The URL can be used to link to this page

2010 05 25 PCT City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org 9 c�1lOFi9� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California MAY 25, 2010 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2010-015 Beginning Minute Motion 2010-004 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 April 27, 2010. 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 2006-564, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 Applicant........... Prest-Vuksic Architects Location............ West Side of Washington Street, Between Avenues 47 and 48. Request ............. Consideration of Development Plans for a Proposed Church Parking Lot. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Approval, with Conditions - Resolutions 2010- (EA), 2010(CUP), and 2010- (SDP). VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Discussion regarding Commission Summer Meeting Schedule. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meetings of May 4, 2010, and May 18, 2010, by Commissioner Wilkinson and Chairman Alderson B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the June 1, 2010, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on June 8, 2010, 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, May 25, 2010 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, May 21, 2010. DATED: May 21, 2010 CAROLYN WALKER, 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 April 27, 2010 7:04 P.M. CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Vice Chairperson Barrows. PRESENT: Commissioners Quill`, Weber, Wilkinson, and Vice Chairperson Barrows ABSENT: Chairman Alderson (Excused) STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Les Johnson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Assistant City Attorney Michael Houston, Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Assistant Planner Eric Ceja, and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: Vice Chairperson Barrows commented on Principal Planner Stan Sawa's upcoming retirement after 20 years with the City of La Quinta. III. CONFIRMATION OF,THE AGENDA:Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Weber asked staff to clarify the minutes on Page 10, Paragraphs 5 and 6. Corrections were made as follows: Paragraph 5, Sentence 3, shall be changed to read: He said what should have happened was a radio frequency (RF) expert should have been brought in to answer these questions. Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, shall be changed to read: Mr. Greenwood said he could bring in the RF expert but, (if that was the basis of the denial) the expert was going to come and tell you it does not work for the same reasons that I told you it does not work; so just deny my application now. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 There being no further comments, or suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Wilkinson/Weber to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010 with amendments as noted. Unanimously approved. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued — Conditional Use Permit 2009-124; a request by T-Mobile West Corporation for consideration to allow the placement of a fifty- seven (57) foot tall monopalm tower and equipment enclosure within the Family Heritage Church parking lot located at 78-998 Miles Avenue. Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Jay Greenwood, T-mobile representative; 1594 N. Batavia Street, Orange CA introduced Mr. Jaynes Wilkerson, RF Design Engineer, T- mobile, 3257 Guasti Road, Ontario CA, who gave a Power Point presentation. He then stated the presentation should clarify the Commission's questions and concerns on the need for the 57 foot tower site. Commissioner Wilkinson asked about provision of service by other carriers and theallocation of frequency bands. Mr. Wilkerson responded coverage had to do with frequencies assigned by the FCC and explained how it affected their operations. Commissioner Wilkinson then expanded his comments on 1) challenging the frequency band allotment, 2) alternative locations, and co -locations, and 3) percentage of coverage. Mr. Wilkerson commented on negotiation for lower band set, and gave a detailed explanation of calculations and terrain details for coverage percentile. Ms. Linda Paul, 3257 E. Guasti Road, Ontario CA, Real Estate and Zoning Manager for T-mobile, — introduced herself and explained when -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 and how the frequencies were allocated. She said there was always the possibility of certain entities vacating some frequencies, but at this time there was no opportunity to obtain a new allocation. Ms. Paul then addressed the criteria for site selection, said they look at a number of factors and went into detail of how the site was chosen as well as the due diligence that went into their cell tower site selection. Commissioner Wilkinson provided generalreview comments on accuracy of information, additional' possible co -locations, and percentage of coverage. Commissioner Weber asked what prompted the change of height from 70 feet to 57 feet. Mr. Wilkerson responded the 70 foot height achieved the upper end for coverage and, at 57 feet the coverage was reduced to 63%; which was the minimum threshold. Commissioner Weber asked if the antenna would be focused in a specific direction. Mr. Wilkerson said yes. Commissioner Weber asked' about the maximum tree height allowable for coverage" as he was concerned about screening. Mr. Wilkerson responded if the trees were 15 or 20 feet below the antenna, and staggered; that would be sufficient to reduce any direct impact. Commissioner Weber expressed his concerns about maintenance of the landscape/screening. Ms. Paul said typically the landlord (the church) would be responsible for maintaining the irrigation, but the applicant will replace --trees if they died. Commissioner Weber then asked if a condition could be included making both,parties responsible. Staff responded this was a conditional use permit with the property owner and/or the current owner of the tower being responsible for vegetation and any other conditions imposed. If there was a significant issue it could be brought back before the Commission for reconsideration and/or revocation of the permit. Mr. Greenwood stated the carrier paid for the installation, the trees, and the irrigation system; as presented by Ms. Paul, and went over Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 the responsibilities of each portion of the landscape maintenance. Staff added that if the CUP was granted, the applicant was T-mobile not Family Heritage Church. Commissioner Weber said T-mobile's contractual agreement with the Family Heritage Church was not at issue. Staff added it was an agreement between the two of them. Commissioner Weber said he assumed T-mobile would like to reach the 100% coverage. Mr. Wilkerson said yes. Commissioner Weber asked if they were already considering any potential sites for additional towers in La Quinta's jurisdiction. Mr. Wilkerson said the other proposed locations were to the east and north, but were not in La Quinta. There being no further applicant comments, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment.. Mr. Alonzo Lugo, 594 N. Batavia, Orange CA and a representative of T-mobile - said he was there in 'support of T-mobile. He added that what was presented to the, Commission was the most favorable location, and -design available for their cell tower. He pointed out Mr. Wilkerson's comments about the lower frequencies and added his own comments on their customer service versus other carriers. He said the applicant exercised due diligence in researching this facility to make sure it was .the best location to support their customers and meet coverage objectives. He commented on the Family Heritage Church being in an area that was completely residential; and the best alternative. He added T-mobile had already made concessions, 1) in height, 2) by making sure there are live trees there, and 3) in the design of the pole being more favorable to the Commission. There being no further, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Wilkinson provided general review comments on cell locations, alternative locations for co -location, coverage of other carriers, height, decibels, sound, restricted frequencies, and the proliferation of cell towers throughout the City. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Commissioner Quill provided general comments on previous meetings, and noted T-mobile did bring in their team to respond to the Commissions' concerns. He also commented on building another tower, co -location, denial of the applicant's ability to compete, and the church's ability to maintain the trees. General discussion followed regarding regulation of utility poles versus cell towers. Commissioner Weber provided general review comments on the applicant's frustration in having to keep coming back, avoiding visual blight, proper planning, and impeding commerce, coverage, as well as T-mobile's due diligence and their willingness to provide experts to answer the Commissions' questions. He commented on requirements for future cell tower applications, and said he still had concerns about the palm trees and the tower blending in as much as possible. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked Commissioner Weber if he was satisfied with the applicant's proposal regarding the palm trees and the height. Commissioner Weber said he would prefer to see 35 to 40 foot trees blended in with the 57 foot tower. Commissioner Quill said the Commission could require three staggered trees with,,a minimum -height of 35 feet and a maximum height of 45 feet. He suggested the use:of Washingtonia Robusta variety as most likely to survive transplanting. General discussion'followed regarding growth and survival rates, and tree replacement. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked for staff clarification on the maintenance issue. Staff responded the applicant is ultimately responsible and the responsibility would transfer over Ito a succeeding company) regardless of what arrangements have been made with Family Heritage. -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Commissioner Weber asked staff for clarification if the tower owner transfers or a palm tree dies, what recourse does the City have to have the situation remedied. Staff responded initially Code Enforcement would address the issue of the violation of the condition. If they were unsuccessful in remediating the matter, then it would come back to the Planning Commission for potential revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. If the Permit was revoked then they would have to cease -and -desist. Commissioner Quill said when they are ordered to cease -and -desist, and they do not comply what steps does the City take. Assistant City Attorney Houston responded if they do not cease -and -desist the City would then take them to court. Commissioner Wilkinson asked when this technology is extinct what could the City do to have these towers removed. Staff responded this is a`=Conditional Use 'Permit and the permit is being granted based on a project description identifying the type of use. If that were amended into,, something dramatically different, it would have to be re -visited and addressed. Vice Chairperson Barrows provided general review comments on the applicants' response to the Commissioners' questions and noted a desire to maximize -co-location opportunities in the future. There.:, being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Weber to adopt Resolution 2010- 013 recommending approval of Conditional Use Permit 2009-124 with the following amendment. Condition No. 38 shall read: The applicant shall make planting and irrigation improvements for the planting of three (3) Washingtonia robustas (Mexican Fan Palms) around the monopalm tower. The palm trees shall be a minimum height of thirty five (35) feet, measured from finished floor. The palm trees shall be planted along the east side of the tower in order to screen the tower from Adams Street. M Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 AYES: Commissioners Quill, Weber, and Vice Chairperson Barrows. NOES: Commissioner Wilkinson. ABSENT: Chairman Alderson. ABSTAIN: None. B. Site Development Permit 2010-913; a request by Shea Homes for consideration of architectural and landscaping plans for three prototypical house plans and front yard and common area landscaping plans in Tract 35996 (Trilogy Annex) located east of the CVWD Dike #4, between Avenues 60 and 62. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked for additional information on the underground irrigation system. Staff. said it was installed underneath the lawn and was similar to a soaker hose and explained how it related to the whole irrigation system. Commissioner Weber asked staff 'to address the retention basin accessibility. Staff said currently there was no access proposed. Commissioner Quill asked why they did not include a no -turf alternative. 