2012 02 14 PCCity of La Quinta
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-guinta.orn
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2012-003
Beginning Minute Motion 2012-002
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
IL PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public
hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to
three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 2012.
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 ................... CONTINUED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2011-613,
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2011-135, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2011-920
Applicant........... La Quinta Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Location............ Southeast Corner of Washington Street and Hidden River
Road
Request ............. Consideration of Rehabilitation and Development Plans for
the Washington Street Apartments.
Action ................. Staff Recommendation for Adoption of Resolutions
Recommending Approval, with Conditions — EA 2011-613
Resolution 2012- TPM 36421 Resolution 2012- ,
CUP 2011-135 Resolution 2012- and SDP 2011-920
Resolution 2012-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council meeting of February 7, 2012.
B. Commissioner Wilkinson is scheduled to attend the February 21, 2012,
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 February 28, 2012, 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, February 14,
2012 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, February 9, 2012.
DATED: February 9, 2012
CAROLY WALKER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
Public Notices
The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is
needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's office at 777-7123, twenty-four
(24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made.
If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission,
arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123.
A one (1) week notice is required.
If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning
Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits,
etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this
take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting.
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
January 24, 2012 7:01 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:01 p.m. by Chairman Alderson.
B. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Weber, Wilkinson, Wright, and
Chairman Alderson.
ABSENT: None _.
STAFF PRESENT: Planning, Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy
Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal
Engineer Ed Wimmer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu,
Assistant'. Planner . Eric Ceja, and Executive
Secretary'Carolyn Walker.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Chairman Alderson requested Public
Hearing Item C (Sign Application 2011-1565) be heard prior to Public
Hearing Item . B'. (Sign Application 202-627, Amendment No.1) to
accommodate the attendees present. Unanimously approved.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Barrows to approve
the minutes of January 10, 2012, with the following corrections:
Page 1, Consent Calendar should read:
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Page 8, Bullet Point Number 1, should read:
1) request for the decel lane on Washington
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson.
NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Weber
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit 201 1-922; a request by Robert Riccardi,
Architect, for consideration of Site Development Permit for
architectural, site, and landscape plans for Torre Nissan Automotive
Dealership, located at the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and Auto
Centre Way North and Southeast corner of Adams Street and Auto
Center Drive.
Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Planning Department.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Wilkinson commented on Condition no. 73 which states
"No ...,lighting is permitted on the temporary storage lot" and asked if
there -were any street lights available nearby for security purposes and
to deter vandalism'.
Assistant Planner Ceja said he was not aware of any existing pole
lighting along the street right-of-ways. The Applicant, in meeting with
staff, did explain a desire not to place any pole lighting on the site and
by leaving the parking lot open police could drive into the site and
monitor it. In addition, staff did not think that permanent lighting
improvements should be done on a temporary site.
Commissioner Wright said he had concerns that the landscaping buffer
was too sparse on the west side, between Adams and the temporary
parking lot and would not screen the parking lot enough. He asked
staff if there were any plans to add any more tree material, or making
more of a buffer.
Planning Director Johnson said this was discussed with the applicant,
and because it is a temporary lot and they are putting perimeter
SM
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
landscaping along the north and east street frontages, staff felt that
leaving that 40-some-odd feet fallow would be okay.
General discussion followed on:
• The landscaping planned for that area.
• Matching plantings, in that area, to Auto Center South and Auto
Center Drive.
• Touching up the existing landscaping.''
• Maintenance and ownership of parcels on Auto Center Drive,
Auto Center Way South, and Adams Street.
• Inclusion of additional sidewalks.
• Potential dust control problems occurring.
Commissioner Weber had questions about the grading, maintenance,
and drainage from the retention basin to the parking area.
Principal Engineer Wimm#
temporary parking site, is
improvement plans, to Pi
said they are looking at tl
the fact that it is tempore
site. So, it will be mi
providing, sufficient rater
going to be added,
Commissioner Barrows
said the retention basin, in support of the
tili;under design. The applicant submitted
iic Works, for an at -risk plan check. He
ng tb minimize the volume required due to
!`and to disturb as little as possible on this
mined to the degree possible while still
on —for the impervious surfaces that are
if there would be charging stations
included in,the project.
Assistant Planner Ceja said it was their understanding there would be
and noted where they would be located.
Chairman Alderson asked if the surrounding property owners,
including the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association, had been
notified.
Staff responded notification was sent out using the standard 500 foot
radius around both properties, including the Lake La Quinta
Homeowners' Association, and no questions had been received.
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened
the public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant
would like to speak.
Mr. Mike Reinhardt, General Manager of Torre Nissan, 79-125
Highway 111, introduced himself and pointed out that George
Velarde, the Dealer Principal, Tony Prosser, Nissan Motor Acceptance
(the finance arm of Nissan), Frank Talley, Construction Consultant,
Tom Logergren, Nissan Factory Representative, and Robert Ricciardi
(Architect) were also in attendance. He then offered to answer any of
the Commissioners' questions; including the previous question about
the charging stations which had been installed end . active in the
dealership.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the charging stations were available at
present.
Mr. Reinhardt said they were and explained that people who visit, as
well as those that live in the Valley come and charge their cars while
they shop nearby. He explained; the,shuttle service provided to them.
General discussion followed one'
• lighting of the temporary, lot.
• Branding and the architectural style of the building.
• Construction coordination.
• Parking compliance.
• Legal building setbacks from Highway 111
Chairman Alderson asked if the applicant was happy with the
conditions of approval.
Mr. Reinhardt said he had no problem with the conditions of approval.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any further questions of the
applicant. There being none he asked if there was any public
comment. There being none, Chairman Alderson closed the public
hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Barrows said she appreciated the landscaping use of
the local native deer grass.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Commissioners Wilkinson and Wright commented that they were
enthused to see this type of project on Highway 1 1 1.
Discussion followed on:
• Landscape improvements on the Adams Street side.
• Possible. landscape screening.
• Clarification of area of screening.
• Condition of existing landscaping.
Planning Director Johnson said the applicant would like to address this
situation and the referenced area is a separate ownership lot. They all
have an ownership interest .,,"and maintenance obligation and
responsibility.
Chairman Alderson re -opened the 'Public hearing to allow the applicant,
as well as the landscape architect, an opportunity to respond to the
comments.
Mr. Reinhardt confirmed the referenced area belonged to the Auto
Center Association; which is a'separate ownership with a separate
maintenance` agreement.
Chairman, Alderson called upon the project landscape architect to offer
suggestions o rectify the problems brought up.
Ron Gregory,,v,RGA Landscape Architects, 74020 Alessandro, Suite E,
Palm Desert, suggested they work with City staff to come up with a
means of augmenting the existing material in the west side easement.
The result being to leave the existing material and add to it.
General discussion followed on:
• The areas where additional landscaping materials could be
added.
• Setbacks in the area.
• Additional landscaping at the corner of Adams Street and then
transitioning to the existing landscaping along Auto Center
Drive.
• The length of time the site would be used as a temporary
parking lot.
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
• Coordination of the addition of landscaping and maintenance.
• Basic screening landscape.
• Use of native plant palette.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Wright/Wilkinson to adopt Resolution
2012-001 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2011-
922 as conditioned in the staff report with the following addition:
Add a condition which shall state:
The applicant's landscape architect shall work; with Planning
Department staff to better transition the existing landscape at the
corner of Adams Street to the new landscape along Auto Centre Drive
including, but not limited to, the placement of additional plant
materials.
Unanimously approvedC
B. Sign Application 2011-1565; a, request by Yury Levitan, for
consideration of a Sign Program for The: Desert Express Carwash,
located at 43-632 Washington Street.
Associate Planner; Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
e
Commissioner Wilkinson asked for clarification of the $6 in 6 Min
choice of lettering on the monument sign.
Associate Planner Wuu explained that typically monument signs for
commercial complexes only identify the commercial property's name
and the tenants. This particular sign is advertising a price that may
change and staff felt this aspect of the sign could be eliminated, but
the applicant wanted to keep it and that choice would be up to the
Commission's discretion.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if staff's concern was that the price
could be subject to change.
will
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Staff responded that was correct since if that price were ever to
change the applicant would have to come back for a sign program
amendment.
Commissioner Barrows asked staff if the applicant did have a price
change, could they easily replace that element without making the
sign look inferior and with staff approval; rather than review by the
Planning Commission.
Planning Director Johnson yes, that could occur. The Commission
could agree for the program to leave thavopen and allow the applicant
some latitude and flexibility to make 'changes to copy later on.
Historically commercial monument signs have been limited to the
advertisement of a business and/or identification of the \name of the
complex or center. This is a unique request since the applicant
originally requested an LED sign 'but;. right now, our Code prohibits
those types of signs. He then pointed out the Commissions' options
on this application.
Discussion followed on:
• The sign without the $6 in 6 Mina
• Bringing the size of the text down.
• 'Commission options on conditioning the sign.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened
the, public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant
would' like to speak.
Mr. Yury Leuitan, 43-632 Washington Street, introduced himself and
stated the $'6' in 6 Min was a "branding" statement of the type of
carwash this was. He said it was not a full service carwash and
people understood that when they saw the $6 in 6 Min, they knew
they would be out of the carwash in six minutes; as opposed to
leaving their car there while someone else washes it. He added there
are no salespeople, just the attendants at the pay station.
He commented on the $6 in 6 Min and the possibility of a price
change. He said they already had $6, $8, $10, $12, early bird or car
wash specials. So it was not the price, it was like a brand name; such
as the 99-cent store and Dollar Tree.
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Commissioner Weber asked if the $6 in 6 Min was the standard price
among his other car washes.
Mr. Levitan said it was in this area, but not in others, and gave the
example of $5 in 5 Min at his Fresno car wash and explained why that
was possible.
Commissioner Weber asked if Mr. Levitan would still prefer the LED
sign if that were allowed in the City Code.
Mr. Levitan said yes as he could mpka,changes from anywhere in the
world to his sign in La Quinta It was much more,, practical. He
explained what type of changes ;he could. make and said it_would be
good for the business as well as the,,clients,
Commissioner Wright gave some anecdotal evidence pointing out the
effectiveness of the $6 in 6 Min branding., He did have a concern
about setting a precedent to open the door to.other centers to do this
type of branding.
General discussion followed one
• Other options for advertising besides signage.
• Advertising allowances for the AM/PM convenience store.
• Identifying a price, product, or service on a building.
Signage at the Auto Center.
The definition of temporary signage.
Commissioner Wright asked if there was a way to do temporary
signage and not actually have it on the sign, or change the name of
the car wash to $6 in 6 Min car wash and get rid of the Desert
Express.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Levitan if he uses the $6 in 6 Min as
advertising.
Mr. Levitan said yes, as a trademark.
Chairman Alderson asked if he used it at his car wash further north on
Washington Street.
-8-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Mr. Levitan said no since that was a full service car wash and this
was an express, exterior car wash. The other car wash could take up
to 40 minutes to complete. This car wash utilizes machinery and can
be done at a predictable speed.
Planning Director Johnson then pointed out some examples of other
monument signs along Highway 1 1 1 and their', advertising sign copy.
He noted the City's involvement once a -'sign was approved and
completed. He added this was a unique '4ign_and that was why staff
wanted to make sure the Commission had an opportunity to review it
and weigh in on it. He commented the`'sign blended very well with
the building and it was not going to be of an aesthetic negative at all.
He said if they were in support of the sign, they might want -to add a
condition that if, at a future date LED signs are permitted,.there would
be the ability for that to be addressed through staff and not have to
come back to the Commission for that change to occur at a later date.
Chairman Alderson asked. if the proposed sign; required a variance for
size.
Associate Planner Wuu said no.
Chairman Alderson commented on the trees potentially blocking the
view of the sign and suggested they be trimmed, after getting the
necessary City approvals.
Chairman °Alderson commented on the size of the "Express Car Wash"
lettering"on'the building parapet and suggested the applicant might
want to make them larger if that was in compliance with the City's
Code.
Mr. Levitan agreed they should be larger, but stated the Planning
Deaartnient had advised him that he was allowed 50 square feet of
Chairman Alderson said the sign had to be legal.
Mr. Levitan asked if there was some type of allowance where he could
get permission for, possibly, a 59- or 69-square foot sign.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Chairman Alderson said he was only making a suggestion and Mr.
Levitan had to stay within the City's Code.
Chairman Alderson commented on the looks of the sign, and his
concern about any change of price triggering the need for another sign
program review by the Planning Commission.
City Attorney Jenson said the Commission had'the? latitude to say that
such kind of change would not have to come back.
General discussion followed on:
• The purpose of a monument sign.`"
• A "branding" sign identifying the type of business.
• Temporary sign alternatives.
Chairman Alderson a
applicant. There b
comment.
There being none, Ch
opened the matter for
Commissioner Weber c
e The aesthetics
that it has been
if there were any further questions of the
none he asked', if there was any public
an Alderson closed the public hearing and
mission discussion.
C.7i19
as well as the signage the way
• 1ne evening appearance.
e The size of the "Express Car Wash" lettering on the building.
e The $6 in 6 Min being a_great marketing strategy.
• His previous concern with the lack of connection to the
development to the south of this project.
•>'Due ,-to the unusual lot shape, as well as other extenuating
factors, this applicant should be shown some latitude on what
ican be allowed.
e The challenge, on a major arterial, for drivers to quickly read the
sign's message without having to pull over.
Commissioner Wright said he agreed with Chairman Alderson that he
did not like the saying of $6 in 6 Min, but it was a type of branding.
MKI
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
He added that, within reason, La Quinta was trying to be business -
friendly and he did like the monument sign the way it was designed.
Commissioner Barrows said there was some discussion about future
approval of LED free-standing signs. She asked staff to clarify what
was being proposed.
Planning Director Johnson said the Commission might possibly want
to consider a condition be added that, should ""there be an amendment
to the Municipal Code which would allow` separate, free-standing LED
signs, it could be handled administratively and not have to come back
for the Commissions' consideration unless it was 'their desire. He
added that it was the applicant's objective to take the $6 in 6 Min
segment of the sign and make that into are LED.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the applicant chose to increase or
decrease his price, would that change .the need to come back for
consideration. And what would happen if they took off what was on
the monument sign and put it on an LED sign
Planning Director Johnson said it would not have to come back for
content, but -an LED change would make this a different type of sign.
He expressed the fact that he would hate to see the Commission have
to review that type of change request, unless that was their wish.
Commissioner .Weber asked if there was anything currently pending
that would suggest a change in the Municipal Code to allow those
types of signs 6ndd expressed his concerns about the use of LED signs.
Planning Director Johnson said there was nothing pending at this time,
but it would be an issue for discussion at a future date
General discussion followed on:
• The issue of LED and LCD-type lighting being permitted in the
City.
• Managing sign content.
• Trademark, or "branding" phrases.
• Letter size on the building and the City's code.
• The addition of conduit to the sign, for the possible future
inclusion of LED lighting.
- 11 -
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Vegetation blocking the view of the sign and site distance
review by the Public Works Department.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked if the applicant would be allowed to
move vegetation to get some visibility.
Planning Director Johnson said there were site distance and vegetation
concerns. He said there was a site distance mentioned, but he said it
would be better not having a distance mentioned and let the process
take place; meaning that there needs to be'some flexibility to: 11.
make sure of public safety and the ability, to clearly see the
appropriate distance to leave this site, 2),check on the possibility of
moving the sign closer to Washington. There is a meandering
sidewalk there, as well as other items and there needs ti be flexibility
to work with the applicant to get'a good location that makes sense.
They kind of wedged themselves in with a''definitive distance being
identified and he suggested consideration be given to allow for some
flexibility for staff to work with them to make that happen.
There being no further questio is; -or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Barrows to adopt Resolution
2012-002,recommending approval of Sign Application 2011-1565 as
conditioned in the staff report with the addition of the following
condition:
3. Future modifications to the lower cabinet sign on the monument
(716 in 6 Min") shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director.
unanimously'approved.
