The URL can be used to link to this page

2011 07 12 PCCity ®f La Quinta Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-guinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California JULY 12, 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 201 1-008 Beginning Minute Motion 201 1-002 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call C. Election of Chair and Vice Chair 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 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 ................... SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 Applicant........... Coral Mountain Partners, L.P./City of La Quinta Redeve- lopment Agency Location............ Approximately 660 Feet East of Dune Palms Road, North of the DSUSD Administrative Campus. Request ............. Consideration of Architectural, Site, and Landscaping Plans for Coral Mountain Apartments, a 176-Unit Multi -Family Affordable Rental Housing Community on Approximately 10 Acres. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution 201 1- B. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2010-608 AND TENTA- TIVE TRACT MAP 36279 Applicant........... Pedcor Commercial Development Location............ Southwest Corner of Madison Street And Avenue 51 (also known as Vista Bonita Trail) Request ............. Consideration Of A Recommendation for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and a Tentative Tract Map, to Create 11 Single -Family Residential Lots on 9.14 Gross Acres. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution 2011- C. Item ................... CONTINUED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-104 Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration Of An Amendment to the La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 9.170 Communication Towers and Equipment, Section 9.40.040 Table of Permitted Uses, Section 9.60.080 Satellite Dish and Other Antennas, Section 9.80.040 Table of Permitted Uses, Section 9.90.020 Roof Projections, Section 9.100.070 Satellite Dish and Other Antennas, and Section 9.120.020 Table of Permitted Uses. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution 201 1- D. Item ................... 2008 LA QUINTA HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE Applicant........... City of La Quinta Location............ City-wide Request ............. Consideration Of A Recommendation for Adoption of the Proposed Draft of the La Quinta Housing Element Update Document. Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolution Recommending Approval, with Conditions - Resolution 2011- VI. BUSINESS ITEM: VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report on City Council meeting of July 5, 2011. B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the July 19, 2011, City Council meeting. IX. DIRECTOR ITEMS: X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on July 26, 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, July 12, 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 July 7, 2011. I A RADEVA, Secretary for 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. STAFF REPORT PH # A PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JULY 12, 2011 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF ARCHITECTURAL, SITE, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR CORAL MOUNTAIN APARTMENTS, A 176-UNIT MULTI -FAMILY AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING COMMUNITY ON APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATION: APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET EAST OF DUNE PALMS ROAD, NORTH OF THE DSUSD ADMINISTRATIVE CAMPUS APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. / CITY OF LA QUINTA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ARCHITECT: PREST VUKSIC ARCHITECTS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC. ENGINEER: MSA CONSULTING, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: ON MAY 18, 2010, THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2008101109), PROCESSED UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2008-600. THE DRAFT EIR ANALYZED IMPACTS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2008-085, WHICH INCLUDES THE SUBJECT SITE, BASED ON A POTENTIAL 200 MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL UNITS ON THE SUBJECT SITE. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT NO SUBSEQUENT OR SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS WARRANTED AS THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH, AND CONTEMPLATED BY, THE EIR, AND NONE OF THE EVENTS LISTED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166 HAVE OCCURRED. GENERAL PLAN: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP) ZONING: COMMERCIAL PARK (CP); SPECIFIC PLAN 2008-085 BACKGROUND: The project site is approximately 10 acres in size, located east of Dune Palms Road, just north of the Desert Sands Unified School District's administrative and operations campus (Attachment 1). It constitutes the southern one-half of a 20- acre site owned currently by the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (LQRDA). The project site is bordered on the north by vacant land within the specific plan (designated for commercial development), while to the south lies the Desert Sands Unified School District administration and service facilities, including the District's school bus yard. East of the site are the existing Komar Center/Costco properties, and to the west an existing self -storage facility, which is part of Dune Palms Plaza. During the 1940's, the site was developed for agricultural purposes. The agricultural uses were terminated in the early 1970's, when a trailer park became operational north of the site. By 1980, the trailer park had only a dozen or so trailers remaining. These units remained until the early 2000's, when the last of the trailers vacated the site. The La Quinta Redevelopment Agency (RDA) purchased the property in 2007 to facilitate the development of affordable housing and infill commercial development, both of which are identified as goals in the adopted La Quinta Redevelopment Plan. Ultimately, the project will be owned and managed by Coral Mountain Partners, L.P. PROPOSAL The approved Specific Plan which governs the project site was adopted on May 18, 2010. It establishes the policy vision for the project site and provides regulatory standards to ensure its implementation as the area develops. The 20-acre Specific Plan designates a northern commercial portion as Commercial, along with a southern residential portion which constitutes the multi -family project site (Attachment 2). The current commercial and residential sites were configured under Lot Line Adjustment 2010-508, recorded in December 2010. Each portion is approximately 10 acres in size, separated by "A" Street, which provides vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the residential portion and secondary access to the commercial portion. The Specific Plan allows for up to 200 new affordable multi -family housing units in a series of one and two-story buildings on the southern residential portion of the Specific Plan area. The applicant is requesting consideration of architecture, site and landscaping plans for Coral Mountain Apartments, a 176-unit multi -family affordable rental housing community.. This Site Development Permit application (SDP) serves to implement the residential portion of the Specific Plan, and provides the more detailed site review information based on the Specific Plan guidance. Under the SDP application and corresponding plan set (Attachment 3), the southern 2 residential portion of the Specific Plan is proposed for 176 affordable multi -family rental units. The project will provide 40 one -bedroom, 82 two -bedroom and 54 three -bedroom units, along with a 3,660 s.f. community clubhouse and common area recreation, including a pool, basketball half -court, and children's play area. There are 11 residential buildings; all are 2-story with the exception of one single story building housing 4 units. Each building breaks down as follows: Building 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR TOTALS A -0- 4 Units -0- 4 B -0- 8 Units 4 Units 12 C -0- -0- 8 Units 8 D 8 Units 12 Units -0- 20 E -0- 4 Units 12 Units 16 F -0-. 4 Units 12 Units 16 G 4 Units 10 Units 2 Units 16 H -0- 4 Units 12 Units 16 J 8 Units 8 Units -0- 16 L 8 Units 16 Units -0- 24 M 12 Units 12 Units 4 Units 28 TOTALS 40 82 54 176 There are a total of 11 unit floor plans, eight of which will be used on both the first and second floors (Attachment 3; Sheets UP-1A1 through UP-2D2). The one - bedroom plans are 698, 743, and 779 s.f., the two -bedroom plans are 926, 943 and 966 s.f., and the three -bedroom plans are 1,103, 1,116, 1,250 and 1,266 s.f. Site Design: A new public road, identified as "A" Street, will provide access to the residential project and a connection between Dune Palms Road to the project's southwest and the adjacent Komar Center/Costco property to the north and east (Attachment 3; Sheet A1.10). This roadway is designed as a 30-foot curb -to -curb width, except where it widens to 36 feet from the main project access, south to the DSUSD access road. The development of "A" Street will also include the construction of a traffic signal at Dune Palms Road. The project will access "A" Street through its main access on the southwest, and a secondary access way at the northeast corner of the project. Pedestrian paths will traverse the residential community, facilitating access to Dune Palms Road and neighboring commercial developments via "A" Street, which incorporates a 5-foot sidewalk adjacent to the project frontage. Pedestrian access from the project to 'A' Street is located at the project's vehicular access points. A 20-foot wide emergency fire access has been provided at the north side of the project off of 'A' Street (Attachment 3; Sheet C1.O1). The project was originally submitted as a gated entry design, but was recently revised to eliminate the gates; this is discussed in more detail in the ANALYSIS section of this report. The fire access, however, will remain gated. Circulation within the project proper emanates from the main entry at the southwest 3 edge of the project, providing access to two drive aisles which branch off to the north and east. These aisles provide for parking along them but also lead to larger parking areas interior to the project; however, the majority of parking stalls for the project are located along these drive aisles. A total of 352 parking spaces are proposed, including 18 ADA-accessible spaces (7 covered, 2 van -accessible), and 176 total covered parking spaces. The steel carport structures are approximately 9' 2" in height, and will be designed to accommodate future installation . of photovoltaic panels (Attachment 3; Sheets CP1.10, CP1 .20). The proposed lighting plans address parking and common area lighting; no landscape lighting is shown (Attachment 3; Sheets E-1, E-2). The internal common areas and vehicular travel and parking areas are lighted by 16-foot tall pole lights (includes 13-foot pole on 2-foot concrete pedestal) with a modern triangular fixture design and black matte finish. Building -mounted fixtures of the same design and finish will provide area lighting at buildings. Both fixtures will utilize high-pressure sodium lamps and provide shielding at the light plane, directed downward (Attachment 3; Sheet E-3). The carport lighting will be dual -lamp ballasts with fluorescent lighting, mounted in the carport beams. It should be noted that the applicant is also investigating the potential for use of LED lighting throughout the project. Architectural Design: The applicant proposes a Desert Modern/Contemporary architectural style (Attachment 3; Sheet A0.00 - refer to sheets for Buildings K, A - E, F&H, G, J, L, M). With the exception of the project clubhouse and one 4-unit residential building, both at one story, the project will feature 2-story buildings, all at a maximum height of 26' 6". The buildings have staggered height lines which differ slightly from each building, allowing some design variation while maintaining the project's architectural continuity and general massing. While the building lines primarily demonstrate right angles, there are some subtle arch and angular variations incorporated, most notably at stairwells, facade columns and in the steel awnings. The color palette is similar in tone to that used for the adjacent Komar Center, but utilizes softer hues. The building exterior walls are a Portland cement plaster with a dashed finish. Site and building design is proposed to be "sustainability focused" (Attachment 3; Sheet A0.02) in an effort to reduce energy and water consumption. As a result, the buildings incorporate multiple recessed design elements and stacked facades to provide for solar control and more visual architectural interest. Steel awnings are cantilevered out from above the second floor balcony/stairwell areas as well. Landscaping: Project landscaping consists of primarily desert -compatible low to moderate -water use plants (Attachment 3; Sheets L-2.00; L-5.00 - L-5.03). There is minimal use of 4 turf (5.73% of total landscaped area), which has been limited to two potential active use lawn areas and a basketball half -court. The proposed tree palette includes Rosewood, Shoestring Acacia, and Tipuanas in multi and single trunk. The shrub palette includes Agave, Red Bird of Paradise, Bougainvilleas and Lantana, among others. Trailing vines of Pink Powder Puff and Cape Honeysuckle are shown inside the project's south and east perimeter wall areas; there are no vines proposed for the wall along 'A' Street. Groundcover will be decomposed granite, with cobble areas and accent boulders at various locations. No landscape lighting has been proposed, though the applicant has indicated that some low-level accent lighting may be provided at the project access points and along 'A' Street. The landscaped areas that run along 'A' Street are proposed to be landscaped with Tipuana (24" box @ 1.5 caliper; 36" box @ 3.0 caliper) and Shoestring Acacia trees (24" box @ 1.5 caliper; 36" box @ 2.5 caliper), The Rosewood trees are specified as 24" box @ 1.25 caliper; 36" box @ 3.0 caliper, and are located internal to the project, with exception of one tree at the 'A' Street intersection with the DSUSD access road. The project perimeter along 'A' Street also incorporates a sectional screen wall (Attachment 3; Sheet L-2.02). The wall will be approximately 6' in height, made of painted precision block facing into the project, with 2" precision cap and no pilasters. A split -face block will be used on the outer wall faces, along the 'A' Street elevation. The wall is designed in reverse curved sections, which are connected by a short wrought iron fence between each curved section of wall. Short sections of 20-foot high block wall will be placed on the south property line (Attachment 3; Sheet L2.02). These wall sections are designed to provide noise mitigation, primarily from bus traffic associated with the DSUSD facility access road along the south project frontage. The height may be reduced during plan check, pending a final acoustical analysis that will be required. These wall sections are at openings between Buildings A, B and C, and would connect with an existing block wall along the east property line, which separates the Costco property from the site. This existing wall will remain in place and be planted with the Pink Powder Puff and Cape Honeysuckle trailing vines as shown on the landscaping plans. Sustainability: The proposed Coral Mountain Apartment community will incorporate environmentally sustainable concepts and efficiency measures (Attachment 3; Sheet E-4). While it is not seeking LEED certification, it is being designed to target LEED Silver standards. Design of the buildings includes many energy and water - efficient amenities, such as solar tubes to provide indoor area lighting for many of the units, low -flow toilets and fixtures, and recirculating water heaters. A hydronic HVAC system will be employed, which circulates hot water from the water heating system, using forced air to heat the individual units. Four of the buildings will incorporate roof -mounted photovoltaic solar panels; additional panels could also be 5 added to other buildings in the future. ANALYSIS Project revisions: Certain project revisions and information clarifications have been submitted, based on staff review comments and changes instituted by the applicant (Attachment 4): ■ Deletion of project access gating; ■ Minor correction and clarification of items as requested by staff. Several of these items constitute minor corrections or items that can be addressed through approval conditions. The project entry gates have been removed by the applicant to minimize costs, and due to concerns about their effectiveness in restricting unauthorized access (Attachment 4; Revised Sheet L-2.02). The main entry has been redesigned to remove the rejection turn -around elements and make the corresponding median modifications. Staff does not have any concerns with removal of these gates. It is noted that the project could install a gate system in the future, if desired or warranted. Staff has suggested several items to the applicant to be incorporated into the project, including the use of LED lighting, and addition of a small interactive water feature (similar to what is at Wolff Waters). The applicant is taking these under consideration but at present they have not been incorporated. Staff has recommended that these items, if incorporated after project approval, not constitute a need to amend the SDP. There had been discussion of adding transom -style windows to the project at the south elevations for Buildings B and C. However, the sound level criteria and design of the buildings may make this infeasible. In the event that the applicant later determines that windows can be incorporated, staff recommends a provision to be added that would allow for an administrative review of such a revision, without the need for an amendment to the SDP. Many of these items were presented during ALRC review,, as they have bearing on site design, architecture and landscaping issues. As such, most of the items discussed in this section were included in their recommendation and in the recommended approval conditions. Architectural Design: Staff has no issues with the overall architectural style and design of the proposed project. The Desert Modern/Contemporary architectural style and layout of the project site is compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses, most notably in relation to the Komar Center. The project site essentially constitutes infill 9 development, being generally surrounded by other land uses and structures; as such the massing and height of the overall project are not out of character with the surrounding built environment. In addition, there is no unifying architectural theme or elements common to the existing commercial structures, as all were approved and constructed years apart as separate projects. Given that this is a residential land use surrounded by commercial and institutional uses, there is a certain amount of architectural variation that will occur between them. Staff has concerns with the 20-foot high wall sections proposed at Buildings B and C, along the south project boundary at the DSUSD access road. As previously noted, these wall sections are proposed at that height to address preliminary findings associated with the acoustical analysis in the EIR. Staff would prefer these to be reduced as much as possible, in order to break up the height line along the south -elevations, and has proposed a recommendation to lower these sections to the extent feasible, based on a final acoustical study to be prepared during the building permit process. There is also an issue where the easterly wall section will need to join with the existing wall on the east project boundary, which is about 8 to 10' high at the southeast corner of the property. A condition has been provided to reconsider this height based on results of a final acoustical study to be prepared and submitted with building plan check. Site Design: The design of vehicular access points, internal circulation, and parking areas is generally acceptable. Within the project, all applicable turning radii for large vehicles 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, as all units are separated from vehicle travel and parking areas by pedestrian walkways. While a sidewalk has been provided along 'A' Street, the limiting of pedestrian access to the project entries allows residents to get to shopping or transportation by walking through the project, arguably a more inviting and defensible path of travel. The Specific Plan for the project calls for a minimum of 2 parking stalls per unit, requiring a total of 352 stalls, and which have been provided. The LQMC requires parking areas of 5 or more spaces to be 50% shaded by landscaping; any shade structures may be credited for up to 50% of the shading requirement. The project provides 176 covered spaces, or 50% of the total spaces, therefore, staff has determined that landscaped shading must address 25% of the overall parking area. While it appears that the tree canopies proposed in the landscape plan will meet this standard, the applicant will need to provide verification of plan compliance during final landscape plan review. The applicant will also be required to provide bicycle racks, in accordance with the approved Specific Plan. The proposed on -site lighting design and proposed fixtures are consistent with the City's outdoor lighting ordinance. Pedestrian walkways and entries will be 7 adequately lit using decorative pole -mounted fixtures. Parking areas will also be sufficiently lit by pole lighting and carport lights. All lighting will be designed and located so as to confine direct light within the community boundaries. The submitted photometric plan (Attachment 3; Sheets E-1, E-2) confirms that the project will be properly illuminated, with a lack of excess light wash and no illuminated hotspots. It is recommended that the triangular A and B fixture design should be re-evaluated, and that at least one alternative fixture design be submitted with the final lighting plans. Staff has discussed with the applicant the potential to incorporate an active water feature as part of the recreational amenities. This discussion came about due to concerns that have been expressed by management of the Wolff Waters complex, that the pool area for that project is undersized. While the applicant claims that the pool and corresponding patio area is adequately sized for this project, staff believes that a small recreational water feature would provide an additional recreation option, and would alleviate any potential overcrowding of the pool and other play areas. At this time, the applicant has stated an interest in exploring this as an option. Such features can be permitted if they meet the City's water efficiency requirements. Landscaping: In general, the proposed landscape palette is appropriate for the project. The adopted Specific Plan that encompasses this project does not include a plant palette, but does set forth general guidelines for the design of landscaped areas. The type and number of plant species selected maintain design continuity, while the planting plans avoid a repetitive use of the selected plants. The use of the plant palette 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. Turf areas constitute less than 6% of total landscaped area, accounted for almost entirely in areas for active recreational use. Staff does have a concern with the consistency of landscaping improvements between the project landscaping along 'A' Street, and the retention basin to the west. It is recommended that some of the landscaping along 'A' Street be revised to replace some of the trees with Palo Verde. The applicant is proposing calipers of 1.25 to 1.5 for the 24" box trees; it is recommended that a minimum caliper of 2.0 be provided for all 24" box specimens There are also two additional areas that need to be addressed by the landscape plans. One is an approximately 6' x 380' strip of land along the west side of A Street, between the curb and existing self -storage building; the other is the strip of land on the south side of the project, between Buildings B and C and the north side of the DSUSD access road. 91 The strip along 'A' Street has been a point of discussion during review of the project, and the City would like to see this landscaping installed by the developer as it is within the project boundary; however, maintenance is an issue because irrigation would then need to be extended from the project, underneath 'A' Street. As this strip of land would be more efficiently maintained by extending irrigation from the City -maintained retention basin landscaping, the City and applicant have been discussing an approach to address maintenance of this area, and that discussion is ongoing. A condition is recommended to require that this area be incorporated into the project final landscape plans, with maintenance responsibility to be determined prior to final approval. Sustainability: The proposed Coral Mountain Apartment community will incorporate numerous environmentally sustainable concepts and efficiency measures, as previously discussed earlier in this report. Additionally, architectural elements such as color, materials, and solar control design will also help reduce energy demands on the community. Landscaping will also be required to meet or exceed Coachella Valley Water District water budget requirements. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION REVIEW The City's Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) did not review the SDP application itself; however, on January 29, 2009, the HPC reviewed and accepted the Historical/Archeological Resources Report, prepared as part of the EIR certified for the overall Specific Plan. The HPC action was subject to inclusion of the report's recommendations, which included monitoring of the project site during on- and off -site grubbing, trenching and rough grading by qualified archaeological monitors, including a Native -American monitor. The report's recommendations have been incorporated into the conditions of approval for this Site Development Permit, by reference to the corresponding mitigation measures adopted with the Final EIR for SP 2008-085. ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE REVIEW On June 22, 2011, the Architecture and Landscape Committee (ALRC) reviewed the project and, on a 3-0 vote, recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Site Development Permit, subject to the incorporation of several staff recommendations as follows: 1. All new and modified landscaping and irrigation improvements shall be in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations (LQMC Section 8.13; Water Efficient Landscape). 2. The landscape plans submitted for final review shall be revised to incorporate 9 Palo Verde trees along Street 'A', intermittently among the Tipuana and Shoestring Acacia trees. 3. All 24" box tree specimens shall be sized at a minimum 2.0 caliper. 4. The applicant/developer shall make provision to include the approximately 6' x 380' strip of land on the west side of 'A' Street into the final landscape plans for the project. Responsibility for maintenance shall be determined during the final landscape plan review process. 5. The applicant/developer shall provide an inert groundcover, such as decomposed granite or similar, in the strip of land between Buildings B and C and the north curb line of the DSUSD access road. This shall be accomplished as part of the project landscaping improvements. 6. The applicant shall submit a Final Landscape Plan application (FLP) for review, processing and approval to the Planning Department. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. All exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All lighting shall not exceed 16 feet in height, as measured from the light source, in accordance with SP 2008-085. The photometric plan shall not exceed 9.9 lumens at any point on the project site. The lighting plan shall include at least one alternative wall and pole -mount fixture design for lighting fixtures A and B. 7. The City has suggested several items that the applicant/developer is considering for inclusion as part of the proposed project: • A small interactive water feature • Incorporation of LED lighting Window additions to Buildings B and C It is acknowledged by the City that any or all of these items may be included in the final landscaping, building, or other plans submitted for review, and shall not constitute a need for amendment of this SDP approval. 8. All carport lighting fixtures shall be mounted and/or partially shielded so as to maximize diffusion of direct lighting, and shall not create any exposed light source(s). 9. Bicycle racks shall be provided as required by the approved SP 2008-085 and the applicable provisions of the LQMC. 10. The height of the wall sections along the south Building B and C elevations shall be reduced to the fullest possible extent, based on findings of a final acoustical evaluation to be prepared during the building permit review 10 process. In no case shall these wall sections exceed 20 feet in height. Adequate provision shall be made to address height transition for the wall section join at the southeast corner with the existing east property line wall. These recommendations have been incorporated into the approval conditions as presented. The ALRC minutes of June 22, 2011 are attached (Attachment 4). CITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PRESENTATION On July 5, 2011, the project was presented as a Study Session item before the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency. This was not a formal review of the application; it was intended to give an overview of the project to the Agency prior to its review by Planning Commission, and to allow for any comments that the Agency Board may have. The only comment made by the Agency Board involved the child's play area and whether it should be located at the pool area. No specific direction was given and the project was well received by the Agency Board. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REVIEW A Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008101109), has been prepared, consistent with CEQA requirements, and was certified by the La Quinta City Council on May 18, 2010. The Planning Director has determined that the EIR analyzed project impacts for Specific Plan 2008-085, which includes the project, based on a potential for up to 200 multi -family rental units on the subject site. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is warranted as the project is consistent with, and contemplated by, the EIR. With the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR, all project impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels, with the exception of certain traffic impacts which remain significant after mitigation measures are implemented. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of the certification of the Specific Plan project EIR. Several mitigation measures of the EIR have been incorporated into the project design, and/or are included by reference in the project approval conditions (Condition 3). PUBLIC NOTICE The proposed project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 1, 2011. All property owners within 500 feet from the subject property were mailed notice of the public hearing on June 30, 2011. To date no comments have been received from the public regarding this proposal. Any comments received prior to the meeting will be presented to the Planning Commission. PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW The proposal was transmitted to responsible public agencies and City Departments 11 for review and comment during the week of April 25, 2011. All written comments received are on file with the Planning Department. Agency comments received have been made part of the project or Conditions of Approval for this case, as applicable. Staff has verified with the Fire Department that the project is consistent with their standards for access and can meet all required Fire -related conditions that have been imposed. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS Findings associated with the recommended decision on this project have been made, and have been provided in the attached resolution. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011 , granting approval of Site Development Permit 201 1-917, subject to the attached conditions of approval. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Specific Plan 2008-085 Land Use 3. SDP 201 1-917 Plan Set (Commissioners only) 4. ALRC minutes of June 22, 2011 Prepared by: Wallace Nesbit, Principal Planner 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CASE NO: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 APPLICANT: CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the" City of La Quinta, California did, on the 12t' day of July, 2011, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Coral Mountain Partners. L.P., for approval .of architectural, site, and landscaping plans for a 176-unit, multi -family affordable rental housing project, located approximately 660 feet east of Dune Palms Road, north of the Desert Sands Unified School District Administrative campus, more particularly described as: PARCEL 2 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2010-508, BY GRANT DEED RECORDED 12/2/10 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2010-0575516; OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 22nd day of June, 2011, hold a public meeting to review and discuss architecture, site, and landscape plans, with the minutes of said meeting being included in the staff report for consideration by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, at said Planning Commission 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 201 1-917 is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan, as it proposes a multi -family affordable rental housing community which is consistent with the General Plan -designation for CP (Commercial Park) development. The project will be affordable to lower -income qualifying households, furthering implementation of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code and Specific Plan 2008-085 - The proposed project, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and the City -initiated Specific Plan 13 Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Site Development Permit 2011-917 - Coral Mountain Partners, L.P. July 12, 2011 Page 2 2008-085, including architectural style and materials, building height, building mass, landscaping, required parking, individual unit sizes, and the like. The community is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes a multi -family affordable apartment land use in the CP zoning district, which allows residential as a primary land use and which is further a permitted use under Specific Plan 2008-085, Section 3.2, by reference to the High Density Residential (HDR) District through the Site Development Permit process. The site development permit has been found to be in compliance with the applicable zoning standards of the HDR district, Section 9.60.270 regulating density bonus provisions for affordable housing, and the provisions of Specific Plan 2008-085, as well as other applicable supplemental standards as established in Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 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 the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008101109), processed under Environmental Assessment 2008-600, and certified by the La Quinta City Council on May 18, 2010. The EIR analyzed impacts for Specific Plan 2008-085, which includes the subject site, based on a potential 200 multi -family rental units on the subject site. Therefore, no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is warranted as the project is consistent with, and contemplated by, the EIR, and none of the events listed in Public Resources Code Section 21 166 have occurred. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design aspects of the proposed project provides interest through use of varied building design treatments and details which will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City. The Desert Modern/Contemporary architectural style and layout of the project site is compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses, most notably in relation to the Komar Center. Architectural elements such as cantilevered metal awnings, varying rooflines and recessed facades/columns, enhance the architectural style of the project by providing an appropriate articulation, while also enhancing distinction of the project design from the surrounding structures. 5. Site Design - The site design aspects of the proposed project, as conditioned, will be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding 14 Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Site Development Permit 2011.917 - Coral Mountain Partners, L.P. July 12, 2011 Page 3 development, and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other related site design elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. The apartment units are adequately sized with regards to floor area, and are well situated in relation to recreational amenities, parking, laundry and trash receptacles. The main drive aisle for the project has a clear separation between vehicular and pedestrian paths of travel, as all units are separated from vehicle travel and parking areas by pedestrian walkways. While a sidewalk has been provided along 'A' Street, the limiting of pedestrian access to 'A' Street via only project entries allows residents to get to shopping or transportation by walking through the project, providing a more secure and scenic route. 6. Landscape Design - The proposed project is consistent with the City's landscaping standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. While the Specific Plan has no plant palette, the type and number of plant species selected maintain design continuity, while the planting plans avoid a repetitive use of the selected plants. The use of the plant palette in the landscape plans properly reflects the Desert Contemporary architectural style, while providing sufficient screening and accents around the project site, including the parking lot areas, pedestrian circulation areas, and outdoor use areas. Turf areas constitute less than 6% of total landscaped area, accounted for almost entirely in areas for active recreational use. 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 2011-917, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 12`" day of July, 2011 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Site Development Permit 2011-917 - Coral Mountain Partners, L.P July 12, 2011 Page 4 NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ED ALDERSON, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: LES JOHNSON, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 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. The Site Development Permit shall expire two years from the date of Planning Commission approval (July 12, 2013), 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. 3. Site Development Permit 201 1-917 (SDP 201 1-917) shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures as adopted under the Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2008101 19), as certified by the La Quinta City Council on May 18, 2010. More specifically, the following citation of these measures includes those measures applicable to the residential project as covered under the FEIR, and not otherwise incorporated into the project design and/or approval conditions: • Section III-6.3; Air Quality Mitigation Measures • Section III-C.3; Biological Resources Mitigation Measures • Section III-D.3; Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures • Section III-E.3; Geology and Soils Mitigation Measures • Section III-1.3; Noise Mitigation Measures • Section III-M.3; Transportation/Traffic Mitigation Measures 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 County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) Page 1 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 • 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. Applicant must obtain coverage under the State General Construction Permit and must submit State Water Resources Control Board 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. R7-2008-0001 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. 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. Page 2 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. 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. E. The inclusion in the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), a requirement for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post - construction BMPs as required. 7. Approval of this Site Development Permit shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer 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. 9. 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. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. 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. 11. 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 Page 3 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 development. 12. 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. 13. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 1) "A" Street (Non -conforming Local Street, Varies 45' to 56' ROW) — Forty-five feet (45') to fifty-six feet (56') right of way dedication as shown on the preliminary precise grading plan. 14. 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 precise 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Direct vehicular access along Street "A" from lots with frontage along Street "A" is restricted, except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 18. 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. Page 4 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 19. 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 20. 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. 21. 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 flow line 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. 22. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.) A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) "A" Street - Non -conforming Local Street, Varies 45' to 56' ROW: Construct the street to its ultimate 30-foot width as shown on the preliminary grading plan and the requirements of these conditions. Other required improvements in the "A". Street right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. b) 5-foot wide sidewalk 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). The applicant is responsible for construction of all improvements mentioned above. Reimbursement for any improvements which are eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund shall be in accordance with policies .established for that program. Page 5 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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 access way. 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) Driveways shall not be located within the curb return when possible. 23. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential/ Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. Residential 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 24. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 25. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry, "A" Street (west access): Full turn movements are permitted. B. Secondary Entry, "A" Street (north access): Full turn movements are permitted. 26. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block street lighting is not required. Page 6 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 27. 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. 28. 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 29. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking stall and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking stall - design 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. F. Drive aisles between parking stalls shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet as shown on the Site Development Plan site plan or as approved by the City Engineer. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, ADA accessibility route to public streets and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS Page 7 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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. 30. 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). 31. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. On -Site Precise Grading Plan 1 " = 30' Horizontal B. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) NOTE: A through C to be submitted concurrently. D. "A" Street Improvement/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical E. "A" Street Signing & Striping Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal The "A" Street improvement plans shall have separate plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the sidewalk, landscape mounding, and berm design in the parkway area. F. On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical NOTE: D through F to be submitted concurrently. (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) 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. Page 8 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 The "A" Street Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans sha►I 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 City Engineer. "Precise 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. 32. 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. 33. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). 34. 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, Page 9 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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 35. Prior to constructing any off -site improvements, the applicant shall deposit securities equivalent to both a Performance and Labor & Material Bonds each valued at 100% of the cost of the off -site improvements, or as approved by the City Engineer. 36. 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. 37. 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 site, development permit 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 by the issuance of the 35`" Building Permit. In the event that any of the improvements required for this Site Development Permit are constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such improvements. 38. 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 as approved by the City Engineer. Page 10 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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 39. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 40. 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. 41. 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 appropriate professional 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. 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. 42. 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 Page 11 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 43. Grading within perimeter parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform with requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F), except as otherwise modified by this condition. 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. 44. Building pad elevations on the precise grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the preliminary precise grading plan, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer. 45. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 46. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. 47. Prior to any site grading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus one-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 finding review. 48. 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 along 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. DRAINAGE 49. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for the Coral Mountain Affordable Housing. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 50, 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 Page 12 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blow -off 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. 54. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 55. 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. 56. 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). 57. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 58. 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. 59. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and Page 13 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 60. The Applicant is hereby notified that future site modifications may be necessary including, but not limited to lot and street reconfiguration. Verification of the proposed storm water retention system is subject to review and approval by the Coachella Valley Water District. If, in the event the proposed retention capacity or pass through storm water flow is found to be inadequate during final design, the Applicant shall revise what is currently proposed in the preliminary hydrology study and make adjustments to the site layout as needed to accommodate the increased retention/detention or pass through capacity required to satisfy safety issues of the Public Works Department and CVWD. Pursuant to the afore mentioned, the applicant may be required to construct additional underground and aboveground drainage facilities to convey on site and off site stormwater as well as stormwater from adjacent mountainous terrain that historically flows onto and/or through the project site. Any proposed channels that convey stormwater shall be lined to protect against erosion as required by the Public Works Department and CVWD. 61. If permitted by CVWD and the City Engineer, when an applicant proposes discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the applicant shall execute an indemnification instrument as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Additionally, the applicant shall pay for all costs of sampling and testing associated with the development's drainage discharge which may be required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City or area -wide pollution prevention program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such discharge. The applicant is required to construct required discharge treatment Best Management Practice facilities per the NPDES Permit Supplement A but at a minimum shall install a CDS Unit or equal system as approved by the City Engineer. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to the issuance of any grading, construction or building permit, and shall be binding on all heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within this project excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for public use. If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions for meeting these obligations. -The 100-year storm water hydraulic grade line shall be 3 feet below the channel lining and 2 feet below the Project Storm HGL, as determined by CVWD and the City Engineer. Additionally, the applicant shall submit verification to the City of CVWD acceptance of the proposed discharge of storm water directly, or indirectly, into the La Quinta Evacuation Channel with the initial submittal of storm drain improvement plans. 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 et Page 14 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001. 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 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. UTILITIES 63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 64. 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. 65. 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. 66. 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. Page 15 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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. CONSTRUCTION 67. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly - maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of units within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 68. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks), 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans) and Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 69. The applicant shall submit final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan (FLP) 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 justify an alternative processing schedule. 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 re -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. Final plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer. 70. The final landscape plan submittal shall incorporate the following provisions: A. The landscape plans submitted for final review shall be revised to incorporate Palo Verde trees along Street 'A', intermittently among the Tipuana and Shoestring Acacia trees. Page 16 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 B. All 24" box tree specimens shall be sized at a minimum 2.0 caliper. C. The applicant shall provide verification of plan compliance, at final landscape plan submittal, that at least 50% of the total parking area for the site is shaded by landscaping. Since the project provides 176 covered spaces, a 50% credit shall be applied and landscaped shading must therefore address 25% of the overall parking area. D. The applicant/developer shall make provision to include the approximately 6' x 380' strip of land on the west side of 'A' Street into the final landscape plans for the project. Responsibility for maintenance shall be determined during the final landscape plan review process. E. The applicant/developer shall provide an inert groundcover, such as decomposed granite or similar, in the strip of land between Buildings B and C and the north curb line of the DSUSD access road. This shall be accomplished as part of the project landscaping improvements. F. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. All exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All lighting shall not exceed 16 feet in height, as measured from the light source, in accordance with SP 2008-085. The photometric plan shall not exceed 9.9 lumens at any point on the project site. The lighting plan shall include at least one alternative wall and pole -mount fixture design for lighting fixtures A and B. The illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. G. The City has suggested several items that the applicant/developer is considering for inclusion as part of the proposed project: • A small interactive water feature • Incorporation of LED lighting • Window additions to Buildings B and C It is acknowledged by the City that any or all of these items may be included in the final landscaping, building, or other plans submitted for review, and shall not constitute a need for amendment of this SDP approval. H. All carport lighting fixtures shall be mounted and/or partially shielded so as to maximize diffusion of direct lighting, and shall not create any exposed light source(s). Lighting on second -floor areas shall be recessed and/or have extended drop -shielding, as required under Specific Plan 2008-085. Page 17 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 The height of the wall sections along the south Building B and C elevations shall be reduced to the fullest possible extent, based on findings of a final acoustical evaluation to be prepared during the building permit review process. In no case shall these wall sections exceed 20 feet in height. Adequate provision shall be made to address height transition for the wall section join at the southeast corner with the existing east property line wall. 71. 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. 72. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view. Utility transformers and other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by screening walls or landscaping, and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 73. 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. 74. Final field inspection of all landscaping materials, including all vegetation, hardscape and irrigation systems is required by the Planning Department prior to final project sign -off by the Planning Department. Prior to any field inspection, written verification by the project's landscape architect of record stating that all vegetation, hardscape and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 75. 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. MAINTENANCE 76. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 77. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of perimeter landscaping up to the curb, access drives, sidewalks, and Page 18 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 78. 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. 79. 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)• 80. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 81. A fee shall be paid to Riverside County, as required by the County to post the Notice of Determination and offset costs associated with AB 3158 (Fish and Game Code 711.4). The fee shall be based on the established County fee schedule for filing a Notice of Exemption for posting. The fee is to be payable to Riverside County, and is due to the Planning Department within 24 hours of Planning Commission approval. 82. Applicant shall pay the fees as required by the Desert Sands Unified School District, as in effect at the time requests for building permits are submitted. 83. 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 84. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering a fire flow of 2375 GPM 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. 85. Approved accessible on -site super fire hydrants shall be located no more than 300 feet apart in any direction. Any portion of the facility or 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. 86. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish Page 19 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 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. 87. Blue dot retro-reflector pavement markers shall be placed on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of the fire hydrant, per Riverside County Fire Department Standard 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). 88. Fire Apparatus access roads and driveways shall comply with Riverside County Fire Department Standard #06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes will be designed to withstand a weight of 60,000 lbs. over two axles, shall have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus, and shall be constructed as an all-weather driving surface. 89. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for turn -around capabilities of fire apparatus. 90. 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 appropriate lane printing and/or signs. 91. 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. 92. 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. 93. 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. 94, The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front of building and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). Sprinkler riser rooms must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C-16 licensed contractor must submit plans, along Page 20 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 95. 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. 96. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, 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. 97. 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. 98. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path marking shall be installed per the 2010 California Building Code. 99. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside of door. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted "FACP" on outside of door. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted "Fire Riser" on outside of door. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted "Roof Access" on outside of door. 100. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required by the Mechanical Code. 101. 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 CMC). Z!A_1ki1i•Ilgelb7ga_\:1IPilqD1l 102. A final acoustical analysis shall be completed and submitted for review at time of building permit plan check for the proposed dwelling units, based on final building layouts and pad elevations, to demonstrate that the City's standards for interior and exterior CNEL levels will be met. The analysis shall include an assessment of the appropriate height(s) for the section walls along the south property line between Buildings A, B and C, up to and including transition with the existing east property line wall, consistent with Condition 70.1. 103. Bicycle racks shall be provided as required by the approved SP 2008-085 and the Page 21 of 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-917 CORAL MOUNTAIN PARTNERS, L.P. JULY 12, 2011 applicable provisions of the LQMC. 104. In order to minimize impacts associated with solid waste disposal, recycling receptacles shall be provided at each trash enclosure location. Landscaping services shall be contracted with a company that composts green waste. Page 22 of 22 ATTACHMENT 1 VICINITY MAP J ATTACHMENT 2 U9 I ; ATTACHMENT 3 IS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ONLY ATTACHMENT 4 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA June 22, 2011 10:07 a.m. CALL TO ORDER A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10 07 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members Present: Jason Arnold, Kevin McCune, and David Thorns Committee Member Absent: None C. Staff present: Planning. Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner 11 Wallace Nesbit, and Secretary Monika Radeva. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF T14E AG IV. CONSENT Staff .asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of June 1, 2011. There being no Comments :or corrections it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/McCune to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously Approved. V. BUSIN A. Site Development Permit 201 1-917 a request submitted by Prest Vuksic Architects for property owner, City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency/Coral Mountain Partners, LP for consideration of Architectural, Site, and Landscaping Plans for Coral Mountain Apartments, a 176-unit multi -family affordable rental housing community located approximately 660 feet east of Dune Palms Road, north of the . Desert Sands Unified School District Administrative Campus. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 22, 2011 Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Committee Member McCune said the proposed project was very nice and he was pleased to see it being built in the City of La Quinta. He expressed a concern about the number of proposed trash enclosures and whether or not they would be sufficient to accommodate the number of proposed ^units and expected residents. He suggested the applicant verify'the'"calculations. Committee Member McCune asked be used for the playground surface. Mr. Luke Taylor, Designer with P 74020 Alessandro, Suite # E, Paln and replied that rubberized material to be cooler during the hot summer Committee Member M the proposed shade str summer weather in the material would Landscape Architects, Inc., >ert, CA, introduced himself ild be used because it tends applicant increase due to the extreme Committee McMbier McCun&,said the natural turf proposed next to the pool structures was a very,,good idea. He was pleased that the development encompasses „ a walking trail with the proposed sidewalk encouraging foot traffic within the development as well as to the nearby shopping centers. He asked if there would be a sidewalk onthe outside of the development. Staff replied the sidewalk would only be on one side of the outer street. He added the street improvements included an extension of the'sidewalk'into the nearby Komar Desert Center. Discussion followed regarding staff's concern of the size of the pool areas and whether or not they would meet the demand on a per unit basis. Committee Member McCune asked about the overcrowding of the pool areas in the Wolf Waters development. Mr. David Drake, Design/Project Manager with Prest Vuksic Architects, 44530 San Pablo Avenue, Suite # 200, Palm Desert, CA, introduced himself and explained that as he understood it, the P:\Repor[s - ALRC\2011\ALRC_8-3-11\ALRC MIN_6-22-11_Draft.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 22, 2011 concern with Wolf Waters was not with the size of the pools, but rather with the hardscape areas around the pools. He said this was taken into consideration when designing the pool areas for the Coral Mountain Apartments. Committee Member McCune said he was very pleased with the project and the plant palette. He noted that based on the proposed landscaping plans the project would have plenty of shade. He asked if the parking areas had shade structures. It was confirmed that they do. Committee Member McCune questioned staffs concern regarding the use of Sissou, a type of rosewood tree.,' Staff replied the proposed tree could have a very invasive root system and might not be ideal. Committee Member McCune felt the tree would be acceptable if planted propery`. Mr. John Vuksic, AIA, Avenue, Suite # 2OO;,P the parking shade st aluminum design that architectural theme. Prest Vuksic`, A 11m Desert, CA, Li uctures would widblend ii itects, 44530 San Pablo roduced himself and said we'` a very simple flat with the rest of the Committee Me11 mber Arnold said he was in favor of the project, he was pleased with the proposed' desert contemporary architecture and desig,n'the unarm, ,desert; softer color palette. He noted the plant palettewas well "selected, except for the Shoestring Acacia tree. He recommended the applicant consider using a different type of Acacia due to maintenance concerns. followed regarding the different types of Acacia Committee Member Thoms said he was also in favor of the project, he particularly liked the architecture of the elevations. He asked if the two gates indicated on the plans on the north side were for Fire Department access. Staff replied that was correct. Committee Member Thoms asked if the main entrance into the project would have some type of decorative paving. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011\ALRC_8-3-11\ALRC MIN_6-22-11_Draft.doc 3 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 22, 2011 Mr. Taylor replied there would be decorative paving, which was a combination of different size paver stones. Committee Member Thoms suggested some decorative paving be used in the pool area as well. Mr. Taylor said the same decorative paving was already incorporated in the entrance to the clubhouse. Committee Member Thoms said the proposed sloping roof of the clubhouse was an unnecessary architectural :feature and was not found anywhere else in the project. He said fie would like to have it changed to a simple flat roof unless there was a particular structural need for it. Mr. Vuksic said the sloping "'ar structurally needed. However, due used on the clubhouse design', �tht needed shade. He explained tti'Iat elements were also used on some' project, but the one for the clubhow He said the intent was,to recate a d having the slab sit on top of a glass outside all the way through the inside 3ctural feature was not the large amount of glass )ping roof provided much same architectural angled ie buildings throughout the as accentuated a bit more. atic.space on the inside by Im 'that continued from the Committee Member McCune, said he identified the architecturally angled sloped roof feature as a"'Prest Vuksic Architects signature. He said hehad seen the use of similar features on other Prest Vuksic projects In the Coachella Valley and was very pleased with them. He,noted he would not recommend changing the clubhouse architectural;,design as` he found it to be one of the thumbprints of the project:! ,iw;. Committee Member Thoms asked if the clubhouse was the only place 1n the''project where there was a laundry facility. Mr. Vuksic reDlied`there was a second laundry location on the north side of the Committee Member Thoms asked about the height of the walls and if they were semi -curved. Mr. Vuksic replied the walls were six feet high. He explained they were smooth precision faced on the interior and split face block wall on the exterior, connected with a wrought iron fence. Committee Member Thoms said he very much liked the design of the walls. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011WLRC_8-3-11\ALRC MIN_6-22-1 l_Draft.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 22, 2011 Committee Member Thoms asked if the wall on the south side of the project would be twenty feet high. Mr. Vuksic replied that the height of the wall was yet to be determined based on the findings of the currently undergoing sound studies. Committee Member Thorns asked if the color scheme was going to be as presented in the packet. Mr. Vuksic confirmed the colors would be as presented. Committee Member McCune asked i entry gates was due to maintenance of to install the Mr. John Durso, President of Sholvin Companies,., 46753 Adams Street, La Quinta, CA, introduced himself and replied the applicant had decided not to install the gates for a two reasons. The first one being the inherent lack of security, provided by gates, as it was mostly an appearance. And second the,possible future maintenance concerns.VI P,s n. Committee Member Thoms asked if there'vvas any type of security provided for the development. Mr. Durso replied it was customary for the management company in charge of >the community to',initiate a "watch -dog" program with the help of.the residents. He noted that past experiences had proven for this security measure to be very effective. He also said that any suspicious activities were usually reported by residents as well and it was very, rare that security would have to be involved. Committee Member Thorns commended staff for the well -written and detailed staff report and giving a through presentation on the project. There tieing no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 2011- 005, recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2011- 917, as submitted with staff's recommendations and separately asking the applicant to reconsider the proposed slopping roof over the clubhouse. Unanimously approved. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011\ALRC_8-3-11\ALRC MIN_6-22-11_Draft.doc 5 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes June 22, 2011 am VII Vill Committee Member McCune clarified that the request was not part of the recommendation to the Planning Commission. Planning Manager Sawyer confirmed it was not part of the recommendation. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: Committee Member McCune said it was a with Committee Members Arnold and 1 guidance at the beginning and had learned Committee Member Thoms said it with his fellow Committee Member: Planning Manager Sawyer thanked ( Thoms for their expertise and the time ALRC. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: B. Planning i IX. ADJOURNM There being no'"further Members'' Thoms/McCur Landscaping Review Co 2011 (Commission dark at 10:50 a.m[n June 2 Respectfully subm MONIKA RADEVA Secretary a isure serving on the ALRC s. . `° tie appreciated their frorr A eir comments. sure serving on the ALRC d staff for their suDDort. Members Arnold and :ed into serving on the siness, it was moved and seconded by Committee W adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and iittee io a Regular Meeting to be held on August 3, r July 6, 2011 meeting.)This meeting was adjourned 2011. P:\Reports - ALRC\2011\ALRC_8-3-11\ALRC MIN_6-22-11_Draft.doc 6 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 12, 2011 CASE NO'S: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2010-608 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36279 APPLICANT: PEDCOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: PEDCOR PROPERTIES, LLC ENGINEER: CV ENGINEERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: RAY LOPEZ ASSOCIATES REQUEST: 1. RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2010-608), AND; 2. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36279, A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF ±9.14 ACRES INTO 11 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AVENUE 51 AND MADISON STREET GENERAL PLAN: VLDR (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: RVL/EOD (VERY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY DISTRICT) SURROUNDING ZONING / USES: NORTH: RVL/EOD; SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE HOMES/LOTS SOUTH: RVL/EOD; SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE HOME EAST: CITY OF INDIO; EL DORADO POLO CLUB FACILITIES WEST: RVL/EOD; SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE HOMES/LOTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2010-608 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 36279, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970 (CEQA), AS AMENDED. THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT WITH MITIGATION, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDS THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE CERTIFIED. BACKGROUND The project site is at the southwest corner of Vista Bonita Trail and Madison Street (Attachment 1). The Tentative Tract Map (TTM) proposes the subdivision of 9.14 gross acres into 11 single family home lots as well as landscaped areas, a retention basin and private street system. Access to the project site will be via Beth Circle, which is a public street that connects to Madison Street, approximately 550 feet south of Vista Bonita Trail. The site was partially developed under TTM 30378 (The Orchard), which was approved as an 8-lot subdivision on June 18, 2002. Beth Circle and Evangeline Way were constructed without City permits or inspections, and City staff worked with the then -owner to maintain the entitlement and sign off the improvements. However, the developer lapsed on certain obligations during the final map process, and the map was deemed to have expired in April 2008 (Attachment 2). The site has also been developed with water and sewer lines, several internal property line walls, perimeter walls including an approximate 6-foot high split -face block wall along Madison Street, and an approximately 1,500 s.f. agricultural equipment garage/storage structure that was permitted in 2001 and built in 2002 (Attachment 3). This structure exists as a legal non -conforming use (i.e. accessory structure with no principal use). Beth Circle is currently a public street; however, it is proposed to revert to a private street, and will also provide reciprocal access to an existing approved tentative map to the south (TTM 33085). Both developers would like to retain these streets as built, to be privately maintained and gated. An existing wall surrounds the property on the north, east, west, and portions of the south property lines, and is intended to remain as part of the proposed project, in conjunction with TTM 33085. PROPOSAL The proposed subdivision consists of 11 single family estate -sized lots varying in size from 24,305 to 29,423 square feet, on 9.14 acres (Attachment 4). Tract access will be provided from Madison Street via Beth Circle. Madison Street is designated as a four -lane Primary Arterial under the La Quinta General Plan, and includes a multi -purpose path in its design. Beth Circle is currently a public street, but would be changed to private street access through the map recordation process. Beth Circle will ultimately be gated but will also provide shared access with TTM 33085, which was approved in December 2005 and is still valid due to prior 2 automatic extensions under SB 1 185 and AB 333. The streets leading into the tract include raised decorative median island designs, to be planted in accordance with the proposed landscape plan. Beth Circle is designed as a 60-foot ROW with 18-foot wide staggered median islands, and will incorporate a standard 6" curb as it enters off Madison, transitioning to a wedge curb design just inside the entry gates. Beth Circle then terminates into a north / south street labeled as Evangeline Way (It is noted here that these street names were approved under TTM 30378, but will need to be reviewed again during plan check for use under this tract). Evangeline Way is designed as a 62-foot ROW, also with 18-foot wide staggered median islands. It extends north from Beth Circle, bisecting the site and providing street frontage to the 11 lots. The street system is basically designed in accordance with the existing street improvements on the site. The proposed tract abuts existing rear yards of lots on the west property lines, which are part of the area originally called La Quinta Polo Estates (Tract 21176 recorded March 1987). The project site, along with the Polo Estates area (a.k.a. Green Valley Ranches), was part of a larger annexation to La Quinta in 1991; the Polo Estates area itself consists primarily of 1.5 to 2.5-acre lots. The west boundary Of the site abuts two such lots: Lot 20 (2.11 ac) and Lot 21 (1.75 ac), as shown on the map exhibit. The proposed pads for the project site generally lie 2 to 3 feet below these properties. Landscaping The applicant proposes a turf -free landscape design. A variety of desert -typical trees and shrubs are proposed as part of the tract and retention basin landscaping (Attachment 5). Thirty-nine Citrus trees will be used as the thematic landscape feature, to be relocated on site to their plan locations along Madison Street, the retention basin and internal medians. Fan Palm species (8-12 feet in height) will be clustered primarily at the tract entry and retention basin. Shrubs include a variety of commonly used desert species that include Desert Cassia, Lantana, Yucca, Bougainvillea, and Bird of Paradise. Red Bougainvillea vines will be used at the entry, on the wall faces and with Washingtonia Palms, while Tecoma 'Gold Star' vines will accent the Madison Street wall face. A second common area lot (Lot F) is proposed at the north end of the tract, which will serve as an aesthetic focus at the end of Evangeline Way. This lot currently has an inoperative rock water feature which the applicant has indicated he would like to utilize; however, it is not identified as part of the proposed landscape plan. ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed this tentative map design against the current General Plan, Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations and related City ordinances and policies. Land Use Considerations — The City Land Use Plan allows up to 2 units per acre for this site, under the Very Low Density Residential land use category. During public 3 hearings on the adjacent TTM 33085, some Polo Estates residents voiced concerns that the proposed density was too high for the area (TTM 33085 has a density of 1.6 units/acre). TTM 30378 had been approved in 2002, at a density of 0.87 units/acre, with similar concerns being voiced. The density of this tract is 1.2 units per acre, within the limits of the designated land use. While the density of the adjoining La Quinta Polo Estates is generally 0.5 unit per acre, the extremely low density of this existing area indicates that even a development at 1 unit per acre might face significant challenges in maintaining such a rural density. The Polo Estates area is a unique development that existed prior to the City's annexation of the area, is a restricted -access development, and is governed by established covenants that prevent any owner from creating 20,000 s.f. lots, which would otherwise be permissible under the City Zoning Code as constituted. The proposed project density represents an appropriate transitional land use within the Very Low Density Residential category, in consideration of the varying residential densities in the surrounding area, and how they interface at their boundaries. For example, the La Canterra subdivision, approved in 2003, abuts the southwesterly Polo Estates boundary and is constructed at an approved density of about 3 units/acre. Development standards in the Zoning Code require that structure heights be limited to one story/22 feet for any buildings within 150 feet of a General Plan -designated image corridor. Staff does recommend a condition to extend the one-story, 22-foot height limit to all 11 lots, to maintain a measure of the lower density character consistent with the surrounding properties, and to be consistent internally with the proposed development and TTM 33085, which carries the same requirement. Adjacent TTM 33085 - This tract is situated immediately south of the proposed project site. It was approved on December 4, 2005, while TTM 30378 remained valid, and was designed to share access from Beth Circle, which is currently a public street. Both TTM 33085 and TTM 30378 were designed based on Beth Circle becoming a private street, upon recordation of TTM 30378. However, with the expiration of TTM 30378 in 2008, Beth Circle has remained a public street, which dictates certain improvement requirements that are inconsistent with the existing approved conditions for TTM 33085, currently in process for an extension application. The conditions for TTM 36279 have been prepared in consideration of the requirements currently in place for TTM 33085. Should the proposed TTM 36279 be approved, the existing improvement conditions for TTM 33085 would then be consistent with the approval for TTM 36279. Existing Improvements - There are several existing on -site improvements, including streets, curbs, interior and perimeter walls, and one accessory structure. The existing street system will need to be field verified against new street improvement plans pursuant to Public Works submittal requirements. Improvement 4 plans were prepared and approved, but the actual improvements were installed without permits or inspections in 2003. The approval conditions constitute current City standards which will need to be verified as being met if the improvements are to remain in place. There are several internal and perimeter walls that were constructed and are generally in sound condition. It is uncertain whether permits were granted for any of these walls. Staff has provided a condition which requires a master wall plan to be submitted for staff . review, which would need to address all existing and proposed walls and verify what would remain, be modified or removed. The existing equipment and storage garage structure was permitted by the City but is currently considered an established non -conforming use, as there is no primary use (i.e. single-family home) associated with it. Research uncovered references in the building permit file to indicate that zoning approval for this structure was administratively granted, but no written record of such approval was found. Under current zoning, this structure could not be established without an existing primary use and would also require a Site Development Permit approval. As the building is structurally sound and was legally permitted, staff has determined that the structure can remain but cannot be used until a single-family home is constructed, and at that time all applicable zoning standards not related to structural development standards, such as lot coverage, would be enforced. HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ACTION On January 20, 2011, the La Quinta Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) unanimously accepted the Paleontological Sensitivity Assessment Report for TTM 36279, under Minute Motion 2011-001, as recommended by staff. The HPC concurred with the report recommendations for monitoring of the site for paleontological resources, and recommends that the Planning Commission incorporate those measures into the conditions of approval. Accordingly, staff has prepared the conditions based on their recommendation, should the Planning Commission choose to accept the HPC action. Minutes from the HPC meeting have been attached for reference (Attachment 6). ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION On February 2, 2011, the La Quinta Architecture and Landscape Review Committee (ALRC) did make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the preliminary landscaping and lighting plans for TTM 36279, under Minute Motion 201 1-002. This action was taken subject to staff recommendations with additional modifications by the ALRC. The items outlined below constitute the whole of the ALRC recommendation: 1. All Citrus trees, relocated or removed/replaced, shall be an equivalent minimum 24-inch box size. W 2. Both Washingtonia Robusta and Washingtonia Filifera palms shall be planted at the project entry, with every third palm to be of the Filifera species. 3. A rip -rap or cobble stone treatment shall be provided in the retention basin at the drywell inlet, to mitigate sediment intrusion to the drywell system. 4. Final landscape plans shall identify that. Gazanias, Red Yucca, Blue Elf Aloe and Pink Mulhy shall be at least 2 gallon size. Minutes from the ALRC meeting have been attached for reference (Attachment 7). Staff has incorporated this recommendation into the project approval conditions, should the Planning Commission choose to accept the ALRC action as constituted. It should be noted that the applicant has revised their landscape plan to conform to this recommendation; however, any additional action taken would need to be reflected in the final landscape plan submittals. Staff has clarified Item 1 above to require all Citrus trees to be a minimum 2.0 caliper size. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Assessment 2010-608, as prepared for TTM 36279, adequately addresses all environmental impacts as required under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published and circulated as required under CEQA, with no comments being received. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project includes mitigation measures which will ensure the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Circulation — The General Plan designates Madison Street as an Agrarian Image Corridor, in addition to its classification as a Primary Arterial. In addition, Madison Street is designated to include a multi -purpose trail, which is being provided for along the frontage of this development. The intent of the Agrarian Image Corridor designation is to maintain a low -density character and provide landscaped parkways which are consistent with the agricultural history of the area. This is the rationale behind the intent to retain the existing Citrus tree stands as a landscape theme, and is consistent with the requirement of the existing approved TTM 33085 map to the south of this project. Noise - A noise impact analysis was completed for the proposed project. The analysis considered siting of the proposed lots, and the impact of traffic generated on Madison Street in the future. The rear property lines of lots 7 through 11 are approximately 75 feet from the Madison Street centerline. The unmitigated noise level in the rear yards of those lots is expected to be 71.2 dB CNEL, which is +6.2 dB over the acceptable exterior noise standard of 65 dB CNEL. This represents a potentially significant impact, which requires mitigation by construction of a six- M foot wall along Madison Street, to reduce noise levels below the City's exterior 65 dB standard. Because a wall already exists along Madison Street (albeit unpermitted), a field verification of the wall's sound -dampening ability has been conditioned, to verify that the wall is adequate in mitigating noise impacts. Burrowing Owl - The presence of past agricultural use creates the potential for burrowing owl habitat, a Species of Special Concern. In accordance with policies contained in the General Plan, the applicant is required to complete a pre - construction survey of the site, to assure that impacts to this species will not be significant. This requirement is included in the recommended project conditions. Cultural Resources - The project site has been heavily disturbed due to prior construction activities conducted under the previous TTM 30378. Cultural resource surveys conducted on the project site have determined that no "historical resources" or "archaeological resources", as defined by CEQA, are located within or adjacent to the project area. However, paleontological field surveys have discovered specimens, such as freshwater mollusks and shells, on the project site. Future excavation and grading will result in deeper excavation of the site, which will therefore require monitoring and "spot-checking" to determine whether paleontological resources occur at depth. Staff has incorporated monitoring requirements to mitigate this concern, per the HPC recommendation previously discussed herein. With the above mitigation, the tentative map is consistent with the 2002 La Quinta General Plan, and other current City policies and programs regulating residential developments. PUBLIC NOTICE AND AGENCY REVIEW A public hearing notice for this request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on July 1, 2011. A copy of the published notice request was mailed to all surrounding property owners within 500' of the site, as well as all applicable public agencies. Staff circulated the project to solicit review comments from public agencies and City Departments on 9/23/10. No comments from the public have been received as of the preparation of this staff report; any subsequent comments received will be distributed prior to the public hearing. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation to the City Council on certification of Environmental Assessment 2010-608, and approval of TTM 36279, can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. 7 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011 - , recommending to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2010-608. 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2011 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 36279, subject to Findings and Conditions of Approval. Prepared by: G✓z1f-_ Wallace H. Nesbit Principal Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Expiration letter for TTM 30378 3. Site Photos (3 pages) 4. Tentative Tract 36279 layout 5. Landscape Plan species 6. HPC minutes of January 20, 2011 (2 pages) 7. ALRC minutes of February 2, 2011 (5 pages) 8. Tentative Tract map exhibit (2 sheets; Planning Commission only) 9. Landscape plan exhibit (3 sheets, 1 color; Planning Commission only) 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA. QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (MMP) FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 36279 CASE NO. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2010-608 APPLICANT: PEDCOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 121" day of July, 2011, conduct a duly -noticed public hearing to consider adoption of a recommendation on Environmental Assessment 2010-608, prepared for Tentative Tract Map 36279, a request to subdivide ±9.14 acres into eleven single- family residential lots and several lettered lots, located on the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 51 (Vista Bonita Trail), more particularly described as: BEING PARCELS 1, 2, A PORTION OF PARCEL 3, AND PORTIONS OF LOTS B, C, AND D OF PM 16457, MAP BOOK 100, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, City Council Resolution 83-63, in that the Planning Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2010-608) and has determined that, although the proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and Mitigation Monitoring Program should be filed; 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 findings to justify their recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with the General Plan and other current City standards when considering the required mitigation measures to be imposed. 2. Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have the potential to substantially reduce or cause the habitat or of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Environmental Assessment 2010-608 Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The site has been identified as having the potential for paleontological resources. However, mitigation measures have been incorporated which will reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the site may be suitable habitat for the burrowing owl, and a pre -construction survey for the species has been required. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will have the potential for an adverse effect.on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. A pre -construction survey for the burrowing owl species will be completed to determine if any members of that species exists on the site, with appropriate mitigation to be identified and carried out prior to any construction. 4. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have the potential to achieve short term goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant environmental effects have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. The proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. 5. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, in that development activity in the area has been previously analyzed as part of the project approval process. Cumulative project impacts have been considered and mitigation measures proposed in conjunction with approval of those projects, and development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. The development of eleven residential lots will not have any significant cumulative impact and is consistent with the General Plan Land Use MAp. 6. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates land uses that are substantially similar to those already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan. No significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that Tentative Tract Map 36279 may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 201 b-608 and determined that it reflects the independent judgment of the City. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Environmental Assessment 2010-608 Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 9. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared, associated with Environmental Assessment 2010-608. 10. The City has, on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d). 11. The location and custodian of City records relating to this project is the La Quinta Planning Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; and 2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 2010-608 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, Addendum, and Mitigation Monitoring Program, all attached hereto, and on file in the Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12" day of July, 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 Environmental Checklist Form Project title: Tentative Tract Map 36279, EA 2010-608 Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Wallace Nesbit 760-777-7125 Project location: The project site occurs at the southwest corner of Vista Bonita Trail and Madison Street. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 777-030-001, -002, and a portion of parcel 777-030-003. Project sponsor's name and address: Mr. Andrew Held Pedcor Commercial Development 770 3'a Avenue, S.W. Carmel, IN 46023 General Plan designation: Very Low Density 7. Zoning: Very Low Density Residential Residential Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Tentative Tract Map (TTM) proposes of the subdivision of 9.14 gross acres into 11 single family home lots as well as landscaped areas, a retention basin and private street. Lots will range in size from 24,305 to 29,423 square feet. All access to project site will be via Beth Circle, which connects to Madison Street approximately 550 feet south of Vista Bonita Trail. The site was partially developed under the previously approved but now expired TTM 30378 (The Orchard). Beth Circle, accessing the proposed lots from Madison Street; and Evangeline Way, providing internal access to all the proposed lots, were constructed without City permits or inspections. Both streets will be private and will also provide access to an existing approved tentative map to the south (TTM 33085). Both developers would like to retain these streets as built, to be privately maintained and gated. With implementation of the proposed project, curbs on both streets will be modified. An existing wall surrounds the property on the north, east, west, and portions of the south property lines, and is intended to remain as part of the proposed project. Existing interior walls located on the project site, which were used to delineate lots on TTM 30378, will be removed. Infrastructure improvements, including sewer, water, electricity, and gas were installed throughout the project site, and will remain to the extent that they are acceptable. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Vista Bonita Trail, single family homes South: Lands in agriculture, single family home East: Polo facilities (El Dorado Polo Club) West: Large single family homes/lots Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -t- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the ng pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Air Quality Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hydrology / Water Land Use / Planning Quality Noise Population / Housing Recreation Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the X environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature b. Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -3- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS --.Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit X 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and X its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely X affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a) Madison Street is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the 2002 General Plan. The purpose of the Agrarian Image Corridor is to provide landscaped parkways which are consistent with the agricultural history of the area. The design of landscaping on Madison Street is required to include plantings such as citrus trees. This requirement will assure that views from the street are not impacted. Surrounding properties to the east of the project site generally enjoy views of the Santa Rosa Mountains located to the west and southwest of the project site. The proposed project will result in the development of residential structures, however these residential structures will be screened by an existing wall and landscaping along Madison Street. These existing features already disturb views of the Santa Rosa Mountains along the immediate eastern boundary of the project site, however views of the mountains are still visible on the eastern side of Madison Street. Lands to the north and south have views primarily to the west. These views will not be impacted by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. b) The proposed project is not located near an existing or proposed state scenic highway. There are no scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historical buildings located onsite. Therefore, there will be no impact on scenic resources. c) The area surrounding the project site can be characterized as semi -rural with large polo facilities located east of the project site, and large estate residential land uses located north, south and west of the proposed project site. The homes built on the proposed TTM will be similar in style and size to that developed in the area. The proposed -4- project is consistent with the mass and density requirements of the La Quinta Zoning Code for this area. The proposed project site is located within the Very Low Density Residential zone, which requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Tentative Tract Map 36279 proposes lots no smaller than 24,305 square feet, which is larger than required by the zoning code. The proposed project, therefore, will have a less than significant impact on the visual character of the area. d) The proposed project will result in the creation of 11 new lots designated Very Low Density Residential. Lighting associated with the project will occur as a result of residential uses, including lighting from buildings, landscaping, and automobile traffic. The proposed project site is located near existing development and Madison Street, which produce sources of light and glare, and will produce similar amounts of light and glare. A landscape and lighting plan has been prepared and submitted by the applicant. The proposed project will be required to abide by the City of La Quinta lighting ordinance, which requires proper shielding from light sources, and prohibits light spillage on adjacent properties. Therefore, the small scale of the project, existing screening measures, and compliance with City standards will assure that impacts associated with lighting will be less than significant. -5- II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the vroiect: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Riverside County Important Farmland 2008, Ca dept of) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact . Impact Mitigation Impact X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of . Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a) The project site is located on Farmland California Resources Agency. The propel agriculture production has ceased on if. partially developed for residential uses, co site. The site has been designated for res loss to agricultural activities will not be sil b) There are no Williamson Act contracts immediate vicinity. c) The proposed project site is located neat production is occurring onsite. The agricu site will not be impacted by the eventual d south can maintain its operations with or south property is less than 5 acres and is lots (TT 33085), so any production from event, is insignificant due to the parcel's : of farmland are therefore expected to be le X f Statewide Importance according to the was at one time a citrus grove, however project site, and the property has been istent with the land use designation on the :ntial development for some time, and its ficant, due to the small size of the parcel. the property, or on properties in the agricultural uses, however no agricultural tural activities occurring to the south of the :velopment of 11 homes. The orchard to the without the proposed project; however the pproved for a residential development of 7 this property will likely cease and, in any ize. Impacts associated with the conversion s than significant. 10 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard X (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2003 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project X Description, Aerial Photo) f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions X either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Project description) g) Conflict with an applicable plan, X policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (Project description) III. a) The proposed project is within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is responsible for establishing air quality measurement criteria and management policies for the SSAB. All development within the Salton Sea Air Basin, such as the proposed project, is subject to the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PM,o State Implementation Plan (2003 CVPM,o SIP). Historically, the Coachella Valley, including the proposed project area, has been classified as being in non -attainment for PMIO. In order to achieve attainment in the -7- region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PMio Management Plan was adopted, which established strict standards for dust management for development proposals. The California Air Resource Board approved the Coachella Valley PM10 Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan on February 25,.2010, re -designating the region from "non -attainment" to "attainment" based on the EPA's National Ambient Air Quality Standard. Federal re -designation is currently pending. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation for the property. This land use designation was the basis of SCAQMD planning for the area. Therefore, the project is consistent with regional management plans. b) & c) Construction and operation of the proposed project will result in air emissions. A breakdown of air emissions caused by these two phases of the proposed project is provided below. Table 1 shows the construction related emissions, and Table 2 shows the emissions caused by operation of the project. Table 1 Construction- Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) CO NO, ROG SOZ PM10 PM2.5 Construction Emissions 12.515 19.3 5.665 0.005 23.92 5.79 SCAQMD 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Thresholds Source: Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 As shown in Table 1, construction phase emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts to air quality for all criteria pollutants will be less than significant. Operational Emissions Operational emissions associated with the proposed project include emissions created by electric and gas demand, area source emissions, and moving source emissions. Table 2 below provides a summary of each operation related emission caused by the project. As shown on the table, the majority of operational emissions caused by the project will be from moving sources. Moving source emissions was based on 1,429 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) created by the development of eleven residential units. The VMT calculation was provided by the URBEMIS 2007 software, and was based on the 141 daily trips calculated by the Traffic Assessment Report for the eleven single-family detached units. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that construction would begin in March of 2011 and be completed in February of 2012. ME Table 2 Operation -Related Emissions at Buildout (pounds per day) Stationary Total SCAQMD Source Emissions Area Moving Anticipated Threshold Source Source Power Nat. Gas Emissions Emissions Emissions Criteria* Plants Consumption (Ibs./day) (Ibs./day) Carbon Monoxide 0.13 0.10 2.62 13.53 16.38 550.0 Nitrogen Oxides 0.20 0.23 0.04 1.9 2.37 100.0 Reactive Organic Gases 0.01 0.02 1.5 1.17 2.7 75.0 Sulfur Oxides 0.12 0.000002 0.01 0.02 0.15 150.6 PM10 0.09 0.00043 0.37 2.49 2.95 150 PM2.5 0 0.00043 0.36 0.50 0.86 55 * Threshold criteria offered by the South Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in determining the significance of air quality impacts. Source: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993, Revised October 2006; Clean Air and Climate Protection Software Version 1.1; and URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. As shown in the Table, emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. d) The closest sensitive receptor is Mountain Vista Elementary School (49750 Hjorth St.), located about 3/ of a mile northeast of the project site. The development of 11 homes will not result in the concentration of any pollutants. Impacts associated with exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, therefore, are expected to be less than significant. e) The project will result in the ultimate development of 11 homes, and is not expected to create objectionable odors. f & g) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions both during the construction phase and during operation at build out. Based on the URBEMIS model, construction emissions will generate approximately 218 pounds of CO2 over the construction period. Construction related greenhouse gas production will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. Operation of the proposed project will create on -going greenhouse gases through the consumption of electricity and natural gas, moving sources, and the transport and pumping of water for domestic use. Table 3 provides the annual GHG generation at buildout. W Table 3 Annual Operational GHG Summary at Buildout CO2 Equivalent Emission CO2 Equivalent Million Metric Pounds Per Source Metric Tons Tons Day Electricity 34.00 0.00003 205.39 Natural Gas 48.00 0.00005 289.94 Moving Source 272.32 0.00027 1,644.82 Water Transport 16.80 0.00002 101.50.62 Total 371.13 0.0004 2,241.64 There are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. However, State legislation, including AB32, calls for the reduction of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. The GHGs generated by the project will be reduced by new statewide programs and standards, including new fuel -efficient standards for cars, and increasing amounts of renewable energy, which will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the future. The proposed project will also be required to implement the CalGreen Building Code being implemented by the City at the time that building permits are issued. This includes energy efficiency standards which are much more stringent than they have been in the past. Therefore, the greenhouse gases generated by the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on the environment and will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation. -10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local R or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the X California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, X vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory X wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, X such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or X other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) 11- IV. a) The proposed project site is currently partially developed as a result of the previously approved TTM 30378, which resulted in the construction (albeit without permits) of roadways, walls and similar structures on the site. As a result of this construction, the proposed project site does not contain native vegetation, and has been significantly disturbed. There are no species of concern identified on the proposed project site. The project site is surrounded on all sides by existing development, including very low density residential uses, polo fields, as well as agricultural land. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. b-c) The proposed project site is not located on or near areas of riparian habitat or wetlands. The project site is located in a developed region of La Quinta, including areas used for residential uses, agricultural production and equestrian uses. Therefore, the proposed project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive natural community. d) The proposed project site is partially developed and is surrounded by development. The site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area, which is an area that serves as a wildlife corridor for species such as the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep and the Desert Tortoise. The development of the subject property will have no impact on any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e & f) The City of La Quinta has adopted the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. As a result, the City of La Quinta is required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) within the CVMSHCP plan area. The proposed project site is not within a conservation area, as defined in the Plan. The proposed project will be required to pay LDMF. These fees are designed to offset potential impacts of cumulative projects on covered species, and assure that impacts are reduced throughout the Valley and City to less than significant levels. The City's Genera Plan requires burrowing owl surveys to be conducted over agricultural lands. Due to the previous historyof agricultural uses in this area, a protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey shall be conducted for this site, prior to any grading or other land disturbance activities. -12- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? (Addendum to X Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report TTM No. 36279, CRM Tech, June 2, 2010) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (Addendum to X Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report TTM No. 36279, CRM Tech, June 2, 2010) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? (Paleontological Sensitivity Assessment, CRM Tech, 1990) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Addendum to X Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report TTM No. 36279, CRM Tech, June 2, 2010) V.a-b) The project site has been heavily disturbed due to initial construction activities conducted as a result of the approval of the previous TTM 30378. Cultural resource surveys have been conducted on the project site', including a field survey and records search, have determined that no "historical resources" or "archaeological resources", as defined by CEQA, are located within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, approval of the project will have no impact on historical or archaeological resources. c) Field surveys have discovered specimens, such as freshwater mollusks and shells, on the project site 2. The project area contains sediments deposited by the Holocene Lake Cahuilla, which are known to contain significant paleontological resources. Undisturbed lakebed sediments are considered highly sensitive for significant paleontological resources, including Holocene -age invertebrate fossils. These highly sensitive sediments are mostly likely to occur below the surface. The surface soils within the project site have been disturbed in the past from agricultural operations, and the construction activities associated with the previously approved TTM 30378. As a result of recent disturbances, these surface soils within the project site are considered low in sensitivity for paleontological resources. Future excavation and grading will result in deeper excavation of the site, which will therefore require monitoring and "spot-checking" to determine whether paleontological resources occur at depth. The destruction of these resources during grading would represent a potentially significant ' Letter report, prepared by CRM Tech, June 2010. Z Paleontological Sensitivity Assessment, CRM Tech, 1990 -13- impact, which requires mitigation. Therefore, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Excavation, trenching and grading shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but shall have power to stop construction to remove large or abundant specimens. 2. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. 3. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, shall be prepared. The report and inventory shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the completion of earth moving activities on the site. d) No known cemetery or burial site occurs on the project site. State law requires a coroner be contacted and all activities cease when human remains are discovered, to assure proper disposal. The proposed project will abide by these requirements, and will therefore have a less than significant impact on human remains. -14- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant. Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area X or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2, "Geotechnical Investigation", Sladden Engineering) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA X Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan MEA X Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating X substantial risks to life or property ("Geotechnical Investigation", Sladden Engineering, April 15, 2002) d) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (TTM 36279) VI. a)i. The proposed project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site is located approximately 6 miles southwest of the San Andreas Fault Zone, and 20 miles northeast of the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Due to the lack of known earthquake faults on the project site, there will be no impacts associated with fault rupture on the project site. 15- a)ii. The project site is located in a seismically active area, between the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zones. These faults are known to produce large earthquakes. The project site will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake, and accelerations from strong ground shaking should be considered in the design of new residential units. All construction on the site will be required to abide by the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4, thereby reducing impacts related to strong ground shaking to less than significant levels. a)iii. The General Plan shows the project site to be in an area of potential liquefaction hazard, due to young sediments and ground water 30 feet below the surface. According to the Geotechnical Investigation performed, however, several factors required for liquefaction to occur are absent at the project site 3. Groundwater was not found during boring samples conducted at 50 feet below the surface. Due to the depth of groundwater, the potential for liquefaction is considered negligible. Additionally, the project will be required to submit detailed geotechnical analysis with the building plans for the homes on the site. This analysis will further analyze site soils to assure that foundation design is adequate to support the structures, based on the site -specific conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with liquefaction are less than significant. a)iv. The proposed project site is flat and not located near hillsides that have the potential to create landslides. Therefore, there will be no impact on the project site in regards to landslides. b) The project site is located within a Very Severe Wind Erosion Hazard zone as identified in the General Plan. The project area is susceptible to high winds that can cause wind erosion and soil displacement and accumulation. As described in the Air Quality section, above, the project will be required to implement a dust control and management plan as part of the grading permit process. In addition, existing and additional proposed walls and landscaping around the perimeter of the project area will help alleviate soil erosion caused by high winds. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil will be less than significant. c) Based on the Geotechnical Investigation, the surface soils within the upper 5 feet of the project site consist primarily of silty sands. Expansion testing found the surface sandy silts to be non -expansive and classified as "very low" expansion category soils in accordance with Table 18-1-B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Therefore, impacts caused by soil expansion are considered less than significant. d) The proposed project will be required to connect to the 8" existing sewer line in Evangeline Way. This 8" sewer line connects to a 2 1 " sewer main in Madison Street. Therefore, no septic systems will occur on the site. 3 ,Geotechnical Investigation", Sladden Engineering, April 15, 2002 -16- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the roiect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the X routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter X mile of an existing or proposed school? (General Plan Exhibit 4.1, Public Facilities) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it X create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas -17- or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Wildfire Susceptibility, Riverside County.RCIP) VII. a-c) The proposed project will result in I 1 new homes. This residential development will not create a significant hazard to the public related to the transporting of hazardous materials. Individual homeowners may store and transport small amounts of chemicals for household cleaning and other uses, however they will be minimal and cause similar risk as those associated with existing residential uses in the area. The closest school to the project site is Mountain Vista Elementary School in the City of Indio, approximately three-quarters of a mile northeast of the project site. The project site is located approximately two miles south of Hwy 111, and four miles south of Interstate 10 and the Union Pacific Railroad, on which hazardous materials may be transported through the region. The proposed project, therefore, will have a less than significant effect on the transporting of hazardous materials or release of hazardous waste into the environment, and near a school. d) The project site is not located on a site included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. e-f) The project site is located approximately 5 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes airport, and approximately 6 miles west of the Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. The distance from these facilities indicates no hazards associated with aviation at the project site. g) The proposed project will not affect the roadway networks, or interfere with implementation of an emergency response plan. The proposed project will have access to the City's existing street grid for emergency purposes. No impacts are expected. h) The proposed project is located in the developed flatland region of La Quinta. The site is located approximately two miles east of the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains. There will be no impacts associated with wildland fires at the project site. 18- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (TTM 36279) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- X existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (CVUWMP Update, December 2010) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would X result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (Hydrology Report, CVE, March 31,2010.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the X rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Hydrology Report, CVE, March 31,2010.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Hydrology Report, CVE, March 31,2010.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate X Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ( g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or -19- redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) The proposed project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The proposed project will be required to implement National Pollution Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for storm flows through the preparation and implementation of SWPPP and WQMP as required. The homes eventually developed on the site will connect to the existing 8" sewer line in Evangeline Way and Beth Circle. Household wastewater will be transported and processed by CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4), located in Thermal. CVWD implements all the requirements of the Regional Water Quality. Control Board as they relate to wastewater discharge requirements and water quality standards. Therefore, 4he proposed project will have less than significant impact on water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) The proposed project will provide a permanent onsite retention basin, which will allow runoff from the project site to accumulate and provide for groundwater recharge. Domestic water demand from the proposed eleven residential lots will be supplied by CVWD. CVWD has prepared an Urban Water Management Plan 2010 Update, which is a long-term planning document that will help CVWD to reliably meet current and future water demands. The Plan demonstrates that the District has available, or can supply, sufficient water to serve the proposed project. Therefore impacts on groundwater supplies and recharge are expected to be less than significant. c-g) A Hydrology /Drainage Report has been prepared for the project, and highlights impacts associated with storm runoff. The Report shows that runoff from the project site, and along Madison Street, will flow and be contained by onsite retention basins, which will be designed. per the requirements of the City of La Quinta. Water runoff from the proposed project, and from offsite sources, is expected to accumulate in these basins. The proposed retention storage from these basins is adequate to accommodate the site's storm water flows. Therefore impacts associated with storm runoff are expected to be less than significant. 