. Planning Director Johnson replied there was an acknowledgment of outgoing Council Member Osborne and the recognition of his service and an introduction of the new Council member Kristy Franklin. B. Chairman Alderson noted he was scheduled to report back on the January 20, 2009, Council meeting. C. Planning Director Johnson said that staff had consulted with the City Clerk's office and a tentative date of October 27, 2009, had been identified for the Joint Council Meeting, with an anticipated start time of 5:00 P.M. P: Reports - PC,20090-27-09,Dra-t Mm.,tes i-13-09-doc 6 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 D. Chairman Alderson noted he was very pleased with the Commission's attendance update. E. Planning Director Johnson said staff was looking into the best possible date for the Joint ALRC/PC Meeting and looked like it would be scheduled for either February 24, 2009, or March 10, 2009. He mentioned staff had been discussing the Joint ALRC/PC meeting date with the ALRC Members and identifying the agenda items. Staff was hoping to.present the agenda items to the Planning Commission for approval at the February 10, 2009, meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: Chairman Alderson opened the discussion of the Development Application Requirements. Planning Director Johnson said the proposed Site Development Permit Application had a lot of detail identified within it, but most of those items were already required. He explained there were not many new items that were added, other than identifying some of the key Public Works studies upfront. Staff's intent was to get to a more definitive level of detail so that an applicant would better understand what information would be needed. Staff's hope was that this would result in more detailed and complete applications being submitted. Staff's ability to gather as much information as possible up front that is pertinent and relevant to the project would help expedite the review process and staff's ability to get the applications in front of the Commission and Council for review. Commissioner Quill said the application was pretty extensive and asked staff when an applicant was submitting an application, how easy would it be for staff to determine and convey to the applicant what would be needed and what would not. He asked if the planner on duty would be able to make that determination or if the Planning Director and/or the Planning Manager would have to be consulted first, and if so, how quickly would the applicant be notified. Planning Director Johnson replied the vast majority of submitted applications were usually preceded with pre -application meetings with staff. These were not required, but were strongly encouraged by staff. He mentioned there is a Project Review Team that meets every other Monday which was when such proposals would be reviewed and at that time staff would determine what requirements would be applicable based on the preliminary proposal. P:,Reports - PC`.2009,1-27-091Drah Mmites 1-13 09.dcc Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Planning Director Johnson said he did not expect the planning staff to be able to determine what would be required on all applications at the time of submission because that would depend highly on what the application was for. A lot of times it would require a more through review than a quick glance at the counter. Planning Manager David Sawyer explained staff was using the Site Development Permit application as a prototype and there would be a number of other applications that would use it as a base and the requirements would be adjusted accordingly. He said staff's goal was to refine the applications. Planning Manager Sawyer noted that one of the most common complaints encountered by staff, was when asking for additional information. He said staff's intent was to inform the applicant upfront what would be needed in order to be able to review the application and make comments. He explained the application process and how the decision would be made to waive certain requirements if they were not applicable. Commissioner Quill said staff should notify the applicant as soon as possible if a resource study or a biological study was not needed to avoid incurring extra expense. Planning Manager Sawyer replied staff encouraged applicants to consult with them from the beginning to determine what items would be needed. Commissioner Weber noted that change was always accompanied with difficulties and complications and a learning curve for all parties involved. He said he liked the layout of the application as it appeared more standardized and professional. He found the application to be more customer friendly in the long term. He agreed with staff that the level of detail incorporated in the application would avoid possible delays of the process and that the applicant was aware of that fact. Commissioner Weber asked about the semantic choice to use certain words in the application. Staff explained the reasoning for those choices. Chairman Alderson echoed Commissioner Quill's comment on the urgency and importance of letting the applicant know as soon as possible what requirements would be applicable and what would not. He said it was critical to have a staff member who would be able to assess that. Planning Director Johnson replied there were very few Site Development Permit applications submitted without any prior dialogue with staff. He reiterated that staff encouraged applicants to consult with them before actually submitting an application and to go through the informal project review process even though it was not required. P:,Reports - PC%2009 1-27 09'Drsft Minutes 1-13-09 doc 8 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Commissioner Weber asked if there was any need or a legal obligation to reference the Zoning or the Municipal Codes on the application. Commissioner Quill replied the front page of the application referenced that. Commissioner Weber asked if the reference to the Coachella Valley Water District's Landscaping and Irrigation System Design Ordinance on page 8 of 12, was in fact ordinance of CVWD. Commissioner Quill replied it was. Commissioner Weber asked if this application update would be the place for the Commission and staff to include some type of language encouraging and counseling the applicants that they be sensitive to both water and energy efficiency. Planning Director Johnson replied the requirements stated in the application were determined by the City and the Water District standards. Staff's intent was to make applicants aware of these provisions so the applicant does not plan lush landscaping. Planning Director Johnson explained that at this point in time, without having any definitive policy, it would be difficult to include a provision requiring the applicants to ensure overall sustainability of the projects. He said staff informs applicants of the efficiency programs available through IID and of the issue of water efficiency not only pertaining to irrigation, but to water features, as well as the fact that the City was interested in sustainability practices. There was a discussion on plausible legislation on future sustainability requirements in regards to water efficiency, energy efficiency, pedestrian connectivity, gas use, etc. and the different types of LEED buildings. Commissioner Barrows said she was pleased that staff was encouraging applicants to incorporate energy efficiency measures in designing the buildings. Commissioner Barrows said her understanding was that the City had adopted a resolution in support of the BIA's Green Builder Program. She asked if there was a way to notify all applicants of those guidelines and the fact that the City does encourage them. Planning Director Johnson replied his understanding was that the action taken by Council was to express support for the program, but it was not officially adopted as a defined minimum requirement. City Council has previously stated it was very interested in continuing to encourage and promote sustainable programs, but did not want to increase the standard baseline outlined by Title 24 at this time. He explained that this particular program was more oriented P::Reports - PC112009 1 27-09.Draft Minutes 1-13-09.60c 9 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 towards the building plans and the building permit process which was handled by the Building and Safety Department and they were acknowledging it and had information available to hand out. Planning Director Johnson said the planning staff was trying to ask applicants very global questions regarding energy consumption relevant to their project in order to get people thinking about and trying to make projects more sustainable. Chairman Alderson said, having spent most of his life on the other side of the counter, as a developer, if a staff member handed him an application twelve pages long that was only five pages long yesterday, he would want to know what was cause for the change. He said staff had touched upon this subject earlier in the discussion by saying that staff's intent was to obtain applications that are complete to avoid delays later on in the process. Chairman Alderson noted that when the two applications were compared line by line, there were very few changes and that the updated application outlined the. requirements specifically, almost to a point where it became overwhelming. Chairman Alderson applauded the detail to which staff had addressed the items needed from the applicant to complete the application. He referenced a few items in the Site Development Permit application and asked staff for clarification which staff provided. Chairman Alderson asked about the items addressed by the ALRC with regards to the application. Planning Manager Sawyer said staff had distributed the updated draft application to the different departments within the City, had presented it to the ALRC. Staff's intent was to pull all of the comments received and to make one final revision to it for presentation to the Council for comments. Chairman Alderson said it was important for staff to inform the applicants of what would be required to process the application from the very beginning. Planning Manager Sawyer said his experience with improving and refining applications like this, was that not everyone would be pleased, but the majority of the developers would be very happy that staff was letting them know what would be needed from the beginning. Commissioner Quill agreed with staff, and Chairman Alderson that the updated application was a good and thorough template. P;'.Reports - PC2009%1-27-09'1Draft Minites 1-13 09.doc 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 13, 2009 Planning Director Johnson asked the Commissioners to share with staff any feedback they might receive as the application was being implemented. He said staff always welcomes constructive criticism. He said staff wanted to be prepared and responsive to peoples' concerns and be a resource to them. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Weber to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on January 27, 2009. This regular meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. on January 13, 2009. Respectfully submitted, Monika Radeva, Secretary City of La Quinta, California R;Illeports1-13-09.dco I PH#A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 27, 2009 CASE NOS.