C. Sign Application 2022-627, Amendment No. 1; a request by Young
Electric Sign Company for consideration of a Sign Program
Amendment to increase individual sign sizes and locations for the
Dune Palms Plaza located at the southeast corner of Highway 1 1 1 and
Dune Palms Road.
Chairman Alderson noted he had received an e-mail, from the
applicant, stating he would not be at the meeting, but his
representative would. However, there was no one in the audience.
He then asked staff to proceed with their report.
-12-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Assistant Planner Eric Ceja presented the staff report, a copy of which
is on file in the Planning Department.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked for clarification of the square footage
allowed on a tenant sign.
Staff responded the City code allows for a maximum of 50 square feet
for a tenant sign; however the applicant is proposing signs up to 72
square feet. The Code does have the flexibility.' to, allow for signs
above 50 square feet if they meet one of the two criteria listed in the
report. The one that most closely matches the applicant's ;request for
larger signs would be to have the sign be in scale to the building. Staff
then presented the slides showing the existing site and the signs in
proportion to the buildings.
General discussion followed on:
• The ineffectiveness of signs on the back of the buildings.
• Adequacy of signage on`Dune Palms and Highway 111.
• Line of sight of the proposed signs.
Chairman Alderson asked if the neighboring vacant land had previously
been proposedas an RDA project.
City Attorney Jenson said the back piece is the Coral Mountain
Apartment complex, The front piece is currently under exclusive
negotiating agreement which is due to expire on February 1, 2012.
Commissioner Weber asked staff, since there was no applicant
representative available, if they have had any conversations with the
applicant." He was concerned since the south facing signs were clearly
not allowed by Code, the east facing sign was not part of the sign
program, and the buildings were not oriented such that you could have
retail access from the rear so why add signage there.
Assistant Planner Ceja said in discussion with the applicant and the
building owner, they were just trying to increase visibility, at any
opportunity, for the tenants.
-13-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Commissioner Weber said he supported them in their efforts but
commented on the Highway 111 sign needing to be freshened up
because it does have a significant setback. He commented on the
applicant having to share the sign with the Chevron dealership and the
difficulties that entails.
Staff stated in their conversations with the applicant, due to the
vacant lease spaces there now, their hope is that with an improved
sign program they will be able to attract more tenants.
General discussion followed on:
• Applicant's request for 30a7o-35% increase in sign sizes.
• Lack of attendance by applicant, or their representative, in order
to clarify the Commission's questions.
• North facing sign would be located behind the canopy of the
gas station, and'the lack of value,in adding signs on the south
elevations.
Chairman Alderson suggested they freshenup the sign on Highway
1 1 1, change its color and remove the obscuring vegetation. He
acknowledged !:due to the location, the project does need better
signage•
Discussion followed' on the', temporary banner sign, its current
condition, and. its size.
Commissioner Wright said he would be totally against approving any
kind of signs for the east side because of the problem it might cause
for the future Coral Mountain Apartment dwellers. He was, however,
in favor of increasing the sign square footage to 72 square foot size
because of previous Commission comments and because it does fall
under the setbacks.
There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Alderson opened
the public hearing portion of the meeting and asked if the applicant
was present and would like to speak. There being no applicant
present, he asked if there was any public comment. There being
none, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and opened the
matter for Commission discussion.
-14-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Commissioner Weber asked for clarification on the inclusion of a
condition regarding improving the sign on Highway 111.
Chairman Alderson said a condition could be added suggesting the
existing sign be refurbished to be consistent with what was proposed
on Dune Palms.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Wilkinson to adopt Minute
Motion 2012-001 recommending approval of Sign, Application 2002-
627, Amendment No. 1 as conditioned in the staff report, and with
the following addition:
The monument sign on Highway, 1°11 be refurbished to be consistent
with the new signs proposed on Dune Palms Road.
Unanimously approved..
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL:
A. Update on Green and Sustainable La Quinta Program
Planning Director Johnson gave an update on the City's Green and
Sustainable Program Report, a copy of which had been previously
included in the City„Council packet of January 17, 2012.
Discussion followed on:
The new fuel cell system, at Walmart, which is fueled by
natural gas and converts it to electricity; accommodating
approximately 85% of the maximum demand load of Walmart.
• The City's Cool Centers and EOC programs, and how the public
is informed of both.
• Future inclusion of the number of attendees at the Household
Hazardous Waste Events.
The City's 77% diversion rate.
-15-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
• Wasted water.
• The lower numbers of Energy Audits and their importance to the
City's residents.
Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
0
C
Report on City Council Meeting of January 17 2012 and Special City
Council Meeting of January 24, 2012.
Commissioner Weber is scheduled to attend the February 7, 2012,
City Council meeting.
RDA Question
Commissioner Weber asked about`plen overlays
Attorney Jenson explained what the, 'City was
regarding consolidation of.small parcels.
t
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: None
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no furtflt
Commissioners WrightN
Planning Commission,to
This meeting was adjo0fr
Respectfully submitted,
on City parcels. City
currently looking at
business, it was moved and seconded by
inson to adjourn this regular meeting of the
n"t meeting to beheld on February 14, 2012.
at 9:09 p.m. on January 24, 2012.
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta,'California
-16-
PH A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2012
CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2011-613
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011-135
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY &
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
PROPERTY OWNER: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY &
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ARCHITECT: STUDIO E ARCHITECTS
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: RGA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.
ENGINEER: THE ALTUM GROUP
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF REHABILITATION AND
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET
APARTMENTS
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
HIDDEN RIVER ROAD
-;My I;Tsli1 /lAi1y"-,
CONSIDERATION: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2011-
613 FOR THIS PROJECT, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS
DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT, AND THEREFORE, IS RECOMMENDING
THAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT BE ADOPTED.
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Paget of 11
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR)
ZONING
DESIGNATION:
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RH)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USES:
NORTH:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY (BERMUDA DUNES)
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
SOUTH:
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
EAST:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY (BERMUDA DUNES)
EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND
WEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
BACKGROUND
This proposal was considered at the January 10, 2012 Planning Commission
meeting. However, the item was continued to the February 14, 2012 meeting
because information related to the proposal that was discussed at the public
hearing required additional research. The information, which primarily consists of
concerns with the Washington Street and Hidden River Road intersection, is
addressed later in this staff report.
The Washington Street Apartments, located on the southeast corner of Washington
Street and Hidden River Road, consists of 72 one -bedroom apartment units located
on approximately 4.7 acres of land. Up until 2007, the community was located
within unincorporated Bermuda Dunes. In 2007, the City of La Quinta purchased
and annexed the community, along with surrounding vacant un-entitled parcels.
The City's Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency are the current owners of
the properties.
PROPOSAL
Project Overview:
The applicant is requesting consideration of plans for the rehabilitation and addition
of units within the Washington Street Apartments (Attachment 1). The project
includes the interior and exterior rehabilitation and remodeling of the existing 72
units, the construction of 26 new apartment units, and overall project improvements
such as new parking areas, a Commons Building, a Laundry/Maintenance Building,
and retention/recreation areas.
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 2 of 11
The existing apartment units to be rehabilitated (Buildings A - HI will have the
following characteristics (Attachment 1, Sheet A3.1):
• Approximately 680 square feet
• One -bedroom, one -bathroom units
• Unit interiors that include full kitchens, living rooms, and dining rooms
• Front porch areas that include privacy fencing and planting area
The newapartment units (Buildings K - M) will have the following characteristics
(Attachment 1, Sheet A3.2 - A3.5):
• Approximately 680 square feet
• One -bedroom, one -bathroom "through units"
• Unit interiors that include full kitchens, living rooms, and dining rooms
• Front and rear porch areas that include privacy
• Buildings K and M include two -bedroom manager units
The new Laundry/Maintenance Building has the following characteristics
(Attachment 1. Sheet A3.6):
• Approximately 950 square feet
• Laundry room with folding table, chairs, and multiple washer/dryer machines
• Fountain and outdoor lounge area with trellis/lattice shade structure
The new Commons Building has the following characteristics (Attachment 1, Sheet
A3.7):
• Approximately 2,700 square feet
• Interior lounge, multi -purpose area, office, kitchen, and storage areas
• Outdoor sitting garden, and outdoor patio area surrounding community pool
• Community mailbox area
Site Design:
There is one vehicular access point identified for the proposed community; from the
north off of Hidden River Road (Attachment 1, Sheet C1.1). This gated access will
serve as the primary access point for the community as it provides circulation to
and from the three proposed parking areas. No parking stalls are located along the
main drive aisle. A total of 82 parking spaces are proposed, including twelve ADA-
accessible spaces. All spaces are covered with illuminated steel carport structures,
which are approximately 9 feet in height, and will incorporate photovoltaic solar
panels or corrugated sheet metal roofing (Attachment 1, Sheet Al.15).
Also included with this proposal are plans for various common areas and amenities
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 3 of 11
throughout the Washington Street Apartments site (Attachment 1, Sheet L-3.00).
These areas include a partially -shaded swimming pool, amphitheater, active -use
turf areas with barbeque stations, and a community garden.
Architectural Design:
Included with this proposal are architectural plans for both existing and new
apartment units, as well as common buildings, all of which have been designed to
reflect a "Sustainable Desert Contemporary" architectural theme (Attachment 1,
Sheet A1.1 - A1.13). This includes architectural elements such as the use of
cement plaster as the primary exterior building finish, aluminum windows, asphalt
roofs with painted metal fascia, and louvered thermal chimneys which conceals
individual air conditioning condenser units. Additionally, painted metal doors,
painted steel rod fencing, and other design elements provide architectural
articulation to the various building fagades.
The 72 rehabilitated existing units incorporate the existing rooflines, with the height
of the buildings, not including the new louvered thermal chimney, averaging
approximately 12'-8" in height at its highest ridgelines (Attachment 1, Sheet A1.1 -
A1.2). The louvered thermal chimney is an approximately 8-foot tall architectural
projection, which results in a maximum structure height of 20 feet for the
rehabilitated apartment units.
The 26 new through -units incorporate a roofline similar to the existing units, with
the height of the buildings, not including the louvered thermal chimney, averaging
approximately 16'-3" in height at the highest ridgelines (Attachment 1, Sheet A1.3
- A1.10). The addition of the louvered thermal chimney results in a maximum
structure height of 22 feet for the new apartment units.
The height of the proposed Laundry/Maintenance building is approximately 10 feet.
The Commons Building, which incorporates an angled standing seam metal roof, is
17 feet in height at its highest point. Adding the louvered thermal chimney for the
Commons Building results in a maximum structure height of 26 feet (Attachment 1,
Sheet A1.11 - A1.13)
Landscaping:
Landscaping throughout the project site consists of primarily desert and other low -
to moderate -water use plants (Attachment 1, Sheet L-3.00). Mostly utilized around
the buildings are various trees and shrubs, with minimal use of turf, which has been
limited to the two active use lawn areas. The proposed tree palette includes
Acacia, Citrus, Palo Verdes, as well as Date, Mediterranean, and California Fan
Palms. The shrub palette includes Agave, Yucca, Birds of Paradise, and Lantana,
among others.
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 4 of 11
The perimeter areas that run along Washington Street and Hidden River Road are
proposed to be landscaped with a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover
(minimum 24" box trees; minimum 5 gallon shrubs/groundcover) (Attachment 1,
Sheet L-3.30). Plans for sidewalk treatments along the perimeter have not been
finalized; specifically, discussions regarding the incorporation of a meandering
sidewalk throughout the landscaped area along Washington Street are ongoing.
The project perimeter along Washington Street also incorporates a sound wall
(Attachment 1, Sheet A1.14). The wall will be approximately 6 feet in height
viewed from the Washington Street side, and approximately 10 feet in height
viewed from within the community. The view of the wall from within the
community is softened as most of the length of the wall incorporates the multi -
tiered community garden area. The wall consists of CMU matching the existing
perimeter wall for the Mediterra Apartments to the south. CMU pilasters with
plaster finish and perforated sheet metal fins accent the wall (Attachment 1, Sheet
A4.1). On the Washington Street side, design of the perimeter wall, similar to the
sidewalk, has not been finalized and is still part of ongoing discussions with the
applicant, architect, and engineers.
The perimeter wall along Hidden River Road is similar to the Washington Street
sound wall; however, no accent fins are proposed (Attachment 1, Sheet A4.1).
Along the southern property line, the existing perimeter wall will be utilized.
Tentative Parcel Map:
The applicant proposes to subdivide the approximately 12-acre project site into two
parcels (Attachment 1, Sheet TM 1 — TM2). Parcel 1, at approximately 6.4 acres,
consists of all the existing and new apartment and common buildings. Parcel 2, at
approximately 4.9 acres, consists of a future Phase 2 of the project. The purposes
of the Tentative Parcel Map include the adjustment of various lot lines and to
provide a right-of-way dedication along Washington Street.
Conditional Use Permit:
The applicant has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit, per LQMC
Section 9.60.270 Density Bonuses for Affordable Housing, in order to obtain
incentives/concessions related to development standards. These standards include
distance from guest parking spaces to apartment units and total number of parking
spaces required.
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 5 of 11
ANALYSIS
Architectural Design:
Staff finds the overall architectural style and design of the proposed rehabilitation
and additions to the Washington Street Apartments community to be acceptable.
Staff has no significant issues with the proposed apartment buildings, common
buildings, and common areas.
The proposed Sustainable Desert Contemporary architecture of the project departs
from the typical Spanish Colonial or Desert Contemporary designs most prevalent in
the City, and is not entirely compatible with the traditional architectural styles in
the surrounding neighborhoods. However, because the community is relatively
isolated visually, the buildings are harmoniously integrated into the built
environment. Supplemental design elements (pop -outs, varying rooflines, etc.)
appropriately enhance the buildings by providing sufficient architectural articulation
and character. Also, the height, mass, and scale of the buildings are appropriate
for each proposed building location, given the design restrictions of the property.
Site Design:
The design of the vehicular access points, internal circulation, and parking areas is
generally acceptable. Within the project, all applicable turning radii for large
vehicles, loading/unloading areas, and pedestrian connectivity meet the La Quinta
Municipal Code development standards. The main, drive aisle for the project has a
clear separation between vehicular and pedestrian paths of travel. The proposed
walkways that run throughout the community are sufficient as they provide
connectivity throughout the project site. One item of concern regarding vehicular
access is the width of the main entrance gate area. A 20-foot wide access is
required for each direction of the driveway. A supplemental exhibit will be
provided at the Planning Commission hearing that depicts a properly -designed
entrance. The site plan will not be significantly altered as a result of the updated
entrance configuration.
Based on the parking requirements in LQMC Section 9.150.060 and the parking
analysis done as part of the review process, staff has determined that the proposed
parking area design and spaces provided within the Washington Street Apartments
can accommodate the proposed use. The proposal provides for 82 parking spaces,
which does not meet the 167 parking spaces required by the Municipal Code.
However, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application in order
to obtain a Municipal Code concession due to the affordable housing aspect of the
community. Staff is comfortable in granting the concession as his
observations have shown that the existing parking adequately serves the residents,
and staff anticipates a similar usage after the rehabilitation and expansion of the
P:\Reports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 6 of 11
community.
The proposed on -site lighting is acceptable as well, as the proposed fixtures are
consistent with the City's outdoor lighting ordinance. Pedestrian walkways and
entries will be adequately lit using decorative fixtures or landscape lighting. Parking
areas will also be sufficiently lit by the strategically -placed poles and carport lights.
All lighting will be designed and located so as to confine direct light within the
community boundaries. The submitted photometric plan confirms that the project
with be properly illuminated, with a lack of excess light and no illuminated
hotspots.