4 "Hydrology/Drainage Report for Tract 36279, prepared by CVE, March 31, 2010. -20- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo; project plans) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, X or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community X conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a-b) The proposed project will include 11 new residential lots on 9.14 gross acres, ranging from 0.58 acres to 0.68 acres in size. The homes to be built on the site will be designed to conform to the Very Low Density Residential zone requirements. The surrounding area includes both open and gated communities, and therefore the development of this proposed gated community will fit in with the surrounding community. There are no existing homes on the site, and the project will therefore not divide an existing community. The project's conformance to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance will eliminate any potential impact with any applicable land use policy, plan or regulation. c) The project site is not within any conservation area as identified in the CVMSHCP. The City is required to implement a Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) for implementation of the CVMSHCP. Therefore, the proposed project will be required to pay fees for the CVMSHCP. No impacts are expected from any conflict with the CVMSHCP. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of X the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff., Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local X general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff., Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey X.a & b) The proposed project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards X of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.; Noise Impact Analysis, Coachella Valley Engineers, April 30, 2010) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan X MEA p. I I I ff.; Noise Impact Analysis, Coachella Valley Engineers, April 30, 2010; La Quinta Municipal Code) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.; La Quinta Municipal Code) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? (General Plan MEA p. I I I ff.; Google Earth) . e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Google Earth) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? (Google Earth) XI.a) The La Quinta General Plan provides for Community and Noise Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for residential projects. These guidelines consider exterior noise levels over 65 decibels (dB) CNEL as unacceptable for residential development. Interior noise levels for residential development cannot exceed 45 dB CNEL. The proposed project will border Madison Street, just south of Vista Bonita Trail. Noise associated with traffic along Madison Street will be the most significant noise -23- generator, particularly on the five lots that border Madison Street. Build out of the General Plan is expected to increase noise levels to 73.5 dB CNEL at 50 feet from the centerline of Madison Street. A noise impact report was prepared for the proposed projects. The noise analysis considered the siting of the proposed lots, and the impact of the traffic generated on Madison Street in the future. The property lines of lots 7 through 11 are expected to be 75 feet from the Madison Street centerline. The unmitigated noise levels in the rear yards of these lots is expected to be 71.2 dB CNEL, which is +6.2 dB over the acceptable 65 dB CNEL. This represents a potentially significant impact, which requires mitigation. Construction of a six-foot wall will reduce noise levels to 64.91 dB CNEL, in conformance to the City's standard. In regards to interior noise levels, enhanced structural features, such as double paned windows and stucco construction, will reduce noise levels by 25-30 dB. These enhanced structural features, along with a 6-foot wall, will help create acceptable interior noise levels. In order to assure that impacts associated with on -site noise levels are reduced to less than significant levels, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. A 6-foot high masonry wall shall be constructed along the eastern project perimeter for lots abutting Madison Street. 2. Any proposed second story rooms in residential units that abut Madison Street will require dual paned windows and other enhanced structural features capable of reducing noise levels by -25 dB CNEL to meet the interior noise level standards of 45 dB CNEL. 3. All perimeter homes adjacent to Madison Street shall have central air conditioning as a standard feature, and should be equipped to provide 60 CFM of supplemental ventilation in any rooms directly facing Madison Street. b) Future construction will include demolition of interior walls and grading of lots, which could generate ground vibration. The nearest residential units to the project site are located on the north side of Vista Bonita Trail. These homes are located approximately 100 feet away from the project property line. An existing wall and vegetation currently surrounds the project site, including along the northern property line. Construction activity on the proposed project site will be required to abide by construction time limits highlighted by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Existing noise attenuation and adherence to the La Quinta Municipal Code will reduce exposure of excessive groundbome vibration to less than significant levels. c) The proposed project will result in the development of 11 very low density residential units, and will marginally increase permanent ambient noise levels. These ambient noise levels will be associated with typical residential activities, including the use of automobiles, power equipment, appliances, and human activity, however. Therefore, the proposed project will not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. 5 Noise Impact Analysis, Coachella Valley Engineers, April 30, 2010. 24 d) Construction of the proposed project may create a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction activity associated with project will include minimal grading, demolition of interior walls, and construction of housing. These construction activities, however, will be temporary and be required to comply with noise standards and hours required by the La Quinta Municipal Code. Temporary increases in ambient noise levels, therefore, will be less than significant. e-fl The proposed project site is not located near an airport or private airstrip. No impacts will occur. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through X extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? (Application materials) XII. a-c) Tentative Tract Map 36279 proposes 11 residential lots. The project site is currently vacant, and will not displace people or housing. According to the 2010 Federal Census, the 2010 household size in La Quinta was 2.546 persons per household. Based on this factor, the project would add approximately 28 additional persons to the City's population. The project, therefore, would not induce substantial population growth to the area. The project also includes two private streets that are currently developed, and will not indirectly induce population growth through the extension of roads or other infrastructure. The site is currently vacant, and will not displace any existing residents. No impacts to population or housing are expected. 6 Table DP-1; 2010 US Census, United States Bureau of the Census. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57, Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection X Letter, October 12, 2010) Police protection? (La Quinta Police Letter) X Schools? (Coachella Valley Unified School X District Letter) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan, TTM 36279) Other public facilities? (SunLine Agency Letter, Time Warner Cable Letter, CVWD Letter, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Fire protection for the proposed project is provided for by the County of Riverside Fire Department. The closest fire station is located south of the project site, near the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. This station includes one City Paramedic Assessment Engine and one County Brush Engine. Riverside County Fire Department requires specific fire protection measures be provided in accordance with the City of La Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire Department Fire Protection Standards when building plans are reviewed. The eleven proposed lots will create a marginal increase in fire protection demand. The required fire protection measures, marginal increase in protection demand, and close proximity to a local fire station, are indicative of a less than significant impact on fire protection resources. The addition of 11 homes and 28 persons is not expected to significantly impact police services. The City contracts with the County Sheriff for police services. The area is currently patrolled, and would continue to be patrolled after build out of the proposed project. The 11 homes will minimally increase the demand for service. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on police services. The proposed project is located within the Coachella Valley Unified School District, and will be required to pay the State mandated developer fee to help address and offset _27_ the potential impacts to local schools. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on schools. The proposed project will increase population by 28 persons, and create minimal demand on parks and recreation services. The Municipal Code establishes criteria for dedicating land, or payment of in lieu fees, for construction of new parks for residential subdivisions above five parcels. The project will be required to pay a park development fee. The proposed project, therefore, is expected to create a less than significant impact on parks. -28- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (TTM 36279, LQ Code 13.48) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (TTM 36279) XIV. a & b) The proposed project will include the development of 11 new residential units. As stated above, it will be required to participate in future parks through the payment of a parks fee based on the Municipal Code requirements. The addition of 28 persons will not impact the City's recreational facilities. The proposed project, therefore, will have no impact on recreation. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is . substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle X trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Traffic Assessment for Tract No. 36279, George Dunn. Engineering.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion X management agency for designated roads or highways? (Traffic Assessment for Tract No. 36279, George Dunn Engineering.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that X results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (TTM36279) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (TTM 36279) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (TTM 36279) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative X transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (TTM 36279, Sunline Transit Agency) XV. a-b) Tentative Tract Map 36279 will result in 11 very low density residential lots on 9.14 gross acres. A traffic impact memorandum was prepared for the proposed project, and shows future traffic created by the project will total 141 trips per day, with 27 trips during AM peak hour and 1 I trips during PM peak hour 7. 7 "Traffic Assessment for Tract No.36279, La Quinta, CA', prepared by George Dunn Engineering, November, 17, 2010. -30- Pursuant to the City's requirements for traffic impact analysis, the study considered project impacts at two intersections: Beth Circle at Madison Street, and Vista Bonita Trail at Madison Streets Future traffic counts were based on a project completion date of 2014, and accounted for a 5% increase in traffic during tourist season (Jan -April), and a 1 % per year ambient growth rate. The existing LOS B (Level of Service) conditions found during AM and PM peak hours at the intersections of Madison Street and Beth Circle, and at Madison Street and Vista Bonita Trail, are expected to continue with build out of the proposed project in 2014. Overall, the proposed project will have a very nominal impact on area traffic conditions, due to the low trip generations. Therefore, the proposed project will create only negligible increases in traffic, and in level of service. c) The 11 lots created by the proposed project are not expected to have any impact on operations at either Bermuda Dunes Airport or Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport. The project is located outside areas affected by the land use plan for both airports. d) The proposed project site will include eleven subdivided lots alongside two existing private streets, Beth Circle and Evangeline Way. Intersections have been designed consistent with City standards, and access to Madison Street will be Stop -sign controlled. The project proposes single family homes which will not be incompatible with existing uses. No impacts associated with hazards are expected. e) Emergency access onto the project site will be from Beth Circle. A private gate is proposed at Beth Circle, which will be required to be Knox Box controlled, consistent with Fire Department standards. Therefore, there will be no impacts associated with emergency access. f) The proposed residential lots will provide required amount of parking consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance. No impacts associated with the sufficiency of parking are expected. g) SunLine Transit Agency currently does not provide transit services. along Madison Street near the project site. However the Agency will monitor on going developments in the area, and may consider future services, if warranted. As such, the proposed project will have no impact on alternative transportation. 8 "Traffic Assessment for Tract No.36279, La Quinta, CK', prepared by George Dunn Engineering, November, 17, 2010. -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional X Water Quality Control Board? (CVWD, December2010) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CVWD, December 2010) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (TTM 36279) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or X are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's X projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a-b, d-e) The 11 lots proposed under TTM 36279 fall under the jurisdiction of the Coachella Valley Water District for wastewater treatment. An 8-inch sewer line lies beneath the existing streets. Wastewater produced by the proposed project will be processed by the 32 CVWD's Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant (WRP-4), located in Thermal. As of December 2010, the Mid -Valley plant had capacity of just under 10 million gallons per day (mgd), and processes approximately 5 mgd9. The plant, therefore, has more than sufficient capacity to serve the project The development of 11 additional lots will have no impact on wastewater treatment facilities. CVWD will also provide domestic water to the site. As discussed under Hydrology and Water Quality, above, the District has sufficient water supplies to serve build out of the City. The addition of I homes will only nominally increase CVWD's current water pumping. The project will also be required to implement water conservation programs, including drought tolerant landscaping and the CalGreen Building Code, which requires that high efficiency fixtures be used. No impact is expected. c) The project is proposing an onsite retention basin, capable of handling 62,861 cubic feet of runoff, to be located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Evangeline Way and Beth Circle. This retention basin will also capture runoff traveling along the west side of Madison Street through a new drainage pipe along the curb just north of the Beth Circle/Madison Street intersects. These facilities will be self contained, and will have no impact on regional drainage facilities. f&g) The project site will be served by Burrtec, the City's solid waste contractor. Trash generated by the project will be hauled to the transfer station located in Cathedral City, west of the City, and from there transported to one of four regional landfills. All four landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is required to meet all local, regional, State and federal standards for solid waste disposal. They will assure that no impact occurs. 9 Personal communication, Kim Halsey, CVWD WRP-4, December 14, 2010. -33- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a X plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage X of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when X viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) The proposed project site is not located within an area known to contain significant habitat or threatened or endangered species. The project site has been previously disturbed and partially developed. No significant biological impacts are anticipated. There are no cultural resources on the project site. However, the project site may contain paleontological resources below the surface. Mitigation measures included in this Initial Study will assure that impacts to these resources are reduced to less than significant levels. b) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area, and as such meets both short and long term goals. -34- c) The proposed project will not cumulatively impact environmental resources. The General Plan build out levels will not be affected by addition/development of 11 residential lots for single family use. d) As demonstrated in this Initial Study, the proposed project will have the potential to impact the residents of lots 7 through 11, due to high noise levels. The mitigation measures included in this Initial Study, however, assure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. -35- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. General Plan EIR, 2002. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -36- N 0 O 0 0 M 0 n r zz a w a ►D v re FF W d A a U UU d � o yy W U o a 5� F ro 0 a x �z ww� 0 3 aQ .o o o 0 (L N W C A 0.0 U� F b b U o U w da C C F ro 5b fin on on A Q a o� w m o � 3 zz Oz a a c" aQ aA O rW °o o ro a O 0 O id y o� P. d W d A A U UU ° U U � � a ro � w U �a h a F a a o c o a o� x oz Zn Q b a ca o� w IS, O F 10 OV 3 $y xUa cn z a� YC °� v60 U .. U) ro U PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 36279, DIVIDING ± 9.14 ACRES INTO ELEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS CASE NO. TT 36279 APPLICANT: PEDCOR COMERCIAL PROPERTIES WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 12`h day of July, 2011, conduct a duly -noticed Public Hearing, to consider a recommendation on Tentative Tract Map 36279, a request to subdivide ± 9.14 acres into eleven single-family residential lots and certain lettered lots, located at the southwest corner of Madison Street and Avenue 51 (Vista Bonita Trail), more particularly described as: BEING PARCELS 1, 2, A PORTION OF PARCEL 3, AND PORTIONS OF LOTS B, C, AND D OF PM 16457, MAP BOOK 100, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, RIVERSIDE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 20`h day of January, 2011, hold a public meeting to review and provide archaeological and paleontological recommendations, with the minutes of said meeting being included in the staff report for consideration by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscape Review Committee of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 2ntl day of February, 2011, hold a public meeting to review and provide site and landscape plan recommendations, with the minutes of said meeting being included in the staff report for consideration by the Planning Commission; and, WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2010-608, and has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance; and, WHEREAS, at said Planning Commission 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 findings to justify their recommendation on Tentative Tract 36279: Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Tentative Tract Map 36279 - Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 is consistent with the City's General Plan, with the implementation of Conditions of Approval. The project density of 1.2 units per acre is consistent with the adopted Very Low Density Residential land use designation of up to two dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan. 2. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map 36279 are consistent with the City's General Plan, to provide for adequate storm water drainage, and other infrastructure improvements with the implementation of recommended conditions of approval to ensure proper street widths, perimeter walls, storm drainage facilities, and timing of their construction. 3. The La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2010-608. Based on this Assessment, the Planning Director has determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures incorporated into the project approval will mitigate or reduce any potential impacts to a level of non -significance. A pre -construction survey will be conducted for burrowing owl species, the only species of concern identified for this site. Monitoring for potential paleontological resources will be required. A perimeter block wall requirement will address the potential for noise impacts. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) has been prepared and is recommended for certification with said Environmental Assessment. 4. The design of Tentative Tract Map 36279 and type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was considered in Environmental Assessment 2010-608, in which no significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed project. 5. As conditioned, the design of Tentative Tract Map 36279 and type of improvements, will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public -at -large, for access through, or use of property within the proposed subdivision. A reciprocal access agreement has been provided for drainage and roadway improvements affecting the proposed tentative map and the adjacent approved Tentative Tract Map 33085. 6. The site for Tentative Tract Map 36279 is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision, as natural slopes do not exceed 20%, and there are no identified geological constraints on the property that would prevent development pursuant to the geotechnical study prepared for the proposed subdivision. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Tentative Tract Map 36279 - Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures specified by the Mitigation Monitoring Program of Environmental Assessment 2011-608, prepared for Tentative Tract Map 36279; 3. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map 36279 to the La Quinta City Council, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 12`h day of July, 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 Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 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 Tentative Tract Map, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel, and shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. This Tentative Tract Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. ("LQMC"). This Tentative Tract Map shall expire two years from the date of City Council approval, unless recorded or granted a time extension pursuant to Title 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (§ 13.12.160; Extensions of Time for Tentative Maps). The two year time period shall be tolled during the pendency of any lawsuit that may be filed, challenging this Tentative Tract Map and/or the City's CEQA compliance. The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at www.la-guinta.org. 3. Tentative Tract 36279 shall comply with all applicable mitigation measures as adopted under Environmental Assessment 2010-608. 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 • Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD) e Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • 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) Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 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. R7-2008-0001 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. 1. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The 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. G. The inclusion in the Master HOA Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), a requirement for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction BMPs as required. 7. Approval of this Tentative Tract Map shall not be construed as approval for any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically identified in the following conditions of approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer 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. 9. 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. PROPERTY RIGHTS 10. 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. 11. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 12. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map all public street rights -of -way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 13. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development include: A. PUBLIC STREETS 11 Madison Street (Primary Arterial, Option A 1 10' ROW) — The standard 55 feet from the centerline of Madison Street for a total 110-foot ultimate developed right of way. 14. The applicant shall retain for private use on the Final Map all private street rights -of - way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as required by the City Engineer. 15. The private street rights -of -way to be retained for private use required for this development include: A. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Property line shall be placed at the back of curb similar to the lay out shown on the preliminary grading plan/tentative map and the typical street section shown in the tentative map. Use of smooth curves instead of angular lines at property lines is recommended. 2) Beth Circle — 60 foot right of way with two minimum 20' lanes and a raised median as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. 3) Private Street "E" — 62 foot right of way with two minimum 20' lanes and a raised median as shown on the Tentative Tract Map. B. CUL DE SACS 1) Cul-de-sac, 50' ROW at the Cul-de-sac bulb. 16. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 17. 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 Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane widths, left turn lanes, 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 18. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street rights - of -way shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map are necessary prior to approval of the Final Map dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant shall grant the necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the City. 19. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Final Map a ten -foot wide public utility easement contiguous with, and along both sides of all private streets. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the express written approval of IID. 20. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public rights -of - way as follows: A. Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 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. 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. 21. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map. 22. Direct vehicular access to Madison Street from lots with frontage along Madison Street is restricted, except for those access points identified on the tentative tract map, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access restriction shall be shown on the recorded final tract map. 23. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 24. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of- way, or access easement, the recordation of the tract map is subject to the Applicant providing an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected property owners. 25. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Tract Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 26. 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. 27. 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. 28. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses): A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial) - 1 10' R/W: Widen the west side of the street along all frontage adjacent to the Tentative Map boundary to its ultimate width on the west 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 west curb face shall be located forty-three feet (43') west of the centerline. Interim improvements shall be designed and constructed as approved by the City Engineer. Other required improvements in the Madison Street right-of-way and/or adjacent landscape setback area include: a) All appurtenant components such as, but not limited to: curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and signs. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 b) A 10-foot wide Multi -Use Path. The applicant shall construct a multi -use path per La Quinta Standard 260 along the Madison Street frontage within the landscaped setback. The path surface shall be a binding stabilized decomposed granite as approved by the City Engineer. Multi -Use Path boundaries shall be delineated by a 4-inch wide concrete border between the path and adjacent landscaping. The location and design of the path shall be approved by the City. A split -rail fence shall be constructed along the roadway side of the multi -use path in accordance with Section 9.140.060 (Item E, 3a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Bonding for the fence to be installed shall be posted prior to final map approval. At -grade intersection crossings shall be of a medium, design and location as approved by the Engineering Department on the street improvement plan submittal. Improvements in the Madison Street right-of-way eligible for reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with policies established for that program: c) Half -width of an 18-foot wide raised landscaped median along the entire frontage of the Tentative Tract Map. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision 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). B. PRIVATE STREETS 1) Beth Circle — Construct full improvements within a 60-foot right-of-way, which shall be divided into two minimum 20' traveled lanes with a center landscaped median (Entry Street) as approved by the City Engineer. 2) Private Street "E" — Construct full improvements within a 62-foot right- of-way, which shall be divided into two minimum 20' traveled lanes with a center landscaped median as approved by the City Engineer. 