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-116, ZONE CHANGE 2008-136, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 31434 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC (CRAIG KNIGHT) ENGINEER: MDS CONSULTING LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MONROE STREET, AT THE WEST TERMINATION OF AVENUE 61 REQUEST: CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A AGRICULTURAL/ EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY /AGRICULTURAL -EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND SUBDIVISION OF 30.2± ACRES INTO 94 SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597 FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-116, ZONE CHANGE 2008-136, AND TENTATIVE TRACT 31434 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT WITH MITIGATION THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LDR (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN AGRICULRURAL / EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY) ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURE-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL) 1 PAReports - PC\2009\1-27-09\TTM 31434 Monroe Dates\tt 31434 monroe dates pc rpt.doc SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: RMH / TRILOGY COUNTRY CLUB SOUTH: RMH / TRILOGY COUNTRY CLUB EAST: RM AND RL (LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURE- EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL)/ APPROVED TTM 31733 AND VACANT IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, RESPECTIVELY WEST: RMH / TRILOGY COUNTRY CLUB BACKGROUND The site consists of two lots with 1,322 feet of depth and 997 feet of street frontage on the west side of Monroe Street at the west termination of Avenue 61. The project site is surrounded on the north, south and west by Trilogy Country Club (Attachment 1). The site once was improved with a single-family residence and large pool. These improvements have been demolished. Approximately three -fourths of the site with the exception of the northeast quadrant of the site is planted in date palm trees which were previously farmed. Approximately 12 full grown Washingtonia fan palms exist near the northeast corner of the site along Monroe Street. Block walls exist around the property which was constructed by the surrounding Trilogy Country Club. Previously, in 2005 the applicant had proposed a 118 single-family lot non -aged restricted subdivision on the 30.2 acre property (Attachment 2). A Planning Commission public hearing was held on that request in June, 2005 (Attachment 3). At the hearing a number of adjacent Trilogy home owners spoke in opposition to, or raised questions about the project. Their concerns included items such as noise from cars and residents, retention basin maintenance, lot size compatibility and removal of the date.palm trees. The Planning Commission requested the applicant redesign the project and removed it from the Planning Commission calendar. They noted it lacked creative design, needed clarification of recreational facilities, and possibly was too.high in density (7,700 square foot average lot size). They provided the following general direction to the applicant: 1. Provide narrower interior private streets, with no parking or parking on one side only. Parking on both sides of the streets was proposed. 2. Provide a design for the project entry area. 3. Identify the miscellaneous lots and their uses. The applicant did not submit a redesigned proposal to Staff and the case was closed in 2007. K P:\Reports - PC\2009\1-27-09\TTM 31434 Monroe Dates\tt 31434 monroe dates pc rpt.doc PROJECT REQUEST Overview: The same applicant is now proposing an adult, age restricted community consisting of 94 single-family lots on the site. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications are needed to permit the proposed subdivision. General Plan Amendment: The property is designated Low Density Residential with an Agricultural/ Equestrian Overlay by the General Plan. The overlay exists over some of the eastern residentially zoned parts of the City and all of the City Sphere of Influence and is intended to maintain and allow agricultural and equestrian land uses in the eastern part of the City and its Sphere of Influence. Dates were grown on the subject property in the past, but that ceased a number of years ago due to the trees advanced age and height. The General Plan Amendment request proposes to remove the Agricultural/Equestrian overlay leaving the property with a Low Density Residential designation. This would allow single family lot development at a maximum density of 4 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The proposed subdivision is at 3.1 du/ac. In addition to this amendment, a zone change is required to change the zoning to be in conformance with the Low Density Residential General Plan designation. Zone Change: The Zone Change is requesting changing the Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District zoning to Low Density Residential, which allows minimum 7,200 square foot single family lots and up to 4 du/ac. The existing Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District requires a minimum 10,000 square foot lot and allows a density of approximately 3 du/ac. Additionally, it permits limited equestrian and agricultural uses. The applicant is proposing 94 single family lots which is approximately 3.1 du/ac, with no agricultural or equestrian uses identified. The applicant states the smallest proposed residential lot is 8,668 square feet exceeding the minimum 7,200 square foot size required under the proposed Low Density Residential zoning but not meeting the 10,000 square foot requirement of the Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District. Tentative Tract Map: The proposed tract would consist of 94 single-family lots (Attachment 4). Several miscellaneous lots would be created for landscaping, private streets and storm water retention (two lots). The applicant indicates the residences would be restricted to those 55 years old and above. 3 PAReports - PC\2009\1-27-09\TTM 31434 Monroe Dates\tt 31434 monroe dates pc rpt.doc The proposed Low Density Residential (RL) zoning requires a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet. All proposed lots exceed this requirement with the smallest lot being 8,380 square feet, the largest being 16,236 square feet with an average lot size of 9,694 square feet. Stormwater retention will be held in two basins, one near the center of the site and the second at the southeast corner of the property adjacent to Monroe Street. In the previous proposal this second basin was to be a CVWD well site. It has since been determined that a well site is not needed for this project. By providing this second basin the original larger basin's depth has been reduced. Both basins will be landscaped to provide a visual amenity. The vehicular circulation for the tract is laid out in two connecting loops and utilizes private curvilinear streets and two cul-de-sacs. The project will have private 36-foot wide curvilinear streets except for two short 33-foot wide dead-end sections. The wider street sections will allow on -street parking on both sides of the street. Access to the gated community is via Monroe Street and aligns with Avenue 61 to the east. A twelve -foot wide landscape median is shown in the private street entry. An emergency vehicle access connection is shown to Monroe Street is proposed near the north end of the tract between Lots 6 and 7. The project does not propose to provide any recreational amenities. As noted, the retention basins will be landscaped. Landscaping and home plans will be submitted at a later date. Grading of the tract will place the residential pads anywhere from even to approximately three feet below the adjacent Trilogy Country Club house pad levels. SB 18 NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION As required by Senate Bill 18, Staff notified the local Native -American tribes of the General Plan Amendment request, giving them the opportunity to request consultation on the project and its effects on Native -American cultural resources. No responses were received from any of the tribes. Therefore, the requirements of Senate Bill 18 have been complied with. ANALYSIS The previous Tentative Tract Map submittal in 2005 was objected to by the neighbors and Planning Commission because it lacked creativity, was too dense, and could create nuisances. This new design addresses many of the previous concerns. The design provides larger lots, and is laid out in a design that utilizes meandering streets, cul-de- sacs and two connecting loops. The lots are larger than those in Trilogy abutting the property and the intention is that the project be an adult community. On site streets are proposed to allow parking on both sides assuring visitors and residents will have adequate street parking. The layout of the tract is generally acceptable and Staff believes it to be compatible with surrounding properties. 0 PAReports - PC\2009\1-27-09\TTM 31434 Monroe Dates\tt 31434 monroe dates pc rpt.doc The General Plan Amendment request would remove the agricultural and equestrian overlay from the property. This would be compatible with the surrounding Trilogy property on three sides, and KB Homes tract to the east. The Trilogy and KB Homes properties are zoned Medium Density, but a lower density is compatible with those properties. Common area, entry and perimeter landscaping plans have not been submitted to date because the applicant wanted to insure that the design issue of the tract layout was resolved first. Landscaping and home plans will be approved separately under a Site Development Permit. The existing Washingtonia fan palms appear to be in excellent condition. They should be retained and incorporated into the landscape near the project entry and/or in the retention basin bottoms or edges. The previous tentative tract map proposed in 2005 provided two common lots labeled for "play and recreation". These were provided because of the family orientation of the project. No definitive plans of what these areas would consist of, was provided. The current map proposes no recreational amenities or facilities, according to the applicant because of the adult nature of the project. Staff recommends a walking path around the top of the larger retention basin (Lot H) leading to a gazebo -type structure at the southeast corner of it would provide an amenity appropriate for adults. The walkway should tie in with and include the retention basin access between Lots 78 and 79. One of the items discussed in the 2005 review was providing narrower streets with one side or no on street parking. Staff has discussed this with the applicant. The applicant feels streets with parking on both sides as he is proposing provides a safer walking and driving environment and is more compatible with the upscale adult type of project he envisions. He also notes that Trilogy which surrounds his site on three sides provides parking on both sides of the street. The Conditions of Approval allow the 36' wide streets, but permit a reduction in width (Condition #22.13.4). The proposed finish grade of the lots adjacent to Trilogy, are lower than the adjacent Trilogy residential lots, except for one lot which is even with the existing Trilogy lot. This will help to minimize impacts on the adjacent properties. Furthermore, Section 9.60.310 of the Municipal Code restricts homes on the boundary where homes abut the tract, to a one story height for compatibility. The applicant states he has met with the adjacent Trilogy property owners and homeowners association to show them his current proposal. He indicates they felt the project was acceptable to them. Public Notice These applications were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 16, 2009. 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 Code. To date, no comments have been received. W PAReports - PC\2009\1-27-09\TTM 31434 Monroe Dates\tt 31434 monroe dates pc rpt.doc Public Agency Review All written comments received are on file with the Planning Department. All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of Approval for this case. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS Findings necessary to recommend approval of this request to the City Council can be made and contained in the attached Resolutions for the Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Tentative Tract Map. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2008-597, subject to the attached Findings; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2008-1 16, subject to the attached Findings; and 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2008-136, subject to the attached Findings; and 4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2009- , recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Prior TTM 31434 map exhibit 3. Planning Commission minutes for the meeting of June 14, 2005 3. Current TTM 31434 exhibit Prepared by: Stan Sawa, Principal Planner 0 P:\Reports - PC\2009\1-27-09\TTM 31434 Monroe Dates\tt 31434 monroe dates pc rpt.doc ATTACHMENT 1 10 86 z = AIRPORT BOULEVARD AVENUE 60 PROJECT SITE TRACT 31434 AVENUE 61 I� I AVENUE 62 CASE No. LOCATION MAP CASE MAP ORT TT 31434 MONROE DATES ' SCALE: NTS ATTACHMENT 3 Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 ROLL CALL: AYES:Commissioners Alderson, Chairman Kirk. NOES: None. P None. Ladner, Quill and None. ABSTAIN: 23. It was moved and seconded by Comrnfisioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Commission Resoluti 2005-022 recommending approval of Zone Change 2005-12 es amended a. Change the zoning from dium Density to Medium High Density. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Iderson, Daniels, Ladner, Quill and Chairman Kirk. NO : None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 24. It was moved and se nded by Commissioners Quill/Alderson to adopt Planning Conjillhission Resolution 2005-023 recommending approval /Cditioln: elopment Permit 2005-826, as recommended and amen a. AdAn open connection shall be provided to the Cithe north end. b. Co1: Delete reference to the deleting the date p m trees. C. ondition added: The basketball court shall be moved to the south 15 feet from property line. d Condition added: Plan 2 elevation shall be modified where possible to add windows to the east. If not possible on the west, some other type of architecture treatment shall be added. ZOLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Alderson, Daniels, Quill and Chairman Ibirlao fel^OWmissioner Ladner. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. �.�> B. Environmental Assessment 2005-536 Zone Change 2005-123, and Tentative Tract Map 31434; a request of Monroe Dates for consideration of a request to certify a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental. impact, a Zone Change from Low Density/Agriculture-Equestrian Residential to Low Density Residential, and the subdivision of 28.7± acres into 118 single-family lots for the property located on the west side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61. 9 G:1WpDOCS1PC Minutes\6.14-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 1. Chairman Kirk 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 Kirk asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the lots that abut Trilogy are single - story homes. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Daniels asked if Trilogy had a condition limiting them to one-story. Staff stated the homes were approved under the County and not reviewed by staff. Commissioner Daniels asked if the open space lots would remain open. Staff stated they are defined as play/recreation or common area lots. Commissioner Daniels asked that they remain open space. He asked about the traffic calming methods and why 36-foot wide streets were needed on streets with a traffic calming effect. Staff stated they would be restricted to parking on one side of the street if the streets are narrower. 3. Commissioner Alderson asked if the emergency access would also be the construction access. Staff stated yes, and it would be gated for fire and police access only at the completion of the tract. 4. Commissioner Ladner asked about the density change in regard to what Trilogy is zoned. Staff explained. 5. Commissioner Quill asked if the height restriction for the residences on the lots would come to the Commission. Staff explained that if it were a custom lot subdivision, the elevation plans would not come to the Commission. Staff would review them to ensure they would not exceed the height limitation. 6. Chairman Kirk asked for clarification that the applicant was asking for a density change from three to four units to the acre. Staff stated yes. Chairman Kirk asked for the justification to the zone change. Staff stated basically there would be no agricultural or equestrian uses that would warrant the existing zoning. 7. Chairman Kirk asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Craig Knight gave a presentation on the project. 8. Commissioner Daniels asked about the roundabout or restriction for traffic calming. Mr. Knight stated they determined the 9 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-1405.doc Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 ' restriction was a better method. Lot "J" has nothing planned for it specifically. It is an open space with landscaping. 9. Commissioner Alderson asked if the grades had import fill due to the neighboring project. Mr. Knight stated yes, and more infill will be needed to reach the same height for a shared wall for the entire site. 10. Commissioner Daniels asked why he was requesting 36-foot wide streets. Mr. Knight stated he had no particular reason except to have the ability to park on both sides of the street. 11. Chairman Kirk asked if there was any other public comment. Mr. Candelario Felix, 65-575 Orchid Court stated he lived about a half mile from this project and had no objection to the project. 12. Mr. Mike Keebler, representing CVUSD, stated the District is requesting a bus turn -out on Monroe Street. 13. Ms. Natalie Levi, 81-730 Sun Cactus Lane, stated one concern is , that there are no CC&R's or HOA for the proposed tract, and asked who would be responsible for the common areas. These could be significant impacts on their community. 14. Mr. Nick Pandullo, 60-680 O'Rourke Circle, stated his concern was that his home is 150 feet from the retention basin. Retention basins are problematic and it should be redesigned as a detention basin. Retention basins create mosquito breeding places if water is retained which presents an environmental detriment. Who is going to maintain the basin? There is no pathway for emergency overflow. Another issue is noise pollution that will be created by the lots being located right behind their wall. Lastly, they would like the Commission to consider rearranging the units away from their rear wall. 15. Mr. Kenneth Biba, 81-749 Sun Cactus Lane, addressed concerns contained in the Environmental Assessment in regard to how this tract is building upon the tracts in the area. This tract is nothing like the other homes in the area. 16. Ms. Linda" Gibbs, 81-857 Sun Cactus Lane, stated her concern ' was also the retention basin concern, standing water nuisance, noise pollution, and that it is not zoned compatible with the 10 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6.14-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes ' June 14, 2005 adjoining communities. She requests it be reconfigured to be more compatibility by allowing more space between the two communities. Lastly, they would like to request that one palm tree be planted for each tree removed. 17. Mr. Robert Schultz, 60-402 Chelsea Court, stated he agrees with what has been stated. 18. Mr. Tom Sullivan, 79-440 Citrus Street, represents two home owners at Trilogy. He does believe the property owner has the right to develop his property, but also, the existing property owners have the right to protect their property. He then submitted an alternative design for the project. 19. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 20. Commissioner Daniels stated his confusion as he has never heard of putting a street next to someone's back yard. On the issue of CC&R's and a HOA, he is not clear as to how the applicant intends to maintain these facilities. In addition, a condition needs to be added to accommodate Coachella Valley Unified School District's request for a bus turnout. As to the retention/detention basin issue, he would like to have staff assure no ponding would be created. 21. Commissioner Ladner stated any gated community must have a CC&Rs to define the maintenance responsibilities. She too agrees she would prefer a backyard to a backyard than a street. In regard to the retention basin, Trilogy has a golf course that will always have standing water somewhere. The retention basin has a lesser chance of having standing water than the golf course. 22. Commissioner Alderson stated he visited the site and was impressed with the wall and with the height limitation. He does not agree the retention basin will be a health issue. He does agree with the inclusion of palm trees back into the project. He also believes the developer has been sensitive to his neighbors in the design and layout of the tract. 23. Commissioner Quill stated there is a greater risk of West Nile from the agricultural uses in the area than a retention basin that is 11 GAWPD0CS%PC Minutes\5.14-05.doc Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 2005 ' required to be maintained by CC&R's. In regard to someone buying a house next to a wall with vacant land, this is an issue of a buyer beware. The tract lacks any form of creativity in the design. Lot sizes are significantly small for the area. Does not like the layout as there are no cul-de-sacs, traffic calming methods in the curvilinear streets are insignificant in regard to performing the function they are proposed. The application is inadequate and poor and he is not impressed. 24. Chairman Kirk stated he too agrees with the lack of creative layout on project. He is not in agreement with the neighbors concerns. He agrees this is not a thought out design. He is concerned about the project entrance. He needs to see a lot more detail. Lot J is not identified as to its use and how it is to be designed. He also is not convinced this project needs to go from three to four dwelling units per acre. For density increases the Commission should see something special and he does not believe it is. 25. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant would prefer to have a continuance. Discussion followed regarding potential action by the I Commission. 26. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Daniels to remove the application from the calendar. Staff would renoticed the public hearing when revised plans are submitted. Chairman Kirk provided the following direction to the applicant: a. Provide narrow streets, no parking on street or one side; b. Provide a design for the project entry; and C. Identify the miscellaneous lots and their uses. Unanimously approved. Chairman Kirk recessed the meeting at 9:07 and reconvened at 9:17 p.m. flan 97-029 Amendment No. 4; a request of Stamko Development Co. for consideration of a new driveway access on Adams treet and a design change to the internal circulation pattern, access, a re tion basin, high density housing with an affordable component, for the p erty located on the east side of Adams Street, south of Auto ' Centre D e. 12 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\6-14-05.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-597, ZONE CHANGE 2008-136 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 31434 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-597 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 271h day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Monroe Dates, LLC for Environmental Assessment 2005-536 prepared for General Plan Amendment 2008-1 16, Zone Change 2008-136 and Tentative Tract 31434, located on the west side of Monroe Street at the west termination of Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 and 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-597) and has determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effecting this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be adopted; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2008-597. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants 13 pAreports-pc\2009\1 -1 3-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\ea 2008-597 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Environmental Assessment 2008-597 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any endangered or threatened wildlife. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. The property has not been identified as a habitat for any endangered or threatened wildlife. Furthermore, landscaping will be installed which may provide some habitat. 4. The proposed project do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. If the project is approved as proposed, is will be in compliance with the General Plan and in conformance with surrounding development. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2008-597 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d►. 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Planning Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Environmental Assessment 2008-597 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2008-597 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached and on file in the Planning Department. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2008-597 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27`h day of January, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 15 Environmental Checklist Form (EA 2008-597) 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment 2008-116; Zone Change 2006-136; Tentative Tract Map 31434. "Monroe Dates LLC" 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Stan Sawa 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The west side of Monroe Street, north and south of Avenue 61. Assessor's Parcel No. 764-280-014, -015. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Monroe Dates LLC 1387 Ambassador Way Salt Lake City, UT 84108 6. General Plan Designation: 7. Zoning: Existing: Low Density Residential, Low Existing: Low Density Residential, Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Proposed: Low Density Residential Residential Proposed: Low Density Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The proposal includes a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to remove the Low Density Agriculture/Equestrian Residential overlay from 30.26 acres located on the west side of Monroe Street, north and south of Avenue 61. This overlay provides special standards and requirements associated with lot size and land uses in this portion of the City. The Tentative Tract Map proposes the subdivision of the 30.26 acres into 94 single family residential lots of 8,668 square feet or more, as well as lots for a well site, retention and landscaping areas, and streets. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy) South: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy) East: Monroe Street, North of Avenue 61: existing single family residential (Tract Map 31733). South of Avenue 61: existing agriculture. West: Existing single family residential and golf course (Trilogy) 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) -1- 16 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology/ Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 project proponent. 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" impact 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date -2- 17 S Y 'L-V - 1� ;A'! �_ sn Hl9 � 1 4 Y IN! EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVfl, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -4- 19 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock X outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and X its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial X light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on scenic vistas. The proposed project is surrounded on three sides by existing single family development, and proposes single family homes of similar size and mass. The project does not include the design of the homes at this time. However, the zoning ordinance allows one and two story construction in the Low Density Residential zone, and it can be expected that one and two stories will be proposed for the project site. The views and scenic vistas in this part of the City occur to the west and south. The proposed project will not obstruct these vistas, as the site is on the Valley floor, some distance from the foothills, and views of the mountains will remain. The site is currently a date grove, and the date palms will be removed as a result of the implementation of the proposed project. The grove is man-made, however, and does not constitute a significant stand of trees. No historic buildings occur on the site. The proposed project will eventually construct single family homes on the site, of a similar size, and on similarly sized lots as those already surrounding the site. The project site is the last remaining parcel on the west side of Monroe in this area which is not developed. The project will therefore have no impact on the visual character of the area. d) The project site is currently vacant. Development of the single family homes will result in limited lighting associated with landscaping and architectural lighting. The level of lighting is expected to be consistent with that already occurring in the area, and will not significantly increase lighting levels in the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. -5- 20 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X 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 X or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on agricultural resources. The project site is currently in agriculture. Development of the homes which will result from implementation of the proposed project will result in the loss of 30 acres of date grove in the area. However, the site is surrounded by development on three sides, and is not conducive to the long term use in agricultural production. Further, the site is too small to represent a significant agricultural production area in the long tern. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site. The site is designated for residential development, and such development has occurred surrounding the site. The implementation of the proposed project will have no impact on lands currently in agriculture to the east, insofar as these parcels can continue to be farmed with or without the proposed project. Impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected to be less than significant. -6- 21 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (General Plan EIR) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (General Plan EIR) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (General Plan EIR) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Application materials) III. a) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on air quality. The implementation of the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation assigned to the site, in terms of density proposed. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which has jurisdiction over air quality management in the region, has based its air quality management planning on each jurisdiction's General Plan. Therefore, the proposed project was considered in SCAQMD planning efforts, and is consistent with the air quality management plans in effect for the City. b)- e) The City, and Coachella Valley, are in non -attainment for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The City can be subject to high winds, which can suspend dust and sand in the air, and cause unhealthful conditions. Air emissions will occur during construction and the life of the project, primarily those associated with vehicle emissions. Construction and long term emissions are addressed individually below. Grading and Construction It is expected that the site will be mass graded. As a result, as shown in Table 1, the -7- 22 site has the potential to generate up to 798.9 pounds of fugitive dust during the grading process. The City will require that the project prepare a fugitive dust management plan, which will include site watering or other stabilization measure, and other controls of the grading process to reduce air emissions. This plan is required to reduce emissions associated with fugitive dust to the greatest extent possible. In addition, mitigation is proposed below to limit the area to be graded, in order to reduce the potential for fugitive dust generation. The combination of these two measures will reduce impacts associated with fugitive dust to less than significant levels. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (pounds uer dav) Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout (Ibs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) 30.26 26.4 798.9 South Coast Air Quality Management District " CEQA Air Quality Handbook" In addition to fugitive dust, the proposed project will generate air emissions from the heavy equipment used in the grading process. These emissions, and the emissions generated by the worker trips associated with this phase of construction, are summarized in Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading equipment air emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less than significant. Table 2 Grading Equipment Emissions # hrs/ Equipment Pieces day CO NOx ROG SOx* PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Grader 2 8 9.81 20.00 2.45 0.02 1.04 0.92 2,123.2 Crawler Tractors 0 8 - - - - Scrapers 1 8 8.79 20.54 2.33 0.02 0.87 0.77 2,100.0 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 1 8 3.06 4.65 0.69 0.01 0.35 0.31 534A Rubber Tired Dozer 1 8 9.99 21.49 2.49 0.02 0.91 0.81 1,912.8 Off -Highway Trucks 1 8 5.31 16.13 1.79 0.02 0.57 0.51 2,080.8 Other Construction Equipment 2 8 6.16 13.76 7.83 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.18 Total 43.11 96.58 17.59 0.23 3.78 3.36 8,751 Source: EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) SCAB Fleet Average Emission Factors (Diesel) for 2012. *PM2.5 is 89% of PM10, based on South Coast Air Quality Management District's "Final- Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. PM 10 accounts for all particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. During grading, worker trips will also contribute to air emissions in the area. Table 3, below, illustrates the combined emissions from these trips and the equipment emissions shown in Table 2. As shown in the Table, grading emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and the impacts will be less than significant. -8- 23 Table 3 Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NOx ROG SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Equipment Emissions 43.11 96.58 17.59 0.23 3.78 3.36 8,751.38 Workers' Vehicle Emissions 4.33 3.39 0.57 0.01 0.14 0.11 725.21 Total Construction Emissions 47.44 99.97 18.16 0.24 3.92 3.48 9,476.59 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A Construction activities will follow the grading process. It is expected that homes will be built in groups on the site, and not all 94 homes will be constructed at one time. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that up to 25 units would be in production at any one time. The construction of these units will generate air emissions from the application of coatings, the paving of streets, and the use of mobile and stationary equipment. Table 4 summarizes the emissions expected during the construction process. As shown in the Table, construction activities are not expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less than significant. Table 4 Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions Summary (pounds Der dav) CO NOx ROG SOX PM1 0 PM2.5 CO2 Equipment Emissions Workers' Vehicle Emissions Asphalt Paving Emissions Architectural Coatings Emissions 23.06 17.33 - - 41.16 13.58 - - 5.83 2.28 0.52 46.25 0.05 0.03 - - 2.46 0.55 - - 2.19 0.46 - - 4,755.20 2,900.86 - - Total Construction Emissions 40.40 54.74 54.88 0.08 3.01 2.64 7,656.06 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A Operational Emissions The primary source of air pollutants generated by the project will be from vehicle trips to and from the project site. The Institute of Transportation Engineers estimates that single family homes generate 9.57 trips per day. At build out, therefore, the proposed project will generate 900 trips per day. Based on these trips, the emissions from the vehicles can be estimated, and are shown in Table 5. Table 5 Daily Exhaust Emissions at Project Build Out (pounds per day) -9- 24 Total Miles Traveled per Pollutant CO NOx ROG Sox PMto PM2.5 CO2 Passenger Vehicles 76.18 7.36 8.37 0.14 1.24 0.81 14,642.65 Delivery Trucks 2.92 3.17 0.44 0.01 0.13 0.10 764.46 Total Pounds per Day 79.10 10.53 8.80 0.15 1.37 0.91 15,407 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 100.0 of Significance 0 0 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A Source: EMFAC 2007 (Version 2.3) Emissions Factors for On -Road Passenger Vehicles & Delivery Trucks. Passenger Vehicles are < 8500 lbs, and Delivery Trucks are > 8500 lbs. Passenger vehicles are assumed to be traveled by 98% of the total trips and delivery trucks represent 2% of total miles traveled. As illustrated in the Table, the long term operation of the proposed project will not exceed thresholds of significance established by SCAQMD. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. Obiectionable Odors The proposed project will consist of single family homes which will only generate cooking and similar odors. These are not expected to be objectionable. No impacts are expected. Mitigation Measures 1. Grading on the project site shall be limited to no more than 10 acres of active grading during any one day. -10- 25 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or x ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, X Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -11- 26 IV. a) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on biological resources. The project site is not in its native condition, and consists of disturbed agricultural lands. A biological survey prepared in 2003 found that the site is entirely in agriculture, two- thirds of it being a date grove, and the balance an abandoned agricultural field. The on - site survey found no sensitive species, and the trapping survey found no species of concern. The site is within the boundary of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, but not within a conservation area for the Plan. The project will be required to pay mitigation fees, which are designed to mitigate all impacts to covered species. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. b)-f) The project site does not contain any riparian areas or wetlands. The project site is isolated, being surrounded by development, and does not provide a migratory corridor. No policies relating to biological resource preservation will be affected by the proposed project's build out. No impacts are expected. -12- 27 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V.a), b) & d) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on cultural resources. The project site is in agricultural production. However, a cultural resource analysis was prepared for the site. The Phase I report identified one prehistoric resource, and two potential historic resources on the site (two wells). The wells, upon further investigation, were found to be of no historic significance. The prehistoric resource was identified as a scatter of pottery and stone, which had the potential to be significant. As a result, a testing program was undertaken. The testing found that the site does not have the potential to be significant. All testing was reported, and materials collected and analyzed in an appropriate manner, to the extent necessary. No further analysis of this location is necessary. However, there is the potential that other resources, buried beneath the soil surface, could occur on the site. This would constitute a potentially significant impact which requires mitigation, as follows: 1. A qualified archaeological monitor will be present on the site during any ground disturbing activity, including removal of the existing trees on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and/or redirect ground disturbing activities, should a resource be uncovered. A recovery plan shall be prepared and implemented should this occur. The monitor shall report on the monitoring effort in writing, and provide the City with the report within 30 days of the completion of the grading on the site. Implementation of this mitigation measure will assure that impacts associated with the proposed project will be reduced to less than significant levels. 1 "Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment..." prepared by Archaeological Advisory Group, July 2003, and "Archaeological Testing and Evaluation Report" prepared by CRM Tech, September, 2003. -13- 28 The proposed project site is not known to have been the location of a burial ground. California law requires that contractors immediately notify law enforcement officials should human remains be identified when grading occurs on the project site. This requirement assures that impact to human remains will be less than significant. V. c) The project site occurs within the traditional boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. A paleontological study was prepared for the project sitez. The study found mollusk shells on the site during the field survey. The destruction of these resources would represent a potentially significant impact, which requires mitigation, as follows: 1. Surface collection of surface fossils shall occur prior to any ground disturbance. 2. A qualified paleontological monitor will be present on the site during any ground disturbing activity, including removal of the existing trees on the site. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and/or redirect ground disturbing activities, should a resource be uncovered. A recovery plan shall be prepared and implemented should this occur. The monitor shall report on the monitoring effort in writing, and provide the City with the report within 30 days of the completion of the grading on the site. 2 "Paleontological Resources Assessment Report," prepared by CRM Tech, July 2003. -14- 29 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on soils and geology. Implementation of the project, however, will result in structures which will be subject to groundshaking. The proposed project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, are located in a seismically active area, and will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. The City implements the most stringent building code requirements through implementation of -15- 30 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley W9 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. A project -specific NPDES construction permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI"), prior to the issuance of a grading or site construction permit by the City. 4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2008-0001 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP"). The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or off -site grading being done in relation to this project. C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best Management Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 8.70.020 (Definitions)): 11 Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 60 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 2 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. Additionally, the applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001. G. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopment Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 137-2008-001. H. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. I. The applicant shall submit a Final WQMP after approved entitlement and concurrent with the initial Grading Plan submittal for approval by the City Engineer. 5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 6. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in these conditions of approval. 61 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 3 of 20 / Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: PROPERTY RIGHTS 7. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 8. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. 9. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street rights -of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 10. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 11 Monroe Street (Modified Secondary Arterial C per General Plan Amendment 08-112; 88' R/W — The standard 44 feet from the centerline shall be modified per GPA 2008-112 along all frontages adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan Amendment 08-1 12 and the requirements of these conditions. The required R/W shall be modified as required to facilitate road and lane transitions as approved by the City Engineer. The following right of way dedications shall be applicable to this tentative tract map to accommodate improvements conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS: a) The street right of way dedication shall be located fifty five feet (55') west of the centerline of Monroe Street from the existing westerly right of way on Monroe Street adjacent to Tract Map No. 30023-2 to the Monroe Street primary entry except where additional street width is needed to accommodate a deceleration/right turn only lane at the Monroe Street primary entry. The street right of way shall be located sixty three feet (63') west of the centerline of Monroe Street for a length of 194' north of the primary entry BCR plus an additional 120' reverse taper connecting the deceleration/right turn only lane to the P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc 62 Printed January 23, 2009 Page 4 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: street right of way located 55' west of the centerline. The street right of way south of the Monroe Street primary entry shall be located forty seven feet (47') west of the centerline of Monroe Street except for a 165' taper to transition to the existing 44' westerly right of way adjacent to Tract Map No. 30023-5. 11. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street rights -of - way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 12. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) LOTS A THROUGH G - Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width with parking permitted on both sides; except the travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side at the east end of LOT D and the west end of LOT C and provided there is adequate off- street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation of the Final Map. B. CUL DE SACS 11 The cul de sac shall conform to the shape shown on the tentative map with a 38-foot curb radius at the bulb or larger as shown on the tentative map. Curve radii for curbs at all street intersections shall not be less than 25 feet. 13, Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, 63 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 5 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement 14. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights - of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 15. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. 16. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights -of - way as follows: A. Monroe Street (Secondary Arterial) - 10-foot from the R/W-P/L. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 17. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 18. Direct vehicular access to Monroe Street from lots with frontage along Monroe Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 19. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. 20. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. 64 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23. 2009 Page 6 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 21. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060 (Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets; and Section 13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed. 22. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 2) Monroe Street (Modified Secondary Arterial C per General Plan Amendment 08-112; 88' R/W: Widen the west side of the street along all frontages adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west side as specified in the General Plan Amendment 08-112 modified as required to facilitate road and lane transitions and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's modified urban arterial design standard. The following street improvements shall be applicable to this tentative tract map: b) The west curb face shall be constructed by the applicant and located forty three feet (43') west of the centerline of Monroe Street from the existing westerly curb face on Monroe Street adjacent to Tract Map No. 30023-2 to the Monroe Street primary entry except where additional street width is needed to accommodate a deceleration/right turn only lane at the Monroe Street primary entry. The west curb face shall be located fifty one feet (51') west of the centerline of Monroe Street for a length of 194' north of the primary entry BCR plus an additional 120' reverse taper connecting the deceleration/right turn only lane to the curb line located 43' west of the centerline. The west curb face south of the Monroe Street primary entry shall be constructed by the applicant and located thirty five feet (35') west of the centerline of Monroe Street except for a 165' taper to transition to the existing 32' westerly curb face adjacent to Tract Map No. 30023-5. Other required improvements in the Monroe Street right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: 65 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 7 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: c) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. d) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that touches the back of curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. e) Install raised landscaped median island on Monroe Street as depicted on Tentative Tract Map No. 31434 dated January 7, 2009 and as approved by the City Engineer. The median shall terminate at the northerly end of the development's frontage with appropriate transitions to join existing improvements to the north. The median shall join the existing median to the south of the project on Monroe Street and maintain an exclusive left turn pocket for northbound traffic at the Monroe Street primary entry. Any work that must be accomplished east of the Monroe Street centerline will require concurrent review and approval by the County of Riverside. f) Widen the east side, of the street along all frontages adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to provide 14 feet of pavement for a northbound lane east of the aforementioned raised landscaped median. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural County road design standard to the La Quinta Primary Arterial Standard including required transitions. g) Establish a benchmark in the Monroe Street right of way and file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside. h) The applicant shall install the traffic signal at the project's main entry (Monroe Street at Lot A) when warrants are met. Applicant is responsible for 50 % of the cost to design and install the traffic signal. Other developments that may contribute to the cost for design and installation of the traffic signal at Monroe Street and Primary 66 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 8 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: Entry/Avenue 61 intersection are 1) Tract Map No.31733 for 25%, and 2) Riverside County (future development at the south east corner of Monroe Street and Avenue 61) for 25%. i) Install traffic signal interconnection and loop detection conduit and the pull boxes for future traffic signal installations at Avenues 60 and 62 along project frontage. The applicant shall bond for the traffic signal interconnect across the Trilogy frontage north of Monroe Dates and install the traffic signal interconnect along the Monroe Date frontage. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and/or transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. The development is eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. Traffic signal improvements identified in the DIF Study may be eligible for reimbursement not to exceed 50% of the DIF amount of $430,000 or $215,000. The applicant is responsible for the remaining cost of the improvements. B. PRIVATE STREETS 11 Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 36-foot travel width. 2) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 32 feet travel width with parking restricted to one side and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Public Works and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. 3) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow line shall have a 28 feet travel width if on -street parking is prohibited, and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Public Works and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. 4) Private Residential Streets measured at gutter flow line to gutter flow 67 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 9 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: line shall have a 36-foot travel width. The travel width may be reduced to 32 feet with parking restricted to one side, and 28 feet if on -street parking is prohibited and provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and visitors, and the applicant establishes provisions for ongoing enforcement of the parking restriction in the CC&R's. The CC&R's shall be reviewed by the Public Works and Planning Departments and approved by the Planning Department prior to recordation. 5) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) They shall be constructed according to the lay -out shown on the tentative map with 38-foot curb radius or greater at the bulb similar to the layout shown on the rough grading plan. 23. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Pursuant to said condition, there shall be a minimum of twenty five feet width provided at the turn -around opening provided. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 24. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: 68 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 10 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Secondary Arterial 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 25. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 26. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Monroe Street): All turn movements in and out are permitted. B. Emergency Access (Monroe Street): Right turn movements in and out are permitted. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. 32. 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. 33. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. 34. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish mylars of the Final Map that were approved by the City's map checker. The Final Map shall be 1 " = 40' scale. 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. 35. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 69 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 rage 11 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 36. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. SWPPP 1" = 40' Horizontal D. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. E. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical Off -Site F. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan G. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical 1 " = 40' Horizontal The Off -Site street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding, and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area. NOTE: E through G to be submitted concurrently. (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) The following plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Department for review and approval. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the Building and Safety Director in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. H. On -Site Residential Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal 70 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 12 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. "Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions. 37. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la- quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 38. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 39. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer Of Record (EOR) during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing As Built drawings. However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "As -Built" conditions, the FOR may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 40. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction 71 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23. 2009 Page 13 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 41. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security). 42. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 43. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 20 % Building Permit or the nineteenth Building Permit issued. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 44. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. 72 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 14 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or cable T.V. improvements. 45. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. GRADING 46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 47. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. 48. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls). Additionally, the applicant shall follow requirements of the approved WQMP for the development. All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an engineering geologist. 73 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 15 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 49. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 50. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F) except as otherwise modified by this condition requirement. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e. the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six feet (6') of the curb, otherwise the maximum slope within the right of way shall not exceed 3:1 . All unpaved parkway areas adjacent to the curb shall be depressed one and one-half inches (1.5") in the first eighteen inches 08") behind the curb. 51. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 52. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 53. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 54. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 74 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 16 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: DRAINAGE 55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off. 56. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 57. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 58. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for development of this property. 59. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 60. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin. 61. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.1OO.040(B)(7). 62. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 75 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 17 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 63. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 64. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 65. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 66. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 67. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 68. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. CONSTRUCTION 69. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 70. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 76 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 18 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 71. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 72. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 73. The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department and green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director, however landscape plans for landscaped median on public streets shall be approved by the both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for a green sheet approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the Architectural and Landscape Review Committee and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 74. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. 75. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right- of-way. Said appurtenances shall include any IID transformers and above ground utility equipment installed by any utility purveyor. 76. The approximately 12 full grown Washingtonia fan palms that exist near the northeast quadrant of the site along Monroe Street shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape near the project entry and/or in the retention basin bottoms or edges unless determined by a licensed arborist that they cannot be retained and transplanted. MAINTENANCE 77. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 77 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 19 of 20 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 78. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, including but not limited to retention basins, WQMP BMPs, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. FEES AND DEPOSITS 79. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of La Quinta Municipal Code Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 80. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). 81. Quimby Act in -lieu fees, as specified in Chapter 13.48, of the Municipal Code shall be paid to the City prior to approval of the Final Map by the City Council. 82. The applicant shall pay the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance with Chapter 3.34 of the Municipal Code. 83. On the day after City Council approval of the Tentative Tract Map, a check made out to the "County of Riverside" for $194O.75 shall be delivered to the Planning Department for the environmental Notice of Determination fee. MISCELLANEOUS 84. Perimeter, front yard and common area landscaping, active and/or passive recreation area(s), entry gate, perimeter wall, and home plans shall be approved under a Site Development Permit. 85. A hard surface walking path (minimum 4' wide) shall be established within Lot H (open space/retention basin). The walking path route should tie in with and include the retention basin access between Lots 78 and 79 as well as provide connection to the easterly private road. Passive use amenities such as a gazebo, benches, etc. shall be included. Plans shall be included as part of the landscaping plans with the walking path and amenities design and location approved by the Planning Director. 