Landscaping:
In general, the proposed landscape palette is acceptable. The assorted species of
plants provide diversity and add character to the proposed buildings. The use of
Acacia, Citrus, Palo Verdes, as well as Date, Mediterranean, and California Fan
Palms among others properly reflects the Desert Contemporary architectural style,
while providing sufficient screening and accents around the project site, including
the parking lot area, pedestrian circulation areas, and outdoor use areas. Also, the
proposed turf installation is acceptable as it is only proposed in active -use areas.
Tentative Parcel Map:
The design of proposed Tentative Parcel Map 36421, as conditioned, generally
conforms to the design guidelines and standards of the City of La Quinta General
Plan for High Density Residential (HDR) designated properties, as set forth in the
Land Use Element. The proposed site design incorporates street and parcel designs
that are in conformance with applicable General Plan goals, policies, and
development standards, and will provide adequate circulation, infrastructure, and
utilities.
Conditional Use Permit:
Staff analysis has concluded that the reduction of development standards,
specifically parking standards, is acceptable.. According to the Density Bonus
regulations in the Municipal Code, staff is able to grant three incentives or
concessions for housing developments because at least thirty percent of the total
Washington Street Apartments units are for lower income households.
Sustainability:
The proposed renovations to the Washington Street Apartments should result in an
environmentally -sustainable community. The project is designed to continue to
provide access to public transportation and construct energy -efficient amenities.
P:\Reports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 7 of 11
Furthermore, architectural features, such as color, materials, and shading devices,
will also reduce energy demands on the community. Landscaping will also meet or
exceed Coachella Valley Water District water budget requirements.
HPC Review
On December 15, 2011, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and
accepted the property owner's Phase I Archaeological/Cultural Resources Survey.
The report concluded that no historical resources exist within the project area, and
that no further cultural resources investigation will be necessary for the proposed
project. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered during future
construction activities, all work in that area should be halted or diverted until a
qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.
ALRC Review
On December 14, 2011, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
reviewed these site, architectural, and landscaping plans, and unanimously
recommended approval of the site development permit, subject to the following
staff -recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 2):
1. The applicant shall comply with LOMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping
Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans).
2. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed
landscape architect.
3. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and
permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water
Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water
Efficient Landscape).
4. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a
recommendation to the Planning Director for his approval. Exterior
lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor
Lighting). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and
shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff to minimize
trespass of light off the property. The illuminated carports shall be
included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan
submittal.
5. All water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high
efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 8 of 11
They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations
per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13.
6. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from
view. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical
equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping
and painted to match the adjacent buildings.
7. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review,
processing and approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with
the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Director approval
of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first
building permit unless the Planning Director determines extenuating
circumstances exist which justifies an alternative processing schedule.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
appropriate City official, including the Planning Director and/or City
Engineer.
8. 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.
9. The final design of the perimeter landscaping, particularly the perimeter
wall, shall be included with the Final Landscape Plan submittal.
Neighborhood Meeting
On June 15, 2011 and November 17, 2011, the applicant and the development
team for the Washington Street Apartments presented their proposal to the existing
apartment residents at on -site neighborhood meetings. Many residents showed up
to the meetings, and their input has been documented as part of the development
process.
Environmental Review
The La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental Assessment
201 1-613 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Director has determined that the
project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and
therefore, is recommending that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact
be adopted.
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 9 of 11
Public Notice
This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 30, 2011,
and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no
comments have been received from . adjacent property owners. Any written
comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing.
January 10, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting
During the January 10, 2012 public hearing, the Planning Commission discussed
the proposal (Attachment 3). A variety of traffic/transportation-related concerns
were raised with regards to the Washington Street and Hidden River Road
intersection. A Bermuda Dunes resident, Mr. Craig Bedard, provided public
testimony and submitted a letter to the Planning Commission expressing similar
concerns with the improvements at the intersection (Attachment 4).
The concerns identified include:
• Providing an exclusive right hand turn lane for northbound Washington Street
at Hidden River Road
• Establishing a raised median to prevent left turns out of Hidden River Road
• The need for resurfacing and restriping of Hidden River Road
• Establishing parking prohibition on Hidden River Road near Washington Street
• Providing a mid -block painted crosswalk across Hidden River at the project's
Hidden River entrance and at the intersection of Washington and Hidden
River Road
• Placing a "No U Turn" sign on Washington to prohibit southbound drivers
from making a U-turn to northbound Washington Street
The Public Works Department has reviewed these requests, and has responded to
each of them (Attachment 5). No changes to the design of the project or
recommended conditions of approval have been made as a result of the
aforementioned requests.
FINDINGS
Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in
the attached Resolutions.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012-_, approving a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2011-
PAReports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 10 of 11
613, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012-_, approving Tentative
Parcel Map 36421, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of
Approval; and,
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012- , approving Conditional
Use Permit 201 1-135, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of
Approval; and,
4. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2012- approving Site
Development Permit 2011-920, subject to the attached Findings and
Conditions of/AApproval.
Prepa
Associate Planner
Attachment:
1. Washington Street Apartments Site Development Permit Packet
(Commissioners Only)
2. Minutes of December 14, 2011 ALRC meeting
3. Minutes of January 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting
4. Letter from Bermuda Dunes resident, Mr. Craig Bedard
5. Memorandum from Public Works Department
P:\Reports - PC\2012\PC_2-14-12\wsa cont\1 WSA REPORT.docx Page 11 of 11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2011-135, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2011-920, THE WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
CASE: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2011-613
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 141" day of February, 2012, hold a duly noticed public
hearing, as continued from the regularly -scheduled Public Hearing on January 10,
2012, to consider a request by the La Quinta Housing Authority and
Redevelopment Agency to adopt Environmental Assessment 201 1-613, prepared
for Tentative Parcel Map 36421, Conditional Use Permit 2011-135, and Site
Development Permit 2011-920, known as the Washington Street Apartments, a
72-unit apartment complex, generally located on the southeast corner of
Washington Street and Hidden River Road, more particularly described as:
APN: 609-040-028, 609-040-023, 609-040-007
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63), in that the Planning Director has
conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2011-613) and has
determined that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment,
and that a Negative Declaration of environmental should be adopted; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department mailed and published a Notice of
Intent to adopt the Negative Declaration in compliance with Public Resources Code
Section 21092 on the 9" day of December, 2011 to the Riverside County Clerk;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice
in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 30, 2011 as prescribed by the
Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the site; and,
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at their meeting
held on the 15" day of December, 2011, reviewed the cultural resource survey,
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Environmental Assessment 2011-613
La Quints Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
and adopted Minute Motion 2011-003, recommending approval of the cultural
resource survey to the Planning Commission, subject to staff -recommended
conditions; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify adoption of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in
compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's
implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently
reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental
Assessment, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the
environmental effects of the project. Based upon the Initial Study, the
comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this
project, the Planning Commission finds that there are no significant
environmental effects resulting from this project.
2. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2011-
613.
3. The project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of,
rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history, or prehistory.
4. There is no evidence before the City that the project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on
which the wildlife depends.
5. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been
identified under Environmental Assessment 2011-613.
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Environmental Assessment 2011-613
La Quints Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 3
6. The project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
City will not be significantly affected by the project.
7. The project will not create environmental effects that will adversely affect
the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
8. The Planning Commission has fully considered the proposed Negative
Declaration and any comments received thereon, and there is no
substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have
a significant effect on the environment.
9. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment
2011-613 and said assessment reflects the independent judgment of the
City.
10. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the
presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations
753.51d1.
11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the
Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is
defined in Fish and Game Code §711.2.
12. . The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the Planning Commission decision is based upon, are located
in the La Quinta City Hall, Planning Department, 78495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California, 92253.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Environmental Assessment 2011-613
La Quinta Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 4
2. That it does hereby adopt Environmental Assessment 2011-613, which
include a negative declaration for the reasons set forth in this Resolution
and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and
on file. in the Planning Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2011-613 reflects the independent
judgment of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 14`h day of February, 2012, 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
i
Project title: Washington Street Apartments Rehabilitation and Expansion Project, EA 2011-613, ---
CUP 2011-135, Tentative Parcel Map 36421 and Site Development Permit 2011-920
i
Lead agency name and address: City.of La Quints
78-495 Cane Tampico
IA Quinta, CA 92253'
Contact person and phone number: Jay Wuu
760-777-7125
Project location:. The project site is located at the southeast corner of Hidden River Road and
Washington Street. Assessor's Parcel Numbers 609-040-007, 609-040-023 and 609-040-028
:Project sponsor's name and address: City.of La Quints .
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quints, CA 92253
General Plan designation: High Density Residential 7. .Zoning: High Density 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 Washington Street Apartments currently consist of 72 one bedroom units on 4.7 acres of land.
The project is one storey in height The project also includes a manager's unit and a clubhouse or
community room. The project is .currently restricted .to senior and special needs households with
low or very low incomes. No change to the tenant mix is anticipated as a. result of the proposed
project.
The project includes the rehabilitation and remodeling of the existing 72 units, and the construction
of. 26 new units .and overall project improvements. The 26 new units will he constructed
immediately to the south of the existing apartments, on a portion of a 7 acre parcel; and at the
northeastern comer:of the existing apartment project. Additional improvements will include new
part ing-aress, common activity areas, a common laundry, and retentioirtretxeation areas.
A Parcel Map is proposed to add the required acreage to the south of the existing parcel, and create
a remainder parcel for future. additional apartment development. The parcel map will result in one
parcel of 6.44 acres for the apartment project, and 4.9 acres for the remainder parcel. Although no,
plans are available for the remainder parcel, a future expansion of the apartments is expected in the
future.
Finally, the proposed project includes the extension of a sanitary sewer line from its existing
location in Darby Road (south of the project site). The sewer line will be extended through an
existing plant nursery north to a location approximately % mile east of the southern boundary of the
7 acre parcel, and then westerly along that southern boundary to connect to the proposed
apartments.
Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projeet's surroundings:
-1-
ENVMONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially, Significant Impact". as indicated by the checklist on the
Following pages.
Aesthetics
Biological Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Mineral Resources
Public Services
Utilities / Service
Systems
Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Cultural Resources Geology %Soils
Hydrology! Water Land Use / Planning
Quality
Noise Population / Housing
Recreation.. HTransportation/Traffic
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the.basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will nothe 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 iropaet" 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 requited, 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 or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) h�...7ON
avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DEC -, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed:Ipon the osed project, nothing further is required
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-speci&escreening 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 answersmust 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 maybe significant. If there are one or
more "Potentially Significant hapact". entries when-the.determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4) 'Tlegative 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 Imps The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures;, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less thus 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.
fi) 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
pr0imes 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.
Potentially
Las Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Signiticantw/
Significant
Impact
impact
Mitigation
Impact
i. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? (La Quints General Plan lixlubit
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)
c) Substantially degrade: the existing
visual character or quality of the site and
X
its surroundings? (Aerial Photograph)
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
X
(Application materials)
I a) Scenic vistas,in the area of the proposed. project consist of views of the San Jacinto
Mountains to the west Some views are also to the San Bernardino Mountains to the
north, but these hills are much less prominent, and not as, scenic as those to the west.
Washington Street is designated an lmage Corridor in the. General Plan, which requires
that special landscaping and setbacks he applied to all projects along its boundary.
The rehabilitation and remodeling of the existing units will have no impact on scenic
vistas, as the mass and height of these units will not change. The addition of the,26
units to the south of the existing apartments will not. significantly impact scenic vistas,
as the mass and scale of these wets is expected to be consistent with the mass and
scale of the existing units, Lands to the east. are vacant; but are designated Low Density
Residential under the Riverside County General Plan. It is likely that single family
units will be constructed under this designation. The addition of the 26 units will not
change the westerly views; which are impacted by the existing apartments. Future
residential units would likely still have views, of the mountain ridges and peaks, but not
of the lower hills and foothills, as is currently the case.
The future development of additional units on the remainder 4.9 sores will be
consistent with the mass and style of the apartments currently planned, and are also not
expected to affect scenic vistas.
The installation of the sewer line will occur below ground, and will have no impact on
--------- scenicc vt�as, Gverall-no impact associated Wi scentc vistas is, expected.
-5-
b) The "property on which the existing apartments occur is already built out, and does not
contain significant stands of trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The
Property on; which the 26 units will be constructed is currently. vacant, but has been
significantly impacted by off road use and trails. It also does not contain", stands of
trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings.
The property on which the future units and the sewer line extension will be constructed
is vacant, and does not contain trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. There
will be no impact to scenic resources as a result of the proposed project.
c) Washington Street is a major arterial roadway with significant traffic volumes and high
speeds. The existing visual character on Washington street consists of a broad mix of
land uses, including.the existing apartments, neighboring apartments to the south, two
story office buildings, single story, retail.buildings on the east side of Washington
Street; and single family homes on the west side of Washington Street. The proposed
additional units, both to the east and to the south of the existing apartments, will be "
.constructed in the same style, and with generally the same architectural mass and scale
as those existing buildings. The proposed project will therefore have no impact on the
visual character of the area
d) The proposed project will result in the remodeling of the existing 72 apartment units and the addition of 26 units to the east and south. The primary source of light
associated with the new units will be from residents' vehicles. To a limited extent;
additional light will be generated by landscaping and- parking lot lighting which will be
part of the new units. '
As previously stated, Washington Street is a major arterial roadway with considerable
traffic volumes. The anticipated 91 daily trips' generated by the new units will mostly
occur during the. day. The night time trips are likely to total about 10, which will have
no impact on current lighting levels in the area, in the context of existing conditions on
Washington Street:
The design of the proposed units will be required to conform to the City's standards
for on -site lighting, which prohibits light:spillage onto adjacent properties. As a result,
the landscaping and parking lot lighting will not impact surrounding properties, and no
impact is expected.
Generatio 81°Editio .Trip n, n," Published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
-6-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
ULTURE RESOURCES.
project:Prime
Farmland, Uniqueor
F
Farmland of Statewide
(Farmland), as shown on the
red pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring. Program of the
X
California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use? (Riverside County Important
Farmland 2008, Ca dept of )
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
X
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
(General Plan Laud Use Map; Site inspection)
H. a)-c) The proposed project, site is significantly impacted by existing apartments and
associated facilities, and is not in agriculture. The vacant lands to the south, on which
the 26 additional units are to be located, is not and has not been in agriculture. None of
the properties are designated as Prime, Unique or hnportant farmlands.
Lands to the east in the County of Riverside are designated for residential land uses;
and are occupied by a mix of single family residences and commercial nurseries. This.
area is not planned for long term agricultural use. There are no Williamson Act
contracts either on the project site, or on adjacent, lands.
Approximately Y3 mile to the east are several commercial nurseries. These nurseries
will not be impacted by the proposed project, and can continue to operate. The
construction of the new units will have no impact on agricultural resources.
7
Potentially
Less Than
Leas Than.
No
Significant
significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
M Ugation
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)
0 Generate greenhouse gas emissions
either directly or indirectly, that may
X .
have a significant impact on the
environment? (Projectdescription)
gKonflict with an applicable plan,X
policy or regulation. adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? (Project description) .
III. a) The Coachella Valley; and the City, occur in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB). The
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has air quality management
responsibility for the SSAB, :including establishment of air quality measurement
criteria and management policies. All development within the SSAB is subject to
SCAQMD's 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (2007 AQMP) and the 2003
Coachella Valley PM,o State.Implementation Plan (2003 CVPlvi,o SIP). Historically,
the Coachella Valley has been classified as being in non -attainment for PM10. In order
to achieve attainment in the region, the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan
b) & c)
was adopted, which established strict standards for dust management for development
Proposals. Individual projects are requited to comply with the Plan, including the,
implementation of dust management plans during construction. By complying with the
Plan, and requiring applicants to do so, the City is reducing PM10 generated during the
construction process to less than significant levels. As a result of implementation of
the Plan .throughout the region, the California Air Resource Board approved the
Coachella Valley PMi 0 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 High Density Residential land use
designation for the property. This land use designation was the basis of SCAQMD
Planning and management efforts for the area. Therefore, the project is consistent with
regional management plans.
