Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2011 06 14 PC
City of La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.lo-quinta.orn PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JUNE 14, 2011 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2011-004 Beginning Minute Motion 201 1-002 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 26, 2011. 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 2010-610, SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071, AMENDMENT NO. 1, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762, EXTENSION NO. 4, AND AMENDMENT NO. 1 Applicant........... WSL La Quints, LLC Location............ Northeast Corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. Request ............. Consideration of Development Plans For La Paloma, A 208- Unit Senior Living Community. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions — Resolution 2011- B. Item ................... ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-103 Applicant........... City of La Quints Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration Of The Following Amendments To The La Quinta Municipal Code: A Clarification Regarding The Location Of Certain Landscaped Parkways (§9.50.100), Correcting An Error Regarding Guest Houses And Secondary Units (§9.140.070), Adjusting The Time Extension Period For Development Review Permits (§9.200.080), Deletion Of Obsolete Language Referencing Guesthouse Examples (§9.210.020), Revised Definitions Of Child Day Care Uses To Be Consistent With State Law (§9.280.030), and Extend the Maximum Permitted Cul-De-Sac Length To 1320 Feet (§ 13.24.070). Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions — Resolution 2011- V. BUSINESS ITEM: VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meetings of May 3, 2011, May 17, 2011, and June 7, 2011. B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to attend the June 21, 2011, City Council meeting. C. A new City Council Meeting Attendance Schedule will be included in the June 28, 2011, packet. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on June 28, 2011, 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, June 14, 2011 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 Thursday June 9, 2011. DATED: June 9, 2011 1 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. April 26, 2011 V MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA CALL TO ORDER A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta order at 7:03 p.m. by Chairman Ali PRESENT: Commissioners Alderson. Co would be late. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Planninga Weber, Wilk ner Quill had 7:03 P.M. was called to ,nairman staff he Les "Johnson, Planning Manager ;sociate Planner Jay Wuu, and y.Carolyn Walker. There being no: comments,-olr�suggestions, it was moved by Commissioners Weber/Barrows to approve `the minutes of March 8, 2011 as submitted. Unanimously approved. PUBLIC HEARINGS:` A., Final Landscaping Plan 2010-053; a request by Levitan Development for consideration of final landscaping plans for the Desert Express Car Wash located on the east side of Washington Street, approximately 780 feet north of Fred Waring Drive. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Commissioner Wilkinson asked staff to point out the center access point from the neighboring property as it did not show on the Power Point slide. Staff responded the plans given to the Commission were showed the access and were the correct plans. Commissioner Wilkinson commented on sustainability and walkability yet there was no connection shown. He wondered why it was not included. Planning Director Johnson said it had have that access point established, from the neighboring property to the, i of that connection. General discussion followed Commissioner Wilkinson commente4 inconsistency of lighting throughout been staff's recommendation to )ut" there was strong objection oath. They were not in support sorts for this connection. rr ,the photometric study and the Planning Director Johnson responded it was "`quite bright in a few places and suggested- the'" -,Commission :-"could recommend re- consideration - of the lighting plan by directing staff to go over it with an the applicant d.make any `rlecessary corrections. Commissioner Wilkinson had 'concerns about the possible monetary consequences, ,to the applicant; if the electrical had already been pulled, and then changes were made. He added it appeared the plan needed a,few more light poles with less intense lights. Staff said ,that the site was not yet paved and explained why staff was bringingthis before the Planning Commission at this particular time. Commissioner Quill joined the Commission at 7:18 p.m. Chairman Alderson asked staff, if the project was approved, would it be possible for staff to convey Commissioner Wilkinson's concerns to the electrical engineers. Planning Director Johnson suggested that a condition be added directing staff to re -visit this to ensure better distribution of lighting throughout the site. -2- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Chairman Alderson suggested they set it aside, momentarily, and possibly come back with a motion later in the meeting. Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification on the comment that the 480 watt lighting was not desirable. Planning Director Johnson said in this sized project it was a pretty powerful individual light fixture and that was why the photometric showed readings at 20 in certain locations.'` Commissioner Barrows asked if there would likely be any concerns, about the lighting, from the residents irr'--the' vicinity., Planning Director Johnson said nc,, and explained the photometric plan showed the light dropping off very quick ly,',going west, and fixtures no higher than 20 feet with the throw: of the light having a minimal effect on the adjacent residential community to the west. Commissioner Weber asked about the north side wall and the landscaping changes proposed. He commented on the fencing that was preventing egress to', that area, as well as the maintenance arrangements. Staff responded Ah,ere would be_.wrought iron gates and decomposed granite (dW or other ground cover, to fill in the planter area. Commissioner Weber commented on the lack of space to do anything meaningful;. but the trees next to it provided some softening. General discussion %followed on the subject of ingress/egress to the site, the Council's decision, and the applicant's position on the possibility of A future connection if the opportunity became available. Plannin'.9,1 Director Johnson said the Council did not support making a connection between this and the Mayer Villa Capri project, and the condition was removed. Subsequently, this applicant has removed that connection and designed the project accordingly; since the adjacent property owner was not under any obligation to require the connection. -3- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Chairman Alderson had concerns about a maintenance program being required for elimination of any debris that collected behind the wrought iron gates. Chairman Alderson asked Commissioner Barrows if she had concerns about the placement of the barrel cactus. Commissioner Barrows suggested they wait to:discuss that with the landscape architect, as the placement could be part of a strategy to keep people from walking in that area. Commissioner Barrows then asked about the intensity of the lighting and the hours of operation. Staff suggested the applicant'Prouide those answers. Commissioner Barrows had concerns, about the view heading north on Washington. She asked how the landscaping would be modified in terms of whether there were. going to be, some trees added to soften the mass of the car wash JI the_ - office building behind it. Planning Director Johnson explained the applicant's plans to achieve softening of the,;direct view heading northbound on Washington; as well as information on the aesthetics of the fabric canopies. Commissioner Wilkinson asked,what the canopy colors were. Planning- Director Johnson said they were to be beige and complementary to the building colors. Commissioner, Quill' asked if Condition No. 107 (having to do with ingress/egress'to the south) had been removed. Planning Director Johnson said yes, from the standpoint of the project to the south. Mayer Villa Capri was not conditioned to provide for that access. Discussion followed on: • What was stated in Condition No. 107 • The effect of the Council's decision • What the applicant planned -4- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 • Possible modification of conditions • Possible options if neighboring project ownership changed Commissioner Quill said he was in favor of retaining condition no. 107 as the access was a very smart thing to do. He commented on the City Council's decision of not conditioning the connection as a poor planning choice for connectivity opportunities. He did not understand why the condition was left in if the client was not required to do it. Planning Director Johnson said consideration of removing the strongly about it. Discussion followed on: • If the condition was not staff could schedule a hearing for condition, if the Commission felt loved,.was it required? • Staff's position for not removing tMe, condition. • What was currently at the site? • The Council's commentsi and subsequent decision, on the connection. Commissioner ,Barrows said her understanding of retaining that condition was'that as long ras it didn't create a problem for the applicant and, if things changed with the design, it would not create a huge impact to;the applicant, then there's not a huge impact to the applicant if h turns out that that access point could be developed in Planning Director Johnson said that was correct, even though the burden of responsibility to make that connection should rest with the property to the south at a future date. He suggested the applicant address this 'further as to how they feel about a future connection. But staff is in full support of making that connection. We were perplexed as to why the property owner to the south was in such strong'` objection to provide a connection that would be a great benefit to their retail establishments. Chairman Alderson said any additional questions, on this matter, could be asked of the applicant and suggested the Commissioners move on to other topics. -5- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Discussion then followed on the various positive and negative points of including acacia trees versus robustas in certain areas of the landscaping. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Richard Wasserman, representing ; the 'applicant (Levitan Development), P O Box 5909, La Quinta 92248, introduced himself and offered to answer the Commissioners' questions. He gave some background on the principals of the property to the south and added he' had tried communicating with them`' countless times and they would not respond about shared interests on the two properties. He commented on the lack of success he had on the possible mitigation of mutual dust control issues. Out of. the many times they'had tried to work with that owner, they had not had,a lot of success. Mr. Wasserman continued -on the subject of the entrance to the south. He said they had two issues; ) the underground storage containment system at that location,. which, would end 'up in the middle of the drivable road, and 21. the lackof good visibility when going from south to,the north. Those issues would probably mitigate that from being practical, taken as after4he-fact. Commissioner Weber, asked the applicant if the connection could be of benefit to their; project.; and if"they would be amenable to making that connection if it made sense in the future. Mr. Wasserman said yes, but then mentioned the disparities in the elevation of:the adjacent property which he believed to be in excess of six feet. Commissioner Weber said it did not appear there was a six foot elevation difference there now. Mr. Wasserman expanded upon the height differential. Commissioner Weber asked if he was agreeable to looking at solutions. M Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Mr. Wasserman said yes; especially if they could mitigate the traffic issues of crossing traffic on to the property. Chairman Alderson asked about the hours of operation. Mr. Wasserman said 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., in the winter, and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., in the summer as they changed seasonally. General discussion followed regarding the: drainage plan; including the applicant's comment that the drainage,plan was included in the civil, and not the landscaping plans. Planning Director Johnson said staff had not provided the. Commission with the civil plans, but if there 'was a concern, staff could :w ork with Public Works to re -visit this issue; when the'cvil plans were reviewed, and make sure that adequate drainage was provided in those areas. Chairman Alderson broughtupthe issue `of'the four trees on the north side and said he, would dike to -discuss the matter with the landscape architect. Mr. Wasserm6wsaid the landscape architect was available to address the Commissioners' issues. Chairman Alderson said the Commissioners had commented on re- introducing the, four trees that had been removed as a vehicle to soften, the elevations of the two buildings from the south heading north. He suggested putting a slender tree, with a canopy on it that would stand -above #f#e car wash and not have a ball on it so big that it would be confined by the footing of the adjacent fences. A tree like that might be advantageous to soften the elevation of the building. Commissioner Quill suggested a robusta palm tree. Mr. Wasserman said he understood conceptually, but they were in a hole relative to the northern property which would almost make this impossible; especially with the existing trees and walls, to have any trees in that area. -7- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Discussion followed regarding: • Height differences between the properties • The neighboring wall • The garden wall • Concerns about the footings if trees were planted • The softening effect of adding more trees Mr. Wasserman suggested the Commissioners visit the site to look at the situation as it might resolve some of their concerns. Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Wasserman to confirm there would be wrought iron fence (gates), on either end, with ground cover between the north wall and the building., Mr. Wasserman said they were :,probably going to put' in a large aggregate to maintain a nice fresh look. He added this would allow the water to flow through properly and they would be able to maintain the drainage system that runs through there. The gates, on both sides, are there to help mitigate any problems of people going through there. He said they would love, to 'include:, plants there, but it is an extremely small area and does -not receive any light throughout the day. Chairman,Alderson and Commissioner Barrows agreed that it would be difficult to grow -anything in there. General discussion, followed on the ground cover and maintenance of that area. Commissioner Barrows said she had a question for the landscape architect. Chairran Alderson thanked Mr. Wasserman. Mr. Wasserman asked if he could return to the podium, after the Commissions' discussion with the landscape architect, as he had additional issues to address. Chairman Alderson said he would be brought back. M Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Mr. Paul Sturwold, 43-310 Alabama Street, Palm Desert, landscape architect, introduced himself and offered to answer any questions. Commissioner Barrows said she could not tell, by the legend, if the trees on the south side of the building were Mediterranean Fan Palm or Washingtonia. Mr. Sturwold said they are somewhat similar,`; but they were both palms. He then described the layout and plant palette. Commissioner Barrows asked if one of; the conditions of approval recommended the two Mediterranean. Fan Palms on the south side of the building be replaced with Washingtanias. Staff said yes. Commissioner Barrows then commented on softening the southern exposure by including, some taller trees, possibly palms. Mr. Sturwold said they were also after that effect; however, there was a fine line between hiding the building and softening the view. General discussion followed,.on the possibility of adding more palm trees. Mr. Sturwold commented that; once the Acacia salicinas got going they would help soften the view. Commissioner Barrows said she did not think they would have enough height to achieve the.proper effect since it would be hard for a tree to grow in the ;five foot stretch between the building and the wall. Mr said said yes it would be hard to do, but palms would be a good substitution. He added he did not think they were necessary since `'the project would derive a lot of benefit from the adjacent property and their huge mesquite trees. Mr. Sturwold added that the barrel cactus were meant to be a desert statement and were basically to be kept in the island area, away from traffic. So, with that placement he didn't know if it was a concern. He added most people try to stay away from barrel cactus. I� Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 Commissioner Barrows said the golden barrel is a little better than some, but possibly those could be relocated.. She then asked if the Texas Ranger and oleanders could be replaced with more native materials and commented on the lack of use of native flora. Mr. Sturwold said there was always room for substitutions, but he made those plant choices because of maintenance issues. He has been in the desert for 26 year and had a pretty. ,good feel for what worked and what didn't. Commissioner Barrows said that was a fair point. Mr. Sturwold said if there was the possibility of bringing in a good native plant that works, he would welcome bringing it in. Chairman Alderson asked if there were any, other questions of Mr. Sturwold. Hearing none he asked Mr., Wasserman to return to the podium. Mr. Wasserman returned to address the lighting issue. He explained where the lighting would be and where/why there were hot spots on the photometric study. General - discussion followed,, on the lighting plan, specific lighting areas, type and he of light fixtures and off -site spillover. Chairman Alderson asked if: there were any more questions of the applicant. There being none he,asked if there was any public comment. There `being none; Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the matter foriCommission discussion. Commissioner Quill commented that he appreciated the fact that the applicant` had flipped the building, as previously requested by the Commission, and that they had worked very hard to put in the additional access to the south of this project. He agreed with Commissioner Barrow's comment on utilizing native plants and added this was a nice looking car wash, but he did not feel it was in the right location. -10- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 General discussion then followed on addressing each Commissioner's concerns, in the conditions, and the proper framing of the motion. There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Weber to adopt Minute Motion 2011-001 recommending approval of Final Landscaping Plan 2010- 053 as conditioned in the staff report with the following revisions: a. Whenever possible, native Coloradodesert species be incorporated into the landscaping. b. Planning Staff will revisit the Drainage Plan to ensure proper drainage will occur. C. Planning Staff will revisit the photometric study and lighting plan to ensure that the lighting is appropriate and balanced for the project. d. Condition No. 107 shall remain as is. Unanimously approved.. VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:,, A. Thank you :letter submitted to Council, by Ed Alderson, on behalf of the Commissioners who, --attended the Planners' Institute. General discussion of the Conference followed. B. Invitation from the Coachella Valley Water District for their Water Awareness Tour on May, 20, 2011. Chairman Alderson commented that the tour was very worthwhile and encouraged other Commissioners to attend. VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report.: of the City Council Meetings of March 15, 2011, April 5, 2011,%'"and April 19, 2011. General comment on pertinent agenda items from the various meetings. Staff advised the Commission of a Special Meeting on June 14, 2011, at 3:00 p.m., for interview and appointment of new commissioners. (Two Planning Commissioners are up for consideration.) -11- Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2011 B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the May 3, 2011, City Council meeting. C. Commissioner Weber commented on the Riverside County Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the Thermal Motorsports project and its impact on La Quinta and the Coachella Valley IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: A. Planning Director Johnson advised the Commissioners of the following items being heard by the City Council in May: 1). Mayer Villa Capri time extension on May 3, 2011, ,and 2). Eden Rack second time extension on May 17, 2011. B. Planning Director Johnson advised the Commissioners that SCAG, for the third consecutive year, will have their annual meeting here at the La Quinta Resort, on May 5 and 6, 2011;,, He added that it was quite an honor to have that, large of an event. in our community. He encouraged the Commissioners''_to attend. ' X. ADJOURNMENT: There being .no further business, it was moved by Commissioners Weber/Wilkinson to adjourn this re to the next meeting to be held adjourned at 8:37'p.m. on April,2E Respectfully submitted, . Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California meeting of the Planning Commission May 10, 2011. This meeting was 11. -12- PH #A DATE: CASE NO: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: ARCHITECT: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: ENGINEER: REQUEST: LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: ZONING DESIGNATION: STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14, 2011 t SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 AMENDMENT 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 EXTENSION 4 AND AMENDMENT 1 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC WSL LA QUINTA, LLC IRWIN PARTNERS ARCHITECTS RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.; MSA CONSULTING, INC. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR LA PALOMA, A 208-UNIT SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND AVENUE 50 i THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING;DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-470 WHICH WAS PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071, WHICH WAS CERTIFIED ON DECEMBER 123, 2004. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR ;CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED WHICH WOULD I TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF. SUBSEQUENT I ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166. MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR) MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RMH) P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\la paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx i Page 1 of 12 SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SOUTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL VACANTLAND EAST: MUNICIPAL FACILITIES EVACUATION CHANNEL/SPORTS COMPLEX WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY BACKGROUND The La Paloma senior living community was originally reviewed and approved by the La Quinta City Council in 2004. The original project proposal encompassed both the northeast and southeast corners of Washington Street and Avenue 50, and included multiple entitlements. In addition to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 2003-074) and Site Development Permit (SDP 2003-762), a General Plan Amendment (GPA 2003-091), Zone Change (ZC 2003-1 12), and Specific Plan (SP 2004-071) were approved to address project design criteria and development standards. At the time of the first time extension request in 2007, the project area was revised to include only the northeast corner, with the permits associated with the southeast corner allowed to expire. A second time extension request was approved on October 7, 2008. A third extension request was approved on January 19, 2010, extending the approval of the site development permit to September 18, 2010. On July 6, 2010, the applicant, who is also the new property owner/developer, submitted the subject applications to amend Specific Plan 2004- 071 and Site Development Permit 2003-762. A fourth time extension was submitted on September 14, 2010, which is included in the attached Resolution. Meanwhile, when the amendment application was deemed complete for review in October, 2010, staff began working with the applicant on the amended plans, which include a revised architectural style, site design, landscaping, and business model. PROPOSAL Project Overview: The applicant is requesting consideration of revised plans for La Paloma, a 208-unit full -service senior living community located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 (Attachment 1, Sheet T). Located directly to the north of the approximately 14-acre project site is an existing single-family residential neighborhood. Another existing single-family residential neighborhood is located to P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\1a paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx - Page 2 of 12 the west of the project site, across Washington Street. Vacant, un-entitled land is located to the south of the project site, across Avenue 50. The La Quinta Sports Complex is located east of the project site; on the other side of the approximately 240-foot wide La Quinta Storm Water Evacuation Channel. La Paloma is intended to be an age -restricted residential setting where housing, 24- hour supervision, and basic/personal care and health -related services are provided. The community will offer programs and services such as dining, housekeeping, and laundry, as well as on -site social and recreational activities. A variety of on -site amenities will be provided to residents. Outdoor amenities include a pool, putting course, dog park, and gardening areas. Indoor amenities include a library, computer center, activity rooms, salon, and fitness center. Daily scheduled and on - call transportation services to local dining, shopping, and appointments will also be made available for residents. The previously -approved project consisted of 216 independent and assisted living units with 18 dementia care and 20 skilled nursing beds within multiple buildings situated on two parcels. The new configuration of the La Paloma community consists of a main building which contains 117 independent living, 54 assisted living, and 17 Alzheimer/dementia units. Along the perimeter of the project site are 20 detached cottage units (Attachment 1, Sheet C-1). The two-story main building has the following characteristics (Attachment 1, Sheet A1): • One -bed and two -bed Assisted Living and Alzheimer/dementia units • One -bed, two -bed, and one/two-bed+den Independent Living units • Units that include kitchens, bathrooms, and covered patios • Community dining areas, exercise rooms, theater, and activity rooms The 20 one-story cottage units have the following characteristics (Attachment 1, Sheet A19 — A21): • Two -bedroom and two-bedroom+den units • Great rooms, kitchens, laundry rooms, and covered patios • Two -car garages Architectural Design: Included with this proposal are architectural plans for the main building and cottage units, which have been designed to reflect a Desert Contemporary theme (Attachment 1, Sheet A3 — A6). This includes architectural elements such as the use of stucco as the primary exterior building material, the use of flat roofing, stacked stone, metal awnings, and incorporating shades of tan, gold, gray, and blue. Additionally, balconies, shade structures, and other design elements provide P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\1a paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 3 of 12 architectural articulation to the various building facades. The main building incorporates varying rooflines, with the height of the building, not including the uninhabitable tower feature, averaging approximately 25 feet in height at its highest ridgelines (Attachment 1, Sheet A3). The uninhabitable tower is an approximately 11-foot tall architectural projection, which results in a maximum structure height of 36 feet. Including all units, interior circulation areas, and ancillary uses, the main building for La Paloma totals approximately 306,000 square feet (Attachment 1, Sheet T). The height of the cottage units, at the highest roof ridgeline, is approximately 12'- 6" (Attachment 1, Sheet A 19 — A21). The square footage of each of the three cottage floor plans ranges from approximately 1,650 square feet to 1,720 square feet (Attachment 1, Sheet T). Included with this proposal are plans for various common areas throughout the La Paloma site (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.00). These areas, primarily courtyards within the main building, include a shaded swimming pool, bocce ball court, outdoor dance floor, putting green, active -use turf areas, and numerous gardens, fountains, and shade structures. Site Design: There are two access points identified for the proposed La Paloma community (Attachment 1, Sheet A-2). Access from the west will be from a driveway on Washington Street. This access will serve as the primary access point for the vehicular entry courtyard, drop-off area, and main lobby. Access from the south will be from a driveway on Avenue 50. This access will serve as the primary access for residents, employees, and delivery and service vehicles. The Washington Street access consists of right -in, right -out turning movements, while the Avenue 50 access point will allow left -in, right -in, and right -out turning movements, with left -out movements prohibited. Vehicular circulation within the La Paloma community consists of a singular two- way drive aisle that meanders around the perimeter of the property, surrounding the main building (Attachment 1, Sheet A-2). The majority of parking stalls for the project are located along this drive aisle, as well as access to the 20 cottage units and the loading/unloading area for the main building. A total of 246 parking spaces are proposed, including one bus space, eight ADA-accessible spaces, two covered ADA-accessible spaces, two ADA-accessible van spaces, and 113 covered parking spaces. The illuminated steel carport structures are approximately 9'-6" in height, and will be painted to match the buildings (Attachment 1, Sheet A3). The applicant is also proposing landscape lighting at various locations throughout the project site (Attachment 1, Sheet L-7.00 — L-7.04). Up -lighting of the trees PAReports - PC\2011\6-14-11\1a paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 4 of 12 around the project site are to be done with canopy tree accent lights and palm tree accent lights. Walkway lights are to be placed along the numerous pedestrian walking paths throughout the site. Wall -washer lighting fixtures will also be strategically placed on walls throughout the site. The main vehicular drive aisle and parking areas are proposed to be