78 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe dates\tt 31434 pc coa.doc Printed January 23, 2009 Page 20 of 20 the Uniform Building Code provisions for seismically active zones. This requirement assures that impacts associated with groundshaking and construction will be less than significant. The project site is located in an area of the site subject to liquefaction hazards. The geotechnical investigation undertaken for the project site found groundwater at a depth of 16 feet below the surface. This indicates a potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The geotechnical analysis includes recommendations for soil treatment, which will carry forward to the building plans for the project, and will protect the structures from liquefaction hazards. As the City requires site and project specific geotechnical investigations be submitted with building plans, this standard requirement will assure that impacts associated with liquefaction are reduced to less than significant levels. The project site is flat, and surrounded by flat lands, and will not be subject to landslides or rockfalls. The proposed project will be required to implement a fugitive dust management plan, which will include water stabilization during grading, and other measures, as determined by the City, to assure that wind erosion impacts are less than significant. Water erosion will be controlled through the City's requirement associated with NPDES standards, to which the proposed project will be subject. These will include the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which will include best management practices to assure that stone water flows leaving the site are not polluted, and do not include silt. These City requirements will assure that impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project will be less than significant. The City's soils are not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands The proposed project will be required to connect to sanitary sewer facilities, and will not include septic tanks. Overall, impacts associated with geology and soils are expected to be less than significant. 3 "Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development," prepared by Sladden Engineering, May 2003. -16- 31 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS- --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X Iwith an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 to h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death -17- 32 involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The General Plan and Zone Change will have no impacts on hazards or hazardous materials. The development of the homes will result in small quantities of cleaning products and similar materials being stored in the homes. These materials will be disposed of by Burrtec, which implements local, County and State requirements for the handling of hazardous materials. Impacts will be less than significant. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed project°. The study found that the site's use in agriculture, pesticide storage had occurred, and that waste oil and underground storage tanks were located on the site, as was suspected asbestos -containing pipe and building materials. The study recommended remediation of these items, which was undertaken. The storage tank was properly remediated, and asbestos testing undertaken. All hazardous materials on the site have been remediated to the standards imposed by the County and the State, thereby reducing potential impacts to less than significant levels. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. The proposed project site is not listed as a compromised site on any state or federal database. The proposed project is not located within '/4 mile of a school. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. 4 "Report of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Assessors Parcel Numbers 764-270-015 and 764-280-014," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, March 2003. 5 "Report of Underground Storage Tank Closure," prepared by Earth Systems Southwest, June 2003; and "Report of Asbestos Removal," prepared by Scott Morrison and Associates, 2003. -18- 33 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. I1I-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoffl(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) -19- 34 VIII. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on hydrology. The eventual development of the homes on the site, however, will necessitate domestic water and storm water management. The proposed project will be connected to the Coachella Valley Water District's (CVWD) sanitary sewer system. The CVWD maintains its facilities in compliance with all wastewater discharge requirements. To protect against the potential contamination of storm water, the proposed project will be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. The proposed project will require potable water for domestic use and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD will provide water to the project site. The proposed project is consistent with, and less intense than, the land use designation assigned to the property. The CVWD utilized this land use designation, and a higher intensity land use scenario, in the development of its Urban Water Management Plan. The Plan identified existing and future water sources, and determined that sufficient supplies exist to provide domestic water to the project and City. The City will also require the implementation of water conserving appliances and fixtures, consistent with the Uniform Building Code. Finally, the project will be required to comply with CVWD's landscaping standards, which require water conservation through drought tolerant landscaping and extremely efficient irrigation systems. These requirements will assure that impacts associated with the proposed project are less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that projects prepare hydrology analysis, and such an analysis has been completed for the proposed project6. The hydrology study calculated the potential runoff generated by the 100 year storm, and sized the proposed on -site retention basin to accommodate these storm flows. The City Engineer will continue to review, and will ultimately approve, the final hydrology analysis, which will be based on final plans for the project. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associated with storm flows on the project site are less than significant. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. No impact is expected. 6 "Tentative Tract 31434 Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report," prepared by MDS Consulting, June 2008. -20- 35 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The project site is currently a date grove, and development of the site will not divide an established community. The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change propose to delete the Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Overlay from both the General Plan and Zoning maps for this parcel. This designation was applied in this portion of the City for properties located adjacent to more rural lands, to provide a transition to these rural lands from the more suburban character of lands to the west. The proposed project site is, however, surrounded on three sides by the Trilogy project, which consists of equivalent or more dense development than that proposed for the project site. Monroe Street borders the proposed project site on the east, further isolating it from more rural lands to the east. The proposed Amendments, therefore, are consistent with lands surrounding the project site, and will not significantly conflict with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance in this instance. The proposed project is within the fee area for the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The proposed project will be required to comply with that Plan, and pay fees which are designed to mitigate the potential impacts to any covered species. No impact is expected. -21- 36 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact -- Would FM�JNE�R:AALRESOURCES in the loss of availability of a X neral resource that would be ofhe region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.71 ff.) X. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on mineral resources. The project site is and has been designated for low density residential development, and does not occur in the vicinity of any mining activities. No mineral resources are expected to occur within the project site, and no impact is expected as a result of implementation of development on the site. -22- 37 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. III ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on noise. The eventual development of the proposed project will, however, result in increases in noise levels, generally associated with the increased vehicle trips in the area. The project site is located on Monroe Street. The General Plan EIR identified this area of the City as having relatively low long term noise levels. The project will include a 6 foot wall on the eastern boundary, which will serve as a noise buffer for adjacent lots. The noise levels on the project site are expectedto meet the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise standards. -23- 38 The project will result in elevated noise levels during the construction process. The site is surrounded by the walls built for the Trilogy project on three sides. Although noise levels in excess of General Plan standards are likely to occur for short periods, depending on the equipment or construction activity, these levels will be during the noisier day time hours, and will not significantly impact the noise environment in the area. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project's construction may also generate some vibration, depending on the construction equipment required. This condition will be temporary and periodic, and is not expected to impact sensitive receptors, since the proposed project is surrounded by existing commercial development. The impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip. -24- 39 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on population or housing. The eventual development of 94 homes will occur in response to growth in the area, and is not expected to cause growth in the area. The site is located on the City's existing street system, and is served by existing infrastructure. No significant extension of infrastructure will result from the proposed project. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project site is operated as a date grove, and will not result in the destruction of housing, or the displacement of people. Overall impacts associated with population and housing are expected to be less than significant. -25- 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or 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, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on public services. The proposed project will result in some increases in demand for police and fire services. However, the project will be required to pay Impact Fees, which are structured to include the additional facilities required to accommodate additional land uses in the City. In addition, the proposed project will generate sales and property tax, which will help offset the costs associated with providing additional services. The proposed project will pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of development. These fees are designed to offset the costs associated with new development, and allow the school district to construct new facilities. The proposed project will pay Quimby fees for parks, and also includes an on site park area, which will be available for residents, and which may reduce those residents' need for off -site parks facilities. Overall impacts associated with public services and facilities are expected to be less than significant. -26- 41 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impacts on recreation. As stated above, the proposed project will include an on site park area which will offset the need for other City facilities. The project will not result in a need for additional recreational facilities. Overall impacts are expected to be less than significant. -27- 42 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: X a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) X b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials) X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on Traffic or Circulation. The eventual development of 94 single family residences will result in approximately 900 average daily trips to and from the site. The traffic generated by the site is consistent with that analyzed for the General Plan, as the project is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential. The General Plan EIR found that levels of service in this area of the City, and Monroe Street in particular, will be acceptable at General Plan buildout. As the project is consistent with what was -28- 43 analyzed in the EIR, and no significant changes in land use have occurred in the vicinity of the proposed project, the impacts associated with traffic on local roads are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project wll be required to provide parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The project is on the City's existing street system, and will have no impact on emergency access or response. The proposed project is not within the SunLine service area. The proposed project is not within the influence area of an airport or airstrip. Overall impacts associated with transportation and traffic are expected to be less than significant. -29- 44 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change will have no impact on Utilities and Service Systems. The proposed project will connect to existing CVWD facilities for -30- 45 both domestic water and sanitary sewer. CVWD has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project, and also has the ability to expand the wastewater treatment plant as regional needs require. The proposed project will design its storm water drainage to contain the 100 year storm, as required by City standards. The proposed project will not require the expansion of existing storm drainage facilities. Please also see Hydrology, above. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation used by CVWD to determine domestic water demand in its service area. The analysis concluded that the CVWD has sufficient water available, now and in the future, to serve the proposed project. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. Solid waste will be collected by Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrtec currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is also required to comply with all City, regional, state and federal requirements for the disposal of solid waste. Overall impacts associated with utilities are expected to be less than significant. -31- 46 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant wl Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE the project have the potential to X e the quality of the environment,tially ra)Does reduce the habitat of a fish life species, cause a fish or e population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fixture projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? __.,_ ,.a .. ,.r o tha XVII. a) Biological resources will not be signincanuy unpaucu Uy UIC Pi7cPGSC, F=_J , .._ ...- site is disturbed agricultural land, and does not include native habitat. Archaeological and paleontological resources were identified on the project site, but the mitigation measures included in this document will reduce the potential impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for the area, and will have no significant impacts which cannot be mitigated. The level of impact associated with the project is consistent with that envisioned in the General Plan EIR. XVII. c) This Initial Study has found that no cumulative impact will occur as a result of the proposed project. XVII. d) The proposed project will have less than significant impacts associated with noise and traffic and circulation, which could directly affect human beings. Impacts associated with air quality during the grading process are reduced to less than significant levels by the mitigation measures in this document. _32_ 47 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. General Plan EIR, 2002. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -33- 48 x o � � w H o .. C/) V O O O cv O v o v N O W Y 3 ti Hy w o �a Op4U F• �W FA vowo� a� o �a Ho Oo N � � E• y U ►F-i o '� W Y F °J w o0 00 o W 5C7u O O W C7 oz d z zQ o AUd wW T. F a a U� 0 F v a v ar F b A O� C W oz a O o h F O V1 F o a o� on � � Q H a a a�U Ov W U d d dR G o � C q o a � A x w� z� A A ca UA UQ UA O � O itl U � y0 N PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-116 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2008-116 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 27r" day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of MONROE DATES, LLC for a General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential with an Agricultural/ Equestrian Overlay to Low Density Residential, for property located on the west side of Monroe Street at the west termination of Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 and 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-597) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures for EA 2008-597 incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is internally consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the General Plan Amendment results in promoting residential development in a controlled and logical manner. 2. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the resulting General Plan designation will result in a project that is compatible with surrounding residential uses, be well designed and landscaped, and comply with all applicable City, County, State and Federal requirements. 3. The General Plan Amendment is compatible with adjacent properties in that the resulting projects will be required to minimize the impacts to the surrounding single-family residences. p \reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\ttm 31434 monroe dates\gpa 2008-116 pc res.doc 50 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- General Plan Amendment 2008-116 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 4. The General Plan Amendment is suitable and appropriate for the property in that it will allow expansion of residential uses which are the primary land use in the area. 5. Approval of the General Plan Amendment is warranted because the uses are an expansion of residential uses existing or approved on surrounding properties. 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 certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2008-1 16 as shown on the attached exhibit; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27rh day of January, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 51 p:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\ttm 31434 monroe dates\gpa 2008-116 pc res.doc 156 algal. L �` ®��� �L�L�L��■il E 7a � � i t 35 1 36 1 37 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AGRICUL 5 EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY TO LOW DENSITY Fi 56 5 i4 n � i3 �- 30.2 ACRES -7 1322' 39 38 3) 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 26 27 26 25 24 23 22 - __ _ 21 91 / II] ,16 119 120,1 1167 158 �152 153 I 20 152 CASE MAP CASE No. GPA 2008-116 �MONROE DATES 1^ AVENUE 61 ORTH SCALE: N_ TS 52 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 2008-136 TO THE CITY COUNCIL CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2008-136 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on did on the 271h day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of MONROE DATES, LLC for a Zone Change from Low Density /Agricultural -Equestrian Residential to Low Density Residential, for property located on the west side of Monroe Street at Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 and 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said Zone Change complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-597) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures for EA 2008-597 incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non - significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Zone Change. 1. This Zone Change is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan and compatible (lower) with Trilogy's residential designation. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that the development meets standards that will not be materially detrimental. 3. The zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is similar to surrounding projects under construction and approved. p:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroe\zc 2008-136 pc res.doc 53 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Zone Change 2008-136 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that agricultural and equestrian uses have not developed in the immediate area and residential uses similar to the proposed have. 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 certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2008-136 as shown on the attached exhibit; PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27" day of January, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California p:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\tt 31434 monroeVc 2008-136 pc res.doc 54 W W cc I- SO W O¢ Z O 2 CASE MAP AVENUE 61 ORT CASE Nm ZC 2008-136 SCALE: MONROE DATES NTS 55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2009- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 30.2± ACRES INTO 94 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS LOTS CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT 31434 APPLICANT: MONROE DATES, LLC WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27t' day of January, 2009, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Monroe Dates, LLC., for the subdivision of 30.2± acres into 94 single-family residential lots and other miscellaneous lots, located on the west side of Monroe Street at the west termination of Avenue 61, more particularly described as: APN's: 764-280-014 and 764-270-015 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2008-597) and has determined that, although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures for EA 2008-597 incorporated into the Project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings to justify a recommendation for approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434: 1. The Tentative Tract Map and its improvement and design, are consistent with the General Plan in that its street design and lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision and its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife 56 P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\ttm 31434 monroe\ttm 31434 pc res.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: or their habitat because the site does not contain significant biological resources. 3. The design of the subdivision and subsequent improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because the construction of 94 residential units will not have considerable cumulative impacts. The project is consistent with the General Plan, and the potential impacts associated with General Plan buildout. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access is provided within the project and to the adjacent public street (Monroe Street). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 31434 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 271h day of January, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\ttm 31434 monroe\ttm 31434 pc res.doc 57 Planning Commission Resolution 2009- Tentative Tract Map 31434 Monroe Dates, LLC Adopted: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California P.\reports-pc\2009\1-27-09\ttm 31434 monroe\ttm 31434 pc res.doc 58 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Amothy R. Jonasson, P.E. Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: January 27, 2009 RE: Requested Changes to Recommended Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 31434 Representatives of Monroe Dates LLC requested the following change to the Recommended Conditions of Approval for the above mentioned Tract Map after publication of the Planning Commission Agenda Report. The Public Works Department recommends the following changes: 1) Replace Condition 22 (i) in its entirety for the Tract Map Recommended Conditions of Approval and replace it with the following: "Install traffic signal interconnection and loop detection conduit and pull boxes for future traffic signal installations at Avenues 60 and 62 along the project frontage."