The 3 . phases of the proposed project have the potential to generate air emissions.
These phases will includedemolition of existing buildings (the manager's unit and
community room), grading of the southern parcel - for the additional units, and
operation of the apartment project in the long term. The demolition, grading,
construction and operation emissions are each addressed individually below.
Demolition
Demolition of the two existing structures to the east of the existing apartments will
result in air emissions from construction equipment and workers' vehicles. These have
-- been estimated- in Table I. -
Table 1.
Demolition - Related Emissions Summary
(potmds per day)
CO . NOx ROG SOx Me Ms COz
EquipmentEmtsslons 17.1 40.6 5.1 U 2.1 1.9 4,152.0
workers' Vehicle 4.8 3.9 0.6. 0.0 0:2 0.1 689.0
Emissions
Total Construction
Emissions 21.9 44.5 5.7 0.1 2.3 2.0 4,841.0
SCAQrvW Thresholds of
_significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150:00 55.00 N/A
As shown in the Table, the proposed demolition of the two existing structures will not
exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, and impacts will be less than significant
Grading
Two sources of air emissions are possible during the grading for the 26 new units: dust
generation and heavy equipment emissions. Approximately 3.0 acres (the vacant lands
to the south and the area on the east end of the project where existing facilities will be
replaced) will be graded during the proposed project's development. In addition, the
area needed for the sanitary .sewer line will require grading and excavation. For
-9-
purposes of this analysis, and based on consultation with the project engineer, an area
of 30 feet in width and 1290 feet in length will be impacted by this activity, resulting
in an additional 0.9 acres of disturbance.
Table 2
Fugitive Dust Potential
_ (pounds per day)
Total Potential
Total Acres to be Factor Dust
Generation
Disturbed, at Buildout* (lbsJdavfacre) (1bsJday)
3.9 26.4 102.96
Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" prepared by South Coast AirQuatity
Management District, April 1993. - -
As shown in Table 2, the project has the potential to generate 102.96 pounds of PM10
during grading. However, the project will be required to prepare and implement a dust
management plan which uses best management practices to control PM10 emissions.
This plan will be required to demonstrate compliance :with the adopted. PMII)
Management Plan, which assures that impacts in the: region are reduced to less than
significant levels.
Table 3 summarizes the emissions from heavy equipment, and the vehicle trips of the
workers handling this equipment during the grading process. As shown in the Table,
grading activities will not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds, and impacts will be less.
than significant.
Table 3
Grading - Related Exhaust, Emissions Summary
(pounds ner dav)
CO
NOx
ROG
SOX .
PMro
PMz5
COZ
Equipment Emissions
35.33
82.11
9.75
0.10
3.75
3.34
9,453.60
Workers' Vehicle Emissions
4.33
3.39
0.57
0.01
0.14
0.11
. 725.2I
Total Emissions
139.66
85.50
10.32
0.11
3.89
3A5
10J78.81
SCAQMD Thresholds of
Significance 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 ' 150.00 55,00 N/A
Construction
The' analysis of construction emissions assumes that all 26 units and all ancillary
facilities are under construction at once. Table 4 provides a summary of the anticipated
emissions associated with construction activities, including heavy equipment, asphalt
off gassing and the application of coatings. As shown in the Table; the construction of
the proposed project is not expected to exceed SCAQMD thresholds, and impacts are
expected to be less than significant.
-to
Table 4
Aggregate Co truction - Related Emissions Summary
fnonnds ner davl
UU INUx RUG sox rmiu riVIZ.J UUZ
Equipment Emissions 23.53 41.58 5.95 0.05 2.57 2.29 4,662.40
Workers' Vehicle Emissions 34.67 27.15 4.55 0.06 1.11 0.91 5,801.71
Asphalt Paving Emissions 0.39 - -
Vperanonal Emissior
During the life of the
from the project; a
generation. Table 5 s
will not exceed SU
term operation of the
Anticipated
Power
Plants
Carbon Monoxide
0.2
Nitrogen Oxides
1.4
Reactive Organic
Gases
0.1
Sulfur Oxides
0.0
Particulates `
0.0
Carbon Dioxide
-
d)
• Tiueshold criteria offered by the
significance of air quality impacts.
0 100.00 75.0
eject; air emissions will occur as a result of vehicle trips to and
from stationary sources, such as electric and natural gas
ramizes these emissions, and shows that the proposed project
dD thresholds of significance. Impacts associated with long
jest will be less than significant,
Table 5
madative Daily Project -Related Emissions
at Project Buildout
tionary .
Moving
Total
SCAQMD
Emissions
Source
Anticipated
Threshold
Nat. Gas
Emissions
Emissions
Criteria*
Consumption
(lbsJday)
(lbsJday)
15:1
8.00
23.37
550.00
97.
1.06
99.49
100.0
0.7.
0.89
1.70
75.0
Negligible
0.02
0.06
150.0
0.2
0.23
0.39
55.0
-
1557.83
1,557.83
N/A
h Coast Air Quality Management District for assistance in
determining the
ce: "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality
sed October 2006.
The proposed project will
house senior households, as it does currently. The project is
located adjacent to Washington
Street, which is a major arterial handling high volumes
of traffic. However, the
project is not located at an intersection, and idling of vehicles
does not occur adjacent
to the project. Further, as described under Traffic, below,
surrounding roadways
ill continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, with and
without the proposed project
expansion. Finally, the project is heavily landscaped and
buffered from the adjacent
roadway, providing some barrier from vehicle emissions.
-11-
Therefore, the addition of the proposed 26 units will not significantly impact sensitive
receptors.
The proposed project will generate approximately 91 daily trips, which will not result
in pollutant concentrations at surrounding sensitive receptors, include the Colonel
Mitchell Paige School, located approximately 'Amile to the south.
e) The project will result in the development of residential units which will generate
normal household activities and odors; and is not expected to create objectionable
odors.
f) & g) The proposed project will generate greenhouse gas emissions during the demolition,
grading, construction and operational phases of.the project. As shown in Table 1,
demolition activities will result in 4,841 pounds of CO2 per "day. Grading activities
would generate 10,178.81 pounds of CO2 a day (Table 3). Construction emissions will
generate approximately 10,464.11 pounds of CO2. Demolition, grading and
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. Operational
emissions will total1,557.83 pounds per day.
There are currently no thresholds for greenhouse gases. 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. Theproposed project will also be
required to implement the CalGreen Building Code being implemented by the City at
the time that building permits are issued. These standards include energy efficiency
standards which are much more stringent than they have been in the past. Finally, the
City is implementing GHG reductions through design and construction techniques,
which will reduce those emissions. 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.
-12
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Signiflcant 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
X
or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the Califomia 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 M)
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 fi)
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.)
-13-
IV, a) Much of the proposed project will be developed on lands which are currently fully
disturbed, and which contain ornamental plantings. These activities will therefore have
no impact on sensitive species, as indigenous habitat is not present. The units to be
constructed. to the south, the future units likely to be built on the remainder parcel, and
the sewer line. extension, will occur on vacant desert land. The acreage has been
impacted by off -road vehicles, and contains meager creosote bush scrub habitat, the
most common habitat type in the City, which is. likely to: support common native
species. The acreage is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan boundary, but is not located in or adjacent to:a.conservation. area -It
is located in the fee area, however, and development of this parcel will require
payment of the mitigation fee in place at the time that development occurs. This fee is
designed to mitigate impacts to locally sensitive species by allowing the purchase of
conservation lands in sensitive habitat areas. The payment of the fee will assure that
impacts associated with sensitive species are less than significant.
b-c) No riparian habitat or wetlands occur on or adjacent to any component of the project
site. Lands surrounding the project do not include streams or. rivers. The proposed
project will have no impact on riparian species or habitat, wetlands or other sensitive
natural community.
d) The proposed project .area is highly urbanized, and does not provide substantial
wildlife corridors; which wouldfacilitate migratory species' access. No wildlife
preserves or similar areas occur, in the vicinity of the project area. The project will
therefore have no impact on migratory species or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nurseryy sites.
e) & f) As described above, the City participates. and implements the Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, The proposed project will be required to
pay the mitigation fee when development occurs. This fee is designed to offset
potential impacts and assure that impacts: are less than significant to sensitive species.
-14-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
NO
Significant
Sigalfieant wl
Significant
impact
Mitigation
Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would
the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
X
defined in'15064.5? (General Plan MEA) .
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological.
resource pursuant to'15064.5? (La Quinta
X
General Plan Update Cultural Resources Report,
2010)'
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
X
geologic feature?.(General Plan MEA)
d) Disturb any human remains, including.
those interred outside of formal
X
cemeteries? (General Plan MEA)
V.a)
b)
The construction of the 26 new units and the sewer line will have no impact on historic.
resources, as. the land is currently vacant, and no structures occur on the property.
Development of the proposed apartments will: have no impact on historic resources.
A cultural resource reconnaissance was conducted for the project area, including the
sewer line location. The assessment included a records search, which found that
multiple analyses have occurred surrounding the project site, but none had occurred on
the project site. An on -site survey was also conducted, and no evidence of human
activity was identified. In addition; the City will require, through its Historic
Preservation Commission, that all'ground disturbing activities be monitored by a
qualified archaeologist to assure that no buried resources are disturbed during the
construction of the proposed project. This City requirement will assure that impacts to
archaeological resources will be less than significant.
c) . The project site is located outside the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla, which is the
only locality in the City where potentially significant paleontological resources have
been identified The soils on the vacant acreage are dune sands, which have been
deposited on the land in relatively recent times, as a result of Aeolian transport. These
soils are not suitable for paleontological resources. Therefore, there will be no impact
to paleontological resources as a result of implementation of the proposed project. .
d) No known cemetery or burial site occurs on the project site. State law requires a
coroner be contacted and all activities cease if human remains are discovered during
excavation or grading,_.to.assure proper disposal. The coroner is responsible for
contacting Native American tribes should identified remains be determined to be
Tribal in nature. The proposed project will be required to comply with State and will
have no impact on human remains.
15
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
signmesnt
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-
Friolo 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)
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 oftopsoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit
X
C5)
c)13e Located on expansive soil, as
defined in Table 184-B ofthe Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating
X
substantial risks to life or property
(General Plan MEA)
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? (Project
description)
VI. a)i. The proposed project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.
The site is located approximately 4 miles south of the San Andreas Fault Zone. There
will be no impacts associated with fault rupture on the project site.
a)ii. The proposed project site. will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake,
as will properties throughout the City. All the new apartments will be required to meet
the standards of the Uniform Building Code for Seismic Zone 4. These standards are
-17-
designed to reduce impacts related to strong ground shaking to less than significant
levels.
j a)iii. The project area is not located in an area subject to liquefaction. When grading and
building permits are prepared for the new units, the City will require the submittal of
site -specific geotechnical analysis. 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 expected to be less than
significant.
a)iv. . The apartments, and the vacant lands associated with the expansion of the -apartments,
occurs in the northern portion of the City, in an area far remove from the foothills of
surrounding mountains.. No manufactured hillsides occur in the area. There will be no
impact associated with landslides.
b) . The project area is susceptible to high winds that can cause wind erosion and
accumulation. The project will be required to implement a dust control and
management plan as part of the grading permit process, which will reduce impacts
associated. with blowing dust and sand. Once completed, the project will include
impervious surfaces and landscaped areas which will stabilize soils. The impacts
associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil will be less than significant.
c) The Aeolian soils found on the site are categorized as having a "very low" expansion
Potential in Table 18-1-B of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. There will be no
impacts associated with expansive soils as a result of project implementation.
d} The proposed project occurs in an urbanized area of the City. As described in the
project description, the project incudes the extension of a sewer line from Darby Road
to the expanded apartment project. There will be no septic systems on the project site.
No impact is expected:
-18-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant w/
Sigawcant
Impact
Impact
MItigatien
Impact
. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
--Would the ect:
TE7asignificant
reathazazd to the
lic onvironment through the
[hazardous
X
tine transport, use, or disposal of
materials? (application materials)
reate a significant hazazd to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
X
hazardous materials into the
en (General Pfau 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.cavirostor.dtsc.ca.gpv/public/)
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
notbeen.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)
1) 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
response plan or emergency evacuation
X
plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff)
h) Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires; including where
X
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas
No
-19-
where residences are intermixed with
Lwil
dlands2 (witdfue susmphbility, Riveesi&
T.
nty RCIP)
VII, a)-c) The, remodeling of theexisting apartments may result in the need :to dispose of older
construction materials.. However, the apartments were built in the .19&as, after the ban
on both asbestos and lead paint. As a result, the remodelnig of the units is not expected
to generate hazardous materials.
The development of the new units will result in some use of household cleaners and
chemicals, in small quantities. The City implements, through its solid waste provider,
household hazardous waste disposal programs to assure that these materials are
properly disposed of.
No transport of hazardous materials; or air emissions are expected to occur as a result
of.the remodeling and construction of the apartments. Overall impacts are expected to
be less than significant.
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. No impact is expected.
04) The project site is located approximately 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes airpor(
and is not within the flight approach path to that airport. There will be no hazards
associated with public safety and the airport.
g) The existing apartments, and the new units proposed, occur on the City's primary
north -south arterial roadway. No change is proposed which would affect access to
Washington Street, or which would impede emergency response. No impacts are
expected.
h) The project site is located on the Valley floor, and is in a highly urbanized area. There
will be no impacts associated with wildland fires.
-20-
Potentially
Less Than
less Than
No
Significant
Significant W1
Significant
impact
impact
Mitigation
Impact
VHl- HYDROLOGY AND WATER
UALITY -- Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? (General Plan
X
EM P. I11-87 fi) ,
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)? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff)
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? (General Plan Elft p. Ul-87 fE)
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? (General Plan EIR p. Ili-87 fE)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which
.would exceed the capacity of existing or
Planned stonmwater drainage systems or
X
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.)
f) Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood hmazace Rate
Map or other flood. hazard delineation
map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit
6.6)
g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard
area structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental
Assessment Exhibit 6.6)
-21-
Vill. a) As previously stated, the new units will be connected to the CVWD's sanitary sewer
system. CVWD operates two treatment plants, both of which meet or exceed Regional
Water Quality Control Board water quality standards. CVWD has capacity to
accommodate the new units, and is currently processing wastewater from the existing
units. No waste discharge will occur at the project site.
The City requires the implementation of National Pollution Elimination System
(NPDES) requirements for storm flows for all projects. These requirements include the
preparation and implementation of SWPPP and WQMP, which include Best
Management Practices for the control of polluted runoff.
The proposed project will have less than significant impacts on water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements.
b) Domestic water will be supplied by CVWD. The CVWD has prepared an Urban Water
Management Plan which addresses how the District will supply water to its service
area over the next 20 years. The Plan was developed using existing development and
land use designations for future development as a basis for water demand. The
proposed project is consistent with the City's current land use designations for the
property.
The. District is currently recharging the groundwater at, two locations in the eastern
Coachella Valley, one of which is located within the City, at its southwest comer. The
proposed project will have no impact on the District's ability to recharge the
groundwater basin.
Overall impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge are expected to be less than
significant:
c)-e) The City requires that all project retain the 100 :year storm on site. The proposed
project includes retention facilities on the east side of the project site, whose design.
must be approved by the City Engineer. The City does not have storm drain facilities in
the vicinity of the project site. All hydrology improvements will be required to comply
with NPDES standards, to assure that no polluted storm water enters other surface
waters either during construction or operation of the project. The City's requirements
assure that drainage patterns will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
f)-g) Neither the existing units nor the additional 7 acre parcel occur within a 100 year flood
zone, asmapped by FEMA. No impacts are expected.
-22-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significant wl
significant
Impact
Impart
Mitigation
impact
-
AND USE AND PLANNING -
ldthe project:
ysically divide an established
lllnit}fl (Aerial photo; project plans)
X
nflict with any applicable land use
FConflict
policy, or regulation of an agency
urisdiction overthe project
ding, but not limited to the general
pecific plan,, local coastal program,X
ing ordinance) adopted for the
e of avoiding or mitigatingan
nmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit
2.1) .