lit with 18-foot tall pole lights (Attachment 1, Sheet L-7.02). The parking lamps are High -intensity Discharge LED lamps that are shielded and directed downward. The applicant also proposes multiple water features (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.04). One feature is proposed to be placed within the planter located in the center of the main entrance vehicular courtyard. Other features are located within the community courtyard areas and also along the drive aisle. The features are all similar, incorporating a cascading stone -veneered fountain and a concealed basin covered with pebbles. Landscaping: Landscaping throughout the project site consists of primarily desert and other low - to moderate -water use plants (Attachment 1, Sheet L-5.00 — L-5.04). Mostly utilized around the buildings are various trees and shrubs, with minimal use of turf, which has been limited to two active use lawn areas and a putting green (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.00). The proposed tree palette includes Acacia, Citrus, African Sumacs, as well as Date Palms and Mediterranean and California Fan Palms. The shrub palette includes Agave, Yucca, Birds of Paradise, and Lantana, among others (Attachment 1, Sheet L-5.02). The landscaped areas that run along Washington Street and Avenue 50 are proposed to be landscaped with numerous trees, shrubs, and groundcover (minimum 24" box trees, minimum 2.5" caliper size measured six inches above grade; minimum 5 gallon shrubs/groundcover) (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.01 — L- 1.02). A meandering sidewalk runs throughout the landscaped area along Washington Street and Avenue 50, with pedestrian access into the project located at the vehicular access points. The project perimeter also incorporates a wall/pilaster combination screen wall (Attachment 1, Sheet L-1.04). The wall will be approximately 6'-8" in height, and consists of a cement plaster finished wall with stone veneer accent pilasters. Each pilaster also includes a hooded down -light bar. Along the western property line, the wall construction will be combined with landscaped berms. A uniform perimeter masonry wall with no pilasters will be constructed along the northern property line. Along the east property line, abutting the La Quinta Storm Water Evacuation Channel, a low flood control wall is proposed to be constructed. P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\18 paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 5 of 12 Specific Plan Amendment: The applicant has proposed a Specific Plan Amendment (Attachment 2). This represents the first amendment to the original La Paloma Specific Plan, and includes detailed development principles and design guidelines in order to develop the community as proposed. The Specific Plan Amendment also includes the removal of the parcel on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50 from the La Paloma development plans, and details a number of deviations from La Quinta Municipal Code standards. The proposed amended Specific Plan proposes the following deviations from the La Quinta Municipal Code (Attachment 2, Page 27): La Quinta Municipal Code La Paloma Development Standard Development Standard 12 feet Rear Setback 15 feet - (building average no less than 15 feet feet orless Garage Setback 20 feet 20 more feet or more Equivalent Unit Density 12 du/acre Net Density: 2.85 Unit Size 750 square feet 675 square feet 36 feet Structure Height 28 feet for maximum 40' x 40' tower element 3 feet 5 feet Architectural Projections above maximum structure height above maximum structure hei ht Parking Lot Design All units are within 100 feet No Standard of the nearest guest space Vehicular directional signs Vehicular directional signs Signage Maximum Area: I Maximum Area: 6.8 s uare feet I' Using an Equivalent Unit basis for determining the project density, the maximum resident population based on available beds is 261 persons and the maximum staff shiftis 52. Using the City standard of 2.85 persons per single-family home, the equivalent density is 110 units, or 7.85 units/acre_ Furthermore, the proposed amended Specific Plan removes the land uses "Restricted Senior Housing" and "Licensed Memory Care Facility" from "Permitted Use — Conditional Use Permit" and adds them to "Residential Permitted Uses" (Attachment 2, Page 25). This ties the uses within La Paloma to the Specific Plan, and eliminates the need to maintain a Conditional Use Permit for the property. ANALYSIS Architectural Design: Staff finds the overall architectural style and design of the proposed La Paloma senior living community to be acceptable. Staff has no significant issues with the proposed main building, cottage units, and common areas. P:\Reports - PC\201 1\6-14-1 1\la palori PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 6 of 12 The Desert Contemporary architecture and layout of the project site is for the most part compatible with the surrounding residential land uses. Because the project site is relatively isolated in terms of proximity to other similar land uses and structures, the architecture and layout of the buildings do stand out from the surrounding built environment. However, supplemental design elements (pop -outs, varying rooflines, etc.) appropriately enhance the buildings by providing sufficient architectural articulation. Also, the height, mass, and scale of the buildings are appropriate for each proposed building location, given the design restrictions of the property. Furthermore, the visual impact of the two-story main building is minimized from view from the existing residential neighborhood to the north (Attachment 1, Sheet A7). The two-story portion of the main building is located a minimum of 75 feet from the existing single-family homes on the south side of Saguaro Road, and the highest part of the main building, the uninhabited tower feature, is set back over 150-feet from the northern property line. Review of the northern property line transition plan shows that the cottage units and the segment of the main building closest to the property line have minimal visual impact on the existing residential neighborhood. With regards to the cottage units along the perimeter of the property, staff had some initial concerns with the location, layout, and general purpose of the proposed units. In particular, the placement of cottage units near the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50 as well as the linear design of the units as opposed to a more clustered design was questioned. However, the placement of the cottage units around the perimeter of the community reduces height impact at the edges of the property, and the applicant has stated that the proposed layout is operationally successful and cites other existing senior -living communities that have similar site layouts. Site Design: The design of the vehicular access points, internal circulation, and parking areas is generally acceptable. Staff anticipates the majority of vehicles will be entering the site from the Avenue 50 entrance. Although the vehicular courtyard and main lobby area for La Paloma are situated along Washington Street, a "No U-turn" restriction from southbound to northbound Washington Street at the Avenue 50 intersection prevents visitors arriving via southbound Washington Street from utilizing the primary entrance. Within the project, all applicable turning radii for large vehicles, loading/unloading areas, and pedestrian connectivity meet the La Quinta Municipal Code development standards. The main drive aisle for the project has a clear separation between vehicular and pedestrian paths of travel. The proposed walkway that runs adjacent to the drive aisle that surrounds the main building is sufficient as it provides connectivity throughout the project site. P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\1a paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 7 of 12 Based on the parking requirements in LQMC Section 9.150.060 and the parking analysis done as part of the review process, staff has determined that the proposed parking area design and spaces provided within La Paloma can accommodate the proposed use. The proposal provides for 246 parking spaces, which well exceeds the 197 parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. ` This excess of approximately 25% is desired in order to help with peak periods of parking overlap during shift changes and occasional visitor spikes during holidays. The applicant is comfortable with the proposed parking ratios based on extensive experience with this type of land use. With regards to the proposed carports, the previously - approved site plan was approved with carports abutting the existing residential neighborhood to the north. The revised site plan has relocated the carports south of the perimeter drive aisle, with a minimum distance of 105 feet from the nearest adjacent residence. The proposed on -site lighting is acceptable as well, as the proposed fixtures are consistent with the City's outdoor lighting ordinance. Pedestrian walkways and entries will be adequately lit using decorative fixtures or landscape lighting. Parking areas will also be sufficiently lit by the strategically -placed poles and carport lights. All lighting will be designed and located so as to confine direct light within the community boundaries. The submitted photometric plan confirms that the project with be properly illuminated, with a lack of excess light and no illuminated hotspots. Some of the proposed water features are central to the design of the community. Such features can be permitted if they meet the City's water efficiency requirements and are approved as part of the project. Staff has provided a Condition of Approval pertaining to these features, requiring energy efficient pumps and staff review to ensure that there will be minimal water loss due to splashing, evaporation, etc. The small-scale water features located around the common areas and courtyards are appropriate in that their placement and scale are beneficial towards the pedestrian atmosphere. However, staff still has some concern over the necessity of the larger water features, such as the one within the main entrance vehicular courtyard, as their size and location do not promote pedestrian interactivity. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the use and viability of the water feature as part of the La Paloma proposal. Landscaping: In general, the proposed landscape palette is acceptable. The assorted species of plants provide diversity and add character to the proposed buildings. The use of Acacia, Citrus, African Sumacs, as well as Date Palms and Mediterranean and California Fan Palms among others properly reflects the Desert Contemporary architectural style, while providing sufficient screening and accents around the project site, including the parking lot area, pedestrian circulation areas, and outdoor use areas. PAReports - PC\2011\6-14-11\la paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 8 of 12 Staff typically recommends that turf areas not be installed adjacent to paved pedestrian walkways due to possible water waste, and the applicant has satisfied this request. Also, the proposed turf installation near the pool area is acceptable as it will be utilized as an active -use area. Specific Plan Amendment: Staff finds that the proposed amendment to the La Paloma Specific Plan is acceptable as it ensures that the project can be constructed as proposed. Although the applicant has proposed a variety of deviations from the La Quinta Municipal Code, staff believes that the appropriate justification has been given to consider and approve the requests. For example, the reduction of the rear setback and garage setback are required in order to accommodate the incorporation of the independent living cottage units that result in a single-family residence -type buffer between the neighborhood to the north and the main building. The reduction in minimum unit size is requested due to the inclusion of common kitchen and dining facilities. And the added height for architectural projections is needed to facilitate the community's architectural design. Relief from the distance -to -guest space requirement is requested as a result of the project's design, due to the fact that all visitors are to enter from the main reception area. And the added signage area for vehicular directional signs is requested in order to deflect the need for a sign program for the community. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review the proposed amendment to the La.Paloma Specific Plan, particularly the multiple requests for deviations from the La Quinta Municipal Code, and discuss any areas of concern. Sustainability: The proposed La Paloma community should be an environmentally sustainable community. The project is designed to provide access to public transportation (with SunLine bus stops located adjacent and within close proximity to the community), encourage employee carpool programs, install strategically -placed recycling collections bins, and construct energy -efficient amenities. Furthermore, architectural features, such as color, materials, and shading devices, will also reduce energy demands on the community. Landscaping will also meet or exceed Coachella Valley Water District water budget requirements. ALRC Review On June 1, 2011, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed these architectural, site, and landscaping plans, and unanimously recommended approval of the amended site development permit, subject to the following staff - recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 3): PAReports - PC\2011\6-14-11\la paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 9 of 12 1. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 2. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 3. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 4. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff to minimize trespass of light off the property. The illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 5. All water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 6. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 7. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Director approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justifies an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer. S. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition" or latest, in the design P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\1a paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 10 of 12 and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. Although not included as recommendations, during discussion of the project the Committee focused on details such as carport colors, decorative paving, mechanical screening, and the use of turf and water features, as the ALRC was generally pleased with the architecture, site design, and project landscaping. The applicant clarified that carports will be painted to match the building colors, and decorative pavers will be used in the vehicular courtyard as well as on pedestrian paths throughout the community. Also, the applicant confirmed that the architectural design of the building will adequately screen all rooftop mechanical equipment from view, particularly from the top of the bridge on Washington Street, south of Avenue 50. With regards to the use of turf, the applicant clarified that the proposed putting green in the central courtyard is constructed with artificial turf, and that the only turf use of significance in the community is the active use turf area near the swimming pool. With regards to the proposed water features, the Committee could not come to a consensus regarding the proposed feature at the vehicular courtyard after a discussion regarding scale and pedestrian interactivity. Environmental Revi The City of La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-470 which was prepared for Specific Plan 2004-071, which was certified on December 23, 2004. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. Neighborhood Meeting On June 1, 2011, the applicant and the development team for La Paloma presented their proposal at a neighborhood meeting. Notices for the informational meeting were sent out to properties within 500 feet of the La Paloma property (Attachment 5). Two people showed up to the meeting. Both attendees were representatives of the property on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. The Planning Department has not received any written or verbal comments regarding the proposed project as a result of the neighborhood meeting. Public Notice This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2011, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments P:\Reports - PC\2011\6-14-11\la paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 11 of 12 have been received from adjacent property owners. Any written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing. SB-18 Native American Tribal Consultation As per SB-18 (2004) consultation requirements, information regarding the proposed Specific Plan was forwarded to those Tribes referenced on the Tribal Consultation List provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Staff has followed up with all Tribes requesting information or consultation and placed their recommendations for monitoring in the Conditions of Approval. FINDINGS Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011- , recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and, 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011- , recommending to the City Council approval of Site Development Permit 2003-762 Extension 4, and Site Development Permit 2003-762 Amendment 1, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval. Prep Associate Planner Attachment: 1. La Paloma Site Development Permit Packet 2. La Paloma Specific Plan 3. Draft Minutes of June 1, 2011 ALRC meeting 4. Neighborhood Meeting notice PAReports - PC\2011\6-14-11\1a paloma\LA PALOMA PC REPORT.docx Page 12 of 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 2004- 071 AMENDMENT 1, FOR LA PALOMA CASE: SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 AMENDMENT 1 APPLICANT: WSL LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 14`" day of June, 2011, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by WSL La Quinta, LLC for approval an amendment to the existing La Paloma Specific Plan in order to accommodate plans for a 208-unit senior living community located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN: 646-070-016 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2011 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, per SB-18 consultation requirements, the Planning Department has forwarded information regarding the proposed amended Specific Plan to those Tribes referenced on the Tribal Consultation List provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and has followed up with all Tribes requesting information or consultation and placed their recommendations for monitoring in the Conditions of Approval; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-470 which was prepared for Specific Plan 2004-071, which was certified on December 23, 2004. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21 166; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan: Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1 WSL La Quints, LLC Page 2 1. Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the buildings within the community are compatible with the goals and policies of the General Plan Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Land Use designation. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed specific plan amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare as Environmental Assessment 2003-470 was prepared, and certification of the Environmental Assessment is in compliance with CEQA requirements. 3. Land Use Compatibility The proposed Specific Plan amendment incorporates land uses that are compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The design and density regulations specified in the Specific Plan amendment for residential and related recreational facilities are compatible with the existing single-family homes located near the specific plan area and on surrounding properties. 4. Property Suitability The uses permitted in the specific plan amendment, including age - restricted residences and common areas, are suitable and appropriate. for the subject property in that the community is surrounded by similar existing uses such as single-family homes. The current specific plan area is served without adverse impact by all necessary public services and utilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1 WSL La Quints, LLC Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14`h day of June, 2011 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI SPECIFIC PLAN 2004-071 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 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. Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1 shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of SP 2004-0071 Amendment 1, these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Site Development Permit 2003-762 Amendment 1 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Planning Director shall determine precedence. 4. Within 30 days of City Council approval, applicant shall provide five copies of the Final Specific Plan document, as amended by this action, to the Planning Department. The Final Specific Plan shall include all text and graphics except as amended by this action, all amendments per this action, and correction of any typographical errors, internal document inconsistencies, and other amendments deemed necessary by the Planning Director. Page 1 of 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762, TIME EXTENSION 4 AND AMENDMENT 1, INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR LA PALOMA CASES: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 EXTENSION 4 AND AMENDMENT 1 APPLICANT: WSL LA QUINTA, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 14th day of June, 2011, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by WSL La Quinta, LLC for approval of a fourth extension of time and an amendment to architectural, site, and landscaping plans for a 208-unit senior living community located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50, more particularly described as: APN: 646-070-016 WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2011 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 1 ' day of June, 2011, hold a public meeting to review and discuss architecture, site, and landscape plans, the minutes of said meeting were included in the staff report for consideration by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit time extension and amendment: 1. Consistency with the General Plan The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes a multi -unit age -restricted residential Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Site Development Permit 2003-762, Extension 4, Amendment 1 WSL La Quints, LLC Page 2 community, which is General Plan -designated for MHDR (Medium High Density Residential) development. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code and La Paloma Specific Plan The proposed structures, as conditioned, are consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and the La Paloma Specific Plan, in terms of architectural style, building height, building mass, and landscaping. The community is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes a multi -unit age -restricted residential community which is General Plan -designated for MHDR (Medium High Density Residential) development. The site development permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning standards of the MHDR district, and other supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and the La Paloma Specific Plan. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The La Quinta Planning Department has determined that this request has been previously assessed in conjunction with Environmental Assessment 2003-470 which was prepared for Specific Plan 2004-071, which was certified on December 23, 2004. No changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design aspects of the proposed La Paloma community provide interest through use of varied roof elements, enhanced building and fagade treatments, and other design details which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design The site design aspects of the proposed La Paloma community, as conditioned, will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. The main building and cottage units are properly sized with regards to height and floor area, and are situated at engineer -approved locations with regards to vehicular and pedestrian access. Furthermore, the visual impact of the Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Site Development Permit 2003-762, Extension 4, Amendment 1 WSL La Quints, LLC Page 3 two-story main building is minimized from view from the existing residential neighborhood to the north as the two-story portion of the main building is located a minimum of 75 feet from existing single-family homes on the south side of Saguaro Road, and the highest part of the main building, the uninhabited tower feature, is set back over 150-feet from the northern property line. 6. Landscape Design The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. Additionally, the assorted species of plants, which are taken from the approved plant list in the La Paloma Specific Plan, provide diversity and add character to the proposed community. The project landscaping for the proposed community, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed community with the surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to blend with the building architecture. 7. Time Extension The applicant has been diligently working on amending the previously - granted entitlement in an effort to improve compatibility with existing surrounding development, improve architectural quality, enhance project hydrology, as well as improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Due to the extent of work necessary to prepare plans in accordance with the proposed amendments, a one-year extension from the date of amendment approval is identified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of said Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 2003-762 Extension 4, granting a one-year time extension to July 5, 2012,. for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; and Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Site Development Permit 2003-762, Extension 4, Amendment 1 WSL La Quints, LLC Page 4 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 2003-762 Amendment 1 to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 141" day of June, 2011 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 r;FNFRAI 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. This Site Development Permit shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"). The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-quinta.org. 3. The Site Development Permit shall be expire one year from the date of City Council approval (July 5, 2012), and shall become null and void in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.210.020, unless a building permit has been issued. A time extension may be requested per LQMC Section 9.200.080. 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, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Exemption Form - Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • Planning Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) Page 1 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • SunLine Transit Agency (SUNLINE) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 5. A California Construction General 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") and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number, prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit by the City. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of 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; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. 137-2008-0001 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and Order No. 2010-0014-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") to the State Water Resources Control Board. 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 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. Page 2 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 C. 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. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City Council. 7. 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). B. 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. 9. 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 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. 10. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. 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. Paoe 3 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 PROPERTY RIGHTS 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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, site development permit, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 14. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) — The standard 60 feet from the centerline of Washington Street for a total 120-foot ultimate developed right of way except for: Additional right-of-way is required on Washington Street north of Avenue 50 to provide for the realignment of Washington Street to accommodate the dual left turn lanes for southbound Washington Street to eastbound Avenue 50 as approved by the City Engineer. A. An additional variable right of way dedication for a deceleration/right turn only lane and bus turnout at the proposed primary project entry measured seventy-six feet (76') east of the centerline of Washington Street and length as conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (Condition of Approval No. 23A(1)(b)). 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial, Option B 100' ROW) — The standard 50 feet from the centerline of Avenue 50 for a total 100-foot ultimate Pale 4 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 developed right of way except for: A. An additional right of way dedication of 10 feet for a right turn only lane at the Avenue 50 intersection with Washington Street (a total of sixty feet (60') north of the centerline of Avenue 50) and length as conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (Condition of Approval No. 23A(2)(a)). 15. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans. Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet containing the rough grading plans submitted for plan checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, deceleration lane(s) and bus stop turnout(s). The geometric layout shall be accompanied with sufficient professional engineering studies to confirm the appropriate length of all proposed turn pockets and auxiliary lanes that may impact the right of way dedication required of the project and the associated landscape setback requirement. 16. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right- of-way shown on the approved Site Development Permit are necessary prior to approval of the improvements dedicating such right-of-way, the applicant shall grant the necessary right-of-way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 17. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights - of -way as follows: A. Washington Street (Major Arterial) - 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. B. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) — A minimum 20-foot from the R/W-P/L. The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design is approved. The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. Pam 5 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Final Map. 18. At locations where the onsite finished grade adjacent to the landscaped setback lot has an elevation differential with respect to the arterial street top of curb exceeding 11.0 feet, the applicant shall comply with, and accommodate, the maximum slope gradients in the parkway/setback area and meandering sidewalk requirements by either: 1) increasing the landscape setback size as needed, or 2) installing retaining walls between the sidewalk and the back of the landscaped area as needed. 19. 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. 20. Direct vehicular access to ,Washington Street and Avenue 50 from lots with frontage along Washington Street and Avenue 50 is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 21. 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. 22. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property after the date of approval of the Site Development Permit unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 23. 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. 24. 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. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot. Page 6 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 25. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial; 120' R/W): Widen the east side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the project boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The east curb face shall be located fifty-one feet (51') east of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) The applicant shall construct a concrete bus stop pad equipped with night lighting, bench, and trash receptacle north of the primary entry drive on Washington Street as approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Bus turnout shall be provided if required by SunLine Transit for the bus stop. b) A deceleration/right turn only lane with bus turnout incorporated as part of the lane (if approved by SunLine Transit and the City Engineer) shall be provided at the Washington Street Primary Entry. The east curb face shall be located sixty four feet (64') east of the centerline and length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 06-13 or as determined by the City Engineer. c) The east curb face shall be located fifty-six (56') east from the centerline of Washington Street to accommodate the dual left turn lane on southbound Washington Street at the Avenue 50 intersection. Other required improvements in the Washington Street right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: d) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb,. gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. Paaa 7 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 e) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The .meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. f) Extend the existing raised median on Washington Street north of Avenue 50 to line up with the curb face on the south side of the primary entrance to prevent southbound Washington Street traffic from making illegal left turns into the project entrance on Washington Street as approved by the City Engineer. g) Establish a benchmark in the Washington Street right of way and file a record of the benchmark with the County of Riverside. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial — Option B; 100' R/W): Widen the north side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the project boundary to its ultimate width on the east side as specified in the General Plan and the requirements of these conditions. Rehabilitate and/or reconstruct existing roadway pavement as necessary to augment and convert it from a rural county -road design standard to La Quinta's urban arterial design standard. The north curb face shall be located thirty-eight feet (38') north of the centerline, except at locations where additional street width is needed to accommodate: a) A right turn only lane on Avenue 50 at the Avenue 50/Washington Street intersection. The north curb face shall be located forty eight feet (48') north of the centerline of Avenue 50 and deceleration length to be determined by a traffic study prepared for the applicant by a licensed traffic engineer per Engineering Bulletin # 06-13 or as determined by the City Engineer. Paae 8 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 Other required improvements in the Avenue 50 right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: b) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. c1 6-foot wide meandering sidewalk. The meandering sidewalk shall have an arrhythmic horizontal layout that utilizes concave and convex curves with respect to the curb line that either touches the back of curb or approaches within five feet of the curb at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. The sidewalk curvature radii should vary between 50 and 300 feet and at each point of reverse curvature, the radius should change to assist in creating the arrhythmic layout. The sidewalk shall meander into the landscape setback lot and approach within 5 feet of the perimeter wall at intervals not to exceed 250 feet. d) A 12-foot wide raised landscaped median plus variable width as needed along the entire project boundary to accommodate for a left turn lane for the eastbound Avenue 50 traffic into the project entry on the north side and for dual left turn lanes for westbound Avenue 50 traffic at the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 50. The landscaped median improvements are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program. e) In the event the left turn pocket for eastbound Avenue 50 traffic into the project entry is constructed prior to the construction of the off -site improvements associated with the development on other side of the street, the applicant shall widen the south side of Avenue 50 along the project boundary to its existing southerly right-of-way to maintain the currently existing two eastbound through lanes on Avenue 50 (minimum 24 feet) as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the project boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets and sidewalks). Pane 9 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. The applicant is responsible for construction of. all improvements mentioned above. B. INTERNAL STREETS 1) Construct internal streets per the approved Site Development Permit Preliminary Grading Exhibit and as approved by the City Engineer. Minimum street width shall be 26 feet except at the entry accessway. On -street parking shall be prohibited except in designated parking stall areas. The applicant shall make provisions for perpetual enforcement of the No Parking restrictions. 2) The location of driveways shall not be located within the curb return when possible. C. KNUCKLE 1) Construct the knuckle to conform to the lay -out shown in the Site Development Permit, except for minor revisions as may be required by the City Engineer. 26. 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: Residential/ Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. . Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.51' a.c./5.5" c.a.b. Primary Arterial 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. Major Arterial 5.5" a.c./6.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 27. 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. Pape 10 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 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. 28. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry (Washington Street): Right turn movements in and out are allowed. Left turn movements in and out are prohibited. All right -turn -out .only driveways shall have a splitter median island located in the driveway throat that adequately channelizes the exiting right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. B. Primary Entry (Avenue 50): Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are allowed. Left turn movements out are prohibited. All right - turn -out only driveways shall have a splitter median island located in the driveway throat that adequately channelizes the exiting right -turn vehicles turning onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The splitter island shall be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. 29. 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. 30. 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. 31. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 32. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in Page 11 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall design shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. 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 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. 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. IMPROVEMENT PLANS As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 33. 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). 34. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. Page 12 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 A. On -Site Rough Grading Plan B. PM 10 Plan C�1:titL�L�iI, 1 " = 40' Horizontal 1 " = 40' Horizontal (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal E. Off -Site Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " Vertical F. Off -Site Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal �1y 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 Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical NOTE: D through G to be submitted concurrently. (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) H. Off -Site Median Landscaping Plans 1 " = 40' 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-feet beyond the project limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions. All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans and/or as approved by the Engineering Department. Pape 13 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 "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 2010 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. Public Works Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it is submitted for plan checking. "On -Site Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements including but not limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, wall elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements. 35. 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. 36. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars)• 37. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" 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. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS 38. Prior to constructing any off -site improvements on Washington Street and Avenue Pane 14 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 50, the applicant deposit securities equivalent to both a Performance and labor & Material Bonds each valued at 100% of the cost of the off -site improvements required on Washington Street and Avenue 50. 39. In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. 40. Depending on the timing of the development of this Site Development Permit, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction. In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Final Map, or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 41. If the applicant elects to utilize the secured agreement alternative, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off - site improvements, including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or ordinance. Pape 15 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be approved by the City Engineer. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. GRADING 42. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 43. 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. 44. 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 civil engineer registered in the State of California, B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California, 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). E. WQMP prepared by an engineer registered in the State of California. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. 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. Pane 16 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 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. 45. 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. 46. 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. 47. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the preliminary grading plan, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. Pursuant to the aforementioned, the applicant is advised of the Coachella Valley Water District letter dated May 24, 2011 to the Planning Department stating the development may set the finish floor elevations at a minimum of 47 feet MSL with the condition that the development be protected by means of a flood wall along the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. The flood wall shall be certified by a geotechnical engineer with the top of the wall at a minimum elevation of 52 feet AMSL as required by CVWD. 48. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 49. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. 50. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus half of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the approved Site Development Permit Site Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes .to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance Pape 17 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 finding review 51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. 52. 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. 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. 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. 56. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Pam 18 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 57. 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. 58. 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). 59. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 60. 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. 61. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 62. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. 117-2008-001. E. 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. 137-2008-001. F. 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 NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River Pena 19 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 receiving water, as applicable. G. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. 63. The applicant shall install suitable facilities along the easterly boundary of the project to preserve CVWD access and prohibit access to the right-of-way of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. Additionally, the applicant shall work with CVWD to construct a perpetual maintenance access to the La Quinta Evacuation Channel as required by CVWD and approved by the City Engineer. UTILITIES 64. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 65. 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. 66. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 67. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. 68. Utility easements in favor of CVWD shall be clear of any obstructions including overhead obstructions. CONSTRUCTION 69. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the Paae 20 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 70. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 71. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 72. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 73. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff to minimize trespass of light off the property. The illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 74. All water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 75. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view behind the parapet. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 76. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Director approval of the final landscape plans is Pane 21 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating circumstances exist which justifies an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer. 77. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. 78. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 79. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 80. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. 81. All trees located within the project site shall have a minimum trunk caliper of 2.5 inches. 82. The applicant shall submit all landscape plans for approval by the Planning Department with 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. Landscape plans for landscaped medians on public streets shall be approved by the both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Department. Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning Director and/or the City Engineer. Paoe 22 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 83. 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. 84. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5th Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. PUBLIC SERVICES 85. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. MAINTENANCE 86. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 87. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 88. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 89. 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. FIRE DEPARTMENT 90. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering a fire flow 4000GPM per minute for four hours duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the construction site. Pane 23 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 91. Approved accessible on -site super fire hydrants shall be located not to exceed 200 feet apart in any direction. Any portion of the facility or of an exterior wall of the first story of the building shall not be located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access roads as measured by an approved route around the complex, exterior of the facility or building. 92. The minimum dimension for gates is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height. Any gate providing access from a road shall be located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used. 93. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the' originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. 94. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority. 95. Blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicated location of the fire hydrant. 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.ora) 96. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department Standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 15%. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will be designed to withstand the weight of 60 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. 97. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for the turn around capabilities of fire apparatus 98. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the Pam 24 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 appropriate lane printing and/or signs. 99. An approved Fire Department access key lock box shall be installed next to the approved Fire Department access door to the building. Required order forms and installation standards may be obtained at the Fire Department. 100. Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of building(s) and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum of 12" in height for building(s) up to 25' in height. In complexes with alpha designations, letter size must match numbers. All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours. 101. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system (per NFPA 13 2010 Edition). Fire sprinkler system(s) with pipe sizes in excess of 4" in diameter will require the project Structural Engineer to certify with a "wet signature", that the structural system is designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of the sprinkler system. All fire sprinkler risers shall be protected from any physical damage. 102. The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front of building and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). Sprinkler riser room must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C-16 licensed contactor must submit plans, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 103. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 20 or more heads, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 104. Install a complete Class I standpipe system (per NFPA 14 2007 Edition and 2010 CFC Chapter 905) along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 105. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-106C, for every 3,000 sq. ft. and/or 75 feet of travel distance. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted 3.5 to 5 ft above finished floor, measured to the top of the extinguisher. Where not readily visible, signs shall be posted above all extinguishers to indicate their locations. Extinguishers must have current CSFM service tags affixed. 106. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which exceeds quantities listed in 2010 CBC. No class I, II or IIIA of combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building. Pane 25 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 107. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path marking shall be installed per the 2010 California Building Code. 108. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside of door. 109. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted "FACP" on outside of door. 110. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted "Fire Riser" on outside of door. 111. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted "Roof Access" on outside of door. 112. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required by the Mechanical Code. 113. Air handling systems supplying air in excess of 2000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. 2010 CIVIC 114. Gate(s) shall be automatic or manual operated. Install Knox key operated switches, with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Building plans shall include mounting location/position and operating standards for Fire Department approval. 115. Nothing in our review shall be construed as encompassing structural integrity. Review of this plan does not authorize or approve any omission or deviation from all applicable regulations. Final approval is subject to plan review and field inspection. All questions regarding the meaning of the code requirements should be referred to Fire Department at 760-863-8886. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 116. Approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) be present during all ground disturbing activities. Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of encountering buried cultural resources during construction related excavations, or archaeological testing/data recovery. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) Archaeologist to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation Paqe 26 of 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-762 AMENDMENT 1 WSL LA QUINTA, LLC JUNE 14, 2011 plan for submission to the City and the Agua Caliente THPO. 117. Additionally, in accordance with State law, the County Coroner should be contacted if any human remains are found during earthmoving activities. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City will work with the designated MILD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 118. A sign permit shall be submitted for staff approval for proposed monument signs specified in Specific Plan 2004-071 Amendment 1. Pape 27 of 27 ATTACHMENT # 1 } �I $ �i� iftYl Na�PlhtlWiDn�wllawlwwsyoasnwn3 4r%•° pp jt a� ,li �� � IN I t e: F{f f,��; F�' �!..g'-1 rq � t h 1➢ � t �13� �}. � d �'19 3 i I oil [: €t i yaxil+ �tillI t ttijiit;ca.,�� ' 1 a� A; }t trtuttt Si�l�z`�tlgg 1 { v. xa xo set €: Z::3i t:23 .111u Sr3tiii?ld F:.:i 1§S9B3, li l/ii ' yX �"!£e 4: "SiSi 3F tS ap e- 'e II6 BSiS9t1q A�3 1 � s°aS9 1 ,saa ?fit 1Pt3ft€asap#1��a ® itf }:.:Afli t§3:,.s:r3}zE:3 4gsi . -�u F < 9_ [ gqqg • - .. .. < � t � ; I' I � •. I I i I E�...mtffieLd«ap13 s • !� � � � � � � qdS°4i�P 6 S �, ! g � y 49 6 d d6Sl � ` �a! °6 ! d 16�,4 3!g Y, (�pgg !a' 9{ Ppp e• yy ' E y��!� sy°S! ', i��116�4! v e��i63§°i ¢P4 ���PP 1lFEi ipg l r `'ivy , � _ 4��eEPiF4iiii:°e6 -'V 13 e 111iii I d 4 1. 71�%S I s 6 94e !i is - PI, P o 1f: 11 J Ills?. lp n,� � r I� F;�4 °� t Chi' ,�, k,���� •, V, -------------------------------- ---- �I r a a @ PFEUM W PLANTNO PLAN g �y i WEST INWG g i IJ uouWrA,CA "ill \V \� \`vim\ \vv vvvA o Ay`v 11MINvvv \ �VAvAw AA \a\�\\\\�\\\�\ ' OWN Ma a� PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN E s g f5N WEST LMN•G N� O y y 0 �A, ^M w 1 ww \ 1 w \w w w\ _ ww w 9� \w ww e ww o moo, 0 \ a \ \ \ J ff Irl �II'I�G 1 1 I,irli I iii"' lll���il �EII It f Jim �a aa "� weer �NNO i 1 @ S 1\ tlt El.tlul♦�1i 3;1 1.,::,'H 1.:1.;uun .?37.}L.��Pill!r.l��':- I�I I id��l 11�i� II ��li�,��ii� t � .3 aa��,i.,. I ■ I WYr 1) rh i s rwn.w-4FH•••m.� .Yr.+ u� 1 .. i . _.�_. , } I I I t�if5 , i iAi}t,d7Wfjgf�ifjggiff.fG$iKiRKQfiftffifffif l � i 1 f 1 �1 � I f f�. f 1 i f i i f ry II I I -, , I 1 ,L' } i w Ir1�I 'il, l' . } PREUMINARY PLANTING PLAN WEST LMNG u GWX CA t 5 h\S'yR," 10 Ail ��V ♦. f �4V v � y-new - a w i �� �� ry � � • t f L Jq� �',�S di ? ' r� '' IM ii _ INA �u1 - a�'+r. �r F 9 l� ��•'t �y �\i � 5� "� t �4 T�'tv c L ti` y A4 k ! + �< i z��iti x i3 ew r i' z R 10 a _ MIA RON 17-1 kg a M f V "�" WEST LNMO s - I . ._,Mr7zf « I -f, - F! g '— 19 f I pFB_UNw LKHM PLAN 1 r tb, WEffr LIW410 .,o 'J' LA CUM. 04 a V 2N §am \ cz H I I I lw all ■ I' rAvWd el t i i 4L of O' N c' y4 � � 4 \�� � \ \� \� � �j������:�\ f r�t 4�l ewwwa Iw—V v �s -�A�m o: 4L ewOltd Wl LP 62L6 91a W IRJ 0�4D n'OS +nuaM 8 +ii8i �iBNV+IM 2WOlVd ¢1 R i I ��'vi4 1r 3 R911 F Iei 9Ai iilf tto 2li iEiiR l+Fi m ji�;lli'i1�11.R �+aaai !'�_.:?e;ajx?ecRi?;&.'Eei •.;tee+±5?'I� S[ tEeiE t=i el Sj;:isE 'ifi2E's _x RRR1 li�ai9� ii•a"+Ili I�-" 1?111118sge k1111g1,g i'11��... gggg ar 11i�1 i1�1�: 'i 1laias8��i3��ii13S ,11a11�1111i1 � � y1i1:::54§ai34a•IR;::° ';: Y: Y:-?Rs??i emunonan (T mean^nm..n+us�m'a+ana. S � � ie— a-1 S9j��': ESZE6vyuoypJYWYB QI'M miwr.YBliaAS wlbuVRYM '?'o �� : �� i Bo ilhhl� .,Ili 9WO12d el r ICU MINN. F1 Imi Ill piq Qj &7171:_wU 5 =0 SM jiij Y y wm�n+wn m.as"n.w�rau�-m •«aon ax [StZ6n�+^AIn a�W0tl1'OS anuwtl 1 N�nS wl�pVRM WON z7 wou�'ewin . `I ��II'II�II�IIgII�II IiI� CSZi6 elwelg0 ervieDVl'O ewodVl �ed ?l eWO19d Ir i H a qT'p, -F I I i 0 I SO .�i ly€ I Ialil tl���i {Rii �NsRM'YgiDR'Rw�w��Wnf, ' Z � Q I IT��'nun®�! ®I F r-- ... ME 0 40 S 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 June 1, 2011 10:00 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. . This regular meeting of the Architecture Committee was called to order at 10:00a David Sawyer who led the Committee in t B. Committee Members Present: Jason,-. Arnold, _David Thorns Committee Member Absent: None C. Staff present: Planning _Manager David :Sawy, Jay Wuu, and Secretary Monika Radeva.- PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATI IV. CONSENT C/ 11 There being r Committee M Unanimously BUSINESS IT AGEN Landscaping Review by Planning Manager iq salute. McCune, and Associate Planner any changes to the Minutes of April 6, 2011. =_or-. corrections it was moved and seconded by d/Thoms to approve the minutes as submitted. A. Site Development Permit 2003-762, Amendment 1. a request submitted by WSL La Quinta, LLC. for consideration of Architectural, Site, and Landscaping Plans for La Paloma, a 208-unit senior living community located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 50. Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 1, 2011 Committee Member McCune said he reviewed the plans extensively and was very pleased with the project and the proposed desert contemporary architectural style. He said RGA Landscape Architects, Inc. had done an outstanding job with the plant palette selection. He suggested the applicant use synthetic turf for the putting greens to avoid maintenance issues, but he thought that natural turf should be used for the proposed courtyards. Committee Member McCune commended the=applicant for choosing to use LED lighting, and he said he found the proposed water features to be adequate and in linewith the City's water conservation efforts. Committee Member McCune be beautiful and was very mt Committee Member Arnold said proposed plans and was in agre( and Committee Member -McCune was very much in favor of ihelp 1 he found the proposed project to n favor of it. he` -was also very pleased with the neat -with staff's recommendations 's comments, as stated above, and Committee Member Thorns commended staff for the well -written staff report dm=the project,, he said the report was very informative. He also commended the project architect as he found the proposed desert contemporary architectural style to be well -welcomed in the City of La Quints Committee Member Thorns asked if there was exterior access to the proposed courtyards, from the outside of the buildings. Mr. Greg Irwin, Partner of IPA Irwin Partners Architects, 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite # B-2, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, introduced himself and said the courtyards were not accessible from the outside, but the doors were aligned in such a way that one could go through the building from one side directly to the other. Committee Member Thorns asked how the turf in the courtyards would be maintained if there was no exterior access. Mr. Irwin said the floor surface used in the hallways of the buildings allowed for lawn mowers and other equipment to be pushed through the building into the courtyard. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011\ALRC_6-22-11_Special Mtg\ALRC_Draft MIN_6-1-11.docx 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 1, 2011 Committee Member Thorns suggested the applicant use artificial turf in the courtyards to avoid maintenance issues and water overspray on the concrete. Ron Gregory, President of RGA Landscape Architects, Inc., 74020 Alessandro, Suite E, Palm Desert, CA 92260, introduced himself and clarified that the applicant was proposing the use of natural turf only in the main courtyard, as it was much cooler in the summer and the turf would be more actively used. He noted that artificial turf would be used in the remaining courtyards. He assured the Committee that the applicant was aware of,the difficulties involved with maintaining the natural turf and was prepared to deal with it as best as possible. He noted the turf would lie=kept minimum 18", maybe 24" away from the buildings, and very, low -arc sprinkler heads would be utilized, to minimize the overspray of'water. General discussion followed regarding* the advantages and disadvantage of the use of natural vs: synthetic turf. . Committee Member Thorns suggested the applicant reconsider the proposed locations of the "trees _for the ' covered parking areas located on the east, as some of them. might potentially interfere with the_parking;spaces. Mr. Gregory said the suggestion would be. taken into account when finalizing the landscaping plans. Committee�-Memb_er-Thoms asked what material would be used for therproperty line wall on the north side of the project. He noted the proposed all wo`u_I_d create a trapping space between the wall and the existing_ residentialfences. Mr. Irwin said it would be a block wall and explained that the existing fences were not consistent in material and setbacks; therefore, in order to create a nice clean look for -the project, a new wall would have to be built. He explained the residents could tear down their existing fences and the proposed wall would become the new consistent property line. Committee Member Thoms asked if the residents would have to absorb the demolition costs. Mr. Irwin replied the residents would have pay to have their existing fences torn down, however, they would not be incurring any of the cost associated with building the new proposed wall. He said the applicant had scheduled a meeting with the residents to discuss any issues and/or concerns. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011\ALRC_6-22-11_Speciai Mtg\ALRC_Draft MIN_6-1-1 l.docx 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 1, 2011 Committee Member Thoms suggested, the applicant remove the proposed water feature for the front courtyard. He encouraged the use of decorative paving to enhance the concrete image of the walkways and the courtyard. Mr. Gregory replied it was the applicant's intention to use decorative pavers, however, the details and materials had not yet been selected. Committee Member Thoms suggested the facia of the carports be painted in one of the darker and stronger colors selected for the buildings to make it stand out and to expand the color palette throughout the entire project. Committee Member Thoms Washington Street, the project for part of the way. Therefor located on the roof be comple all equipment located on the roi that it was the applicant's aid when traveling north on visible from a birds point of view he suggested that. any equipment y .screened. Mr. Irwin 'replied that would be` --completely screened and ent7.-to make the screening an architectural element to, khe buildings Committee Member Thoms asked -staff to`consult with the traffic engineer to find out if a' u-turn could :be allowed on Washington Street from Avenue 50 while traveling southbound. He said there was a, left turning lane currently existing, but no u-turn was allowed. There beings no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/McCune to adopt Minute Motion 201 1- 004, recommending-; approval of Site Development Permit 2003- 762, Amendment 1' with staff's recommendations. Unanimously VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None. VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: B. Discussion Regarding Summer Meeting Schedule The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee unanimously agreed to go dark in the month of July 2011. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011\ALRC_6-22-11_Special Mtg\ALRC_Draft MIN_6-1-11.docx 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 1. 2011 IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members McCune/Thoms to. adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Special Meeting to be held on June 22, 2011. This meeting was adjourned at 10:38 a.m. on June 1, 2011. MONK Secret£ P:\Reports - ALRC\2011WLRC_6-22-11_Special Mtg\ALRC_Draft MIN_6-1-11.docx 5 Date: June 1, 2011 Time: 5:30 PM - 6:30 PM Place: City of La Quinta Library Community Room Dear Resident, We would like to share with you our proposed development located on 14+/- acres at the northeast comer of Washington Street and Avenue 50 in La Quinta. We are processing entitlements with the City for a full service senior community that will consist of independent living, assisted living and memory care units. You are invited to attend a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday June, I st at 5:30PM at the La Quinta Library Community Room. We would like to take the opportunity to acquaint you with the design and to hear your feedback regarding the new development. Subject La Paloma Specific Plan 2004-071 / Site Development Permit 2003- 762 Amendment No.1 Draft Conditions of Approval Dear ,lay: On behalf of our dlient West Living we offer the following comments to the Conditions of Approval dated June 14, 2011. We are available to answer any questions regarding these requested modifications. GENERAL 3. The Site Development Permit shall expire one year from the date of City Council,approval (July 5 2012), and shall become mill and vaid In accordance with La Quints Municipal Code Section 9.210,020, unless a building permithasbeen issued. A time extension -may be requested per LQMC Section 9.200.00. We would Hke to request that the SDP approval be for a period of 2 years. PR©PERTY RIGHTS � 14. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. Public Streets 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial, 120' ROW) - The standard 60 lest from the centerline ofV�ashington Street for a total of 120-1ppt ultimate developed right of way except for. Additional nght-r>f-way is required on Washington Street north of Avenue 90 to provide for the realignrpierlt of Washington Street to accommodate the dual left tum lanes for southbound Washington Street to eastbound Avenue 5.0 as approved by the City Engineer 34200 Bob HOPE DRivE-a RANCHO MIRAGES CALIFORNIA ® 92270 760-320-9811 ® 760-323-7893 FAX a www.MSACONSULTINGINC.COM Mr. Jay Wuu June 13, 2011 rage z oT 4 A. An additfonal variable right Of way dedication for the deeeleraffon/right tumonly lane and bus turnout at the proposed primary project entry measures seventy- six feet (M east of the canterine of Washington Street and length as conditfrrned under STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS (Condition of Approval No. 234(7) (b)). 2) Avenue: 50 (Primary Arterial, Option B 100' ROW) The standard 50 feet from the centertne of Avenue 50 for a total of f 00-foot ultimate devafoAed tight of way except for: A. An addNonal right of way dedication of 10 feet fore right turn only lane at the Avenue 50 intersection with Washington Street (a total of 60 feet (60') north of the centerline of Avenue 50) and length as conditioned under STREET AND TRAFFIQ IMPROVEMENTS (Condition of Approval No. 23A (2)(a))• We would note that all dedications ;have been made to the City with the exception of the deceleration lane on Washington, STRBET'AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 25. The Applicantshall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street t)gpe noted in parentheses). A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Washington Street (Major Arterial,• 120'RilNry g) Establish a benchmark in the Washington Street right of way and file a record' of the benchmark' with the County of Riverside. the condition requiring the establishment of a benchmark on Washington Street dose not appear to have a nexus to the development of this project and should be eliminated. 2) Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial - Option B; I00'R!W) d) A 124bot wide raised landscape median plus variable width as needed along the entire project boundary to accommodate fora left turn lane for the eastbound Avenue 50 traffic into the project entry on the north side and for dual :left turn Janes for westbound Avenue 50 traffic at the intersection Of Washington Street and Avenue 50 Due to the unusual slopeconditions on Avenue 50 east of the proposed entry, the requirement to build the full median island and add pavement to maintain two eastbound through traffic lanes could end up Involving retaining walls and or encroachments Into CVWb property on the south side of Avenue 50 which would be a financial burden on the La Paloma project We would propose building the median island just past our Avenue $0 entry Including landscaping but then tapering the paving and striping at that point and leaving the remainder of the median and landscape east of the entry to the developer of the project on the south side of Avenue 50 upon its, development. 34200 BoB HOPE Dxn-F. ® RANCHO MIRAGE a CALIFORNIA ® 92270 760-320-9811 a 760-323-7893 FAX a WWW-MSACONsviTiNcINC:COM e Mc Jay 1Wuu June 13, 2011 Page 3 of 4 28. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: B. Primary Entry (Avenue 50j: Right turn in and out and left turn in movements are allowed. Left turn movements out are prohibited All right-tum-out only driveways shag have a splatter median island located in the driveway throat that adequately ehannelizes the existing right-tum vehicles taming onto the arterial street to eliminate illegal left turns. The spliker island shag be designed in conformance with design concepts approved by the City Engineer. Both property owners Involved along Avenue 50 would like a full left in l left out drvveway. we would request that the condition be changed to allow this type of access to both properties. tMPROVEMENT PLANS 34. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval . by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the QYy Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a large 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. G. On -Site Street improvements/Signing & StripinglStorm Drain Plan We would request that the requirement for profile of the on -site street Improvements and storm drain be eliminated. The on site driveway and parking area layout Is not the same as a typical street with continuous curb and gutter where profile design is an understandable requirement: DRIANAGE 52. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of f QMC Section 13.24,120 (Drainage , Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin .No. 06-16 — Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storrs Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin 06- 015 — Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater felling 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. White La Paloma has been designed for on�siie retention, It is possible that direct discharge (as currently approved) may be pursued based on a hydrology study of the tributary of the evacuation, channel. We would request that the condition be worded to allow the direct discharge as an option subject to thedemonstration of feasibility in said study. 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE a RANCHO MIRAGE e CALIFORNIA ® 92270 760-320-98'I.1 a 760-323-7893 FAX 0 www.MSACONSuLrINGING:CONI Mr. Jay Wuu June13,2011 Page 4 of 4 FIRE DEPARTMENT 10i. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system (per NFPA 13 2010 Edition). Fire sprinkler systems with pipe sizes in excess of 4" in diameter will require the project Structural Engineer to certify with a "wet signature", that. the structural system is designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of the sprinkler system. Alffire sprinkler risers shag be protected from any physical damage. We believe that the UBC allows a residential type sprinkler system and not a commercial system.; We would like this condition to indicate that the project shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code 104. Install a complete Class I standpipe system (per NFPA 14 2007 Edition and 2010 CFC Chapter 905) along with GUMOnt permit lees, to the Fire Department for review and approvaal prior to installation. Similarly, we :believe that the Uniform Building Cade does not require a Class 1 standpipe system and the wording of this condition should be changed to Indicate that the projectshall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Lastly, we would request that a southbound U-tum movement be considered at the Washington StreetlAvenue 50 intersection. This,restriction seems to have been placed there during recent street improvements and will increase the overall vehicle miles traveled for project traffic during the fife of the development. Project delivery traffic will be directed to the entry on Avenue 50 and would not need the U-turn movement. We thank the staff for the time spent and consideration of these few requests. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Very truly yours. Marvin D. Roos Director ofDasign Development 14200 BOB HOPE DRIVE a RANCHO MIRAGE B CALIFORNIA ® 92270 760-320-981'1 a 760-323-7893 FAX 0 wwwASACONSULTINGINc.COM PH#B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 14, 2011 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-103 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE: A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPED PARKWAYS 09.50.100), CORRECTING AN ERROR REGARDING GUEST HOUSES AND SECONDARY UNITS 09.140.0701, ADJUSTING THE TIME EXTENSION PERIOD FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMITS (§9.200.080), DELETION OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE REFERENCING GUESTHOUSE EXAMPLES 09.210.020), REVISED DEFINITIONS OF CHILD DAY CARE USES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW (§9.280.030), AND EXTEND THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH TO 1320 FEET (§ 13.24.070). LOCATION GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: CITY-WIDE NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15061(B)(3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. BACKGROUND: Over the past year, staff has logged a handful of minor errors, policy determinations, and legislative actions that necessitate a revision or update to the Municipal Code. Routine adjustments to the Code are typical and necessary in order to stay up to date and to correct inconsistencies. Staff previously brought forward code updates to the Planning Commission on April 13, 2010. ZOA 10-103 Planning Commission Staff Report 6/14/11 PAReports - PC\2011\6-14-11\ZOA 11-103\Stf Rpt ZOA 11-103.doc PROPOSAL - A majority of the Zoning Code amendments being proposed with this update involve routine error corrections or legislative actions. Two proposed items which are not error or legislative -related include a proposal to double the minimum cul-de- sac street length and a proposal to allow certain time extensions to be approved for up to two years. All of the proposed changes are minor in nature, will not have an effect on existing development, and are in conformance with existing General Plan policies. Clarification Regarding the Location of Certain Landscaped Parkways (§9.50.100) Last November, staff received a question regarding the wording of a development standard for Low Density Residential zoned properties of less than 10 acres located south of Avenue 52. The particular development standard in question states that a landscaped parkway is required on "all public streets," though the intent of the wording was to only apply along arterial streets. This oversight occurred due to the fact that there are very few public local or collector streets south of Avenue 52. Installing a landscaped parkway along a local or collector street is generally infeasible. A Director's policy memorandum was issued on November 30, 2010, specifying that a landscaped parkway would be required along "all arterial streets." (Attachment: ZOA 10-103 Zoning Resolution Exhibit "A") Correcting an Error Regarding Guest Houses and Secondary Units with Equestrian Residential Uses (§9.140.070) Although the code was revised in October of 2007 to bring guesthouse and second dwelling unit .requirements into conformance with state housing law, Agriculture/Equestrian Residential Uses Table 9-10 within Section 9.140.070 contains an overlooked provision which continues to erroneously identify a requirement for Minor Use Permits. This proposed code change will correct the table and bring it into conformance with state law. (Attachment: ZOA 11-103 Zoning Resolution Exhibit "B") Adjusting the Time Extension Period for Development Review Permits (§9.200.080) As the recent