3) The location of driveways of corner lots shall not be located within the curb return and away from the intersection when possible. C. PRIVATE CUL DE SACS 1) Private Cul-de-sacs shall be constructed to Riverside County Standard 800 for symmetrical Cul-de-sacs and Standard 800A for offset Cul-de- sacs, and both shall be constructed with a 50-foot curb radius, Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 measured gutter flow -line to gutter flow -line. 29. All gated entries shall provide for a three -car minimum stacking capacity for inbound traffic to be a minimum length of 62 feet from call box to the street; and shall provide for a full turn -around outlet for non -accepted vehicles, or as approved by the City Engineer. Where a gated entry is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed exhibit at a scale of 1 " = 10', demonstrating that those passenger vehicles that do not gain entry into the development can safely make a full turn -around (minimum radius to be 24 feet) out onto the main street from the gated entry. Pursuant to said condition, there shall be a minimum of twenty five feet width provided at the turn -around opening provided. Two lanes of traffic shall be provided on the entry side of each gated entry, one lane shall be dedicated for residents, and one lane for visitors. The two travel lanes shall be a minimum of 20 feet of total paved roadway surface or as approved by the Fire Department. Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, standard knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer. 30. 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 Collector Secondary Arterial Primary Arterial 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. 4.0" a.c./5.0" c.a.b. 4.0" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. 4.5" a.c./6.0" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 31. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. . The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 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. 39. 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. 40. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars). 41. 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 42. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as may be required by the City. 43. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Tract Map, shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security). 44. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation. 45. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Tract Map, and the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 A. Construct certain off -site improvements. B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others. C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map. D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others. E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require. Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the issuance of the 3rd Residential Building Permit (11 lots total). 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. 46. 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 as approved by the City Engineer. At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for conditional approval of the Final Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Final Map, along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map. Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost estimates. Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements. 47. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED . Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 GRADING 48. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 49. 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. 50. 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. A statement shall appear on the Final Map that a soils report has been prepared in accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit. 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. 51. 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. 52. 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. The maximum slope shall not exceed 3:1 Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 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 (6) feet 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. 53. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 54. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot higher from the building pads in adjacent developments. 55. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining properties and the lots within this development. Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential. 56. 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 Tentative Tract Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review. 57. 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. . nRAINAGF 58. Stormwater handling shall conform to the approved hydrology and drainage report for Tentative Tract Map No. 36279. Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner. 59. 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 Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 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. 60. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. 63. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Director and the City Engineer. 64. 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. 65. 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). 66. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries and levels in any area outside the development. 67. 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. 68. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 69. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB- CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2008-001 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of stormwater BMPs. 11TII ITIFS 70. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 71. 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. 72. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground. Interim improvements shall be designed and constructed as approved by the City Engineer, as well as the appropriate utility provider. All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be placed underground. 73. 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. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 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. CONSTRUCTION 74. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first. FIRE DEPARTMENT 75. For residential areas, provide approved standard fire hydrants, located at each intersection and spaced 330 feet apart with no portion of any lot frontage more than 400 or 600 feet from a hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1000 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 76. For any buildings with public access i.e. recreational halls, clubhouses, etc. or buildings with a commercial use, i.e. gatehouses, maintenance sheds, etc., minimum fire flow for these areas would be 1500 GPM for a 2-hour duration at 20 PSI. 77. Residential fire sprinklers are required in all single-family dwellings per the California Residential Code, California Building Code, and the California Fire Code. Applicants for residential permits in this subdivision must contact the Riverside County Fire Department for the Residential Fire Sprinkler Standard. 78. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on any individual lot. Two sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Department for approval. 79. Fire apparatus access roads and driveways shall comply with Riverside County Fire Department Standard #06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes will be designed to withstand a weight of 80,000 lbs. over two axles, have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus, and shall be constructed as an all-weather driving surface. 80. Applicant/Developer shall mount blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicated location of fire hydrants. Markers shall be 8 inches from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 81. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior of the first floor. 82. Any turn -around requires a minimum 38-foot turning radius. 83. 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. 84. Gates may be automatic or manual and shall be equipped with a rapid entry system (KNOX). Plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a shear pin force, not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open until closed by the rapid entry system. Automatic gates shall be provided with backup power. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 85. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 86. The applicant shall submit 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. 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 re -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. 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 the appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer. 87. The final landscape plan submittal shall incorporate the following provisions: All Citrus trees, relocated or removed/replaced, shall be an equivalent minimum Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 24-inch box size (equivalent 2.0 caliper). • Both Washingtonia Robusta and Washingtonia Filifera palms shall be planted at the project entry, with every third palm to be of the Filifera species. • A rip -rap or cobble stone treatment shall be provided in the retention basin at the drywell inlet, to mitigate sediment intrusion to the drywell system. • Final landscape plans shall identify that Gazanias, Red Yucca, Blue Elf Aloe and Pink Mulhy shall be at least 2 gallon size. 88. Final field inspection of all landscaping materials, including all vegetation, hardscape and irrigation systems is required by the Planning Department prior to final project sign -off by the Planning Department. Prior to such field inspection, written verification by the project's landscape architect of record stating that all vegetation, hardscape and irrigation systems have been installed in accordance with the approved final landscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 89. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the Planning Director. Use of lawn are shall be minimized with no lawn, or spray irrigation, being placed within 24 inches of curbs along public streets. 90. 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 or latest edition, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right- of-way. 91. 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). Any 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. 92. Any water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. Any proposal for renovation or other re -use of the existing water feature at Lot 'F' shall be included in the final landscape plans and water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. PUBLIC SERVICES 93. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by SunLine Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer. Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 MAINTENANCE 94. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 95. 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 96. 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. 97. Perrmits 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). 98. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Art in Public Places program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 99. Tentative Tract 36279 shall provide for parks through payment of an in -lieu fee, as specified in Chapter 13.48, LQMC. Based on the requirements of Section 13.48.050 LQMC, the amount of park land required for 11 lots is 0.084 acres. The in -lieu payment shall be based upon this acreage requirement, and on the fair market value of the land within the subdivision. Land value information shall be provided to the Planning Director, via land sale information, a current fair market value appraisal, or other information on land value within the subdivision. Payment of the in -lieu fee shall be made prior to, or concurrently with recordation of the first final map within the tentative map. 100. A fee shall be paid to Riverside County, as required by the County to post the Notice of Determination and offset costs associated with AB 3158 (Fish and Game Code 711.4). The fee shall be based on the established County fee schedule for filing a Negative Declaration for posting. The fee is to be payable to Riverside County, and is due to the Planning Department within 24 hours of City Council approval. 101. Applicant shall pay the fees as required by the Coachella Valley Unified. School District, as in effect at the time requests for building permits are submitted. 102. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the Coachella Valley Multi - Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Habitat Conservation Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval - RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 Mitigation Fee, in accordance with LQMC Chapter 3.34. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 103. Within 30 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the project site, the project proponent shall cause a protocol -compliant burrowing owl survey to be completed, submitted to the Planning Department, and approved. Should the species be identified on the site, the biologist's recommendations for relocation shall be implemented prior to the issuance of any ground disturbance permit. 104. An archaeological monitor shall be required to be present during all earth moving activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect such activities if resources are identified. The applicant shall provide verification to the Planning Department of the execution of a monitoring contract to perform services prior to any ground disturbance on the site. The findings of the monitoring effort shall be documented in a report delivered to the Planning Department no more than 30 days from the completion of monitoring activities and/or project grading. 105. Excavation, trenching and grading shall be monitored by a qualified paleontological monitor. The monitor shall be prepared to quickly salvage fossils, if unearthed, to avoid construction delays, but shall have power to stop construction to remove large or abundant specimens. Recovered specimens should be identified and curated at a repository with permanent retrievable storage that would allow for further research in the future. A report of findings, including, when appropriate, an itemized inventory of recovered specimens and a discussion of their significance, shall be prepared. The report and inventory shall be submitted to the City within 30 days of the completion of earth moving activities on the site. 106. The following mitigation measure is required for compliance with interior and exterior noise level thresholds: • All perimeter homes adjacent to Madison Street shall have central air conditioning as a standard feature, and should be equipped to provide 60 CFM of supplemental ventilation in any rooms directly facing Madison Street. 107. A final acoustical analysis shall be completed and submitted for review at time of building permit plan check for each proposed dwelling unit along Madison Street, based on final lot layout and pad elevations, to demonstrate that the City's standards for interior and exterior CNEL levels will be met and that the existing Madison Street wall will adequately mitigate noise levels. 108. Review of architecture and landscaping for production and/or individual custom homes, shall be subject to Title 9, Section 9.60.330 and 9.60.340, LQMC, as Planning Commission Resolution 2011- Conditions of Approval — RECOMMENDED Tentative Tract Map 36279, Pedcor Commercial Properties July 12, 2011 applicable. The Planning Director shall determine if the unit(s) applied for constitute custom homes or production -level units. Any custom home design guidelines that may be required shall be reflected or referenced in the CC&R's for TTM.36279. 109. For any new and existing walls or wall sections, including any proposed sound walls, entry wall areas, and property line walls, a master wall plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department. The master wall plan shall specify colors and materials to be used for all existing and proposed walls, capping, pilasters, entry monuments, planters, and any other such features, as may be applicable. 110. All lots within TTM 36279 shall be limited to homes that are one story, not to exceed 22 feet in height. 111. Street name approval shall be required for Evangeline Way, as proposed on the Tentative Tract Map exhibit. Street name(s) shall be reviewed by the Planning, Public Works, and Fire Departments at or prior to final map plan checking. 112. Lot 6 of the Tentative Tract Map exhibit includes an accessory building that has previously been used as an equipment and storage garage for various purposes. It has been determined that the building was legally permitted, and can be retained. However, no further use of the structure is permitted until a single-family home is constructed, and the Building and Safety Department has conducted a Special Inspection to determine if the building is structurally sound and in compliance with applicable building codes, as may be determined by the Building and Safety Director. At that time, the building must also meet all otherwise applicable zoning regulations pertaining to the underlying zoning district(s). As this building is considered a legal pre-existing structure, only zoning standards not related to structural development standards, such as lot coverage, shall be enforced, provided that no structural expansions or substantial alterations to the structure are undertaken. Nothing in this condition shall be construed as precluding the applicant/owner of Lot 6 from demolition or removal of the structure, at his/her discretion. 113. The existing entry wall signs shall be submitted for sign permit review, in accordance with the sign application procedures, and shall be shown to conform to requirements of Chapter 9.160 (Signs) of the LQMC. Signs found not in conformance with the City sign regulations shall be removed and/or modified, based on the sign permit application provisions. AVENUE AVENUE �o VISTA BONITA TRAIL L.Q. 0 ESTA ATTACHMENT 1 T.Ss. rss. POLO CLUB AVENUE 51 TTM 33085 POLO iES C v�c,r 52 VICINITY MAP N.T.S. ATTACHMENT 2 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW VIA FIRST CLASS MAM Mihad R.W. Nonstan Ducct Del:. (7114) 3311l F-umiL- rnhauaamWTu ,wm April30,2009 rFIL E UP .ix VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS -NIAIL Coachella Valley Engineers Mr. Rod Vandenbos Mr. David Turner c/o Daniel E. Olivier, Esq. 77-899 Wolf Road, Suite 102 45-025 Manitou Drive, Suite 10 Palm Desert, CA 92211 ]radian Wells, CA 92210 Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 30379 ("Map' Dear Messrs. Turner, Vandenbos and Olivier: This otiice acts as City Attorney for the City of La Quinta ("City"). The purpose of this correspondence is to notify you that the above -referenced Map has expired by operation of law. As you may recall, the City Council conditionally approved the final Map on December 4, 2007. This conditional approval required the applicant to famish appropriate security for on - site and off -site improvements, in accordance with the previously executed Subdivision Improvement Agreements, by no later than January 3, 200& As of this date, no security has been posted. Therefore, as of January 4, 2008 the Map is considered disapproved and the entitlements granted with respect thereto have lapsed. Please he advised that any development of this property will require the submittal of new applications and adherence to current City standards. Please call me or the City Engineer if you have any questions about this. Very truly yours, RuTAN & TUCKER P chart R_W. Houston Assistant City Attomey, City of La Quinta MRWH:cm cc: Mr. Timothy Jonasson (via email) Mr. Ed Wimmer (via email) Mr. Les Johnson (via email) Rutan $ fucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd. Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950. Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714-641-5100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 i f �! 561 Wt)b? Orange County 1 Palo Alto I WWW.rulan.com 9 744 01 YJ MAIS AERIAL 2010 PHOTOS-TTR 36279 ATTACHMENT 3 THE ORCHARD ESTATFS East Wall —Madison Street Existing Signage I Kitt`{w y .3 - 9��2�� Beth Circle facing entry y -z a+P' .ems a�in t �,y '� 4' ✓"� �y�rr�`..z.w. - - "r- `` "•. t. Inside Tract facing North Inside Tract —End of Cal de sac L 4 �-• Se __ ...L - � m Yc3f ,emu, �'if1F".'r• v ��i.� c� "��m...'r Jt p i F' Inside Tract —Street & Median Islands Inside Tract Facing West Wall Inside Tract Facing South Wall Existing Structure Lot Interior Lot Line Walls from end of Cul de sac ATTACHMENT 4 a L k I l l 11jGr� p�mS I II 4 L Ri.I$ !� �•II 2>' �i< Y� p x i n' nmaz^ -ormme - I� �n 3N173JNYA3 i F —7 _ 3 I s FyV � _.� svice.wn i x B z Cf 6 I..-® •�I oe RI lit, n-�:z f� V n w a II k px I g t x°c I k R g�v yy Yi�� — �S � � k � n roNI 16WWI ew 9U 12 0N'tll I61931 eR � d of 0 g N co G ATTACHMENT 6 FILE COPY --- MINUTES HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING A Regular meeting held in the Study Session Room at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 20, 2011 This meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission was called to order at 3:03 p.m. by Chairman Wright. I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Maria Puente, Peggy Redmon, Archie Sharp, Allan Wilbur, and Chairman Robert Wright Absent: None Staff Present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit, Assistant Planner Yvonne Franco, and Secretary Monika Radeva II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Wilbur to approve the minutes of November 18, 2010, as submitted. Unanimously approved. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: 36279-- a request of Pedcor Commercial Development for an 11 tract map ^located at the southwest corner of Avenue 51 and Madison Street. P:\Reports - HPC\2011\HPC_2-17-11\HPC Min 1-20-11_Approved.docx Historic Preservation Commission January 20, 2011 Principal Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Commissioner Wilbur asked what measures were in place to monitor disturbances. Staff replied it would be up to the tribal monitor's discretion to identify if there have been any disturbances and to investigate them further if necessary. Staff explained the tribal monitor would determine what areas needed to be monitored during the grading process based on the approved grading plan. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Puente/Redmon to adopt Minute Motion 201 1-001, approving the Paleontologic Sensitivity Assessment Report for Tentative Tract Map 36279, as submitted. Unanimously approved. B. NVocluction and La Quinta Historical Society Update from Lincid Willi s, President Chairman right introduced Linda Williams, President of the/Quinta Historical So 'ety (LQHS) and asked for an update. Ms. Williams said a Historic Preservation Commission 9hd the LQHS used to be the one a the same at the beginning. She said when the La Quinta Museum use o be a historical museum nly, the LQHS was responsible for mana g it. However, sin it had become a cultural museum as well, it now mana by Museum Manager Johanna Wickman. Ms. Williams passed out the She noted the letter announ( as any upcoming events and T on statement and newsletter. mus m's current exhibits as well ,ns. S explained the LQHS was still closely involved with a museum's acts 'ties, it conferred with the Museum Manager garding the exhibits a programs offered, was in charge Xtare ining the historical collectio and raised funds for the museuused for exhibits as well as or purchasing archives. LQHwas to educate the commu provide programs, a ensure the history of the community was a ilable to the public She said the current exhibit at the museum was a ' osaur exhibit hich would remain for approximately six months and uld on February 4, 2011. a, pen P:\Reports - HPC\2011\HPC_2-17-11\HPC Min 1-20-11_Approved.docx 2 ATTACHMENT, 7 MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall FILE COPY 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA February 2, 2011 10:04 a.m: I. CALL TO ORDER IV V A. This regular meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee was called to order at 10:04 a.m. by Planning Manager David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute. B. Committee Members Present: Jason Arnold, Kevin McCune, and David Thoms Committee Members Absent: None C. Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal Planner Wally Nesbit, and Secretary Monika Radeva CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed PUBLIC COMMENT: None CONSENT CALENDAR: Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of January 5, 2011. There being no comments or corrections it was moved and seconded by . Committee Members McCune/Thoms to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. BUSINESS ITEMS: ("A. Tentative. Tract Map 36279 (Preliminary -Landscaping Plan) a;request submitted by Pedcor Commercial Development for consideration of landscaping plans for a proposed t9-acre tentative tract map located on the southwest corner of Avenue 51 and Madison Street. Principal Planner Wally Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning Department. Committee Member Thorns said he found the proposed palette of citrus trees to be appropriate for the site. He expressed concerns Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 about relocating the existing trees on the site as citrus trees did not a^ R fare well when relocated. In addition, he noted that some of the trees on site were not very well maintained. Staff replied the approved landscaping would be subject to quality control inspections at the time of installation. Mr. Ray Lopez, Owner and Landscape Architect with Ray Lopez Associates, 49374 Gila River Street, Indio, CA 92201, introduced himself and said the applicant's intent for the proposed landscaping plans was to maintain the citrus tree as the theme tree recognizing the historical land use of that general area. Committee Member Thorns said he was not familiar with the proposed Washingtonia Filifera hybrid palm tree. Mr. Lopez explained the differences between the Washingtonia Filifera, Washingtonia Robusta, and Washington Filifera hybrid palm trees, and the benefits associated with the proposed hybrid. Committee Member Thorns asked where the Washingtonia Filifera hybrids would be used on the site. Mr. Lopez said they would be used on either side of the main entry way to the development. He also said that Washingtonia Robusta palm trees would be used in the back near the water fountain. Mr. Lopez said the applicant had not yet decided whether or not the existing water feature would remain and be renovated or if it would be turned into a planter. Staff said that a condition of approval would be included to ensure that the water feature was properly reviewed under the Final Landscaping Plans application. Staff suggested that the Committee identify in their recommendation to the Planning Commission whether or not the existing water feature was being recognized as such or as a planter, as identified on the submitted final landscaping plans. Staff said they would follow up and confer with the applicant regarding the intent for it. Committee Member McCune asked if the water feature was permitted under the original plans. Staff replied it was not. Committee Member McCune asked if Committee Member Thorns had seen the water feature during his site inspection. Committee Member I'Meports - ALRC120111ALRC_4-6-111ALRC MIN 2-2-11_Approved.doc 2 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 Thorns replied he did not as he was not able to enter into the development. Committee Member McCune asked Mr. Lopez if he thought the water feature was salvageable. Mr. Lopez said it definitely had potential, he explained it was quite large in size and the base for restoring it was there. Committee Member Thorns suggested the applicant use a mixture of the Washingtonia Robusta and Washingtonia Filifera palm trees for the entrance to create a deviation in the height of the trees. Mr. Lopez said the proposed landscaping already identified a staggering in the height of the trees; however, it only asked for the same type of palm tree. He said he would have to confer with the applicant on this suggestion. Committee Member McCune said he preferred to have only the Washingtonia Filifera hybrids for the entrance, as proposed on the plans, as it would give the entrance a more dominant effect. He said he liked the proposed groupings of palm trees for the inside and outside of the wall, and the staggered height of the palm trees as it led to the retention basin. Committee Member Thorns asked if all of the trees by the entrance would be citrus trees. Staff replied the submitted plans identified only citrus trees. Committee Member Arnold asked if there was existing irrigation on the site and if the applicant was planning on renovating it or installing new irrigation. Mr. Lopez replied there was some irrigation which was not working. He said the applicant had not yet discussed irrigation for the site, but Mr. Lopez's suggestion would be to install everything new. Committee Member Arnold said he was pleased with the proposed landscaping plan and he was looking forward to seeing the site being developed. General discussion followed regarding the maintenance and cost of citrus trees. Committee Member McCune asked if the proposed equestrian trail would be covered with decomposed granite (DG). Mr. Lopez replied it would be possibly a different color DG to create a contrast. He PlRepons - ALRC120111ALRC_4-6-111ALRC MIN 2-2.11_Appraved.doc 3 r =. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 explained he was not experienced in equestrian trails and further research would have be done. Principal Planner Wally Nesbit said he had consulted with the City's Public Works Department regarding the trail and the response he received was that any ADA accessible material would be acceptable. General discussion followed regarding different cover options for the trail. Committee Member McCune said he was very pleased with the plans and the plant palette. He asked if some type of pavers or cobblestone would be installed to enhance the entry way. Mr. Lopez said he was not aware of any such plans. Committee Member McCune asked if the applicant would put in curb and gutter along Madison Street. Staff replied the applicant would put in full street and arterial improvements. General discussion followed regarding the project site including compliance with CVWD water conservation requirements, the existing water feature, an existing on -site storage barn, limited use of turf, installation of a rail fence for the trail, etc. Mr. Lopez asked if horses would be allowed to ride on the proposed trail. Staff replied they would be allowed. Mr. Lopez asked if that would affect the DG cover and interfere with ADA requirements. Staff replied the Public Works Department would be better able to answer that. General discussion followed about multi -purpose trails within the City that include equestrian use. Committee Member McCune said suggested that the applicant also much easier to wire. Discussion LED lights. he liked the proposed lighting, but consider LED lighting which was followed regarding the benefits of Committee Member Arnold asked if homeowners could have horses in the community. Staff replied the area was zoned for it, but the number of horses allowed would depend on the size of the lot. I'Meports - ALK20111ALRC_4-6.111ALK MIN 2-2-11_Approved.doc 4 Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee Minutes February 2, 2011 There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Arnold to adopt Minute Motion 201 1- 002, recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 36279 (Preliminary Landscaping Plan) as submitted, with the following recommendations: • The proposed citrus trees shall all be the same size, with a minimum box size of 24". • Use a mixture of Washingtonia Filifera and Washingtonia Robusta palm trees, 2/3 to 1 /3 accordingly, at the entrance and at the inside corners of the project. • Use cobblestone for the entry way. Unanimously approved. VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None Vill. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: None IX. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/McCune to adjourn this meeting of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to be held on March 2, 2011. This meeting was adjourned at 10:46 a.m. on February 2, 2011. Respectfully ubmitt d, MONI A R DEVA Secretary P:IReports - ALRC1201IIALRC_4-6-1 I ALRC MIN 2-2-11_Approved.doc 5 ATTACHMENTS PLANNING COMMISSION ONLY PH#C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JULY 12, 2011 CASE NO.: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2011-104 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 9.170 COMMUNICATION TOWERS AND EQUIPMENT, SECTION 9.40.040 TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, SECTION 9.60.080 SATELLITE DISH AND OTHER ANTENNAS, SECTION 9.80.040 TABLE OF PERMITTED USES, SECTION 9.90.020 ROOF PROJECTIONS, SECTION 9.100.070 SATELLITE DISH AND OTHER ANTENNAS, AND SECTION 9.120.020 TABLE OF PERMITTED USES. LOCATION: . CITY WIDE GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: NOT APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 2.6, SECTION 21080 OF THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT STATUTES, AND SECTION 15061(B)(3), REVIEW FOR EXEMPTIONS OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES. THE LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THIS DETERMINATION, ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED PROJECT APPLICATION, AT THE HEARING. BACKGROUND: Section 9.170 "Communication Towers and Equipment" of the La Quinta Municipal Code (L.Q.M.C) was last reviewed by the City Council in 1994 and adopted under Resolution 94-248. Since 2004, the Planning Commission has approved eight (8) new or co -location telecommunication facilities. The purpose of this proposed municipal code update is to address changes in design and industry .standards for telecommunication facilities. The proposed changes to the code section will permit a more comprehensive review process, allow for better siting of new facilities, and provide additional flexibility for proposed co -locations and building -locations. PROPOSAL: The amendments to Section 9.170 of the Zoning Code are intended to bring the City's review process up-to-date with technological changes and to permit flexibility to the siting of new telecommunication facilities (Attachment 1). In addition, minor changes have been made to Section 9.40.040 "Table of Permitted Uses" (Attachment 2), Section 9.60.080 "Satellite Dish and Other Antennas" (Attachment 3), Section 9.80.040 "Table of Permitted Uses" (Attachment 4), Section 9.90.020 "Roof Projections" (Attachment 5), Section 9.100.070 "Satellite Dish and Other Antennas" (Attachment 6), and Section 9.120.020 "Table of Permitted Uses" (Attachment 7). Definitions: In order to accommodate the proposed changes in the Telecommunication Ordinance, Section 9.170.020 "Definitions" was expanded to include several new definitions as they relate to wireless telecommunication facilities. Most of these terms were already contained in the existing ordinance; however, no definition was provided. The new sub -section provides definitions for "antenna", "building - mounted", "co -location", "roof -mounted", and "wireless telecommunication facilities". Siting: Section 9.170.030 "Permitted Locations" has been revised entirely to encourage better siting for new wireless telecommunication facilities. The current section permits telecommunication facilities in every zoning district in the City. The proposed code changes provide for a hierarchy of preferred zoning districts in which new telecommunication facilities can locate. The preferred zoning districts are listed in priority as follows: 1. Major Community Facilities (MC), Parks and Recreation (PR), and Industrial (1) zoning districts; 2. All Commercial zoning districts; 3. Very -Low Density (VRL), Residential Low Density (RL), Medium Density Residential (RM), and Medium High Density Residential (RMH) zoning districts; 4. High Density Residential (RH); and the 5. Open Space (OS) and Flood Plain (FP) zoning districts. `A Approval Standards: The proposed changes to the subsection "Approval Standards" separate general standards for all proposed telecommunication facilities and provides approval standards for specific types of facilities, such as tower facilities, and building - mounted locations. Tower Provisions: The code amendment proposes to provide additional approval standards, separate from other types of facilities, specifically for new telecommunication towers. Per the amendment, telecommunication towers must incorporate stealth/camouflage designs into the facility. In addition, towers should be designed to function at the minimum height possible. The code also proposes to eliminate the setback requirements for new towers. Currently, the municipal code has a setback from all property lines of the tower's height plus twenty-five (25) feet. The proposed change would eliminate this setback requirement, and replaces it with language that allows new facilities to conform to the setback standards in the underlying zoningdistrict. Roof/Building-mounted Provisions: This is an addition to the ordinance to address proposed roof and/or building -mounted facilities. The new provision addresses the screening of the facility from surrounding properties and provides that new equipment blend architecturally with the design of the building. Other Facilities: The proposed amendment to the code is intended to be all inclusive of the potential types of telecommunication facilities. Therefore, language has been provided to ensure that non -tower, non -building -mounted facilities are stealth and blend into the surrounding environment. Application: The code amendment delineates between new wireless telecommunication facilities and proposed modifications and/or co -location to existing facilities. For all new telecommunication facilities a Conditional Use Permit is required, as required by the current code. However, modifications and/or co -locations to existing telecommunication facilities are eligible for a Minor Use Permit subject to Planning Director approval. The proposed separation of permits is intended to encourage applicants to use existing telecommunication facilities prior to proposing new telecommunication facilities. In addition, the proposed code amendment expands the current "Application" subsection to include additional submittal requirements. The additional submittal requirements include photo simulations, Radio Frequency (RF) maps, and a 3 justification letter explaining the need for the wireless telecommunication facility and an evaluation of alternative sites. The proposed changes to this subsection are intended to clarify submittal items and to provide information to staff and the Planning Commission for consideration in the review and approval process. Operations and Maintenance: The code amendment proposes the addition of an "Operations and Maintenance" subsection; subsection 9.170.080. The proposed subsection is intended to address facility maintenance and to provide for a 10-year review by the Planning Commission. The 10-yr review will allow the Planning Commission to determine that all conditions of approval and municipal standards have been adhered to by the applicant. Findings of Approval: This is a new subsection intended to provide findings of approval before any new telecommunication facility can be approved. Findings for approval of new telecommunication facilities include: compliance with the General Plan, minimizing adverse visual impacts, and protection of public health and safety. The current code omits Findings. Other Code Changes: In addition to the major revisions to Section 9.170, minor language changes are required for all Municipal Code sections which reference Section 9.170. The changes to Section 9.40.040, Section 9.60.080, Section 9.80.040, Section 9.90,020, Section 9.100.070, and Section 9.120.020 will now refer to the new updated Telecommunication Ordinance. ANALYSIS: The proposed changes to the telecommunication ordinance expand the ordinance to accommodate changes in technology, design, and siting of new telecommunication facilities. Staff reviewed existing telecommunication ordinances from all Coachella Valley cities and select cities in the Bay Area, San Diego and Los Angeles areas. In addition, staff utilized free internet resources from the American Planning Association (APA), the Telecommunication Industry Association, and the Kramer Telecom Law Firm. The proposed changes, particularly the proposed changes to the "application" and "approval standards" will significantly improve the siting of new telecommunication facilities by providing a list of submittal requirements and encouraging co -location of facilities. In addition, changes to the code are intended to protect public health 4 and welfare by listing preferred locations and ensuring minimal visual impacts from new facilities. Definitinnc- The changes in the definition section aid in review of the types of proposed telecommunication facilities. The definition section will provide direct and clear language for both the City and applicants. New definitions were added based on revisions to the code to ensure consistency throughout the entitlement process. Siting: The proposed changes to this subsection allow for new facilities to locate in any zoning district in the City; however, the preferred locations identify the City's desire for better siting of towers while protecting open space and high concentration of residences. In addition, the code change places the burden on the applicant to describe why a more preferred zoning district was not chosen for their facility location. Approval Standards: The changes to the approval standard subsection are intended to provide additional guidance in the planning and siting of new telecommunication facilities. The changes to the setback standards for tower locations will enable new towers to be located on smaller parcels rather than concentrating towers on larger parcels in the city. The intent of the change in setbacks is to allow towers to be placed in closer proximity to one another and to limit their proliferation and profile throughout the City. In addition, towers proposed within the City's designated image corridors must comply with the height standards of the corridor or twenty-two (22) feet. This setback standard helps to ensure that the City's image corridors remain void of unwanted visual impacts. Application: The proposed amendment maintains that all new telecommunication facilities apply for a Conditional Use Permit. However, the code amendment would allow for modifications and co -locations to existing tower facilities and the same as well as new installations on existing buildings to apply for a Minor Use Permit. The intent is to encourage potential applicants to explore co -location options rather than new tower locations. The Minor Use Permit is a simpler and less expensive process which allows for approval by the Planning Director. Existing co -location proposals typically create no greater visual impacts than the original tower proposal. In addition, co -location reduces the number of tower proposals in the City. Although 5 co -locations would be subject to Minor Use Permit review, the Planning Director maintains the option to have any proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission. The proposed amendment also specifies additional submittal requirements intended to provide greater information on a proposed telecommunication facility. The new application requirements are items typically received by the Planning Department, such as, RF maps, a justification letter, and photo simulations. Operations and Maintenance: The proposed addition of this subsection is intended to ensure that telecommunication facility operators comply with the Municipal Code, FCC guidelines and RF exposure limits, and any Conditions of Approval. In addition, the subsection permits the Planning Commission to review each telecommunications facility every 10-years. This review period will enable the Planning Commission to determine facility compliance and allow the operators to demonstrate that the facility is operating within approved standards. Non -ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation (NIER): The existing telecommunication ordinance provided definitions and ranges for non - ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER) standards. The proposed changes to the telecommunication ordinance eliminate this section entirely. NIER standards are set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and are not subject to approval by state or local governments. In addition, these standards are periodically revised by the FCC and would require periodic code amendments to ensure NIER compliance. Staff has provided expanded language under proposed Section 9.170.060 "Approval Standards" to ensure all new and existing telecommunication facilities comply with FCC standards for licensing and NIER levels. Findings of Approval: The proposed ordinance amendment includes a new subsection to address findings of approval for new telecommunication facilities. The new findings of approval ensure that all new and proposed telecommunication facilities comply with the General Plan, that they are designed to minimize adverse visual impacts, and that new facilities do not create conditions that are adverse to public safety and welfare. Other Code Changes: These changes are minor and are intended to ensure consistency within the Municipal Code. All "Tables of Permitted Uses" have been updated to refer to both new telecommunication facilities and co -locations to existing facilities. In addition, E all other applicable sections have been updated to refer to the Telecommunication Ordinance as "Section 9.170 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities". CEQA: The approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendments has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The activity of amending the telecommunication ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA only applies to projects with the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Future projects that may be affected by changes to the ordinance would be reviewed under CEQA individually, and would have their impacts addressed under CEQA. PUBLIC NOTICE: This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 16, 2011. To date, no letters have been received. A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. Any comments from public agencies have been included in the recommended conditions of approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendments can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 201 1-xxx recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 201 1-104 to the City Council. Prepared by: Eric Ceja Assistant Planner Attachments: 1) Section 9.170 "Wireless Telecommunication Facilities" 2) Section 9.40.040 "Table of Permitted Uses" 3) Section 9.60.080 "Satellite Dish and Other Antennas" 4) Section 9.80.040 "Table of Permitted Uses" 7 5) Section 9.90.020 "Roof Projections" 6) Section 9.100.070 "Satellite Dish and Other Antennas" 7) Section 9.120.020 "Table of Permitted Uses" l7 ATTACHMENT #1 Chapter 9.170. Wireless Telecommunication Facilities 9.170.010 PURPOSE The purpose of this chapter is to provide a uniform and comprehensive set of standards for the development of wireless telecommunication facilities The regulations contained herein are intended to protect and promote public health safety, and welfare and the aesthetic quality of the city while providing reasonable opportunities for telecommunication services to provide such services in a safe effective and efficient manner. These regulations are intended to address the following community concerns: A. To minimize adverse visual effects of towers and accessory buildings associated with wireless telecommunication facilities through careful design, siting and vegetative screening; B. To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure through engineering and careful siting of tower structures; C. To lessen traffic impacts on surrounding residential districts; D. To maximize use of any new and existing telecommunication tower and to reduce the number of towers needed; E. To ensure radio frequency radiation is in compliance with federal requirements; and F. To allow new telecommunication towers in residential areas only if a comparable site is not available outside residential areas. 9.170.020 DEFINITIONS RUM190F and WOFds in the Y Yam•er (_ A. "Antenna" — any system of wires, poles, rods, panels, reflecting discs or similar devices used for the transmission or reception of radio frequency electromagnetic waves when such system is external or attached to the exterior of a structure. B. 'Building -mounted" — any antenna, or other antenna associated support equipment resting on the ground, directly attached or affixed to the side of a building, tank, tower or other structure other than a telecommunication tower C. "Co -location" - the placement of two or more wireless telecommunication facilities service providers sharing one support structure or building for the location of their facilities. D. "Existing facilities" - an existing structure located in the public right-of-way or a building with an approved Site Development Permit and/or an existing telecommunication facility with a previously approved Conditional Use Permit. E. "FAA" - Federal Aviation Administration F. "FCC" - Federal Communication Commission G. "FCC OET Bulletin 65" - refers to the Federal Communication Commission Electromagnetic Fields". H. "Free-standing Towers" - includes all telecommunication towers used in association with the mounting and/or placement of antenna and associated equipment. L "General Population" - all persons who are not direct family members relatives, or employees of the owner or operator of a source of NIER of the owner or other users of the site of an NIER source. J. "Ground -mounted" - an antenna or other antenna associated support equipment with its support structure placed directly on the ground K. `Hand-held source" - means a transmitter normally operated while being held in the hands of the user. L. "Height of antenna above grade or ground" - means the vertical distance between the highest point of the antenna and the finished grade directly below this point. M. "Highest calculated NIER level" - means the NIER predicted to be highest with all sources of NIER operating. N. "Lattice Tower" - a three or more legged open structure designed and erected to support wireless telecommunication antennas and connecting appurtenances. 0. "Monopole" - a single pole structure designed and erected to support wireless telecommunication antennas and connecting appurtenances. P. "Roof -mounted" - an antenna directly attached to the roof of an existing building, water tank, tower or structure other than a telecommunication tower. Q. "Satellite Dish" - any device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid open mesh or bar configuration, that is shallow dish, cone horn bowl or cornucopia shaped and is used to transmit and/or receive electromagnetic or radio frequency communication/signals in a specific directional pattern. R. "Shared Capacity" -means that capacity for shared use whereby a tower can accommodate multiple users simultaneously. Tower height, antenna weight, design and the effects of wind are prime determinants of capacity. S. "Sole -source emitter" - one or more transmitters only one of which normally transmits at a given instant. T. "Stealth" - improvements or treatments added to a wireless telecommunication facility which mask or blend the proposed facility into the existing structure or visible backdrop in such a manner as to minimize 10 its visual impacts, or any design of a wireless telecommunication facility to achieve same. Stealth designs may utilize but does not require concealment of all components of a facility. Examples of stealthing include but are not limited to, the design and construction of a tower so that it is disguised as a flagpole, tree palm or sculpture or the incorporation of colors and design features of nearby structures. U. "Telecommunication Tower - a monopole or lattice tower. V. "Wireless Telecommunication Facility or Facilities" - any structure antenna pole equipment and related improvements the primary purpose of which is to support the transmission and/or reception of electromagnetic signals including, but not limited to, telecommunication towers. W. "Vehicle source" - a transmitter regularly used in vehicles that normally move about. 9.170.030 PERMITTED LOCATIONS A. Location Preferences - location preferences are provided in furtherance of the purpose of this chapter, as set forth under Section 9.170.010. To the maximum extent feasible, new telecommunication facilities shall be located according to the following preferences, with the most preferred sites listed first: 1. Major Community Facilities (MC), Parks and Recreation (PR) and Industrial (1) zoning districts; 2. All Commercial zoning districts; 3. Very -Low Density (VRL), Residential Low Density (RL)Medium Density Residential (RM), and Medium High Density Residential (RMH) zoning districts; 4. High Density Residential (RH); and the 5. Open Space (OS) and Flood Plain (FP) zoning districts. I�.dill .N � ... . 11 9.170.040 APPLICABILITY This chapter shall apply to all wireless telecommunication facilities for the transmission and/or reception of wireless radio, television, and other telecommunication signals including, but not limited to, commercial wireless communication systems such as cellular and paging systems, except those facilities defined in this chapter as exempt facilities. 9.170.050 EXEMPTION The following uses are exempt from this chapter but may be regulated by other sections of the municipal code: A. Portable hand-held devices and vehicular transmission; B. Industrial, scientific and medical equipment operating at frequencies designated for that purpose by the FCC; C. Government -owned communication facilities used primarily to protect health safety and welfare; D. Facilities operated by providers of emergency medical services, including hospital, ambulance and medical air transportation services for use in the provision of those services; E. A source of nonionizing electromagnetic radiation with an effective radiated power of seven watts or less; F. A sole -source emitter with an average output of one kilowatt or less if used for amateur purposes, such as CB radios; G. Goods in storage or shipment or on display for sale, provided the goods are not operated except for occasional testing or demonstrations; H. Amateur or "ham" radio equipment; I. Satellite receiving dishes regulated by Section 9.60.080 and 9.100.070; and J. Any facility specifically exempted under federal or state law. 9.170.060 APPROVAL STANDARDS 12 AAA .. _ . ....................... _ 14 KIM A. General Approval Standards for all Telecommunication Facilities include: 1. Compliance with all federal and state statutes, including but not limited to, FCC licensing, NIER levels, and FAA requirements. 2. Addition of the planned equipment to an existing or approved tower shall not result in NIER levels in excess of those permitted by the FCC. 3. Antennas, equipment, and all ancillary components shall be stealth to the maximum extent feasible. B. Telecommunication Tower Provisions: 1. All towers shall incorporate stealth/camouflaged design(s) to the maximum extent feasible, to avoid adverse visual impacts to the surrounding properties and the community as a whole; 2. The base of the tower shall comply with the setback standards in the underlying zoning district, except where additional setbacks under Section 9.170.060B.7 apply 3. Towers shall not be located within primary image corridors as designated in the General Plan. 4. If a telecommunication tower is located adiacent to any of the City's designated Image Corridors, as identified in the City's General Plan, the tower base shall be set back by a distance equal to the height of the tower plus twenty-five (25) feet, except where additional setbacks under Section 9.170.0606.7 apply. 5. All new towers shall be designed at the minimum height functionally required. No new telecommunication tower shall exceed one -hundred (100) feet in height. 6. The proposed tower shall be designed structurally to accommodate the maximum number of foreseeable users, including all potential co - location scenarios. 7. All accessory structures associated with a tower shall comply with the setback standards in the underlying zoning district. 8. Any guy -wire anchors shall be set back twenty-five (25) feet from any property lines. 9. Tower shall not be artificially lighted unless required by the FAA or state aeronautics division. 10. Existing on -site vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. C. Roof -mounted and Building -mounted Telecommunication Facilities: 1. All building -mounted facilities shall comply with Section 9.100.050 of the L.Q.M.C. 2. Equipment shall not be visible to surrounding properties. 15 3. All equipment shall blend or architecturally match the existing design of the building. Elements used to screen roof -mounted or building - mounted equipment shall not appear as "add -on" elements to the existing building. D. Other Facilities: other facilities are described as those telecommunication facilities that do not fit the descriptions above. These facilities may include but are not limited to, rock features and other wireless telecommunication facility designs. All telecommunication facilities shall be stealth to the maximum extent feasible. 9.170.070 APPLICATION • • - •- Wp 16 All new telecommunication facilities shall require a Conditional Use Permit. Modifications and/or additions to approved existing facilities shall require a Minor Use Permit for Planning Director approval. All modifications and/or additions shall be reviewed on a case -by -case basis. Upon review of an application for modification and/or additions to an existing facility, the Planning Director may schedule the proposal for a hearing with the Planning Commission. In all cases unless otherwise waived by the Planning Director, an application for approval of a wireless telecommunication facility shall include, at a minimum: A. A site plan or plans drawn to scale and identifying the site boundaries; tower(s); guy wires; existing and proposed facilities; vehicular parking and access; existing vegetation to be added, retained, removed or replaced; and uses, structures and land use and zoning designations on the site and abutting parcels. B. A plan drawn to scale showing proposed landscaping, including species type, size, spacing and other features. C. Photo simulations showing the proposed wireless telecommunication facility and surrounding features. Photo simulations shall include at least three different angles of the proposed facility at different distances from the location, including before and after visualizations. D. RF maps showing all existing wireless telecommunication facilities within a ten (10) mile radius of the proposed facility. The RF maps shall show existing coverage without the proposed site, predicted coverage with the proposed site and existing sites, and the predicted coverage of only the proposed site. RF maps shall show the predicted coverage for indoor, in vehicle, and outside service. E. The applicant shall provide a project information and justification letter. The letter shall provide the project location, contact information, a project description and project objectives, alternative site analysis and justification for why the proposed site was chosen over existing sites. The letter shall include justification for the selected site and a benefits summary on how the proposed site will improve wireless telecommunication access in the community. 18 F. A structural report from a California registered structural engineer. The report shall provide the following information: 1. Describe the tower and the technical, economic and other reasons for the tower design; 2. Demonstrate that the tower complies with the applicable structural standards; 3. Describe the capacity of the tower, including the number and type of antennas that it can accommodate and the basis for the calculation of capacity; 4. Show that the tower complies with the capacity requested under Section 9.170.060; and 5. Demonstrate that the proposed sources of NIER are incompliance with FCC guidelines. G. The applicant shall request the FAA, FCC, and state aeronautics division to provide a written statement that the proposed tower complies with applicable regulations administered by that agency or that the tower is exempt from those regulations. If each applicable agency does not provide a requested statement after the applicant makes a timely, good -faith effort to obtain it, the application will be accepted for processing. The applicant shall send any subsequently received agency statements to the Planning Director. H. Evidence that the tower complies with Section 9.170.060A and a letter of intent to lease excess space on the tower and excess land on the tower site except to the extent reduced capacity is required under Section 9.170.060. I. The applicant shall provide a draft copy of the lease agreement between the tower operator and the property owner to the Planning Department. Financial information may be blocked out. J. A letter of intent, committing the tower owner and his/her successor in interest to: 1. Respond in a timely, comprehensive manner to any request, required under Section 9.170.060, for information from a potential shared -use applicant, the tower owner may charge a party requesting information under Section 9.170.070 to pay a reasonable fee not in excess of the actual cost of preparing a response. 2. Negotiate in good -faith or shared use by third parties; an owner generally will negotiate in the order in which requests for information are received, except an owner generally will negotiate with a party who has received an FCC license or permit before doing so with other parties. 3. Allow shared use if an applicant agrees in writing to pay charges and to comply with conditions described in this section. i Ewa � 19 +A/m► 64-4 4-" &14 € 823:8f€ i 6.3# 823.8i€ i 6.3f€ These density plane ways eeluivaleRt peweF Yaluee, altheugh net appFGPFiate feF - -- -- -- -- - -- - --- - - -- -- - ---- --- - --- - - - - -- - - - -- -- -- -- - - -- - - ---- -- - -- - - -- ------ il - - - ----- -- - - - - - -- -............ --- - wl Ram Arm Point e# Ante Feet 1"aRSFI1l1�Cin'9"GGT 413quene WO.91 33 C • �.�... _. ... .. .. �. ................ .. 