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74
X
ti;)
IX. a)-b) The proposed remodeling project will not affect the established community, insofar as
residents will. be relocated to the 26 new units on site during that effort, and will
continue to participate in the community. The additional units will be constructed
immediately south of the existing project, and will be integrated into the existing
community. As a result, no impact to the established community is expected.
The project site, including the 7 acres to the south, is currently designated for
apartment units. The proposed new units are consistent with the land use and zoning
designations on the property. No impact is expected:
e) The project site is withinthe boundary of the CVMSHCP, but is not within a
conservation area. The proposed project will be required to pay fees in conformance
with the CVMSHCP, to assure consistency with the Plan. There wjll be no conflict
with the Plan.
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant
Significantw/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
RESOURCES --would
ct:
FERAL
t in the loss of availability of a
ineral resource that would be of
the region and the residents of
? (ltitaster Environmental Aasessmeat p.
R
71 ll^„ 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
general plan, specific plan or other land
X
use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p.
11 fill Special Report 198, CA Geological Survey
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
No
sigalfleant
Significantw/
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
X
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. t t I
ff.)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundbome vibration or
X
groundbome noise levels? (General Pian
MEA p. 111 fi) ,
c) A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project
X
vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (General Plan MEA p. l i t ti)
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.
tll ff.)
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 airporS
X
would the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (General Plan MEA
p.III ff) -
f) For a project within the vicitity of a
private airstrip, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project
X
area to excessive noise levels? (General
Plan MEA p. I I I III)
XI.a) & c) The proposed project includes the remodeling of existing units, and the construction of
26 new units.. The remodeling of the .units will not expose the residents to excessive
noise, insofar as blocks of apartments will be remodeled after the residents have been
relocated. Adjacent residents may experience short periods of higher noise levels, but
these will occur during the less sensitive daytime hours, and will be temporary and
periodic.
The construction of the new units will occur to the east and south of the existing units.
The noise study prepared for the proposed project found that existing noise levels
-25
along Washington Street are approximately 62 dBA CNEL. The analysis also fourid
that the future exterior noise levels on building patios will remain below 65 dBA
CNEL, consistent with City standards. The analysis also found that interior noise
levels will be less than 45 dBA CNEL; with doors and windows closed. As the units
will all be equipped with HVAC units, the interior noise levels, and living conditions
within the units will be at acceptable levels.
b) Both the remodeling effort and the new construction may result in groundbome
vibration or noise. However, these activities will occur during the City's prescribed
construction hours, which are limited to daytime hours. During the daytime, noise
sensitivity is Iess, and although temporary and periodic nuisance maybe experienced
by the surrounding residents, it is not expected that these levels will be significant.
d) As stated above, the remodeling of the existing units and the construction of the 26
additional units will result in temporary increases in noise levels associated with,
construction activities. The contractor, however, will be required to conform to the
City's construction hour restrictions. In . the . case of the . remodeling, groups of
apartments will be .vacated; so that it is unlikely that residents would remain in a .
building underrenovation. in the case of the new construction, the construction
activities to the east will be separated from existing units by the project drive and
Parking area; which will provide a reduction in noise levels. In the case of the units to
the south, the perimeter wall and landscaping which currently occur adjacent to the
existing units will provide a buffer against construction noise. It is expected that
temporary noise increase impacts will be less than significant.
e)=fj As previously stated, the project is located approximately 3 miles to the south of the
Bermuda Dunes Airport Although an occasional overflight is likely, the approach
patterns do not occur in the vicinity of the proposed project. There are no private
airstrips in the region. Therefore, there will be no impact associated with airport noise.
-26-
Potentially
Less Than
Less Than
NO
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mdgation
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
inf wtructure)? (General Pian, P. 9 fi,
application materials)
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
X
elsewhere? (Application materials)
e) Displace substantial numbers of
people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X.
(Application materials)
X11..a)-c) The proposed pruject.will result in a net increase of 26 units of affordable senior
housing in an urbanized area of the City. These units are not substantial in number, and
will provide housing to existing area residents in need of affordable housing units,
which represents a beneficial impact, The project is proposed in an area which
currently has complete build out improvements. TILe sewer line extension is proposed.
specific to the proposed project and will not induce growth
The remodeling of the existing apartments. will displace .Housing and residents.
However, the City will complete 26 and relocate existing residents into these units for
the remodeling period. Therefore, there will be no need for replacement housing
elsewhere.
Overall, there will be no impact to population or housing: .
!
!
-27-
Potentiany
Less Than
Less Than
No
Signifieant
Significant w/
significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
X M. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
govemmental 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)
X
Police protection? (General Plan MEA)
X
Schools? (GeneratPlan MEA) -
X
Parks? (General Plan MEA)
�{
Other public facilities? (General Pian mEA)
X
XIII. a) The proposed project is located approximately one mile from the fire station which
serves this area of the City (Fire Station #93, located at Dune Palms and Fred Waring).
The remodeling effort will have no impact on fire services. The addition of 26 units
will marginally increase the demand for fire services.. However, the.project will
Participate in the City's Development Impact Fee program,, which includes fire
facilities. As a result, impacts .associated with fire protection: are expected to be less
than significant.
The City contracts with the County Sheriff for police services. The existing apartments
are currently served by the police department. The addition of 26 units will marginally
increase the need for police services at the site. The new residents will.generate, sales
tax, which will offset the costs associated with the added services. Therefore, the
proposed. project will have mess than significant impact on police services.
Both the existing apartments and the new units will be occupied by senior citizens.
Senior housing projects do not generate a demand for schools. The project will.
therefore be exempt from the payment of school fees, and will have no impact on
schools.
The addition of 26 units will generates. marginal need for parks. However, the project
includes recreational facilities, in the form of the community room, and open space,
j which will address the majority of the needs of the residents. In addition, the City
implements Quimby Act requirements, which will require the payment of lieu fees for
_28_
Potentially.
Less Than
Less Than
No
Sigafcant
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
.
substantial physical deterioration of the
X
facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Project Description)'
b)'Does.the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreationalfacilities which
X
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (Project Description)
XIV. a) & b) The addition of 26 units will marginally increase demand on City recreational
facilities, and potentially also the senior center. However, these existing facilities are
not at capacity, and can accommodate the population generated by the new units. No
impact to recreational facilities is expected.
Potentially
Less Than
Less, Than
No
Significant
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATIONn RAFFIC -
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing
tratHc 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)?
(Public Works Memorandum, January 27, 2011)
b) Exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads
X
or highways? (Public works Memorandum,
January27, 2011)
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
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
X
uses (e g., farm equipment)? ('Project
description)
e) Result in inadequate emergency
access? (Project description)
X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
X
racks)? (Project description)
XV. a-b) The proposed project will result in the addition of 26 residential units occupied by
senior households. Senior households are documented. to generate fewer daily trips
than family households. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation
Manual estimates that the proposed project would generate about 91 additional daily
trips.
In order to assess the project's potential impacts on area roadways, the Public Works
Department prepared a Memorandum, consistent with the Department's requirements
for traffic analyses, to assess the project (it should be noted that the analysis assumed a
build out total of 100 units, which is higher than that currently estimated, and that the
-31-
following analysis is therefore expected to be conservative). The Department found
that the proposed project would generate up to 45 peak hour trips, 20 of which would
occur during the morning peak hour, and 25 of which would occur in the evening peak
hour. The Department further analyzed the impacts of these peak hour trips on three
intersections: Fred Waring and Washington Street; Avenue 42 and Washington Street;
and Washington Street and Highway lll. The analysis found that all three
intersections will operate at Level. of Service C or D with or without the proposed
project. This level of service meets or exceeds the City's standards for Level of,:
Service. Therefore, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact on
roadway capacity or level of service.
c) As previously. stated, the project is located 3 miles south of the Bermuda Dunes
Airport. The addition of 26 senior housing units will have no impact ork the airport, or
on air traffic patterns at the airport.
d)
f)
The design of the new unitswill be integrated into the interior driveway system of the
existing apartment project. This interior drive system includes. 90 degree internal
intersections. The new units will be designed to meet the City's sight distance
standards, and to maintain the limited access currently occurring on Washington Street.
No impact associated with design features is expected.
e) Emergency access to the project will continue to occur from Hidden River Road. The
additional units will also be accessed from Hidden River. Hidden River connects to
Washington Street, where northbound emergency vehicles will be able to turn right to
access the project. No impact to emergency access is expected
SunLine Transit Agency currently operates bus service on Washington Street, and has.
bus stops in close proximity to the project on both sides of the street. No change in
service is expected, .so the new. residents will continue to have access to transit
services. The proposed project will have no impact on alternative transportation.
Potentially
Leas Than
Less Than
No
Slgalfrcant
Significant w/
significant
Impact
Impact
Mitigation
Impact
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (General
X
Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.)
ire or result in the construction of
ter or wastewater treatment . .
s or expansion of existing
X
s, the construction of which could
gnificant environmental effects?
knewstorin
lan MEA, p. 58 fie)
re or result in the construction of
m water drainage facilities or .
expansion of existing facilities, the
X
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 f£)
d) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project from ,
existing entitlements and resources, or
X .
are new or expanded entitlemetts
—
_ -
needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 E)
e) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that serves
or may serve die project that it bas
adequate capacity to serve the projeci's
X .
projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, p. 58 fl:)
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
X
projects solid waste disposal needs?
(General PImMEA, p. 58 fL)
g) Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
X
waste? (GeneratPlan MEA, P. 58 ff.)
XVI. a), b), d), e) The remodeling of the existing -apartments will have no impact on wastewater
treatment requirements. The addition of 26 new units will marginally increase the
demand on wastewater treatment facilities. However, CV WD has capacity at its plants,
-33-
and operates within the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No
impact is expected. .
The proposedproject is currently connected to existing water and wastewater lines.
The addition of the 26 units will not significantly increase the demand for water or
wastewater treatment, and CVWD has indicated in its management plan documents
that it has water available to serve the build out needs of the City. There will be no
need for additional facilities.
c) The City relies on on -site retention of the 100 year storm, and has limited storm
drainage facilities. The existing units will continue to drain storm flows as they have in
the past. The new units will be designed to meet or exceed the City's requirements for
stormwater management, and will be designed to accommodate the 100 year storm.
The project proposes retention facilities on the east side of the apartments, and these
will be constructed to include Best Management Practices that meet or exceed NPDES
standards. There will be no need for additional public stormwater facilities:
f) &g) The City contracts for solid waste disposal with Burnet, a private contractor. Burrtec
transports solid waste generated throughout the City to a transfer station on Edom Hill, .
west of the City. From that point, solid waste is transported to the Lambs Canyon
Landfill. This landfill has capacity to serve the proposed project, and three additional
landfills are available to accommodate solid waste in the future.
Bun -tee is required to comply with all regulations regarding the proper disposal of solid
waste. This includes the disposal of household hazardous, waste, which is handled
through community events, or through the ABOP facility located in Palm Springs.
The development of the 26 new apartments will only marginally increase the waste
stream. The project will include recycling facilities and programs to assure that the
amount of solid waste transferred to local landfills is minimized. No impact is
expected., p ed..
I
-34
Less Than
Less Than
No
Significant.
Significant w/
Significant
Impact
Impart
Arrogation
Impact
TORY MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
IFICANCE —
es the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
rPotendany
antially reduce the habitat of a fish
ldlife species, cause a fish or
fe population to drop below self-
ning levels, threaten to eliminate a
X
or animal community, reduce theer
or restrict the range of a rare orgered
plant or animal or eliminatetant
examples of the major periodsifornia
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential,to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
X
of long -tend environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are
individually Iimited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
�{
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects,the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
X .
directly or indtrectly7
a) The remodeling of the existing units, and the construction of the 26 units will have less
than significant impacts on biological resources. The development of the currently
vacant 7 acres will result in the Toss of creosote bush habitat,. wliiich rs the most
common habitat type in the City. No sensitive species are expected to occur on the
property. The project will be required to pay mitigation fees in conformance with the
MSHCP. Impacts are expected to be less than significant.
No cultural resources have been identified on the site. The City will impose cultural
resource monitoring requirements on the 7 acre vacant site at the time that
development occurs. These requirements assure that any potentiallyburied resources
are identified and properly handled. Impacts will be less than significant.
-35-
...._. _..-_..
b). 'The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the area, and
the project will provide additional affordable housing for the City's seniors, meeting
the City's short and long term Housing Element goals and policies.
c) The addition of 26 units will not cumulative impact environmental resources.
d) The proposed project is not expected to have a significant mnpact on human beings.
The City will impose standard requirements for dust management plans, noise and
geotechnical studies for the construction of the units. These studies, and their
recommendations, will assure that impacts to human beings are less than significant.
�I
i
-36-
XVIIL EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where pursuarit to the tiering, program Ell?, or other CEQA .
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration: Section c 15063 3 ( )O(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.
i
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.
i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421, SUBDIVIDING
APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES INTO TWO RESIDENTIAL
PARCELS FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
CASE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 141h day of February, 2012, hold a duly noticed public
hearing, as continued from the regularly -scheduled Public Hearing on January 10,
2012, to consider a request by the La Quinta Housing Authority and
Redevelopment Agency to subdivide approximately 12 acres into two parcels,
generally located on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River
Road, more particularly described as:
APN: 609-040-028, 609-040-023, 609-040-007
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2011-613 for Tentative Parcel Map 36421 in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and
has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact
on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice
in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 30, 2011 as prescribed by the
Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the site; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of Tentative
Parcel Map 36421:
A. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map 36421 is consistent with the City's
General Plan, with the implementation of Conditions of Approval. The
project density of approximately 16 units per acre is consistent with the
adopted High Density Residential land use designation of up to 16
dwelling units per acre, as set forth in the General Plan.
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Tentative Parcel Map 36421
La Quints Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
B. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map
36421 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. .
C. The La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2011-613. Based on this Assessment, the Planning Director
has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2011-613)
and has determined that the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment, and that a Negative Declaration of environmental should
be adopted.
D. The design of Tentative Parcel Map 36421 and type of improvements are
not likely to cause serious public health problems, in that this issue was
considered in Environmental Assessment 2011-613, in which no
significant health or safety impacts were identified for the proposed
project.
E. The site of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 36421 is physically
suitable for the type of development and density of the development.
The proposed development plans for the site are rehabilitation plans for
an existing community.
F. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map 36421 is consistent with all
applicable provisions of the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Regulations, including, but not limited to, minimum lot area requirements,
any other applicable provisions of the La Quinta Municipal Code, and the
Subdivision Map Act.
G. As conditioned, the design' of Tentative Parcel Map 36421 will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public -at -large, for access
through, or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
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;
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Tentative Parcel Map 36421
La Quints Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 3
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Tentative Parcel Map
36421 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 14" day of February, 2012, 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 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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 Parcel Map, or
any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Final Map recorded thereunder, shall comply
with the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through
66499.58 (the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code ("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site
at www.la-quinta.org.
3. This Tentative Parcel Map shall expire on February 14, 2014, two years from the
date of Planning Commission approval, unless recorded or granted a time
extension pursuant to the requirements of La Quinta Municipal Code 9.200.080
(Permit expiration and time extensions).
4. Tentative Parcel Map 36421 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or
mitigation measures for the following related approvals:
Environmental Assessment 201 1-613
Site Development Permit 2011-920
Conditional Use Permit 2011-135
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of
these approvals, the Planning Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determining
the precedence.
5. 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
• La Quinta Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public
Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management
Page 1 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form — Whitewater River Region, Improvement
Permit)
• La Quinta Planning Department
• Riverside Co. 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)
• 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.
6. Coverage under the State of California General Construction Permit must be
obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of
Intent ("NO1") and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City
prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
7. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water);
Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2008-0001 and
the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ 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
Page 2 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421,
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The 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.