economic slowdown has resulted in substantial construction delays for a number of previously approved projects, staff is proposing to amend the code to allow development review permits a time extension of up to two years. The current code allows a one-year time extension following its initial two year period of validity. Development review permits are defined in Section 9.210.010 as including .site, architectural, lighting and landscape plans, related development plans, and sign programs." Time extension applications which remain incomplete and inactive ZOA 10-100 Planning Commission Staff Report 6/14/11 Page 2 of 4 P:\Reports - PC\201 1 \6-14-1 1 \ZOA 11-103\Stf Rpt ZOA 11-103.doc would also become eligible for automatic withdrawal. (Attachment: ZOA 11-103 Zoning Resolution Exhibit "C") Deletion of Obsolete Language Referencing Guesthouse Examples (§9.210.020) The code section which defines a Minor Use Permit contains an obsolete example necessary for deletion: "for example, a guesthouse on a lot containing a main residence." The Minor Use Permit requirement for guesthouses was removed from the Municipal Code in October of 2007 in response to changes in state law. Guesthouses are a permitted accessory use within all residential zones. (Attachment: ZOA 1 1-103 Zoning Resolution Exhibit 't") Revised Definitions of Child Day Care Uses to be Consistent with State Law (§ 9.280.030) The definition of Child Day Care in the Municipal Code is based upon that identified under state law. Section 1596.78 of the State Health and Safety Code defines child care uses and was recently modified by the State Legislature. The proposed code amendment will match the City's definition with that of State law (Attachment: ZOA 1 1-103 Zoning Resolution Exhibit "E"). Extend the Maximum Permitted Cul-de-Sac Length to 1320 Feet Section 13.24.07 of the Subdivision Ordinance regulates street design and currently limits the maximum cul-de-sac length to 660 feet. The standard enforced by the Riverside County Fire Department is 1320 feet. Staff is requesting the City standard be adjusted to match the current County fire code standard of 1320 feet. (Attachment: ZOA 1 1-103 Subdivision Resolution Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS: While most of the proposed code amendments are error corrections or result from state legislation, two of the proposed amendments are discretionary changes. Increasing the time extension period for development review permits to two years would benefit applicants by reducing the frequency of their applications and public hearings. Allowing cul-de-sac street lengths to be doubled to 1320 feet, the maximum permitted under County fire and transportation. regulations, would eliminate the inconsistency between the City and County codes and provide developers with greater flexibility in their subdivision design. CEQA: The proposed code amendments have been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Because the proposed changes are ZOA 10-100 Planning Commission Staff Report 6/14/11 Page 3 of 4 PAReports - PC\2011\6-14-11\ZOA 11-103\Stf Rpt ZOA 11-103.doc minor in nature and constitute error corrections, inconsequential design changes, the codification of existing policy, or are the result of state legislative action, the proposed code amendments will have no impact on the environment. In addition, future projects which may be affected by any of the proposed changes would be individually addressed under the California Environmental Quality Act. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3, 2011. To date, no comments or letters have been received. Any comments or correspondence received following the completion of this staff report will be presented to the Planning Commission at the hearing. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance amendments can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolutions recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 201 1-103 to the City Council. Prepared by: And J. Mogensen, AICP PrirIKipal Planner ZOA 10-100 Planning Commission Staff Report 6/14/11 Page 4 of 4 P:\Reports-PC\2011\6-14-11\ZOA Ill -103\Stf RptZOA 11-103.doc PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-103, 1.) A CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE LOCATION OF CERTAIN LANDSCAPED PARKWAYS 09.50.100►, 2.) CORRECTING AN ERROR REGARDING GUEST HOUSES AND SECONDARY UNITS 09.140.0701, 3.) ADJUSTING THE TIME EXTENSION PERIOD FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMITS (99.200.080), 4.) DELETION OF OBSOLETE LANGUAGE REFERENCING GUESTHOUSE EXAMPLES 09.210.020), AND 5.) REVISED DEFINITIONS OF CHILD DAY CARE USES TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW 09.280.030). CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-103 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA . WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, . California, did on the 141" of June, 2011, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to clarify the ..location of certain landscaped parkways (§9.50.100), correct an error regarding guesthouses and secondary dwelling units (§9.140.070), adjust the time extension period for development review permits (§9.200.080), delete obsolete language regarding guesthouse examples 09.210.0201, and revise definitions to be consistent with state law 09.280.0301, and WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed the Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June V, 2011, as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendment: 1. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as it amends the Zoning Code to be consistent with California Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2011-103 June 3, 2011 requirements for second dwelling units and child care facilities; implements existing City policies that are in conformance with those in the General Plan; removes inconsistent, conflicting, and incompatible portions of text; does not create any new or changed conditions to the environment, and allows for continued high quality development in the City. Because the amendments are either corrections, clarifications, or the codification of current policies and interpretations, the code amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. 2. Approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed changes to the Municipal Code will have no effect on the environment. 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 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2011-103 as set forth in attached Exhibits A through E to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 14" day of June, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Zoning Ordinance Amendment 2011-103 June 3, 2011 ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta Exhibit "A" 9.50.100 RL district property subdivision development standards, ten acres or less, located south of Avenue 52. A. Applicability. The following development standards shall apply to all subdivisions less than ten acres in size located in the RL district, south of Avenue 52, and west of Monroe. B. Development Standards. 1. A minimum lot size of twenty thousand square feet shall be required, unless: a. The proposed subdivision establishes a minimum of twenty - residential lots). The open space shall include amenities and features such as passive open space, trails, play areas or equipment, picnic facilities, recreational amenities, clubhouse facilities and/or active use parks. Retention basins may be considered as part of the twenty-five percent open space requirement provided they are designed as an integral part of the project, fully landscaped, and accessible for passive and active use. b. The minimum lot size within the proposed subdivision is equal to or greater than the minimum lot size of the residential lots within the abutting subdivided properties created prior to August 2, 2007. c. Driveway access should be consolidated with other neighboring properties. 2. Under no circumstances shall lots be less than ten thousand square feet in size. 3. A landscaped parkway of thirty feet in depth shall be required on all Elie arterial streets. 4. All other development standards of the RL district, including but not limited to setbacks, building height and parking requirements, shall apply. C. Official Zoning Map. The city's official zoning map shall identify as an overlay all properties potentially affected by these provisions. (Ord. 440 § 2, 2007) Exhibit "B" 9.140.070 Low density/agricultural-equestrian residential'district. TABLE 9-10 PERMITTED USES IN THE AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Accessory Uses and Structures Guest houses, subject to Section 9.60.010 M A4 A Second units, "granny flats" and employee quarters, subject to Section 9.60.090 M —MA Exhibit "C" 9.200.080 Permit expiration and time extensions. A. Period of Validity. The period of validity for a development review permit shall begin on the permits effective date as set forth in Section 9.200.060. The period of validity shall run indefinitely unless it expiFes pursuant to subsection C of this section. B. Establishment. A development review permit shall be deemed established if the following actions occur within twenty-four months of the effective date of the approval or within such other time period designated by the approval: 1. In the case of a development review permit where ministerial permits are required, such permits have been issued. 2. In the case of a development review permit where no ministerial permits are required, the use authorized by the permit has been established. In circumstances where a certificate of occupancy is required, such certificate has been issued. C. Expiration. A development review permit shall expire and be of no further force or effect if: 1. The permit is not established within twenty-four months of the permits effective date or such other time period designated by the permit approval, by state law or by this code; or 2. After establishment, the use or activity for which the permit was approved is discontinued or abandoned for a period of one year. D. Time Extensions. 1. Upon application before expiration of the period of validity, the original decision -making authority may grant an extension to the period of validity for up to one two years if it finds that such an extension is justified by the circumstances of the project. The filing of an application for extension shall stay expiration of the permit until action is taken on the time extension by the decision -making authority unless the application has been deemed incomplete and inactive pursuant to Section 9.200.070(B). 2. Projects not requiring a time extension may be constructed in accordance with the requirements and standards in effect at the time of permit approval provided the construction complies with all project conditions of approval and all laws in effect at the time of the permit approval. However, any projector permit requiring a time extension shelf conform to the requirements and standards in effect at the time the extension is granted. (Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) Exhibit "D" 9.210.020 Conditional use permits and minor use permits. A. Purpose. The purpose of a conditional use permit or minor use permit is to provide for individual approval or denial of land uses requiring such permits under this code. Uses requiring these permits have potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. Therefore, when such uses are approved, conditions are placed on their establishment and operation to mitigate or eliminate such impacts. For purposes of this section, the term "use permit' includes both conditional use and minor use permits. B. Definitions. "Use permit' means a discretionary entitlement under the provisions of this zoning code which authorizes a specific use or development on a specific property subject to compliance with all terms and conditions imposed on the entitlement. 1. Conditional Use Permits. Uses requiring a conditional use permit have moderate to significant potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses; for example, kennels or animal shelters. 2. Minor Use Permits. Uses requiring a minor use permit have low to moderate potential for adverse impacts on surrounding properties, residents or businesses. In most cases, such uses are accessory to a main or principal use on the property; Exhibit "E" 9.280.030 Definition of terms. "Child day care home" or "family day care home" means, consistent with Section 1596.78 of the State Health and Safety Code_ (a) "Family day care home" means a home that regularly provides care, protection, and supervision for 14 or fewer children, in the provider's own home, for periods of less than 24 hours per day, while the parents or guardians are away, and is either a large family day care home or a small family day care home. (b) "Large family day care home" means a home that provides family day care for 7 to 14 children, inclusive, including children under the age of 10 years who reside at the home. (c) "Small family day care home" means a home that provides family day care for eight or fewer children, including children under the age of 10 years who reside at the home. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13.24.070 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A MINIMUM CUL-DE-SAC LENGTH OF 1320 FEET. CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-103 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 14" of June, 2011, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a Subdivision Text Amendment to allow a minimum cul-de-sac length of 1320 feet; and WHEREAS, said Subdivision Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (CEQA) as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Planning Department has reviewed the Subdivision Code Amendment under the provisions of CEQA, and has determined that the Amendment is exempt pursuant to Section 15061(B)(3), Review for Exemptions of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, said amendment to the Subdivision Code is consistent with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460.151, as enforced by the Riverside County Fire Department, which maintains a maximum cul-de-sac length of 1320 feet from a circulatory road; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 3rd, 2011, as prescribed by the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Subdivision Text Amendment: 1. The proposed Subdivision Code Amendment is consistent with General Plan, insofar as it allows for continued high quality development in the City. Because the amendment conforms to the design and safety policies within the Traffic and Circulation Element and the Infrastructure and Public Services Element, the Subdivision ,Text Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Subdivision Code Amendment 2011-103 June 14, 2011 2. Approval of the Subdivision Code Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will have no impacts on the public health, safety and welfare. 3. The Subdivision Code Amendment has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in that the proposed changes will have no effect on the environment. 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 the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of the Subdivision Code Amendment as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 141h day of June, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta Exhibit "A 13.24.070 Street design —Generally F. Cul-de-sacs shall not exceed a distance of sex !;undFed ^u�* ��a�T one thousand three hundred and twenty feet in length (measured from the centerline of the intersection to the center of the cul-de-sac) unless provided with improved emergency access/outlet routes no more than wed . sixty one thousand three hundred and twenty feet from the end of the cul- de-sac.