9.170.080 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE A. All new telecommunication towers shall be desiqned within the aoclicable American National Standards Institutes (ANSI) standards. B. No wireless telecommunication facility or combination of facilities shall produce, at any time, power densities that exceed current FCC adopted standards for human exposure to RF (Radio Frequency Radiation Exposure Standards) fields. Failure to comply with FCC Standards will result in the immediate cessation of operation of the wireless telecommunication facility. 22 C. Each telecommunication facility will be subject to a ten (10) year review by the Planning Commission. The review will determine whether or not the originally approved telecommunication facility and accessory equipment are still in compliance with the conditions of approval and that all radio frequencies are in compliance with FCC OET Bulletin 65. This report shall be prepared by a qualified licensed engineer. D. All wireless telecommunication facilities shall be installed and maintained in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code National Electrical Code, the City's Noise Ordinance, and other applicable codes as well as other restrictions specified in the permit and this section. The facility operator and the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the facility in good condition, which shall include but not be limited to regular cleaning, painting, and general upkeep and maintenance of the site. E. All wireless telecommunication facilities and related support equipment shall be designed to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing and/or climbing upon any wireless telecommunication facility or appurture thereto. Fences walls, and other landscape materials shall be installed to prevent unauthorized persons from accessing and/or climbing a wireless telecommunication facility. F. All wireless telecommunication facility operators are required to notify the City of La Quinta's Planning Department within 60 days of any change of ownership of the facility. 9.170.090 REQUIRED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL A. The following findings shall be made by the Planning Commission and/or Planning Director prior to approval of any wireless telecommunication facility: 1. Consistency with General Plan. The wireless telecommunication facility is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan; 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the wireless telecommunication facility will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health safety and general welfare; 3. The or000sed wireless telecommunication facility miniml7P.S advarca visual impacts through careful design and site placement; 4. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is designed at the minimal height to achieve the service provides objectives for coverage within this portion of the community; 5. The proposed wireless telecommunication facility is necessary, as shown in the applicant's justification letter, to improve community access to wireless service. 23 ATTACHMENT # 2 9.40.040 Table of permitted uses. Table 9-1: Permitted Uses in Residential Districts, following, specifies those areas and structures which are permitted within each residential district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designation mean the following: "P": Permitted as a principal use within the district. "A": Permitted only if accessory to the principal residential use on the site. "C": Permitted if a conditional use permit is approved. "M": Permitted if a minor use permit is approved. "H": Permitted as a home occupation if accessory to the principal residential use and if a home occupation permit is approved. "S": Permitted if a specific plan is approved per Section 9.40.030. "X": Prohibited in the district. Table 9-1 Permitted Uses in Residential Districts P = Principal use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit M = Minor use permit H = Home occupation permit S = Specific plan required Medium - Low Medium High High Very Low Density Density Cove Density Density Density X = Prohibited use Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential Land Use RVL RL RC RM RMH RH Residential Uses Single-family detached dwellings P P P p p S Single-family detached patio homes S S S (i.e., "zero lot -line") S P S Duplexes (two units on the same lot) S S S S P P Single-family attached dwellings (two units per building with each unit on S S X S P P its own lot) Townhome dwellings (two or more units per building with each unit on S S X S P P its own lot) Condominium multifamily ("airspace" S S X units) S P P Apartment multifamily (rental units) X X X P P P Mobilehome parks C C C C C C Mobilehome subdivisions and manufactured homes on individual P P P P P X lots, subject to Section 9.60.180 Resort residential subject to Section C C X C C C 9.60.320 24 Guesthouses, subject to Section 9.60.100 A A A A A A Second residential units subject to A A A A A A Section 9.60.090 Group Living and Care Uses Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 8 or fewer A A A A A X children, subject to Section 9.60.190 Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 9-14 M M M M M X children, subject to Section 9.60.190 Congregate living facilities, 6 or fewer persons P P P P P X Congregate care facility C C C C C C Residential care facilities, 6 or fewer persons P P P P P P Senior citizen residences, 6 or fewer persons, subject to Section 9.60.200 P P, P P P P Senior group housing, 7 or more X X X X C C persons, subject to Section 9.60.200 Time share facilities, subject to C C C C C C Section 9.60.280 Bed and breakfast inns C C C C C C Open Space and Recreational Uses Public parks, playfields and open P P P P P P space Bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails P P P P P P Clubhouses and community pools/cabanas P P P P P P Unlighted tennis and other game courts on private property, subject to A A A A A A Section 9.60.150 Lighted tennis and other game courts on private property, subject to M M M C C C Section 9.60.150 Golf courses and country clubs per P P Section 9.110.040 P P P P Driving range with or without lights C C X C C C Accessory Uses and Structures Home occupations, subject to H H H H H H Section 9.60.110 Patio covers, decks, and gazebos, A A A A A A subject to Section 9.60.040 Fences and walls, subject to Section P P P P P P 9.60.030 Satellite dishes and other antennas A A A A A A subject to Section 9.60.080 Swimming pools, spas and cabanas, A A A A A A subject to Section 9.60.070 Garages and carports, subject to A A A A A A Section 9.60.060 Keeping of household pets, subject A A A A A A to Section 9.60.120 0}N On lots of 1 acre or more, the noncommercial keeping of hoofed animals, fowl (except roosters) and rabbits, subject to Section 9.60.120. Hoofed animals include horses, A A X X X X sheep, goats, pot bellied pigs, and similar. The keeping of horses is subject to Section 9.140.060 and limited to one horse per 2.5 acres. Other accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use on the premises and are A A A A A A consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district. Agricultural Uses Tree crop farming; greenhouses P X X X X X Field crop farming P C X X X X Produce stands, subject to Section 9.100.100 P M X X X X Temporary Uses Garage sales A A A A A A Construction and guard offices, subject to Section 9.60.210 M M M M M M Use of relocatable building M M M M M M Model home complexes and sales M M M M M M offices, subject to Section 9.60.250 Special outdoor events, subject to M M M M M M Section 9.60.170 Parking of recreational vehicles, A A A X- X X subject to Section 9.60.130 Other Uses Churches, temples and other places of worship C C C C C C Museum or gallery displaying sculpture, artwork or crafts, including C C C C schools for above, on 20 acres or C C more Community recreational vehicle storage lots, noncommercial X X X P P P Communication towers and equipment (Free-standing, new C C C C C C towers) subject to Chapter 9.170 Communication towers and equipment (Co -location, mounted to M — M — M — M — M — M — existing facility) subject to Chapter 9.170 Utility substations and facilities M M M M M M Public flood control facilities and P P P P P devices P Director or planning commission to Other principal, accessory or determine whether temporary uses not listed in this table use is permitted in accordance with Section 9.20.040. 26 ATTACHMENT # 3 9.60.080 Satellite dish and other antennas. A.Purpose. Satellite dish and other antennas consistent with the design and location provisions of this section shall be permitted as accessory structures within any residential district. B. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers, and related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of a conditional use permit and conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170 Equipmem Wireless Telecommunication Facilities). Satellite dish and other antennas are permitted as accessory structures in nonresidential districts in accordance with Section 9.100.070. C.Permitted Noncommercial Antennas. Noncommercial privately owned television and/or radio antennas shall be contained entirely within a building except for: (1) satellite dish antennas and other antennas which cannot function when completely enclosed by a building; and (2) amateur radio antennas used by operators licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 97). Such permitted outdoor antennas shall comply with the following design standards and requirements: 1. Number. No more than one satellite dish and one amateur radio antenna shall be permitted per lot. 2. Height and Diameter. Satellite dish antennas shall not exceed eight feet in height measured from adjacent grade or finish floor and shall be no more than eight feet in diameter. Amateur radio antennas shall not exceed the maximum building height for the district as specified in Section 9.50.030. 3. Ground -Mounted Antennas. a. Location. All ground -mounted antennas shall be located within the rear yard or may be located within an interior side yard if not within the required side yard setback. Such antennas are prohibited from exterior street side yards unless not visible from the street. All antennas over six feet in height shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from all property lines. b. Screening. Ground -mounted satellite dish antennas shall be screened from view, including views from adjacent yards, by landscaping or decorative structures (trellis, arbor, fence, etc.). The dish antenna shall be a single color that blends with its surroundings (e.g., off-white, dark green, brown, gray or black). C. Disguised Antennas. An antenna which has the appearance of typical backyard furniture or equipment (e.g., satellite dish antenna manufactured to have the appearance of a patio umbrella) is not required to comply with the preceding location and screening standards but shall comply with height and size limits. Such an antenna may be placed on any patio or deck. 27 4. Building -Mounted Antennas. Roof -mounted and other building - mounted antennas are prohibited in all residential districts if over twenty- four inches in diameter unless completely screened from horizontal view via a parapet wall or other feature which is integrated into the architecture of the building. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) PW ATTACHMENT # 4 9.80.040 Table of permitted uses. A.Uses and Structures Permitted. Table 9-5, Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts, following, specifies those uses and structures which are permitted within each nonresidential district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designations mean the following: 1. "P": Permitted as a principal use within the district. 2. "A": Permitted only if accessory to the.principal use on the site. 3. "C": Permitted as a principal or accessory use if a conditional use permit is approved. 4. "M": Permitted if a minor use permit is approved. 5. "T": Permitted as a temporary use only. 6. "V: Prohibited in the district. 7. "S": Permitted under a specific plan. B. Uses Not Listed in Table. Land uses which are not listed in Table 9-5 are not permitted unless the planning director or the planning commission determines that such use is within one of the permitted use categories listed preceeding (e.g., principal use, conditional use, etc.) in accordance with Section 9.20.040. Table 9-5 Permitted Uses in Nonresidential Districts P = Principal use A = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit Regional Commercial Community Neighborhood Tourist Office Major Commercial Park Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Community M = Minor use permit Facilities T = Temporary use permit X = Prohibited use Land Use CR CP CC CN CT CO MC Retail Uses Retail stores under 10,000 sq. ft. floor area P A P P A A X per business Retail stores', 10,000— 50,000 sq. ft. floor area P C C C X X X Retail stores', over C C C X X X X 50,000 sq. ft. floor area Food, liquor and convenience stores under 10,000 sq. ft. P A P P A A X floor area, open less than 18 hours/day2 Food, liquor and convenience stores C X C C C X X under 10,000 sic. ft. 29 floor area, open 18 or more hours/day' Plant nurseries and garden supply stores, with no propagation of plants on the premises, C X C C X X X subject to Section 9.100.120 (Outdoor storage and display) Showroom/catalog stores, without P P P X X X X substantial on -site inventory General Services Barbershops, beauty, nail and tanning salons P A P P p A X and similar uses Miscellaneous services such as travel services, photo developing, P A p p p q X videotape rentals, shoe repair, appliance repair, and similar uses Laundromats and dry cleaners, except central P X P P P X X cleaning plants Printing, blueprinting P P P P P P X and copy services Pet grooming —without P X P P P X X overnight boarding Office and Health Services Banks P X P P P P X General and professional P X P P P P C offices Medical offices — physicians, dentists, optometrists, P X P P P P X chiropractors and similar practitioners Medical centers/clinics—four or P X P C X P X more offices in one building Surgicenters/medical P X P C X P X clinics Hospitals C X X X X X C Convalescent hospitals C X C X X X C Veterinary clinics/animal hospitals and pet C C C C X X X boarding (indoor only) Dining, Drinking and Entertainment Uses Restaurants, other than P A p P P X A drive -through Restaurants, drive- P A P X P X X through Restaurants, counter take-out with ancillary P P P P P X X seating, such as 30 yoghurt, ice cream, pastry shops and similar Bars, taverns and C C C X. C X X cocktail lounges Dancing or live entertainment as a C X C X C X X principal use Dancing or live entertainment as an A X C C C X X accessory use Theaters, live or motion C X C X C X X picture Tobacco shops without onsite smoking, as per the provisions of the P X C X C X X Heath and Sanitation Code Cigar lounges, hookah _ bars, and similar uses - with onsite smoking, as C X X X C X X per the provisions of the Health and Sanitation Code Recreation Uses Bowling, pool or billiard _ centers as a principal C X C X C X X use Pool or billiard tables as accessory use (3 tables A A A A A A X or less) Game machines, 11 or more (as either a C X C C C X X principal or accessory use) Game machines as an accessory use, 10 or A A A A A A X fewer machines Golf courses and country clubs (see GC X A X X C A X district permitted uses, Chapter 9.120) Tennis clubs or - C A C X X A C complexes Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance M M M M M M A studios, 5000 sq. h. floor area or less Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance C C C C C C X studios, over 5000 sq. ft. floor area Libraries P X P C P P P Museum or gallery displaying sculpture, artwork or crafts, P P P P P P P including schools for above Parks, unlighted playfields and open P P P P P P P space Lighted playfields X X X X X X C 31 Bicycle, equestrian and P P P P P P P hiking trails Indoor pistol or rifle X C X X X X X ranges Miniature golf/recreation C X X X C X X centers Assembly Uses Ice skating rinks C X C X X X C Lodges, union halls, social clubs and senior C C C C X X C citizen centers Churches, temples and C C C C X C X other places of worship Mortuaries and funeral C C C X X X X homes Public and Semipublic Uses Fire stations P P P P X P P Government offices and police stations P P P P P P P Communication towers and equipment (Free- standing, new towers) C C C C C C C subject to Chapter 9.170 Communication towers and equipment (Co - location, mounted to M M M M M M M existing facility) subject to Chapter 9.170 Electrical substations M M M X X X M Water wells and M M M X X X M pumping stations Reservoirs and water X X X X X X M tanks Public flood control P P P P P P P facilities and devices Colleges and universities C X X X X X C Vocational schools, e.g., barber, beauty and C C C X X C C similar Private elementary, intermediate and high C C C C C C C schools Private swim schools C C C X C X C Train, bus and taxi C X C X C X C stations Helicopter pads X X X X C X C Public or private kennels and animal shelters " X C X X X X C (with indoor or outdoor pet boarding) Golf courses and country clubs (see GC C A C X C A P district permitted uses, Chapter 9.120) Driving range unlighted P A C X P A P Tennis clubs or C A C X C A C complexes 32 Health clubs, martial arts studios, and dance P P P P P P A studios, 5000 sq. ft. floor area or less Residential, Lodging and Child Care Uses Townhome and multifamily dwelling as C3 C° X X X X X a primary use Residential as an accessory use, e.g., C C C C C C C caretaker residences per Section 9.100.160 Child day care facilities, centers and preschools as a principal use, C C C C X C C subject to Section 9.100.250 (also see Accessory Uses) Senior group housing, subject to Section C X X X X X X 9.100.260 Rooming and boarding C X X X X X X houses Single room occupancy (SRO) hotels, subject to C X X X X X X Section 9.100.270 Emergency shelters P P P P P P P Transitional shelters for homeless persons or C X X X X X C victims of domestic abuse Single family residential S X X X X X X Mixed -use projects: residential and S X X X X X X office/commercial RV rental parks and ownership/membership C X C X C X X parks Resort residential S X C X C X X Hotels and motels C X C X C X X Timeshare facilities, subject to Section C X C X C X X 9.60.290 Caretaker residences M M M M M M M Automotive Uses' Golf cart, neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV), P - P P X X X X and electric scooter sales Automobile service stations, with or C C C C X X X without minimart Car washes C C C X X X X Auto body repair and painting; transmission X C X X X X X repair Auto repair specialty C C C X X X X shops, providing minor 33 auto maintenance: tire sales/service, muffler, brake, lube and tune-up services —not including major engine or drivetrain repair Auto and motorcycle C C X X X X X sales and rentals Used vehicle sales, not associated with a new C C X X X X X vehicle sales facility, as per Section 9.100.030 Truck, recreation vehicle C C X X X X X and boat sales - Auto parts stores, with no repair or parts P P P C X X X installation on the premises Auto or truck storage yards, not including X C X X X X X dismantling Private parking lots/garages as a C C C X C C X principal use subject to Chapter 9.150, Parking Warehousing and Heavy Commercial Uses' Wholesaling/distribution centers, with no sales C P X X X X X to consumers General warehouses, with no sales to C P X X X X X consumers Mini -storage X XB X X X X X warehouses Lumber yards, outdoor (see retail stores for X C X X X X X indoor lumber sales) Pest control services C C X X X X X Plumbing repair shops C P X X X X X Contractor, public utility and similar C C X X X X C equipment/storage yards Central cleaning or C C C X X X X laundry plants Communication or relay facilities/antennas as C C C C C C C primary use Industrial and Research Uses Indoor manufacture and assembly of components or finished products from materials such as cloth, fiber, fur, X P X X X X X glass, leather, stone, paper (except milling), plastics, metal, and wood Research and P P X T X X X X development 34 Recording studios P P X X X X X Bottling plants X P X X X X X Sign making, except sandblasting P P X X X X X Sign making, including sandblasting X P X X X X X Recycling centers as a primary use, collection X C X X X X C and sorting only, subject to Section 9.100.190 Off -site hazardous waste facilities, subject X C X X X X X to Section 9.100.230 Accessory Uses and Structures Portable outdoor vending uses (such as flower stands, hotdog M M M M M M M stands, etc.), subject to Section 9.100.100 Swimming pools as an M M M X A M A accessory use Golf or tennis facilities M M M X A M A as an accessory use Signs, subject to Chapter 9.160 A A A A A A A Fences and walls, subject to Section A A A A A A A 9.100.030 Antennas and satellite dishes, subject to A A A A A A A Section 9.100.070 Reverse vending machines subject to A A A A X X A Section 9.100.190 Recycling dropoff bins, subject to Section M A M M X X A 9.100.190 Incidental products or services for employees or businesses, such as A A A A A A A child day care, cafeterias and business supportuses Other accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with and subordinate to the principal use on the A A A A A A A premises and are consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district, as - determined by the director Temporary Uses Christmas tree sales, subject to Section T T T T X X T 9.100.080 Halloween pumpkin T T T T X X T 35 sales, subject to Section 9.100.090 Stands selling fresh produce in season, T T T T X X T subject to Section 9.100.100 Sidewalk sales, subject T T T T T T X to Section 9.100.130 Temporary outdoor events, subject to T T T T T T T Section 9.100.140 Construction and guard offices, subject to T T T T T T T Section 9.100.170 Use of relocatable building, subject to T T T T T FT T Section 9.100.180 Other Uses Fortunetelling and C - X C X X X X palmistry Sexually oriented businesses, subject to C X X X X X X Section 9.110.0807 Other uses not listed in this table: per Section 9.20.040, director of planning commission to determine whether use is permitted Notes: ' Other than convenience stores. Items sold may include clothing, groceries, meat, drugs, jewelry, sundries, office supplies, pets, furniture, appliances, hardware, building materials (except lumber yards), and similar retail items. r With no consumption of alcohol on the premises.- 3 If part of a mixed -use project per Section 9.80.020 or 9.80.030. 4 Subject to Section 9.30.070 (RH, High Density Residential District) for density, building heights, setbacks, etc. Affordable housing projects shall be subject to Section 9.60.270. 5 Subject to Section 9.100.120, Outdoor storage and display. 6 Mini -storage warehousing operating on December 17, 2008 (the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section), are considered legal, conforming land uses. Existing facilities may be reconstructed if damaged, and may be modified or expanded within the boundaries of the lot on which they occur as of December 17, 2008 with approval of a site development permit. Any modification or expansion shall conform to the development standards for the commercial park zoning district contained in Chapter 9.90, Nonresidential Development Standards. 7 Property must also be located within the SOB (sexually oriented business) overlay district (Ord. 480 § 1, 2010; Ord. 472 § 1, 2009; Ord. 471 § 2, 2009; Ord. 466 § 1, 2009; Ord. 449 § 1, 2007; Ord. 429 § 1, 2006: Ord. 414 § 1 (part), 2005; Ord. 397 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 2004; Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 307 § 1, 1997; Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 36 ATTACHMENT # 5 9.90.020 Roof projections. A.Encroachments Permitted. Notwithstanding Figure 9-8 preceding, architectural features not containing usable floor space, such as chimneys, towers, gables and spires, are permitted to extend fifteen feet above the maximum structure height set forth in Table 9-6 following if approved as part of a site development or other permit. The aggregate floor or "footprint' area of such architectural features shall encompass no more than ten percent of the ground floor area of the structure. B.Antennas. Satellite dish or other antennas shall not extend above the maximum structure height specified in Table 9-6 (see Chapter 9.170 for Telecommunication Facilities fegUlations" and Section 9.100.070, "Satellite dish and other antennas"). (Ord, 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 37 ATTACHMENT # 6 9.100.070 Satellite dish and other antennas. A.Permits Required. The following antennas are allowed in nonresidential districts: 1. Permitted Commercial Antennas. Commercial television, radio, microwave, communication towers, and related facilities are permitted as principal uses in all districts subject to approval of a conditional use permit and conformance with the requirements of Chapter 9.170 (GOMMaaisatier► Tevfflffs and Equipment Wireless Telecommunication Facilities). 2. Permitted Accessory Antennas Other than Those Described Above. Roof -mounted antennas screened from a horizontal line of sight and ground -mounted antennas which do not exceed ten feet in height and which meet the requirements of subsection B of this section may be permitted as accessory structures without a minor use permit. All other antennas shall require approval of a minor use permit. B. Development Standards. Antennas within nonresidential districts may be ground -mounted or building -mounted provided the following requirements are met: 1. Any antenna which is the principal use on a lot shall comply with the district setback standards for main buildings. 2. A ground -mounted antenna which is an accessory use shall be located within the rear yard (minimum five-foot from the rear property line) or may be located within a side yard if not within the required side yard setback. Ground -mounted antennas are prohibited from exterior (street) side yards unless not visible from the street. 3. Antennas, including roof -mounted antennas, shall not exceed the building height standards for the district in which they are located. 4. All accessory antennas shall be screened from both horizontal and vertical line of sight. Decorative overhead structures such as trellises may be required if the antenna is visible from surrounding higher buildings or terrain. 5. Compliance with Section 9.170 of the L.Q.M.C. (Ord. 325 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1998; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) KV ATTACHMENT # 7 9.120.020 Table of permitted uses. Table 9-8, Permitted Uses in Special Purpose Districts, following, specifies those uses and structures which are permitted within each special purpose district. The letters in the columns beneath the district designations mean the following: 1. "P": Permitted as a principal use within the district. 2. "A": Permitted only if accessory to the principal use on the site. 3. "C": Permitted as a principal or accessory use if a conditional use permit is approved. 4. "T": Permitted on a temporary basis if a temporary use permit is approved, 5. "X": Prohibited in the district. Table 9-8 Permitted Uses In Special Purpose Districts = Permitted use = Accessory use C = Conditional use permit = Temporary use permit = Prohibited use District Parks and Recreation Golf Course Open Space Floodplain Hillside Conservatior Overlay Sexually Oriented Business Overlay Equestrian Overlay Land Use PR GC OS FP HC• SOB* EOD- O en Space and Recreational Uses 0 ens ace P P P P P P •. Public parks, lakes and passive recreation facilities P X P P P X Playfields, lighted or unlighted P X X X X X Bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails P X P P P P ibraries and museums C X X X C X Visitor centers C X C C C X Clubhouses and community pools/cabanas P A X X X X ` Fermis courts or complexes, public P A X X X X Tennis clubs or complexes, private C A X X X X olf courses and country clubs, including lubhouses and other customary accessory uses C P X X X X •• olf courses without above -ground structures, including fairways, greens, tees and golf -cart aths C P X P C X •• ccessory Uses and Structures Signs, subject to Chapter 9,160 A A A A A A Fences and walls, subject to Section 9.100.030 A A A A A A Satellite dish and other antennas, subject to Section 9.100.070 A A A A A A emporary Uses emporary outdoor events, subject to Section 9.100.040 T T T T T T •' ther Uses 39 Single-family residential I X X C X C' X Multifamily residential, commercial (except sexually oriented businesses), office or industrial development X X X X X X •• Sexually oriented businesses, subject to Section 9.140.050 X X X X X C " Communication towers and equipment (Free- standing, new towers) subject to Chapter 9.170 C C C C C' C " Communication towers and a ui ment (Co -location, M M M M M M ounted to existingfacility) subject to Cha ter .170 Electrical substations X X M X MI X star wells and pumping stations P P P P M 41 X •' star tanks and reservoirs X M M X M' X Public flood control facilities and devices P P P P P P ther principal, accessory or temporary uses not isabove Director or planning commission to determine whether use is permitted in accordance with Section 9.20.040. • Uses are subject to the additional requirements of the overlay district as set forth in Chapter 9.140. •' As permitted in the underlying base district and in Section 9.140.060. ' Allowed only if permitted in the underlying base district and only if the additional requirements of the HC overlay district are met (per Section 9.140.040) and a conditional use permit is approved. (Ord. 299 § 1 (part), 1997; Ord. 284 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1996) 40 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Les Johnson, Planning Directot> q DATE: July 8, 2011 SUBJECT: CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF THE DRAFT LA QUINTA HOUSING ELEMENT TO JULY 26, 2011 The La Quinta Housing Element Update draft document was distributed to the Planning Commission on July 1, 2011. Staff had intended to have a staff report on the draft document prepared for your consideration at the July 12, 2011 meeting. However, it was determined that an adequate report could not be prepared in time to meet the July 12 meeting agenda deadline. Staff is therefore requesting a continuance to the regular Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 2011. It is suggested that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to take any testimony from the public. The public hearing should then remain open and continued to the July 26' meeting. U ml MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Timothy R. Jonasson, P.E. Public Works Director/City Er6ifieer DATE: July 12, 2011 RE: Requested Changes to the Recommended Conditions of Approval Site Development Permit (SDP) 2011-917 After publication of the Planning Commission Agenda Report, a representative of Coral Mountain Partners requested the following change to the Recommended Conditions of Approval for the above mentioned Site Development Permit. The Public Works Department recommends the following change: 1) In Condition 22 A., replace the heading "OFF -SITE STREETS" with the new heading "PUBLIC STREET."