8. 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).
Page 3 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
9. Approval of this Tentative Parcel 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
Page 4 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
15. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street (Non -conforming Major Arterial, 1 10' ROW) -
Additional 15-foot right of way dedication along the east side of
Washington Street at the southwest corner of the project for fifty-
five feet (55') from the centerline of Washington Street for a total
1 10-foot developed right of way.
2) Hidden River Road (Local Street, 60' ROW) - No additional right of
way dedication is required for the standard 30 feet from the
centerline of Hidden River Road for a total 60-foot ultimate
developed right of way.
16. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the draft final map submitted for map checking, an offsite street
geometric layout, drawn at 1 " equals 40 feet, detailing the following design
aspects: median curb line, outside curb line, lane line alignment including lane
widths, left turn lanes, 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.
17. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
rights -of -way shown on the approved Tentative Parcel 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.
18. 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.
19. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the
placement of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox
clusters, park lands, and common areas on the Final Map.
Page 5 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
20. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Hidden River Road is restricted,
except for those access points identified on the tentative parcel map, or as
otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access
restriction shall be shown on the recorded final parcel map.
21. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as
appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading,
retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
22. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any
portion of the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative
Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is
approved by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Sections 13.24.060
(Street Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100
(Access for Individual Properties and Development) for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
24. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will
convey water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and
residue during street sweeping operations. If a wedge or rolled curb design is
approved, the lip at the flowline shall be near vertical with a 1 /8" batter and a
minimum height of 0.1'. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to
standard curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
25. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Non -conforming Major Arterial; 110' R/W):
No street widening is required for Washington Street.
Other required improvements in the Washington 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.
Page 6 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
b) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk as approved by the Public
Works Director/City Engineer and Planning Director
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.
B. INTERNAL STREETS
1) Construct internal streets per the approved Tentative Parcel Map
Preliminary Grading Plan and/or as approved by the City Engineer.
Minimum street width shall be 26 feet except at the entry
accessway. On -street parking shall be prohibited except in
designated parking stall areas. The applicant shall make provisions
for perpetual enforcement of the "No Parking" restrictions.
26. 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.
Page 7 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
27. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
Hidden River Road: Full turn movements are permitted.
28. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings
and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
Mid -block street lighting is not required.
29. 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
30. 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 28 feet as shown on the
Preliminary Precise Grading 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
Page 8 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
shown on the approved construction plans, may require additional street widths
and other improvements as may be determined by the City Engineer.
31. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design
procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength
and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural
sections shall be as follows:
Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b.
Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b.
Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b.
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
32. 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.
33. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by engineers registered in California.
FINAL MAPS
34. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
mylars of the Final Map that were approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The Final Map shall be 1 " = 40'
scale.
MPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
Page 9 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
35. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the
provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans).
36. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department. A separate set of plans for each line
item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale
specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may
be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note,
the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here
pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
PM10 Plan
WQMP
On -Site Precise Grading Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal
(Plan submitted in Report Form)
1 " = 30' Horizontal
On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
NOTE: A through E 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.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit
Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue
RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans
and/or as approved by the Engineering Department.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall &
Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of
cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
Page 10 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is
required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director
and the City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
elevations, wall elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
37. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for
elements of construction which can be accessed via the "Plans, Notes and Design
Guidance" section of the Public Works Department at the City website (www.la-
quinta.org). Please navigate to the Public Works Department home page and look
for the Standard Drawings hyperlink.
38. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars).
39. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" 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
40. Prior to approval of any Final Map, the applicant shall construct all on and off -site
improvements and satisfy its obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured
and executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the
Page 11 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
41. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between
the applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the
completion of any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall
comply with the provisions of LQMC Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security).
42. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey
monumentation.
43. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common
on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to
the issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the completion of homes or the
occupancy of permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
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.
44. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Parcel Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to:
A. Construct certain off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of
its costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative parcel map.
Pago 12 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require.
Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The
applicant shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction
or by the issuance of the 20 % Building Permit.
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.
45. 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.
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.
GRADING
46. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements).
47. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
48. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain
approval of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of
California,
Page 13 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
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.
49. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent
wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall
either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion
control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
50. Grading within the perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating
terrain and shall conform with the requirements of LQMC Section 9.60.240(F)
except as otherwise modified by this condition. The maximum slope shall not
.exceed 3:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully
planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent
to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six
feet (61 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.
Page 14 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
51. Building pad elevations on the rough grading plan submitted for City Engineer's
approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the tentative map, unless
the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these
Conditions of Approval, or as approved by the City Engineer.
52. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more than one foot
higher from the building pads in adjacent developments.
53. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
54. 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 (0.51 from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review.
55. 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.
FiT7TI,Iere1:
56. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for the Washington Street Apartment, or as approved by the City Engineer.
Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner.
Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground
percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer.
57. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 —
Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain
Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin
Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100
year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour
or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
Page 15 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
58. 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.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Planning Director and the City Engineer.
62. 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.
63. 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).
64. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries
and levels in any area outside the development.
65. 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.
66. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or.passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
67. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff
per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LOW Sections 8.70,010 at
Page 16 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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. 137-2008-001 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
68. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110
(Utilities).
69. 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.
70. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
The 92 KV transmission power poles and all existing utility lines attached to joint
use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be
placed underground.
Page 17 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
71. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with
trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance
thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances.
CONSTRUCTION
72. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in
residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness,
the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City,
whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
73. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping
Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans).
74. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
75. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
76. The applicant shall submit all landscape plans for approval by the Planning
77. Department with green sheet sign off by the Public Works Department. When
plan checking has been completed by the Planning Department, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural
Commissioner, prior to submittal for signature by the Planning Director.
Landscape plans for landscaped medians on public streets shall be approved by
the both the Planning Director and the City Engineer. Where City Engineer
approval is not required, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public
Works Department.
Page 18 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 36421
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
Final landscape plans for on -site planting shall be reviewed by the ALRC and
approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of first building permit. Final
plans shall include all landscaping associated with this project.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by both the Planning
Director and/or the City Engineer.
78. 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.
79. 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" latest edition, in the design and/or installation of all
landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street
right-of-way.
PUBLIC SERVICES
80. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements if required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
MAINTENANCE
81. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance).
82. 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
83. 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.
Page 19 of 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011-135, ALLOWING
DEVELOPMENT REGULATION CONCESSIONS FOR
DENSITY BONUSES FOR THE WASHINGTON STREET
APARTMENTS
CASE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2011-135
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 141" day of February, 2012, hold a duly noticed public
hearing, as continued from the regularly -scheduled Public Hearing on January 10,
2012, to consider a request by the La Quinta Housing Authority and
Redevelopment Agency to allow a number of density bonus development regulation
concessions per LQMC Section 9.60.270 for the Washington Street Apartments,
generally located on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River
Road, more particularly described as:
APN: 609-040-028, 609-040-023, 609-040-007
WHEREAS, the Planning Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2011-613 for Conditional Use Permit 2011-135 in compliance with
the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended,
and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice
in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 30, 2011 as prescribed by the
Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the site; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of Conditional Use
Permit 2011-135:
1. The proposed use is consistent with the land use designation of High
Density Residential. The City's General Plan Policies relating to High
Density Residential encourage affordable multi -family dwelling
communities.
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2011-135
La Quints Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
2. The proposed use is consistent with the provisions of the La Quinta
Zoning Code. The continued use of the site as an affordable apartment
community will have minimal impacts on the surrounding land uses, and
will conform to the development standards applicable to the use.
3. Processing of this Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use is in
compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act. The La Quinta Planning Department has prepared Environmental
Assessment 2011-613 for Conditional Use Permit 2011-135 in
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, and has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
4. Approval of this proposed use will not be a detriment to the public health,
safety and general welfare, nor shall it be injurious or incompatible with
other properties or uses in the vicinity.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Conditional Use
Permit 2011-135 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 14`" day of February, 2012, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Conditional Use Permit 2011-135
La Quinta Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 3
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920, INCLUDING SITE,
ARCHITECTURAL, AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR THE
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
CASE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
APPLICANT: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California did, on the 141" day of February, 2012, hold a duly noticed public
hearing, as continued from the regularly -scheduled Public Hearing on January 10,
2012, to consider a request by the La Quinta Housing Authority and
Redevelopment Agency for approval of site, architectural, and landscaping plans for
the rehabilitation and development of an apartment community, generally located
on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, more
particularly described as:
APN: 609-040-028, 609-040-023, 609-040-007
WHEREAS, the Planning Department published a public hearing notice
in The Desert Sun newspaper on December 30, 2011 as prescribed by the
Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the site; and,
WHEREAS, the Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee of
the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 141' day of December, 2011, hold a
public meeting to review and discuss site, architectural, and landscape plans, the
minutes of said meeting were included in the staff report for consideration by the
Planning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to
Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site
Development Permit:
1. Consistency with the General Plan
The proposed Site Development Permit is consistent with the La Quinta
General Plan, as it proposes a multi -unit residential community, which is
General Plan -designated for HDR (High Density Residential) development.
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Site Development Permit 2011-920
La Quinta Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 2
2. Consistency with the Zoning Code
The proposed structures, as conditioned and with approval of Conditional
Use Permit 2011-135 for Density Bonus concessions, are consistent with
the development standards of the City's Zoning Code in terms of
architectural style, building height, building mass, and landscaping. The
community is consistent with the La Quinta Zoning Map, as it proposes a
multi -unit residential community which is General Plan -designated for
HDR (High Density Residential) development. The site development
permit has been conditioned to ensure compliance with the zoning
standards of the HDR district, and other 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 prepared Environmental
Assessment 201 1-613 for this project, in compliance with the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
Planning Director has determined that the project will not have a
significant adverse impact on the environment, and therefore, is
recommending that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be
adopted.
4. Architectural Design
The architectural design aspects of the proposed community provide
interest through use of varied roof elements, enhanced building and
fagade treatments, and other design details that will be compatible with,
and not detrimental to, surrounding development, and with the overall
design quality prevalent in the City.
5. Site Design
The site design aspects of the proposed community, as conditioned, will
be compatible with, and not detrimental to, surrounding development,
and with the overall design quality prevalent in the City, in terms of
interior circulation, pedestrian access, and other architectural site design
elements such as scale, mass, and appearance. The apartment units and
common buildings are properly sized with regards to height and floor
area, and are situated at engineer -approved locations with regards to
vehicular and pedestrian access.
6. Landscape Design
The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and
plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics
Planning Commission Resolution 2012-
Site Development Permit 2011-920
La Quints Housing Authority & Redevelopment Agency
Page 3
established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The project landscaping
for the community, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual
continuity of the community with the surrounding development.
Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal.
The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub
species to blend with the building architecture.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby approve Site Development
Permit 201 1-920 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 14" day of February, 2012, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ED ALDERSON, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
i
LES JOHNSON, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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,
or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in
selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Site Development Permit 2011-920 shall comply with all applicable conditions
and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals:
Environmental Assessment 201 1-613
Tentative Parcel Map 36421
Conditional Use Permit 2011-135
In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of
these approvals, the Planning Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determining
the precedence.
3. The Site Development Permit shall be expire two years from the date of Planning
Commission approval (February 14, 2014), and shall become null and void in
accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.210.020, unless a building
permit has been issued. A time extension may be requested per LQMC Section
9.200.080.
4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City,
the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the
following agencies, if required:
e Riverside County Fire Marshal
La Quinta 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)
e La Quinta Planning Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
Page 7 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD)
0 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)
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. Coverage under the State of California General Construction Permit must be
obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water
Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of
Intent ("NOI") and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City
prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit.
6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 at seq. (Stormwater
Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water);
Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board — Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. 137-2008-0001 and
the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ and Order
No. 2010-0014-DWQ.
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land
that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1)
acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses
more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water
Resources Control Board.
The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater
Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for
use in their SWPPP preparation.
Page 2 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading,
pursuant to this project.
F. The 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. 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).
8. Approval of this Site Development Permit shall not be construed as approval for
any horizontal dimensions implied by any site plans or exhibits unless specifically
identified in the following conditions of approval.
9. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the
invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to
review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these
Page 3 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or
instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This
obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and
Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the
Conditions of Approval.
10. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the
invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering
and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or
instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time
noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such
payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
11. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements
and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of
the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to
dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for
maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
12. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals
from the master developer or the HOA over easements and other property rights
necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development
not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing private streets that
access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master
development.
13. The applicant shall offer for dedication 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.
14. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) Washington Street (Non -conforming Major Arterial, 110' ROW)
Additional 15-foot right of way dedication along the east side of
Washington Street at the southwest corner of the project for fifty-
five feet (55') from the centerline of Washington Street for a total
1 10-foot developed right of way.
Page 4 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
2) Hidden River Road (Local Street, 60' ROW) — No additional right of
way dedication is required for the standard 30 feet from the
centerline of Hidden River Road for a total 60-foot ultimate
developed right of way.
15. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and
left turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans.
Pursuant to this requirement, the Applicant shall include in the submittal packet
containing the 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.
16. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street
rights -of -way shown on the approved Site Development Permit are necessary
prior to approval of the improvements dedicating such rights -of -way, the applicant
shall grant the necessary rights -of -way within 60 days of a written request by the
City.
17. Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks,
the applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on
the Final Map.
18. 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.
19. Direct vehicular access to Washington Street and Hidden River Road is restricted,
except for those access points identified on the Site Development Permit, or as
otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. The vehicular access
restriction shall be shown on the recorded final parcel map.
20. 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 5 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
21. 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
Parcel Map and the date of recording of any Final Map, unless such easement is
approved by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan (street type noted in parentheses.)
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Washington Street (Non -conforming Major Arterial; 1 10' R/W):
No street widening is required for Washington Street.
Other required improvements in the Washington 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) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk as approved by the Public
Works Director/City Engineer and Planning Director
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
Page 6 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
reimbursement from the City's Development Impact Fee fund shall be in
accordance with policies established for that program.
B. INTERNAL STREETS
1) Construct internal streets per the approved Site Development Permit
Preliminary Grading Plan and/or as approved by the City Engineer.
Minimum street width shall be 26 feet except at the entry
accessway. On -street parking shall be prohibited except in
designated parking stall areas. The applicant shall make provisions
for perpetual enforcement of the "No Parking" restrictions.
25. 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.
26. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
Hidden River Road: Full turn movements are permitted.
27. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings
and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks.
Mid -block street lighting is not required.
Page 7 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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 28 feet as shown on the
.Preliminary Precise Grading 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.
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:
Page 8 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET. APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" 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.
32. 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 engineers registered in California.
FINAL MAPS
33. Prior to the City's approval of a Final Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
mylars of the Final Map that were approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The Final Map shall be 1" = 40'
scale.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
34. 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).
35. 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
Page 9 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
B.
C.
D.
E.
On -Site Rough Grading Plan
PM 10 Plan
WQMP
On -Site Precise Grading Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal
1 " = 40' Horizontal
(Plan submitted in Report Form)
1 " = 30' Horizontal
On -Site Street Improvements/Signing & Striping/Storm Drain Plan
1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
NOTE: A through E 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.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project
limits, or a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
All On -Site Signing & Striping Plans shall show, at a minimum; Stop Signs, Limit
Lines and Legends, No Parking Signs, Raised Pavement Markers (including Blue
RPMs at fire hydrants) and Street Name Signs per Public Works Standard Plans
and/or as approved by the Engineering Department.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall &
Top Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of
cover, or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
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
Page 10 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
Public Works Department in conjunction with the Site Development Plan when it
is submitted for plan checking.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan is
required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Director
and the City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
elevations, wall elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
36. 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.
37. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of all approved improvement plans on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer (currently mylars).
38. 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
39. 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.
Page 11 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
40. 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.
41. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common
on -site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured, prior to the issuance of
any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise approved by
the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured, prior to the completion of homes or the occupancy of
permanent buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the
City Engineer.
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.
42. Depending on the timing of the development of this Site Development Permit, and
the status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required
to:
A. Construct certain off -site improvements.
B. Construct additional off -site improvements, subject to the reimbursement of
its costs by others.
C. Reimburse others for those improvements previously constructed that are
considered to be an obligation of this tentative tract map.
D. Secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made by others.
E. To agree to any combination of these actions, as the City may require.
Off -Site Improvements should be completed on a first priority basis. The applicant
shall complete Off -Site Improvements in the first phase of construction or by the
issuance of the 20 % Building Permit.
Page 12 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDEI
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
43. 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.
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
44. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050
(Grading Improvements).
45. 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.
46. 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.
Page 13 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
47. 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.
48. 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 anywhere in the landscape setback area, except for the backslope (i.e.
the slope at the back of the landscape lot) which shall not exceed 2:1 if fully
planted with ground cover. The maximum slope in the first six (6) feet adjacent
to the curb shall not exceed 4:1 when the nearest edge of sidewalk is within six
feet (61 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.
49. 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, or as approved by the City Engineer.
50. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot
higher from the building pads in adjacent developments.
51. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
52. ' 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 (0.51 from the elevations shown on the
Page 14 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
approved Site Development Permit, the applicant shall submit the proposed
grading changes to the City Engineer for a substantial conformance review.
53. 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.
DRAINAGE
54. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
report for the Washington Street Apartment, or as approved by the City Engineer.
Nuisance water shall be disposed of in an approved manner.
Nuisance water shall be retained onsite and disposed of via an underground
percolation improvement approved by the City Engineer.
55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120
(Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 -
Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain
Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin
Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100
year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be the 1 hour, 3 hour, 6 hour or 24
hour event producing the greatest total run off.
56. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per
approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology
Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and
Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design
Requirements.
57. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches
per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant
provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City
Engineer.
Page 15 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
58. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water
(through underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or
adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
59. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved
by the Planning Director and the City Engineer.
60. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be
according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary
Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side slopes shall not exceed
3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally,
retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin.
61. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback
lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the
setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped
with berms and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.100.040(B)(7).
62. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries
and levels in any area outside the development.
63. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention
capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into
the historic drainage relief route.
64. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
65. 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.
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
Page 16 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
Control Board - Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order
No. R7-2008-001.
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
66. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110
(Utilities).
67. 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.
68. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development,
and all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
The 92 KV transmission power poles and all existing utility lines attached to joint
use 92 KV transmission power poles are exempt from the requirement to be
placed underground.
69. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For
installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with
trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for
approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance
thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances.
Page 17 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
CONSTRUCTION
70. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the
buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -
maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control
devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets in
residential developments are initially constructed with partial pavement thickness,
the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten
percent of homes within the development or when directed by the City,
whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
71. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping
Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans).
72. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
73. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent
irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape
regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape).
74. 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 6.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All freestanding
lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and shall be fitted with a visor if
deemed necessary by staff to minimize trespass of light off the property. The
illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final
lighting plan submittal.
75. 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.
76. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view. Utility
transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully
screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent
buildings.
Page 18 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
77. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and
approval to the Planning Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan
application process. Planning Director approval of the final landscape plans is
required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Director
determines extenuating circumstances exist which justifies an alternative
processing schedule.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City
official, including the Planning Director and/or City Engineer.
78. 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.
79. The final design of the perimeter landscaping, particularly the perimeter wall, shall
be included with the Final Landscape Plan submittal.
PUBLIC SERVICES
80. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements if required by SunLine
Transit Agency and approved by the City Engineer.
MAINTENANCE
81. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160
(Maintenance).
82. 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
83. 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.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
84. The required fire flow shall be available from Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 21 /2" x
21 /2") spaced not more than 450 apart and shall be capable of delivering a fire
Page 19 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
flow 1500 GPM per minute for two hours duration at 20 psi residual operating
pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on
the construction site.
85. 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.
86. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish
two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review
and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall
confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are
signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented
to the Fire Department for review and approval.
87. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be
provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority.
88. Blue dot retro-reflectors pavement markers on private streets, public streets and
driveways to indicated location of the fire hydrant. 06-05 (located at
www.rvcfire.org)
89. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire
Department Standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org). Access lanes
will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 15%. Access roads shall have an
unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes
will be designed to withstand the weight of 60 thousand pounds over 2 axles.
Access will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus.
Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather
driving capabilities.
90. An approved Fire Department access key lock box (Minimum Knox Box 3200
series model) shall be installed next to the approved Fire Department access door
to the building. If the buildings are protected with an alarm system, the lock box
shall be required to have tampered monitoring. Required order forms and
installation standards may be obtained at the Fire Department.
91. 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,
Page 20 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
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.
92. Install a complete fire sprinkler system. 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.
93. The FCD and PIV shall be located to the front of building within 50 feet of
approved roadway and within 200 feet of an approved hydrant. Sprinkler riser
room must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C-16 licensed
contractor must submit plans, along with current permit fees, to the Fire
Department for review and approval prior to installation
94. 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.
95. 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 feet 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.
96. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which
exceeds quantities listed in 2010 CBC. No class I, 11 or IIIA of
combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building.
97. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path
marking shall be installed per the 2010 California Building Code.
98. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on
outside of door.
99. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted "FACP" on
outside of door.
100. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted "Fire Riser" on outside
of door.
Page 21 of 22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2012-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2011-920
WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
101. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted "Roof Access" on outside of
door.
102. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as
required by the Mechanical Code.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
103. If buried cultural materials are encountered during construction activities, the
Planning Department shall be notified immediately, and all work in that area
should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature
and significance of the finds.
104. No signage is permitted with this approval. A separate permit from the Planning
Department is required for any temporary or permanent signs.
Page 22 of 22
ATTACHMENT 2
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A special meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
December 14, 2011 3:03 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review
Committee was called to order at 3:03 p.m. by Planning Manager
David Sawyer who led the Committee in the flag salute.
B. Committee Members Present:
Committee Member Absent:
Kevin McCune and Ray Rooker
Richard Gray
C. Staff present: Planning Manager David Sawyer, Associate Planner
Jay Wuu, Economic Development/Housing Manager Deborah
Powell, and Secretary Monika Radeva.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2011-613, Conditional Use Permit
2011-135, Tentative Tract Map 36421, and Site Development
Permit 2011-920 have been submitted by the City of La Quinta
Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency for consideration of
Architectural, Site, and Landscaping Plans for Rehabilitation of
Existing Apartments and Construction of Additional Units for the
Washington Street Apartments project located at 42-800
Washington Street.
Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning
Department.
Planning Manager Sawyer briefly explained the project exhibits
displayed for the Committee.
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
December 14, 2011
Committee Member Rooker asked the applicant for additional
explanation on the wall design, and the use of proposed materials
and colors.
Mr. Eric Naslund, FAIA, Principal with Studio E Architects, 2258
First Avenue, San Diego, CA, introduced himself and replied that
the wall exhibits provided to the Committee with the staff report
showed the currently existing wall of the adjacent project,
Mediterra Apartments, and it was the applicant's intent to match
materials and color scheme of what was existing.
Mr. Naslund explained the design of the wall will also be enhanced
with a few architectural elements such as metal fins, metal sheets
cantilevered on the top of the wall and featuring cut outs in the
metal which would spell out "Washington Street Apartments" as
the sun would shine through them after a certain time during the
day.
Committee Member Rooker asked for an explanation of the
proposed colors on the submitted materials board.
Ms. Tilly Whitehead, architect with Studio E Architects, 2258 First
Avenue, San Diego, CA, introduced herself and explained in detail
where and how the proposed materials, textures, and color palette,
including primary and accent colors, featured on the submitted
materials board would be used.
Committee Member McCune asked if the existing units on the
project would remain. Associate Planner Jay Wuu replied the units
would remain; however, they would be completely rehabilitated.
General discussion followed regarding the architectural and
structural design of the existing units on the project site. Mr.
Naslund gave a few examples of what architectural features would
remain and how the design would be rehabilitated and enhanced.
Mr. Jon McMillen with Rosenow Spevacek Group Inc., 309 West
4`" Street, Santa Ana, 'CA, introduced himself and explained the
changes in the roof line that would be implemented, the relocation
of the air conditioning units, and the replacement of the perimeter
P:\Reports-ALRC\2012\ALRC-1-4-12\ALRC Min _12-14-11_Approved.doc 2
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
December 14. 2011
wood wall with concrete walls that would separate each outdoor
space from the other, etc.
Committee Member McCune said he was pleased with the proposed
color palette as well as the split -faced wall. He asked how wide the
sidewalk would be.
Mr. Rob Parker, Principal with RGA Landscape Architects, Inc.,
74020 Alessandro Drive, Suite # E, Palm Desert, CA, introduced
himself and replied the sidewalk would be eight feet wide.
Committee Member McCune asked if there would be any space to
plant alongside the sidewalk. Mr. Parker said there were
opportunities to plant trees on the north side Hidden River and on
the south end of Washington Street where the wall jogged in.
Committee Member McCune asked if there would be any space to
place trees on the inside of the sidewalk. Mr. Parker replied the
inside space between the sidewalk and the wall incorporates
benches and flowers, as well as it serves as the utility corridor in
certain sections.
Committee Member McCune asked about the benches shown on
the plan. Mr. McMillen explained those benches were located at
the two pedestrian gates exiting the project, providing a place for
the residents to take a short rest if needed.
Committee Member McCune said he was pleased with the
submitted plans and the architectural design of the project. He
asked for clarification on the dimensions of the proposed
amphitheater. Mr. Naslund gave him the dimensions of the inner
and outer circles and sitting area.
Committee Member Rooker said he liked the color palette and the
proposed design and architectural elements of the project.
There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Rooker/McCune to adopt Minute Motion
2011-006, recommending approval of Environmental Assessment
2011-613, Conditional Use Permit 2011-135, Tentative Tract Map
36421, and Site Development Permit 2011-920, as submitted with
staff's recommendations. AYES: Committee Members McCune and
P:\Reports-ALRC\2012\ALRC-1-4-12\ALRC Min _12-14-11_Approved.doc 3
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee
Minutes
December 14, 2011
Rooker. NOES: None. ABSENT: Committee Member Gray.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS:
Committee Member Rooker said he was a pleased to be serving on the
ALRC again.
Planning Manager Sawyer welcomed Committee Member Rooker and
thanked him for his interest in serving on the ALRC and willing to offer his
professional expertise.
VIII. PLANNING STAFF ITEMS: None
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Rooker/McCune to adjourn this meeting of the
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee to a Regular Meeting to
be held on January 4, 2012. This meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m. on
December 14, 2011.
Respectfully rbimitted,
MONIKA RADE
Secretary
P:\Reports - ALRC\2012\ALRC_1-4-12\ALRC Min _12-14-11_Approved.doc 4
N
ATTACHMENT 3
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
January 10, 2012
IV
CALL TO ORDER
7:02 P.M.
A. A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to
order at 7:02 p.m. by Chairman Alderson.
B. PRESENT: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and
Chairman Alderson.
ABSENT: Commissioner Weber
STAFF PRESENT- Planning Director Les Johnson, City Attorney Kathy
Jenson, Planning Manager David Sawyer, Principal
Engineer Ed Wimmer, Associate Planner Jay Wuu,
and Executive Secretary Carolyn Walker.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
CONSENT CALENDAR:
There being no comments, or suggestions, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wright/Barrows to approve the minutes of November 8,
2011 as submitted.
AYES: Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright, and Chairman Alderson.
NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Weber. ABSTAIN: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 201 1-613, Conditional Use Permit 201 1-
135, Tentative Parcel Map 36421, Site Development Permit 201 1-
920; a request by La Quinta Housing Authority and Redevelopment
Agency for consideration of rehabilitation and development plans for
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
the Washington Street Apartments located at the southeast corner of
Washington Street and Hidden River Road.
Associate Planner Jay Wuu presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department. He gave an abbreviated
report and then deferred to the representatives for the La Quinta
Housing Authority and Redevelopment Agency to provide further
explanation on the project.
Chairman Alderson opened the public hearing portion of the meeting to
allow the applicant's representatives to speak.
Eric Nasland, with Studio B Architects, (architects for the project)
located at 2258 First Avenue, San Diego California; along with Tilly
Whitehead also of Studio B Architects introduced themselves and they
gave an overview of the project; including going over each of the
exhibits.
Rob Parker with RGA Landscape Architects, 74020 Alessandro, Suite
E, Palm Desert introduced himself and explained the overall landscape
plan.
Associate Planner Jay Wuu summarized their comments and staff's
recommendations, as stated in the staff report.
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Barrows asked about staff's concerns on the design of
the perimeter wall. Staff said there was no real concern; they were
presenting the information to see if the Commissioners had any
comments.
Commissioner Barrows asked:
• for a more in-depth explanation of the operation of the thermal
chimneys
• about the placement of the windows and doors
Mr. Nasland provided an explanation of how the thermal chimneys and
the ventilation system would work.
-2-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
General discussion then followed regarding window and door locations
as well as how the air conditioning and louver systems operated.
Information of other sites where these systems have been utilized was
also mentioned and discussed.
Commissioner Wright asked if the perimeter walls would be
soundproofed on the Washington side of the complex.
Mr. Nasland said they would be as soundproof as necessary to meet
the City's noise requirements.
Commissioner Wright expressed concerns about the entrance to the
property, and the amount of traffic on Washington Street. He then
asked if the type of trees proposed, along Washington Street, would
allow a good line of sight.
Mr. Parker responded they would.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked how the chimneys would screen the air
conditioning units on the existing apartments.
Mr. Nasland explained the present roof -mounted equipment would be
removed and a new split system would be utilized with only the
condenser being roof -mounted.
General discussion followed on:
• the air conditioning, venting systems, and their maintenance
• the louvered/ventilation systems and how they work
• vibration/noise generated by the condensers
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about exterior materials and
specifications for the renovated portion of the project.
Mr. Nasland explained what was currently on the buildings and what
was planned for renovation. He referenced the staff report and
exhibits.
General discussion followed on:
• the layout of the units
• proposed patio/porch areas
-3-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
• screening, privacy, and planting areas
• insulation, R ratings, and sound walls/barriers
• type of flooring; hard surfaces and carpet
• materials, colors, and heat penetration
Jon McMillan, RSG, 309 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA,
introduced himself and described the concrete flooring used at Vista
Dunes and their experiences with them. He also talked about
"destructive" investigation done on the Washington Street Apartments
and the extent of the rehab needed on those apartments.
General discussion followed on:
• materials/elements proposed for the Washington Street wall
• height of the existing retaining wall on Washington Street
• sound -deadening properties of the wall
• materials of the vertical columns (pilasters)
• nearest bus stop
• pedestrian gates, access and gate materials
General discussion followed, regarding the laundry facilities, including:
• water -heating facilities
• ventilation
• roof -mounted mechanical equipment
General discussion followed, regarding the common area, including:
• trelliswork proposed in the common areas
• shade structure in the common area
• windows in the common area building
• elongated shade structure proposed for the pool
Chairman Alderson had concerns about:
• the metal sheeting and the heat generated by it
• what was behind the metal wall
• pedestrians passing near the perforated sheet metal
• the morning sun's heat on the eastern side, large, glassed
areas
Mr.Nasland explained there was a garden behind the metal wall, and
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
went on to say they had done a digital model of the building on this
spot on the earth and were able to show what the patterns would do
on that building, with that roof, and that overhang, at any hour of any
time of the day in that exact position on the earth. However, when
they ran the building information, most of it was shade from the
earliest point of the morning on, because of the length of the overhang
off of the eastern side.
Chairman Alderson said there were references to solar on the roofs of
some of the buildings and asked if the applicant would be using solar
heat or generating electricity.