'Planning Director Johnson said these 36 lots represented the completion of a,larger project on which staff, and the applicant, have worked very hard to minimize the turf. The applicant had not submitted a no -turf option. Principal Planner Sawa further commented the applicant has reduced the turf approximately 50% from the existing 1200 units that are currently there. They have made a definite effort to reduce turf, but do not wish to include a no -turf option. Vice Chairperson Barrows commented that the pathways and entry points to the homes looked very angular and thought it might look better if it included some curves. She added she thought the Commission had previously required other projects to include the no - turf option, and was concerned about treating this project differently. -7- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Staff responded that the ALRC had also brought up the angularity and a condition was included requiring the applicant to re -study the sidewalks to improve the circulation; making it easier to maneuver from the driveway to the house. There being no further questions of the staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Perry Devlin, General Manager for Shea Homes — Trilogy La Quinta, 60-800 Trilogy Parkway, La Quinta — He said they were trying to accommodate Homeowners' Association (HOA) members' wishes of maintaining architectural consistency as well as compatible landscaping. They have worked very closely with the HOA and had a pretty well defined annexation :agreement. He explained that when dry wells are not surrounded by some amount of vegetation they have maintenance problems because of silt build-up. He added the basins were designed primarily for retention and not necessarily designed to be accessible. He said the HOA had concerns about its possible use as a dog park and how that would impact the homeowners surrounding it. He explained several suggestions made by the HOA to block that area off, but said, from an aesthetic standpoint, the applicant': would rather not have that. That was not to say the HOA would not consider the Commissions' recommendations, but he got the impression the HOA would prefer not to allow access. He then commented on the no turf issue; explaining that it had been presented at the HOA meeting, where the vast majority were against it. He added it came up briefly at the ALRC meeting, and it was noted that they have alrady eliminated a lot of the sod. He commented on the angularity of the layouts and the ALRC suggestions. Commissioner Quill asked who maintained the front yard landscapes. Mr. Devlin responded they were maintained by the Homeowners' Association and added they were connected to the Weathertrac system; which is a satellite governed system to keep water usage down. Commissioner Weber questioned the accessibility of the basin and said it actually looked like a good opportunity for a dog park. He then asked if there was currently a dog park within Trilogy's boundaries. Mr. Devlin said no, but the HOA had assigned a group to seek out Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 opportunities to include one. However, there did not appear to be any unless they were to acquire a piece of golf course property. Commissioner Weber said it would be great proactive stance as the City is always trying to find park space; including accommodation for dog parks. There will be a need for this type of activity and if that could be incorporated, it would be a real plus. Mr. Devlin responded that the Homeowners' Association has taken a proactive approach to analyze the opportunities that are available. Since this will be annexed into their Association, they will study the whole idea and the members will vote on the options available. They can then decide if they want to utilize the retention basin. Vice Chairperson Barrows commented on no turf landscaping of retention basins; using the example of the City's recent conversion of the retention basin on Avenue 52 from all turf to no turf. She asked about the applicant's comment on dry, pump maintenance with turf and no turf options. She further noted if,people are not welcome in the retention basin then maybe grass should not be there. Areas with turf should be used in some productive way. She was concerned about adding more turf into a project with no other purpose other than aesthetics; as that would not be in line with the City's Water Conservation Ordinance. She reiterated the City's example of retention without turf. `Mr. Devlin said he could only speak of their own experience with the retention basins out there, which were equipped with the McGuckin systems ,of dry wells. He then explained they accumulated a lot of silt; and they had to change to sod around the wells, which eliminated complaints from the members who lived around the dry wells. Commissioner Quill asked if the applicant would be adverse to a condition ensuring access would never be prohibited to these turf areas; as the Commission has taken a position on utilization of available turf. He then commented on the positive aspects of why a green belt would be included in a project. He stated, grass just for aesthetic reasons, is not valid. Mr. Devlin said he did not have an issue with it, but thought the Homeowners' Association members would prefer not. He then M Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 reiterated his comments on the sod being critical for the drainage in the retention basins. Commissioner Weber said we live in a desert, and if you are going to have a green belt area, there should be accessibility. If it is going to be watered and kept green, then there should be the opportunity to utilize it for other activities which could also include a dog park. A community of this type would likely demand those types of amenities and may ask the City to provide them if they are not available. He advised the applicant that the Commission's direction was, and would continue, to be good stewards of the City's resources. Mr. Devlin said the points were well taken and he would not mind, and would actually prefer, the Commission to make a recommendation as it was Homeowners' Association, property. There being no further questions of the applicant, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment. There being no additional , questions, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion. Commissioner Weber said it would be a shame to put a sign up that says no dogs allowed. It is the wrong direction to go in and he hoped that the Homeowners' Association would understand and think about their responsibilities and how they can also play a part in helping to resolve water issues. Commissioner Quill said he did not see any benefit to a no turf option since it was -explained that the front yards were maintained by the Association; however, he would still like to see less turf. Vice 'Chairperson Barrows commented she would like to require a no turf option,to be consistent. She also recommended no turf be placed in the retention basin, unless it had an alternative use. This is an active community and people should be encouraged to be out and about. She strongly suggested conditions to that effect; as well as encouraging that the hardscapes on the landscaping follow the ALRC recommendations. -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioner Quill/Vice Chairperson Barrows to adopt Minute Motion 2010-003 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2010- 913 as submitted, with the following added conditions: 1. Pedestrian access within the front yard area of the residences shall be revised to improve and ease circulation. 2. A front yard no turf option shall be offered to home buyers. 3. If no public access is provided to the retention basins, the turf at the bottom shall be eliminated and replaced with decomposed granite and some drip -irrigated planting Unanimously approved C. Specific Plan 2008-085 and Environmental Assessment 2008-600; a request by the City of La Quinta for consideration of a Specific Plan for the development of up to 200 affordable residential dwelling units and 82,000 square feet of automobile sales and related uses to be located south of Highway 111 between Dune Palms Road and Costco Drive. Planning Manager David Sawyer presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson' Barrows asked if>there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Weber asked staff for the status of items listed in the City of Indio's comments. Consultant. Nicole Criste, Terra Nova, Terra Nova Planning & Research, 400 S. Farrell Drive, Suite B-205, Palm Springs, CA introduced herself and provided the Commission with an explanation of the response being provided to the City of Indio. She also explained the seasonal adjustment requirement the City has and how that results in a high traffic count as identified by the City of Indio. Commissioner Weber commented on traffic volume, during extreme levels of traffic from nearby festivals, and wondered if the 40% figure was too high. He also wanted to know if Polo Square had been included in that number. -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Consultant Criste further explained the rationale for the seasonal adjustment and said it reflected a more accurate standard if it needed to come down. She added that the cumulative project analysis included a number of projects approved by both La Quinta and Indio which included Polo Square, that were not yet constructed. Commissioner Weber asked if there would be new signalization along Highway 111 and Dune Palms. Staff said there is a right -in right -out environment only for the commercial use along Highway 111 and a signal would be added at the southern entrance to Sam's Club, linking up with the proposed "A" Street. That would eliminate the most northerly driveway serving the Desert Sands School District Administration offices. Commissioner Weber provided general review comments on turf, energy efficiency, sustainability, and LEED design in reference to the RSG April 215L submittal. Commissioner Quill asked why the City decided to do a full draft environment impact report, versus a typical negative declaration. Consultant Criste replied that the initial study triggered an EIR. Commissioner Quill asked if a Statement of Overriding Consideration was included. Consultant Criste responded one is included for the Council.to decide upon. Commissioner Quill asked how many Overriding points there were to consider. Consultant Criste said two; traffic long-term and cumulative,which, included other projects and named the areas of inclusion. `Commissioner Quill was very pleased with the housing project and its walkability, but asked why part of it was designated as an auto center and'what'would happen if those plans changed. Staff explained there was long-standing interest from a high -end auto dealership and briefly explained what would happen if those plans changed. Commissioner Quill said he was glad there were no Statement of Overriding Considerations on the GHG issues and asked if there had been a study done to prove that the City was under the requirements of AB 32. Consultant Criste said yes. -12- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 Commissioner Wilkinson asked about gated access at the south end and security for the auto dealership. Staff said it had not been determined if the proposed access off of "A" Street would be opened for general retail activity and explained the proposed delivery traffic circulation patterns; pointing out the restricted emergency and service access point as well as the current driveway proposal. Commissioner Weber asked about possible locations where a truckload of automobiles could enter. Staff said access would be provided via the Komar site to the east or off of Dune Palms via "A" Street and enter the site from the southwest. Commissioner Weber asked aboutsecurity for the automobile sales use. Staff said that would be an item to be determined as part of the Site Development Permit review. Discussion among Commissioners followed regarding walled versus pedestrian -friendly connected communities; including comments on how to design a friendly, safe, and comfortable sidewalk area. Discussion among Commissioners then followed on the delivery and emergency -areas of the project as 'well as the possibility of more traffic being relocated to the "A" Street access. Staff responded by pointing out the following items: 1. The number of large truck deliveries would not be significant, if this becomes an auto center; with most deliveries being done by UPS -sized trucks; 2. "A" Street would be a realigned access point for the School District buses and other vehicles with potential of those vehicles, during peak hour movements being of greater impact than anything else; 3. The; noise sensitivity issue between the residential and the School District would require mitigation measures to minimize the noise levels to an acceptable level; 4. It is not anticipated that "A" Street would become a truck route of significance, other than for auto deliveries; 5. Larger delivery trucks would be discouraged from crossing the Komar/Costco commercial site as it is already fairly heavily - 13 - Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 used. The people visiting the Komar/Costco commercial site will have the ability to use "A" Street which should help alleviate trips off of Highway 111. Commissioner Wilkinson asked where the buses were entering and if that was taken into consideration during the traffic study. Consultant Criste pointed out the bus entrance, explained what had been included in the traffic study, and how the existing northern driveway would be eliminated. She then noted the new access and traffic flow pattern for the site. Staff added the importance of this access was that it would be a signalized intersection eliminating the problem of the buses waiting as they entered/exited the School District site. A signalized intersection would be a better long-term solution for the School District; as well as being a better, safer environment for everybody. Discussion followed regarding the effect of the bus trips, time of day and the possibility of -potential traffic jams., Consultant Criste explained how the off-peak hours minimized any potential traffic problems. Commissioner Wilkinson said that noise was probably a bigger problem than the traffic issue, Staff responded that the greater issue was the unsignalized existing environment; creating a much needed safety improvement. Commissioner Quill asked why the layout was changed from the original 'design. Consultant Criste said the new design was more responsive to safety and connectivity issues. Commissioner; Quill said there would be a fairly significant open -space lotto the north of the new road alignment and asked if that would be City -owned' property. Staff said it would be and then discussed the potentialof utilizing a portion of that for retention/detention purposes, and to encourage pedestrian connectivity, on the north side, out to Dune Palms. There being no further questions of the staff, Vice Chairperson Barrows asked if there was any public comment. -14- Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 2010 There being no additional questions, or public comment, Vice Chairperson Barrows opened the matter for Commission discussion. There was no further discussion and it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution 2010-014 recommending approval to Council of Specific Plan 2008-085 and Environmental Assessment 2008-600 as submitted. Unanimously approved. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Planning Director Johnson gave a report, on City Council Meeting of April 20, 2010. (A brief summary of the meeting was given followed by discussion of several,, items.) B. Vice Chairperson Barrows noted Commissioner Wilkinson was scheduled to report back on the May 4; 2010, Council meeting. IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT:, There -being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Vice Chairperson Barrows/Quill to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting to be held on May 11, 2010. This regular meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on April 27, 2010. Respectfully submitted, Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California -15- PH # A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 25, 2010 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-564, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 APPLICANT: PREST-VUKSIC ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: DIOCESE OF SAN BERNARDINO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HSA DESIGN GROUP REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A PROPOSED CHURCH PARKING LOT LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, BETWEEN AVENUES 47 AND 48 GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY (LR) / LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-564 FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE RECOMMENDS A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BE CERTIFIED. SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/26/10 PAReports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc BACKGROUND: St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (St. Francis) is located on the west side of Washington Street just south of Avenue 47 (Attachment 1). The church applied for Environmental Assessment 2002-463, Conditional Use Permit 2002-073, and Site Development Permit 2002-755 to construct the exisitng temporary parking lot in 2002. The church's existing parking lot contains 172 paved spaces and a grass parking area with a capacity of about 207 vehicles. This temporary grass lot is illuminated with 12 foot high shoebox lighting fixtures, and utilizes telephone poles to separate vehicles and define the parking area. The City Council approved the applications for the temporary parking lot on May 20, 2003. St. Francis Church returned in April, 2006 with new applications to construct a permanent parking lot over the existing temporary lot. At that time, entitlement applications for the adjacent vacant property to the south of the church were being processed for a proposed single-family residential development. In an effort to provide for a secondary access into the proposed residential community and St. Francis, an agreement was entered into between St. Francis and the single-family residential developer, Laing Luxury Homes, to construct a shared signalized intersection at Washington Street and Via Marquessa. Laing Luxury Homes has since gone into bankruptcy and no longer owns the adjacent parcel. As a result of this, St. Francis has redesigned their project and amended their plans by removing the proposed shared driveway and signalized intersection. In order to accommodate stormwater drainage from Highland Palms, St. Francis will be entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of La Quinta for the maintenance of the proposed retention basin, which requires City Council approval. The applicants are requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a new parking lot and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the modification of the church's existing parking arrangement. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a permanent parking lot comprised of 220 paved parking spaces, a temporary overflow parking lot with a capacity of 134 gravel -surface parking spaces, a retention basin, and landscaping within the southern portion of the existing church site. Once completed, the church will have a total parking capacity of 532 parking spaces. With the exception of the proposed temporary overflow parking area, project layout and circulation will remain relatively unchanged from the current site plan. The northern half of the church site is not a part of the project and will remain unchanged, though the applicant has indicated that they will likely be replacing the turf with desert landscaping at some point in SDP O6-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/25/10 Page 2 of 7 P:\Reports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc the future. Preliminary grading plans, preliminary landscaping plans, preliminary lighting plans, and a view study have been submitted for the proposed project (Attachment 2). Parking Layout St. Francis Church has been using a temporary grass parking lot to support overflow parking since 2002. As the Church has experienced an increase in attendance over the years, the temporary grass lot has come to be used on a regular basis. During major religious events and holidays, the grass parking lot often reaches capacity and the surrounding neighborhood streets are used for supplemental overflow parking. The proposed parking layout provides an additional 220 improved parking spaces at the location of the current grass lot and creates a new gravel parking lot with 134 spaces to support overflow parking during special events and holidays. This new gravel lot will be accessed from the western end of the center driving aisle adjacent to the foot of the mountain and will contain a sunken telephone pole to separate the parking aisles and serve as a curb. The existing 12 foot lighting fixtures in the grass lot will be relocated and reinstalled in the gravel parking lot, identified in the lighting plan as lighting fixture type "R" for 'relocated' (Attachment 2, Sheet E-3.0). Landscaping Design The applicant is proposing a water -efficient landscaping design in accord with the City's current landscaping code provisions. A variety of desert -appropriate trees and shrubs are being proposed along the frontage road, within the parking lot and around the retention basin. Proposed tree species include 24 to 36 inch box size Palo Verdes, Texas Ebony, and Hybrid Mesquite trees with a minimum 1.5 inch caliper trunk. Shrubs include a variety of water -efficient desert species that include Desert Cassia, Texas Ranger, Bougainvillea, and Century Plants, complimented by groundcover species such as Lantana. Five gallon containers are proposed for shrubs with most groundcover species proposed from one gallon containers. The bottom of the retention basin will contain approximately 9,500 square feet of turf. The applicant has included a color perspective sheet conceptualizing the appearance of the proposed landscaping upon maturity. Lighting Design The applicant is proposing to install new energy -efficient contemporary lighting fixtures within the improved parking area and relocate the existing black shoebox- type fixtures to the proposed temporary parking lot. The applicant has also submitted documents identifying compliance with current Title 24 energy code requirements. SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/25/10 Page 3 of 7 P:\Reports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc Three new lighting fixtures are being proposed with this project (Attachment 2, Sheet E-3.0). The proposed type "A" fixtures are a 12 foot high freestanding contemporary design outfitted with a 27-inch diameter circular copper visor that will turn verdigris over time. These fixtures will be located along the main driveway and entrance to the church site. The contemporary type "A" fixtures are dark -sky compliant and will incorporate a 175 watt metal halide bulb which will illuminate the driving aisles with a white light. Type "B" and "C" fixtures are 18 foot high black shoe -box type fixtures containing 150 to 250 watt high-pressure sodium bulbs which will illuminate the parking spaces with an orange -white light. The existing fixtures identified as type "R" are similar in appearance to type "B," but are 12 feet in height and contain 150 watt high-pressure sodium bulbs. Landscaping is proposed to be uplighted with low -profile 25 watt fluorescent lighting fixtures. ANALYSIS The proposed church parking lot plans are a positive improvement that will enhance the church site, provide much -needed permanent parking, and will provide attractive landscaping along a highly -visible portion of Washington Street. With approval of this application, the total number of available parking spaces will increase to 532 spaces- more than enough to meet the estimated 245 parking spaces required under the City's parking ordinance. The proposed lighting fixtures and level of lighting are appropriate for the project. The preliminary planting and irrigation plans are well -designed, provide a colorful variety of desert -appropriate plants, and will comply with both the City and the Coachella Valley Water District's landscaping and water use requirements. Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed landscaping and lighting design. Although turf should be located in functional and usable areas, the applicant's use of turf to line the bottom of the retention basin is justifiable as the location is highly visible, turf provides stormwater filtration prior to entering the drywell system and turf on the basin floor maintains its appearance better than decomposed granite, especially in proximity to the drywell. Staff believes the quantity of turf proposed, approximately 9,500 square feet, could be moderately reduced without sacrificing aesthetic quality or filtration and is recommending that the applicant work with staff to reduce the proposed turf area to a feasible size. Staff is also recommending that all trees have a minimum 2.5 inch caliper trunk size. Additional analysis is included in the following section regarding ALRC review. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE The Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) reviewed the proposed project during a special meeting held on Thursday May 13, 2010 (Attachment 3). Commissioners Thorns and Rooker were in attendance and had a number of recommendations for Planning Commission consideration (see Site SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/25/10 Page 4 of 7 PAReports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc Development Permit Conditions of Approval No. 69 through 74). It should be noted that the recommendations of the ALRC are not reflected in the proposed development plans. The Commission expressed concerns about the design and circulation of the parking area, recommending planter areas located at the end of each row of parking be reduced in length and that all shrubs and live groundcover within the parking lot be removed for ease of maintenance. In regards to the proposed lighting plan, it was recommended that the applicant utilize a consistent bulb type throughout the project, rather than a combination of colors from both metal halide and high- pressure sodium. The ALRC identified concerns about the landscaping proposed along Washington Street, recommending that the design be more consistent with existing neighboring projects, particularly noting the absence of palm trees in the proposed plans. The ALRC recommended the applicant install palm trees along the Washington Street frontage, provide colorful shrubs or a water feature within the entry median island, and install a small turf area within the planter area immediately south of the church entrance. The additional turf was recommended in order to provide balance and continuity with the existing turf on the northern half of the church site. The Committee adopted Minute Motion 2010-002 recommending approval with the following conditions: Shrubs and organic groundcover should be removed from all planters and medians within the parking lot. 2. The applicant shall consider shortening the length of the medians at the end of each row of parking. 3. The applicant shall plant palm trees along the Washington Street frontage. 4. The center island of the main church entrance shall be modified to include either a small water feature, the addition of colorful shrubs and bushes, or a combination thereof. 5. The applicant shall include turf in the planter area immediately south of the main church entrance in order to provide aesthetic continuity with the existing landscaping on northern side of the entrance. 6. All new parking lot lighting shall contain a consistent bulb type, rather than a combination of metal halide and high pressure sodium. SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/25/10 Page 5 of 7 PAReports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc With regards to the above listed recommendations, staff suggests the Planning Commission discuss further the idea of removing shrubs and groundcover from within the parking area and a condition requiring the installation of additional turf along the southern half of the main entry. The Committee also recommended the installation of a water feature at the main entrance to the church, but was also supportive of the use of colorful shrubs and bushes, an option which staff recommends over the water feature. The ALRC was also concerned about the use of the two different colored bulb types for outdoor lighting, but staff does not believe this will have a detrimental aesthetic effect because of their separation. The recommendations of the ALRC have been incorporated into the attached Site Development Permit Conditions No. 69 through 74. Staff recommends the Planning Commission reconsider these conditions prior to making their final decision. CEQA: The Planning Department conducted an Initial Study and determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on 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 and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be adopted. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on May 14, 2010. To date, no letters have been received. Staff received a few inquiries regarding the project's status from interested church parishioners, but no comments were made. A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of the proposed Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Development Permit can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolutions recommending approval of Environmental Assessment 2006-564, Conditional Use Permit 2006-097, and Site Development Permit 2006-860 with the recommended Conditions of Approval to the City Council. SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/25/10 Page 6 of 7 PAReports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc Prepared by: Aap-� AO/cr w J. Mogensen, AICP ipal Planner Attachments: Aerial Site Plan 2. Conceptual Grading, Lighting, Landscaping and View Study Plan Set 3. Minutes for the May 13, 2010 Architecture and Landscape Review Committee hearing SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 EA 06-564 Planning Commission Staff Report 4/25/10 Page 7 of 7 P:\Reports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\Stf Rpt SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-564 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERIMIT 2006-097 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-564 APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 251' day of May, 2010, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Prest Vuksic Architects for Environmental Assessment 2006-564 prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 and Site Development Permit 2006-860, located on the west side of Washington Street between Avenues 47 and 48, more particularly described as: APN: 643-090-026 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 2006-564) 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 and Mitigation Monitoring Program 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 2006-564. The proposed parking lot project replaces an additional existing temporary parking lot and will not result in an increase in any impacts over what currently exists on the project site. P:\Reports - PC\2010\5-25-10\SDP 06-860 CUP 06-097 St Francis\EA 2006-564 PC RES.doc 8 Planning Commission Resolution 2010 Environmental Assessment 2006-564 St. Francis Church Parking Lot Adopted: May 25, 2010 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 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, nor has been identified as a wildlife corridor. 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, and grading of the site will primarily disturb existing developed areas. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors 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. The project does not change the property's current land use as a church parking lot and will not generate new or additional impacts. If the project is approved as proposed, it 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. The proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic or noise, as it is intended to replace an existing temporary parking facility. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment with the mitigation measures imposed. 9 Planning Commission Resolution 2010 Environmental Assessment 2006-564 St. Francis Church Parking Lot Adopted: May 25, 2010 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2006-564 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 753.5(d). 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: 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 2006-564 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 2006-564 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 25`h day of May, 2010, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California 10 Planning Commission Resolution 2010 Environmental Assessment 2006-564 St. Francis Church Parking Lot Adopted: May 25, 2010 ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 11 Environmental Checklist Form Project title: EA 2006-564, Site Development Permit 2006-860, Conditional Use Permit 2006-097, Saint Francis Church Parking Lot Expansion 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Andrew J. Mogensen, AICP 760-777-7125 4. Project location: The west side of Washington Street, south of Avenue 47. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Saint Francis of Assisi Catholic Community 47225 Washington Street La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential 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 applicant proposes the paving of a parking lot within the general boundary of a turfed parking area which currently exists. In addition, the applicant proposes the creation of a new temporary parking area immediately to the west of the new paved parking area. 220 parking spaces are proposed in the paved lot, while 134 spaces are proposed in the new temporary lot. The project also includes the creation of a storm water retention basin on the east boundary of the site, and associated landscaping of the parking and retention area. The project area encompasses approximately 5 acres. The proposed project occurs immediately south of the existing church, on the west side of Washington Street. The Conditional Use Permit is required to allow parking, while the Site Development Permit is required to consider the design and landscaping plan for the site. All existing access points to the frontage road will remain as they currently occur, as will access from the frontage road onto Washington Street. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: Lands to the west consist of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Lands to the south are currently vacant, and designated for Low Density Residential development. Lands to the east, beyond Washington Street, consist of retail and office commercial uses. Lands to the north include the church buildings, and the Highlands single family neighborhood beyond. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None 12 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. X 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 FIR 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. SivrtartS Date -2- 13 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 XVII, "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 -3- 14 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, X trees, rock 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? (Project description) I. a)-c) The installation of the parking lots will not impact any scenic vistas. The project does not propose any structures which would block a view from Washington Street to the foothills. The proposed project will include a landscaped retention basin on its east boundary, and landscaping in the parking lot. The landscaping will act as a visual buffer to the parking area. The western temporary lot will not be landscaped beyond a gravel covering, but will also not impact views, as no structures are planned in this area either. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings on the site, so the project will not impact scenic resources. The project is located on an Image Corridor (Washington Street), as defined in the General Plan. However, the project proposes only landscaping along the frontage road which currently separates the site from Washington Street. The project will therefore not impact scenic resources. The proposed project consists of the paving of an existing lot, and the addition of a temporary lot to the west. The nature of the project is substantially similar to what occurs on the land today, and will therefore not impact the visual character of the area. d) The proposed project will have no new impact on light and glare. Light currently occurs on the site when the existing turfed lot is in use during the evening hours. The paving of the lot will not result in any increase in the number of vehicles using the lot, insofar as the congregation will not grow as a result of the proposed project. In the future, should the congregation increase in size, some increase in use of the area on special occasions (particularly Christmas eve services, or large weddings or funerals) may result in use of the new temporary lot. This increase, however, is not expected to occur for some years, and will not substantially add to the light in the area. -4- 15 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.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for X 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 proposed project site is currently in use as a parking area, and lands to the west are vacant desert. Neither area is designated for agricultural lands on State mapping systems. The parcel is designated for Low Density Residential land uses, and has been for some years. There are no agricultural activities within several miles of the project site. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the proposed project site or on lands in the vicinity. This site is in the urban core of the City, and is not an agricultural area. There will be no impact to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project. -5- 16 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 contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for X which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (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) t) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either X directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or X regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases`? (Project description) III. a) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) implements air quality regulation in the City and region. The SCAQMD 2007 Air Quality Management Plan and 2003 PMIO State Implementation Plan are the applicable documents for this project. Both plans were developed using the City's General Plan land uses. The parking area is ancillary to the primary church use on the site, and will not generate any significant number of new vehicle trips. The proposed project is therefore consistent with the SCAQMD's adopted plans. b)- c) The paving of the proposed parking lot will result in air emissions during the grading and paving of the site. As no structures are proposed, there will be no construction emissions. Further, as the parking lot replaces an existing lot, and the new temporary lot is an "overflow" parking area, no new trips will be created as a result of the proposed project, so no new operational emissions will occur. For purposes of this 6- 17 analysis, it has been estimated that all grading activities will occur in one phase. The paved area totals 2.2 acres, and it has been estimated that all paving would be accomplished in one day. As the project also includes concrete curb and gutter, equipment has been assumed for this activity as well. Worker emissions include the personnel required to operate the machinery, as well as supervisory personnel. The grading and paving emissions for the proposed project are shown in the Tables below. As shown in these tables, the proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during either grading or paving activities. Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (pounds per day) Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) 5.0 26.4 132.0 Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993. Table 2 Grading - Related Exhaust Emissions Summary CO NOx ROG Sox PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Equipment Emissions Workers' Vehicle Emissions 43.11 4.33 96.58 3.39 17.59 0.57 0.23 0.01 3.78 0.14 3.36 0.11 8,751.38 725.21 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 Table 3 Aggregate Construction - Related Emissions Summary (bounds per dav) CO NOx ROG SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 23.02 40.65 6.07 0.05 2.55 2.27 Equipment Emissions 4,316.00 Workers' Vehicle Emissions 4.33 3.39 0.57 0.01 0.14 0.11 725.21 Asphalt Paving Emissions - - 1_05 - - - - Architectural Coatings - - - - - - - Emissions Total Construction Emissions 27.36 44.04 7.69 0.06 2.69 2.39 5,041.21 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 N/A Overall air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. 