Mr. Nasland explained they would hope to provide photovoltaic panels
such as the ones at Vista Dunes. He added, the aerial showed them
on the roofs, and the roof pitch facing south. He further explained
they are planning for use of photovoltaic, solar panels, but it all
depended on what the budget would allow.
General discussion followed on the parking structure design, with or
without, solar panels.
Commissioner Wilkinson asked about the benefits of the project to the
City of La Quinta and the estimated project cost. He expressed
concern with the estimated cost per unit.
Discussion followed on the sewer and offsite improvements needed
for the project as well as offsite improvements with an explanation
being provided by Mr. Jon McMillan as to what was entailed.
City Attorney Kathy Jenson clarified the Commissioners look at the
design of the project and if they don't like the design, for whatever
reason, their remedy is to vote against it but that the project cost was
a matter for the City Council to consider.
Commissioner Barrows asked about the fan providing airflow into the
interior living spaces.
Mr. Nasland explained how the fan operated.
Commissioner Barrows said she was concerned about how dust will
impact this because of the desert environment. She explained her
own experiences and concerns about materials getting on the screens
-5-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
and the potential for something coming into the building interior. She
also asked if the potential for solar, on this site, had been maximized.
Mr. Nasland acknowledged the comments regarding potential dust
impacts. He also responded they had enough room on the roofs and
parking areas to cover the entire electric load of this site.
Commissioner Barrows asked if it would be possible to generate
additional power.
Mr. Nasland said he would presume there would be more. He added
the thermal chimneys do create a shading effect over some portions of
the roofs which caused some limitations about where you can and
can't put solar panels, but structurally they could be handled
anywhere.
Commissioner Barrows was concerned about the species of purple
fountain grass noted on the plans. She commented that there is a
species of fountain grass that is a real problem in terms of being
invasive and hybridizing with the typical fountain grass.
Mr. Parker responded there are some concerns about it hybridizing
with the standard species, but he could not confirm whether the
species noted was going to hybridize or cross -breed with the other
ones.
Commissioner Barrows added that, on projects in the past, one
species of fountain grass would be specified and another would be
planted.
Mr. Parker said he had seen that happen, but it was more typical with
contractors that were from outside of the area and not familiar with
what the requirements were in the County of Riverside.
Commissioner Barrows said she would personally be more comfortable
with using another grass species.
Mr. Parker said it was no problem changing it to a non-invasive
species.
mom
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Discussion followed on landscaping concerns, including:
• the type of trees proposed (Tipu trees) and examples of other
areas utilizing that species
• the use of a proposed small water feature and concern for
water and electric usage
Chairman Alderson asked if there were any more questions of the
applicant. There being none he asked if there was any public
comment.
Mr. Craig Bedard, 42-488 Byron Place, introduced himself and thanked
the City for fixing up the neighborhood. He did, however, have
several safety concerns and comments, which were:
• The speed of the cars on Washington Street and the possibility
of a deceleration lane being added
• Addressing the problems with the intersection and the students
from the nearby school trying to cross while cars are making a
right-hand turn from Washington Street to Hidden River Road.
• Consider either putting a crosswalk on the corner, or moving
the crosswalk down on Hidden River closer to the entrance of
their units
• Some type of permanent barrier, on Washington Street to keep
left turns happening from Hidden River, but also keep
pedestrians from trying to cross Washington
• A permanent median island there on Washington and Hidden
River
• Resurface Hidden River Road as the asphalt is in poor condition
with big pot holes
• Create a No -Parking Zone, or red curb, on Hidden River, in front
the apartments. It is currently a problem when taking a right-
hand turn from Washington Street
Mr. Bedard provided further comments on the wall on Washington
Street, saying the height was good and there was not only a concern
with sound but also safety. He mentioned the possibility of someone
coming off of Washington Street and hitting the wall as it had
happened. He then commented on some of the tenants' concerns
about students peering, and jumping, over the wall, so this height
might be good. He further commented on the aesthetics of the
project, that he was all for it, but would like the City to take into
-7-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
consideration his safety concerns.
Chairman Alderson asked Mr. Bedard about the location of crosswalk
he mentioned which would be east of Washington on Hidden River
Road.
Mr. Bedard commented on the area to which he was referring.
General discussion then followed regarding the crosswalk location.
Chairman Alderson asked Principal Engineer, Ed Wimmer for
comments.
Principal Engineer Ed Wimmer wanted to make sure he had all of Mr.
Bedard's points. He identified:
1) request for the decel lane on Washington
2) establish a permanent raised median on Washington at Hidden
River
3) Hidden River be re -surfaced
4) a crosswalk be added across Hidden River; east of Washington at
Hidden River.
Mr. Bedard confirmed those items and handed Principal Engineer
Wimmer a bullet point list of his concerns.
Principal Engineer Wimmer said they would look at those concerns and
provide a report on those items.
General discussion followed on the possible addition of a deceleration
lane and making left and U-turns in the area.
Mr. Bedard suggested there could be something in the middle of
Hidden River Road to prevent someone from making a U-turn there
since there is not much room for that type of maneuver.
Commissioner Wright confirmed it was a problem intersection.
Principal Engineer Wimmer suggested the City Traffic Engineer do
analysis on each of these individual items since he did not have the
91
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
information available at the meeting. He said all of these items would
be forwarded to the City Traffic Engineer for analysis.
Mr. Bedard said he would appreciate it.
General discussion followed on line of sight issues, possible area for a
deceleration lane and forwarding this additional information to the City
Traffic Engineer to include in his study.
Commissioner Barrows was concerned about the design of the
sidewalk; taking into account the students and tenants utilizing that
area.
Planning Director Johnson explained how the sidewalk was designed;
taking the pedestrian traffic into account. He included information on
the fact that there was not enough room to make this a meandering
sidewalk consistent with the City's standard design, but there would
be pockets of planters included to pull the sidewalk away from the
street in areas and provide a safer pedestrian environment.
Discussion followed on sidewalk setbacks and legal non -conforming
environments.
Chairman Alderson asked if there was any further public comment.
There being none, Chairman Alderson closed the public hearing and
opened the matter for Commission discussion.
Commissioner Wilkinson commented on turn lanes and road
conditions; as well as line of sight conditions and the opportunity to
continue these items in order to review the City Traffic Engineer's
report.
Principal Engineer Wimmer confirmed he would make the Traffic
Engineer's report available to the Commission as well as Mr. Bedard.
General discussion followed on whether to make this a condition of
approval versus continuing the items.
Principal Engineer Wimmer commented that the City Traffic Engineer
had previously reviewed the site plan, was familiar with Hidden River
Road and Washington Street and had not raised any of these concerns
during the project review process.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Commissioner Wright reiterated his concerns about the line of sight
coming out of Hidden River Road on to Washington Street; as well as
his faith in the City Traffic Engineer coming up with a solution.
Commissioner Barrows asked for clarification that this, item had
already been to Council and that the Planning Commission only need
to make a determination on the design aspects, negative declaration,
parcel map, etc.
Planning Director Johnson clarified they were the final decision making
body on the environmental determination, parcel map, the conditional
use permit, and the site development permit application before them
tonight. Their options were to approve, deny, or continue the matter.
Commissioner Barrows said she was pleased with the project but had
concerns that Mr. Bedard's issues be addressed, her landscaping
suggestions be included and the new technology and issues of noise,
water, dust and potential penetration on the thermal chimneys be
addressed.
Chairman Alderson spoke on the fact that the applicant had to match
the existing project and work with those conditions. He supported the
project with the qualifications of the other Commissioners and
concerns regarding public and traffic safety.
Commissioner Barrows asked if the City of La Quinta had the ability to
condition a No U-Turn southbound on Washington Street; since that is
within the boundaries of Palm Desert.
Principal Engineer Wimmer said the entire roadway is not within the
jurisdiction of La Quinta; and there would have to be liaison with the
City of Palm Desert and the City of La Quinta Traffic Representatives.
At this point, it was uncertain as to whether Palm Desert would be
amenable to such a design change, and both cities would have to
agree on the improvements.
Commissioner Barrows asked if a recommendation be included that
staff consult with the City of Palm Desert.
Principal Engineer Wimmer said it could.
-10-
Planning Commission Minutes
January 10, 2012
Chairman Alderson reopened the public hearing to allow public
comment.
There being no further questions or discussion, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Wilkinson/Wright to continue
Environmental Assessment 201 1-613, Conditional Use Permit 201 1-
135, Tentative Parcel Map 36421, and Site Development Permit
201 1-920 to February 14, 2012.
AYES; Commissioners Barrows, Wilkinson, Wright and Chairman
Alderson NOES; None ABSENT: Commissioner Weber ABSTAIN:
None
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on City Council Meeting of January 3, 2012.
B. Commissioner Barrows is scheduled to attend the January 17, 2012,
City Council meeting.
IX: DIRECTOR ITEMS: None
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wright/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to the next meeting to be held on January 24, 2012.
This meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m. on January 10, 2012.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Walker, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
mom
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 1/10/12 7PM
TO: LA QUINTA HOUSING AUTHORITY & REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
cc. to be sent to : TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
PROJECT: WASHINGTON STREET APARTMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENT: Craig Bedard 760 360-5236
42488 Byron Place
SAFETY CONCERNS:
1. There is a need for a deceleration lane for the right turn off of Washington. Many
times there are pedestrians and students crossing presenting a risk to the
pedestrian traffic as well as the possibility of a rear end collision. A fatality has
occurred at this comer. There are plans for an 8ft. sidewalk but needed more is a
deceleration lane.
2. A permanent island is needed on Washington to prevent a left hand turn from
Hidden River and pedestrian crossings. I have noticed frequent crossings by
elderly tenants with their walkers. The existing cones do not provide the barrier
needed.
3. Hidden River needs to be resurfaced and striped. The potholes create a hazard to
the right hand turn.
4. Hidden River curbside parking should be prohibited to allow cars a quick right
turn without swinging into the opposite lane. The possibility of rear ending a
parked car is great.
5. Crosswalk to be striped at comer. A safer location for a crosswalk marking
would be further down at the entrance to the apartment complex. This is important
to allow the many scooters and pedestrians to safely cross instead of the deadly
comer.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to the beatification of the Washington Street
Apartments but lets not forget about the safety to the tenants and public.
ATTACHMENT 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Les Johnson
Planning Director
FROM: 16
imothy R. Jonasson, P.E.
ublic Works Director/City Engineer
DATE: January 31, 2012
RE: Analysis of Issues Arising From the Planning Commission Public Hearing
of January 10, 2012 - Washington Street Apartments
A number of traffic and transportation related issues were raised during the subject
public hearing. Additionally, a memo was submitted by Mr. Craig Bedard at the hearing.
The Planning Commission directed staff to research the issues and provide feedback in
time for their February 14, 2012 meeting. When preparing this analysis, my staff liaised
with staff from both the City of Palm Desert and the County of Riverside. For ease of
review, each particular issue is either quoted directly from Mr. Bedard's memo or is
summarized from the Planning Commission discussion. Each issue is followed
immediately by the analysis of the issue.
1. "There is a need for a deceleration lane for the right turn off of Washington.
Many times there are pedestrians and students crossing presenting a risk to the
pedestrian traffic as well as the possibility of a rear end collision. A fatality has
occurred at this corner. There are plans for an 8 ft. sidewalk but needed more is
a deceleration lane."
Analysis:
Deceleration lanes are installed at driveways serving commercial, office and
multifamily private development projects. Right -turn only lanes are installed at
intersections of streets that serve the general public where right turn volumes
exceed 200 vehicles per hour. There are no nationally accepted guidelines on
how high right -turn volumes have to be in the peak hours in order to justify
construction of a right -turn lane. However this is a generally accepted standard.
The expansion of the Washington Street Apartment project is going to generate a
maximum of 15 total inbound trips in the PM peak hour. This is well below the 50
vehicles per hour threshold established by the City of La Quinta for requiring
deceleration lanes at driveways serving private development projects. A review
of the collision data provided by the City of Palm Desert and the County of
Riverside Transportation Department does not show a pattern of rear -end
collisions in the northbound direction of Washington Street at Hidden River Road.
There were no reported collisions of any type in 2010 or in the data available for
2011.
2. "A permanent island is needed on Washington to prevent a left hand turn from
Hidden River and pedestrian crossings. I have noticed frequent crossings by
elderly tenants with their walkers. The existing cones do not provide the barrier
needed."
Analysis:
The island installed on Washington. Street using channelizers was completed by
the County of Riverside in July 2006 in response to complaints from citizens
about broadside collisions occurring at the Washington Street and Hidden River
Road intersection. Left -turns from Washington Street onto Hidden River Road
are still permitted because the City of Palm Desert has indicated that residents
attending the church on the northwest corner of the intersection wanted to
continue to make left -turns from northbound Washington Street onto Hidden
River Road west of Washington Street.
If the channelizers were replaced with a permanent concrete island, the design of
this island would preclude the provision of a barrier railing to prevent pedestrians
from crossing at this location. The median would be only four feet wide to
accommodate larger vehicles using the left -turn lanes on Washington Street.
This is too narrow for installing a pedestrian railing.
3. "Hidden River needs to be resurfaced and striped. The potholes create a hazard
to the right hand turn lane."
Analysis:
The County of Riverside Transportation Department has indicated that the
northerly half of Hidden River Road (east of Washington Street) is a private road
not maintained by the County of Riverside. The southerly half of Hidden River
Road, while within the city limits, is also a private road and is not maintained by
the City of La Quinta.
4. "Hidden River curbside parking should be prohibited to allow cars a quick right
turn without swinging into the opposite lane. The possibility of rear ending a
parked car is great."
Analysis:
No data is available to indicate whether vehicles parked on Hidden River Road
are creating any kind of a traffic flow or safety problem. Hidden River Road is 40
feet wide which is sufficient to permit on -street parking and the movement of
traffic. The City Municipal Code allows for parking on both sides of a street that is
40 feet in width.
5. "Crosswalk to be striped at corner. A safer location for a crosswalk marking
would be further down at the entrance to the apartment complex. This is
important to allow the many scooters and pedestrians to safely cross instead of
the deadly corner."
Analysis:
If the request is for a crosswalk to be marked across Washington Street, this kind
of installation (in close proximity to the Washington Street and Avenue of the
States traffic signal) is not supported by several recent studies on the installation
of marked crosswalks across major streets with six lanes of moving traffic in
excess of 44,000 vehicles per day. Pedestrian safety would be much better
served by encouraging pedestrians to cross Washington Street at the Avenue of
the States signalized intersection.
If the request is to mark a crosswalk across Hidden River Road, the City of La
Quinta complies with guidelines established by the California Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices which indicates that marked crosswalks at these types of
intersections across the side street approaches controlled by stop signs should
only be provided if there is a need to provide guidance to pedestrians about
where to cross such as at skewed or offset intersections. There does not appear
to be a need to provide such guidance on the Hidden River Road approaches to
Washington Street.
Additional issues that were raised by Planning Commissioners:
6. Sight distance for northbound right turn from Hidden River Road
Analysis:
Drivers stopped on the westbound approach of the Hidden River Road at
Washington Street need to have a clear view of traffic approaching from the
northbound lanes of Washington Street up to a distance of 500 feet. The shrubs
currently located on the southeast corner of the intersection restrict the sight
distance. The shrubs are to be removed as part of the landscaping
improvements to be constructed with the proposed Washington Street Apartment
project. However, Public Works will trim the vegetation to a height less than 36
inches to remove the sight distance obstruction until the new landscaping is
planted.
7. Consider eliminating the U Turn from southbound Washington Street.
Analysis:
A review of the collision data provided by the City of Palm Desert and the County
of Riverside Transportation Department does not show a pattern of U-turn
collisions involving vehicles traveling in either direction of Washington Street at
Hidden River Road and there were no reported collisions of any type in 2010 or
in the data available for 2011. Staff therefore does not recommend this change in
signage.