7- 18 d) The construction of the proposed parking lots will have no impact on pollutant concentrations, as the project will not result in any change in current traffic volumes or flows. e) The proposed project will not generate odors. The paving of the parking area, and creation of the new temporary lot, will occur outside, and any odors created by vehicles will quickly disperse. f) & g) The grading and construction of the proposed parking lots will result in the generation of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) during the grading and paving processes. The proposed project will have no direct long term impact on GHGs, insofar as the parking lot is currently in use, and its paving will not increase the church's congregation, and the number of cars which park in the area. As described in the Tables above, the project will generate 9,476.59 pounds per day of carbon dioxide during grading. It is estimated that grading will occur for a period of approximately 10 days. As a result, the project will generate 94,760 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 42.6 metric tons. The paving of the parking area has the potential to generate 5,041.2 pounds per day of carbon dioxide. It is estimated that the paving process will take approximately 3 days. As a result, the project will generate 15,123.6 pounds of carbon dioxide, or 6.8 metric tons. The SCAQMD has not adopted any thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, except for industrial projects for which it is the lead agency. For those projects, it uses a threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year. For commercial and residential project, SCAQMD's staff have referenced a possible threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year as representing a significant increase in GHG emissions. That threshold was not adopted by the SCAQMD Board, and is the subject of ongoing discussions of a working group. However, as the project will generate 49.4 metric tons in one year, and no emissions following that construction year, the proposed project is well below the thresholds considered by SCAQMD. The proposed project will therefore have less than significant impacts on GHGs. -8- 19 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 X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -9- 20 IV. a) A biological resource assessment was completed for the proposed project. The survey found that the vacant desert lands west of the proposed paved lot are dominated by the Sonoran creosote bush scrub plant community. The site survey found no sensitive plants on the project site. The site survey also did not identify any sensitive animal species on the site. Following the completion of the survey, the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan was adopted by the City and other participating jurisdictions. The Plan identified conservation areas immediately west of the project site, but not in areas where the proposed project is to occur. As the proposed project will not disturb the toe of slope, it falls under the mitigation fee requirements of the Plan, and will be subject to these requirements to assure that impacts associated with any sensitive species are less than significant. b)-f) The project area does not contain any riparian habitat. A significantly degraded mesquite hummock occurs on the southeastern edge of the site. The biological report did not identify any impact associated with this hummock because of the degraded nature of the plants, due primarily to its isolation and a lowered water table. There are no wetlands within or adjacent to the project site. The site is isolated by existing development, and provides a "dead end" for natural environment. As a result, there is no potential for the site as a transportation corridor for wildlife. There will be no impact associated with the movement of native species as a result of the proposed project. The proposed project area is within the area covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. The project area is not in a conservation area under the MSHCP, and as such is required to pay a mitigation fee. There will therefore be no conflict with the Plan, and no impact is expected. "Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis of the proposed St. Francis of Assisi Parking Lot," prepared by James Comet, May 2007. to- 21 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) The site is currently vacant, with the exception of a turfed parking lot. There are no historic structures on the site, and previous surveys have not identified historic structures. There will therefore be no impact associated with historic structures as a result of construction of the parking lot. b) Multiple cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the project site, the most recent occurring in 2001. In 2007, the consulting archaeologist summarized the findings of the previous surveys, and the determinations made after excavation of specific sites that these sites were not culturally significant 2. The 2007 letter also reiterated that archaeological resources may occur beneath the surface of the site, and that their disturbance would constitute a potentially significant impact. As a result, mitigation measures must be imposed to assure that no archaeological resources are impacted during the grading of the project site, as follows: 1. An archaeological monitor shall be present on and adjacent to the project site during all ground disturbance. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and redirect construction activities should a buried resource be uncovered, and the City shall be immediately notified. Proof of retention of a monitor shall be provided in writing to the City prior to the initiation of any ground disturbing activity. The monitor shall deliver a report of any findings within 30 days of the conclusion of precise grading on the site to the City. Any resources identified shall be professionally processed and curated. c) The proposed project occurs north of the historic boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which is the only paleontologically sensitive geologic feature in the City. The soils outside the boundary of the ancient lake are too young geologically, and are composed CRM Tech, April 2007, letter signed by Michael Hogan, Principal. -11- 22 of sands and fine sands, which are not conducive to fossilization. As a result, no impacts to paleontological resources are expected as a result of the proposed project. d) The project site is not a part of a known burial ground, nor is it adjacent to a known burial ground. No cemetery occurs in association with the existing church to the north. California law requires that any human remains found when excavations occur be reported to law enforcement. Further, law enforcement is required to determine if the remains have the potential to be culturally significant to local Native American Tribes, and to contact the Tribes if they are determined to be so. These requirements of State law assure that there will be no impact to human remains as a result of the widening project. -12- 23 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, creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6. t ) 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) The proposed project site is not located within the boundaries of an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Hazard Zone. The site will, however, experience significant ground shaking during an earthquake. The site will require that light poles and other construction on the site meet seismic requirements of the building code in effect when the parking lot is constructed. These requirements are designed to limited impacts associated with construction in seismically active areas to less than significant levels. 13- 24 These standards will assure that there will be no impacts associated with ground shaking. The project site is not in an area subject to liquefaction. The proposed project occurs to the east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The new temporary lot is proposed in closest proximity to the foothills, and will be used as an overflow lot for special events. The paved lot is located over 300 feet from the toe of slope, and is not expected to be impacted by rockfall or landslide. As a parking lot, the area will not be occupied for any length of time by people, and the impacts associated with landslides and rockfall is expected to be less than significant. b) The proposed project will be subject to soil erosion due to wind and water during its construction. The City will implement PM10 Management Plans for grading of the parking lot, consistent with its standards for all projects, to assure that wind erosion is controlled. The City will also implement best management practices relating to storm water management during and after the construction process, to assure that stone water is not polluted by soils from the site or up stream sources. These City requirements will assure that the impacts associated with soil erosion will be less than significant. c) The City's soils are not expansive, as they consist of sands and silty sands. d) The proposed project will have no impact on septic or sewer systems, as the parking lot will not require septic or sanitary sewer service. ta- 25 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. 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 public or the environment through X 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) 0 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 interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where -15- 26 wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)m c)-h) The proposed project will not result in the storage, handling or use of hazardous materials. The parking lot does not include any storage facilities, and no potential for such activities will result from the proposed project. b) The proposed use of the site as a parking lot will result in the release of small amounts of oils and auto chemicals from leaks in car engines. These materials will stay on the surface, and could enter surface water flows during a storm. The City will require the construction of best management practices for the operation of the parking, which will include facilities to "clean" surface flows, particularly those which will flow to the on site retention basin. These standard requirements will assure that the proposed project has less than significant impacts associated with hazardous materials. c) The proposed project will not involve the release of hazardous materials, and is not located in proximity to a school. No impact will occur. d) The project site is not listed on any County, State or federal list of hazardous materials site. No impact will occur. e) & f) The proposed project does not occur in the vicinity of any airport. There are no other airstrips in the vicinity. The proposed project will have no impact on safety at either airport. g) The proposed project will have no impact on emergency response plans, as it is located on the City's major arterial, Washington Street, and will not change or block the traffic flow on that street. Further, the proposed parking lot will not result in any added traffic, other than that which currently exists there. h) The proposed project will have no impact on wildland fires. The proposed parking lot is located east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and will not include any structures. The area is sparsely vegetated, and the potential for wildland fires is negligible. -16- 27 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant 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 anted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including X 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. III-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 runoff7(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 I00-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) 17- 28 VIII. a) & b) The proposed project will have no impact on water quality standards. The parking lot does not include water or waste water, other than that needed for landscaping. The paving of the lot will result in small amounts of chemicals and oils from automobiles, which will be controlled through the implementation of best management practices on site (see below). c) - e) The proposed parking lot project includes a retention basin designed to accommodate storm flows from both the project site, and the up -stream Highlands neighborhood. The hydrologic analysis prepared for the proposed project considered both on site and up -stream flows;. The study assumed the need to contain the 100 year storm flow from the site as well as the upstream flows, according to City standards. This analysis resulted in the sizing of the retention basin to assure that these flows would be accommodated. The analysis also included best management practices, for both construction and operation of the parking lot, which are designed to control siltation. The City and the church will enter into a Maintenance Agreement designed to assure that the basin retains capacity and functionality in the long term. These requirements, and the Agreement, will assure that impacts associated with storm flows are less than significant. O-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. Further, no structures are planned, and no one will occupy the site for any period of time. No impact is expected. "Water Quality Management Plan and Hydrology," prepared by Watson Engineering, February 2010. -Is- 29 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 plan, policy, or regulation of an agency X 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) The project site is currently in use as a parking area, and will not divide an established community. b) The use of the site as a parking area is ancillary to the existing church, which is permitted under the Low Density Residential zone. The addition of parking will relieve on street and off site parking currently occurring, and will not be in conflict with either the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. The project will be required to meet landscaping and design requirements for parking lots. No impact is expected. c) The project site is within the boundaries of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and will be subject to the regulations associated with that Plan. No impact is expected. 19- 30 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the 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) No mineral resources are expected to occur within the project area. There are no significant mineral resources in the vicinity of the project. The project site has been designated for urban use for a number of years. No impact will occur. 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 groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. l 11 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. I I I 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) & c) The parking lot occurs adjacent to future residential development, although lands to the south are currently vacant. The proposed parking lots will be in use during services and other church activities, which generally occur on Sundays, during day time hours. The noise generated by car engines will be limited, and periodic, and is not expected to increase noise levels in the long term. XI. b)& d) The construction of the parking lot will result in temporary elevated noise levels associated with the heavy equipment which will be used to grade and pave the site. There are no sensitive receptors in proximity to the project site. Further, the -21- 32 construction of the lot will occur during prescribed daytime hours, when noise levels are less impacted by additions to the noise environment. Although temporary increases in noise due to heavy equipment are expected to occur for short periods, the impact is expected to be less than significant, insofar as no sensitive receptors occur in the area. e) & f) The project site is not located within the noise contours of any airport or airstrip. -22- 33 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.) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., project description) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., project description) XII. a)-c) The paving of the parking lot is being completed to accommodate an existing need. The project will therefore have no potential to induce growth, either directly or indirectly. The project site does not currently include housing or people, and the construction of the parking lot will not displace either housing or people. No impacts associated with population and housing are expected. -23- 34 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIIL 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 construction of the parking lot will have no impac and police departments currently would respond to call and the paving of the area will not change that response. not increase the school population, and will therefore Similarly, the construction of the parking lot will have public facilities. t on public services. The fire for service in the turfed lot, The proposed parking lot will have no impact on schools. no impact on parks or other -24 35 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? (Project description; 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? (Project description) XIV. a) & b) The construction of a church parking lot has no potential to impact recreational resources. -25- 36 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X 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.) b) Exceed, either individually or X 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)? (Project description) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) I) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Project description) 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 proposed parking lot is being constructed to improve parking at the church, and alleviate the need for on -street parking, particularly during special events at the church. The proposed project will not increase traffic, nor will it affect traffic on Washington Street beyond the effects which currently occur. Access to the lot will be in the same location, off the frontage road, as currently occurs. Egress from the site will continue as it currently does — either from the frontage road or from the intersection of Washington Street and Highlands/Avenue 47, which is currently signalized. The parking lot will have no impact on levels of service in the area. -26- 37 The proposed parking lot will have no impact on air traffic, as there are no airports in the area, and the parking lot would not impact air traffic. The proposed parking lot has been designed to City standards, including the width of drive aisles and turning radii. There will be no impact associated with design features. The proposed parking lot will have no impact on emergency access, as the access points to the site will continue to occur in the same location as they do currently. The proposed parking lot is designed to add to the parking available at the church, and will not result in inadequate parking capacity. The church is located on an established SunLine bus route, and the construction of the lot will have no impact on that bus route. -27- 38 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE X 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 proposed parking lot will have no impacts on utilities and service systems. There will be no wastewater facilities associated with the proposed project. The project site is currently irrigated, and the construction of the lot will use the same water source for -28- 39 landscaping irrigation. The proposed project will not require solid waste services, although the church is currently served by the City's solid waste provider. -29- 40 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to 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 future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The project site contains no significant biological resources. The project site has the potential to include buried archaeological resources. Mitigation for this potential impact has been provided in this report, which reduce the impacts to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The paving of the lot achieves long term goals, insofar as it can be expected to alleviate current on site parking deficiencies. XVII. c) The paving of the parking lot will have no cumulative impacts. The construction of the adjacent retention basin will relieve existing flooding issues in the area, thereby resulting in a beneficial cumulative impact. XVII. d) The proposed project will have no significant effect on people, as no sensitive receptors occur near the site. -30- 41 U 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. 3 t- 42 \ §\ \\ }\ \ �{ \ z§ §®K� a $2CO 4aa4 m )§ \\ \\ (\ /} \\ j{ e 9 J c 3 \) �� \7\\// . 33 \\ /\ } \j () E3 ! \ / \§ /( � y ) - §2 \ )/ \ §� ` ( ( q \ \I\ \ - - _ z / u ) \ ® )5 43 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH PARKING LOT AT 43- 22E WASHINGTON STREET. CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097 APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25`" day of May, 2010, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Prest Vuksic Architects for Conditional Use Permit 2006-097, located on the west side of Washington Street between Avenues 47 and 48, more particularly described as: • • � . • �IsI�3iy3:1 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 2006-564) and has determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect from 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 and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be adopted; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Conditional Use Permit: Finding A - The proposed Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the General Plan in that the General Plan authorizes the use of churches within Residential Low Density land use designations. Although the proposed project involves changed conditions to the existing church site, it does not involve an expansion or a change in use. As a result, the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Finding B - The proposed Conditional Use Permit is compatible with the Low Density Residential Zoning District because churches and religious facilities are an Cam Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 St. Francis Church Parking Lot May 25, 2010 approved land use with a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed parking lot does not involve an expansion of an existing use and will replace an existing temporary parking facility that serves an existing church. Finding C - Processing of this Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The La Quinta Planning Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2006-564) 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 and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be adopted. Finding D - Approval of this Conditional Use Permit will not be a detriment to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor shall it be injurious or incompatible with other properties or uses in the vicinity. The project replaces an existing temporary parking lot within an existing church site with a permanent paved parking lot. Grading of the proposed parking area will not result in a significant change to the existing project site or interfere with scenic views. Water -efficient irrigated landscaping will be installed with the project that will improve dust control over what currently exists on site and a retention basin will be constructed to improve local stormwater conditions. The project will not result in a change in land use from the property's current use as a church parking lot. As a result, the proposed land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and will not have an impact on health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 251" day of May, 2010 by the following vote, to wit: 45 Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 St. Francis Church Parking Lot May 25, 2010 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 46 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097 ST. FRANCIS CHURCH PARKING LOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MAY 25, 2010 GFNFRAI 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense council. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 shall expire on June 15, 2012, two years after City Council approval, unless established or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions)• 3. Conditional Use Permit 2006-097 shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval for Site Development Permit 2006-860 and mitigation and monitoring measures for Environmental Assessment 2006-564. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant shall obtain applicable permits and/or clearances from the following agencies, if applicable or required: • Riverside County Fire Marshall • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • The Gas Company • Sunline Transit Agency • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits or clearances from the above listed agencies and departments. When the requirements 47 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097 ST. FRANCIS CHURCH PARKING LOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MAY 25, 2010 include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. 4. The applicant shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all cost and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if the applicant requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and the applicant's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. MAINTENANCE 5. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160, and shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on - site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from its responsibility by the appropriate public agency. FEE AND DEPOSITS 6. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. 7. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance with LQMC Chapter 3.34. PARKING AREAS 8. Prior to approval of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Public Works department a temporary parking plan to identify the locations and scheduling for alternative parking locations during grading and construction of the parking areas. m PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-097 ST. FRANCIS CHURCH PARKING LOT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED MAY 25, 2010 9. Use of the temporary overflow parking area shall be limited to special events and religious holidays when the other parking lots are anticipated to reach capacity. 10. Parking lot lighting shall be turned off or reduced within one hour following the conclusion of evening events. Lighting within the temporary overflow parking area shall only be activated when the temporary lot is being used for special events during evening hours. 49 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH PARKING LOT AT 43- 225 WASHINGTON STREET. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 APPLICANT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 25" day of May, 2010, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Prest Vuksic Architects for Site Development Permit 2006-860, located on the west side of Washington Street between Avenues 47 and 48, more particularly described as: APN: 643-090-026 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 2006-564) and has determined that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect from 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 and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee reviewed the proposed project during their meeting held on May 13, 2010, and recommended approval of the proposed project with conditions; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, the Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: Finding A - Site Development Permit 2006-860 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, in that the project site is designated as Low Density Residential which permits the existing church and religious land use. The proposed parking lot replaces an existing lot and does not involve an expansion of use. As a result, the Site Development Permit is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the 50 Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Site Development Permit 2006-860 St. Francis Church Parking Lot May 25, 2010 General Plan. Finding B - Site Development Permit 2006-860 is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Code in that it is a permitted conditional use under the Low Density Residential (RL) zoning designation. The parking lot complies with the development standards of the RL zoning district and other Zoning Code requirements such as parking, setbacks, and landscaping. The proposed parking lot does not involve an expansion of an existing use and will replace an existing temporary parking facility that serves an existing church. Finding C - Processing of this Site Development Permit for the proposed parking lot is in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The La Quinta Planning Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2006-564) 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 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. Finding D - The site design of Site Development Permit 2006-860, including, but not limited to project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian amenities, sidewalks, crosswalks, and other site design elements will be compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. Finding E - Site Development Permit 2006-860 landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials is designed and conditioned so as to provide relief, complement the existing church buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, and provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses. Water -efficient irrigated landscaping will be installed with the project that will improve dust control over what currently exists on site and a retention basin will be constructed to improve local stormwater conditions. The project will serve to establish an overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, complement the surrounding project area and comply with both City and CVWD water efficiency requirements, ensuring efficient water use. Finding F - Approval of this Site Development Permit will not be a detriment to the public health, safety and general welfare, nor shall it be injurious or incompatible with other properties or uses in the vicinity. The project will not result 51 Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Site Development Permit 2006-860 St. Francis Church Parking Lot May 25, 2010 in a change in land use from the property's current use as a church parking lot and will not generate additional traffic or significant emissions. As a result, the proposed land use is compatible with adjacent land uses and will not have an impact on health and safety. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2006-860 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 25" day of May, 2010 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON Planning Director 52 Planning Commission Resolution 2010- Site Development Permit 2006-860 St. Francis Church Parking Lot May 25, 2010 City of La Quinta, California 53 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 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 Site Development Permit, The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Site Development Permit 2006-860 shall expire on June 15, 2012, two years after City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080 (Permit expiration and time extensions). 3. Site Development Permit 2006-860 shall comply with all mitigation and monitoring measures for Environmental Assessment 2006-564 and all applicable conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit 2006-097. 4. 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 Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • The Gas Company 54 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • SunLine Transit Agency • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley 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. 5. 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. 2009-0009-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. SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 55 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 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)): 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 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. 6. 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). 7. Approval of this Site Development Permit shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 56 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. 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. Said conferred rights shall also include grant of access easement to the City of La Quinta for the purpose of graffiti removal by City staff or assigned agent in perpetuity and agreement to the method to remove graffiti and to paint over to best match existing. The applicant shall establish the aforementioned requirements in the CC&R's for the development or other agreements as approved by the City Engineer. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant shall submit and execute an "AUTHORIZATION TO REMOVE GRAFFITI FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY" form located at the Public Works Department Counter prior to Certificate of Occupancy or final landscaping approval. 10. 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. 11. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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. 12. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 57 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 1) Washington Street (Augmented Major Arterial, 132' ROW) — No additional right of way is required for the standard 66 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 132-foot ultimate developed right of way. 2) Frontage Road (Old Marshall Road) — No additional right of way is required of this Site Development Permit. 13. 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. 14. No direct vehicular access to Washington Street is permitted for this Site Development Permit. Access to Washington Street shall be via those access points to the Frontage Road and as approved by the City Engineer. No direct vehicular access to the Frontage Road except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit site plan, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 15. 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. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 16. 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. 17. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during street sweeping operations. 18. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: SDP 2006-660 PC Conditions 58 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 Primary Entry/Existing Church Driveway (Frontage Road): Right turn in and out are permitted. Left turns in and out are permitted. Secondary Entry (Frontage Road): Right turn in and left turn out are permitted. Left turn in and right turn out are restricted. 19. 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. 20. 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. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 21. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where ADA accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans to better evaluate ADA accessibility issues. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking stall lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 17 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for standard parking stalls and 18 feet with a 2-foot overhang for handicapped parking stall or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible handicapped parking stall is required per 8 handicapped parking stalls. SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 59 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 F. Drive aisles between parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site Development Plan site plan or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. 22. General access points and turning movements of traffic to on site private streets are limited to the access locations approved for the Site Development Permit site plan and these conditions of approval. 23. 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: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) Temporary Parking Lot 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. 4.0" crushed aggregate gravel or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 24. 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. 25. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 60 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 signs and sidewalks. 26. 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. 27. Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the current edition of the California Building Code, Chapter 11 B, regarding the provision of accessible parking by submitting a comprehensive plan showing all parking spaces on the site. Because the proposed parking lot adjoins existing parking areas, all required accessible parking spaces may occur in the existing parking areas. However, any existing accessible space for which compliance credit is sought must comply with current accessible space dimensions, layout, signage, and access. The applicant's civil engineer is encouraged to prepare a preliminary drawing and schedule a site visit with the Building & Safety Department to establish the extent of remediation required to bring existing accessible spaces into compliance. 28. Prior to approval of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Public Works department a temporary parking plan to identify the locations and scheduling for alternative parking locations during grading and construction of the parking areas. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 29. 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). 30. 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 SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 61 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 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 Precise 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. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 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. G. On -Site Non -Residential/ Commercial Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 20' Horizontal 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- SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 62 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. "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. The applicant shall prepare an accessibility assessment on a marked up print of the building floor plan identifying every building egress and notes the 2007 California Building Code accessibility requirements associated with each door. The assessment must comply with submittal requirements of the Building & Safety Department. A copy of the reviewed assessment shall be submitted to the Engineering Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director and the City Engineer. "Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 31. 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. 32. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 33. 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 SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 63 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 Drawing" 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 during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer Of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. PRECISE GRADING 34. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 35. 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. 36. 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). 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. SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 64 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 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. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 37. 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. 38. 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 (18") behind the curb. 39. 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 Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 40. The applicant shall provide a 4-inch thick crushed aggregate gravel surface over the proposed temporary parking lot or as approved by the City Engineer. Said surface shall conform to requirements for traffic and fugitive dust stabilization. DRAINAGE 41. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 65 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 drainage report for (the "St. Francis of Assisi Preliminary Hydrology" for this Site Development Permit prepared by Watson Engineering dated December 9, 2009 and as approved by the City Engineer. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. 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. 46. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 47. 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. SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 66 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 48. 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 9.100.040(B)(7). 49. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 50. 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. 51. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 52. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et 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. R7-2008-001. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments 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. R7-2008-001. B. 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. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions, 67 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. UTILITIES 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 56. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 57. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 58. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 59, 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 SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 68 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 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 and approved by the Planning Director. Said review and approval shall occur prior to issuance of first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justify an alternative processing schedule. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. Irrigation design and water use shall comply with the efficiency requirements of Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. 60. 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. 61. 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, 5" 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. 62. The applicant shall revise the plans to identify that all trees have a minimum 2.5 inch caliper trunk size. Staff shall work with the applicant to select and install shrubs of an appropriate size. 63. The applicant shall work with Planning and Public Works staff to reduce the square footage of turf within the retention basin. FEES AND DEPOSITS 64. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LOMC 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 SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 69 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 makes application for plan check and permits. 65. 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). 66. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee, in accordance with LQMC Chapter 3.34. "TtTi7CUI C 67. The site shall be monitored during on- and off -site trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors, one of which shall be a Native American tribal member. The monitor shall be empowered to stop and redirect earth moving activities as necessary to identify and study any identified resource. A signed contract for archaeological monitoring shall be submitted to both Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of any grading permits. The final report of monitoring activities shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or final landscaping approval. 68. Collected archaeological resources shall be properly packaged for long term curation, in polyethylene self -seal bags, vials, or film cans as appropriate, all within acid -free, standard size, comprehensively labeled archive boxes and delivered to the City prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the property. Materials shall be accompanied by descriptive catalogue, field notes and records, primary research data, and the original graphics. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMISSION 69. Shrubs and organic groundcover should be removed from all planters and medians within the parking lot. 70. The applicant shall consider shortening the length of the medians at the end of each row of parking. SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 70 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2010- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2006-860 ST FRANCIS PARKING LOT MAY 25, 2010 71. The applicant shall plant palm trees along the Washington Street frontage. 72. The center island of the main church entrance shall be modified to include either a small water feature, the addition of colorful shrubs and bushes, or a combination thereof. 73. The applicant shall include turf in the planter area immediately south of the main church entrance in order to provide aesthetic continuity with the existing landscaping on northern side of the entrance. 74. All new parking lot lighting shall contain a consistent bulb type, rather than a combination of metal halide and high pressure sodium. SDP 2006-860 PC Conditions 71 ATTACHMENT 8 1 FkfNI+01 WKJ 72 ATTACHMENT # 3 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 13, 2010 2:06 p.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 2:06 'p.m. by Planning Director Les Johnson who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members Present: Ray Rooker and David Thoms Committee Member Absent: Jason Arnold C. Staff present: Planning Director Les Johnson, Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen, and Secretary Monka Radeva II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of April 7, 2010. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thorns to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2006-860 a request submitted by Prest- Vuksic Architects for consideration of Architectural and Landscaping Plans for a proposed church parking lot located on the west side of Washington Street, between Avenues 47 and 48 (St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church). Principal Planner Andrew Mogensen presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. 73 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes May 13, 2010 Committee Member Thoms said that in the past it had been indicated that eventually the frontage road alongside Washington Street would be eliminated, re -directing traffic flow directly to Washington Street, and converting that area into a retention basin. Staff replied the plans for the church had gone through several revisions and one included a new traffic signal and the re -direction of traffic directly to Washington Street. However, the proposed improvements, at this time, only addressed the additional parking lot. Planning Director Johnson explained that since the church was not adding any additional building space, the traffic improvements mentioned above were not triggered. The current improvements were to convert the dirt lot, used for overflow parking, into a permanent parking lot. Committee Member Thoms asked staff to confirm that some time in the future there was the potential that the frontage road would disappear. Staff replied that the frontage road, south of the main entrance, was likely to be eliminated, if and when, the church decided to undertake future site, improvements. This would require a new signalized intersection and a new access point for the church that would,be located further south on Washington Street. Committee Member Thoms asked staff if in the meantime, for extra caution and to alleviate the :traffic during service hours, the City could place a stop sign 'at the end of the frontage road going southbound. Staff replied the suggestion would be passed on to the City's'Public Works Department. Committee Member Thoms said the parking lot was very well laid out and he particularly liked the design of the planters. He expressed concern about the strip planters as his past experiences had shown that the plant materials could not withstand the pedestrian traffic. He recommended the applicant keep the proposed trees, but eliminate the strip plants and shrubs in the medians and replace them with some type of ground cover such as decomposed granite. Committee Member Thoms said he was displeased with the proposed high-pressure sodium and metal halide light fixtures for the new and existing parking lots. He said the design of the light fixtures should complement the theme of the building itself. Staff P:\Reports - ALRC\20IO\ALRC_6-2-IO\ALRC MIN_5-5-10_Draft.doc 74 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes May 13, 2010 noted the new temporary parking lot would not be lit unless it was in use. Staff explained that the same types of light fixtures were being used in both the existing and new parking lots. However, the light fixtures at the entry way and along the driving aisle were a modern -type lantern design with a visor which complemented the building's architecture. Committee Member Thoms said he noticed that the end islands in the parking lot were projecting out 18 feet from the center island and he suggested a reduction to 15 feet to alleviate getting in and out of the end parking spaces. Staff said the suggestion would be discussed with the City's Public Works Department for possible resolutions. Staff also noted that the intent was to try to keep the planters as big as possible to ensure sufficient growth space for the newly planted trees. Mr. Mike Horton, Landscape Architect with HSA Design Group, 42- 635 Melanie Place, Suite 101, Palm 'Desert, CA 92211, introduced himself. He noted it was unlikely the church's patrons would be walking around the parking lot as they would only be attending, and leaving, church services. He explained the applicant was concerned that if there were no plant materials in the planters people would be encouragedh to walk through them creating a potential hazard. He said the design included a ipedestrian pathway at the end of the parking lot: leading towards the church. Mr. Horton said he believed that most landscaping problems with plants and shrubs were not because of pedestrian traffic, but lack of proper maintenance. He noted the church's existing parking lot planters had plant materials in them and there had„not been any maintenance issues. Principal Planner Mogensen said staff had recommended the applicant use bigger planters in the parking lot to allow the trees to grow larger 'with equivalent canopies to provide more shade. Committee Member Rooker asked what the width of the planters was. Staff replied it was five feet wide. Mr. John Vuksic, Architect with Prest Vuksic Architects, 44-530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite #200, Palm Desert, CA 92260, introduced himself. He said the end planters also prevented careless drivers from cutting the corner too close while turning and possibly rear -ending the vehicle parked at the end. Staff noted the P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_6-2-10\ALRC MIN_5-5-10_Draft.doc 75 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes May 13, 2010 submitted plans had been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer and the plans had been previously revised based on his comments. Committee Member Thoms asked why the landscaping plans did not include any proposed palm trees. Staff replied the reason no palm trees were proposed was partially due to City code. A certain percentage of the parking lot was required to be shaded and since palm trees did not provide shade, other trees, better suited for providing shade, were used instead. Staff also explained that the tree planters were strategically placed throughout the parking lot so that the tree canopies would spread over the parked cars. Planning Director Johnson said the proposed landscaping was also meant to soften the look of the parking lot as it was located higher than Washington Street. Committee Member Thoms said the selected Palo Verdes had very thin foliage and in his opinion were not well suited for providing shade. He noted that the same type of tree should be used throughout the parking Jot. Staff said the plans indicated a consistency in the types of,trees used. Committee Member Rooker asked what the standard vehicle stall size and the drive aisle minimum size were. Staff replied the standard vehicle'.size was nine feet by nineteen feet and the minimum drive aisle size was twenty-four feet. Committee Member 'Rooker said he would like to see landscape improvements in the median strip between Washington Street and the frontage road. He asked who was responsible for that area. Staff repliedthe median was in the public right-of-way and the City's Public Works Department was responsible for overseeing the medians. Staff said his concerns would be passed on; however, since the matter was not directly related to the church's proposed improvement plans, staff suggested leaving this comment out of the Committee's recommendations. Committee Member Rooker said he would like to see some landscaping consistency from Highway 1 1 1, continued south onto both sides of Washington Street. He explained what type of trees and palm trees were predominant and where additional ones could be added. P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_6-2-10\ALRC MIN_5-5-10_Draft.doc 76 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes May 13, 2010 Committee Member Rooker said the transition from the existing grassy landscaping to the new decomposed granite landscaping, right at the entry way, was too drastic. He recommended putting in a strip of turf at the corner to soften the transition and provide aesthetic continuity. Mr. Vuksic thanked the Committee for their review and comments on the project. He said the applicant would be very receptive in looking into reducing the length of the end planter as long as it did not create a hazardous environment. He noted the proposed drive aisle were not twenty-four feet, but twenty-six feet wide. General discussion followed regarding the proposed size of the trees and staff's recommendation. Staff said the gallon sizes proposed by the applicant were acceptable with the understanding that staff would be working with the landscape architect to ensure compliance. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Rooker/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2010- 002, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2006-860 as submitted, with the following recommended suggestions: • Reduce the length of the medians at the end of each parking row. .. • Shrubs and organic groundcover should be removed from all planters and medians within the parking lot. • All ,new parking lot lighting shall contain a consistent bulb type. • A row', of Fan Palms shall be added along the Washington Street frontage. • The center island of the main church entrance shall be modified to include either a small water feature, the addition of colorful shrubs and bushes, or a combination thereof. • Turf in the planter, immediately south of the main church entrance, shall be added, in order to provide aesthetic continuity with the existing landscaping. AYES: Committee Members Rooker and Thoms. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Arnold. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None P:\Reports - ALRC\2010\ALRC_6-2-10\ALRC MIN_5-5-10_Draft.doc 77