Loading...
SP 121-E La Quinta Resort Environmental Documentation (2007)L0). c 4 TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DOUGLAS R. EVANS, COMMkYWY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2007 SUBJECT: LA QUINTA RESORT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION The attached binder contains all the prior CEQA environmental documents for the development of the La Quinta Resort. The Addendum for the Site Development Permit that will be before you on the 13th was distributed to you last week. We are required to distribute this document to the Commission so you are aware of all the actions that have taken place to date. We apologize for not getting it to you earlier. Date Document Type Document Title /Subject I Notes SP 121 -E 7/1/741 Draft EIR La Quinta Cove Golf /Tennis Club EIR 4/11/751 Report Archeological Survey 4/15/75 Misc. Conditions of Approval RE: SP 121 -E 1975 Resolution River. Co. Plan. Comm. No.75 -160 Establish SP 121 -E 2/13/75 Staff Report River. Co. Rec., Facts, and Analysis RE: EIR No.41 /SP 121 -E 2/13/75 Hearing Summary River. Co. Summ. RE:SP 121 -E Illegible 2/13/75 Misc. Conditions of Approval RE: SP 121 -E (proposed and revised versions) 2/13/75 Misc. Summary of Testimony (2 copies) Comments on conditions of approval for SP -121 -E 3/5/75 Letter RE:SP 121 -E River. Co. Plan. Comm. rec. approval SP 121 -E 2/26/75 Initial Study( ?) Recs and Environ. Analysis Partially Illegible 2/13/75 Misc. Proposed Cond. Approval RE:SP 121 -E Repeat Doc. 2/26/75 Hearing Summary River. Co. Summ. RE:SP 121 -E Partially Illegible SP 121 -E, Revised 6/8/81 SP of Land Use App_ Specific Plan of Land Use Application Attach. Environmental Info. Form 117/81 Misc. Revised Specific Plan Revision of 12/4/80 version 1982( ?) Draft Statement Declaration of Frank Usher Statements of city manager;followed by exhibits A -Z (large doc) 1982 Staff Report Various documents Rec. adoption of Neg. Dec. for EA 15145 /approval CZ No.3491 10/5/82 Resolution City Council Res. No.82 -54 Adoption of SP of Land Use No.121 -E, Revised 1982 Staff Report Various documents Rec. adoption of Neg. Dec. for EA 15626 /approval revised SP 121 -E 9/22/81 Negative Declaration Ne Dec. /Notice of Determination RE: SP 121 -E, Revised 1982( ?) Misc. Conditions of Approval (version 2) RE: SP 121 -E, Revised 1982? Resolution River. Co. Plan. Comm. Resolution Rec. approval of SP 121 -E, Revised 4/14/82 Misc. Staff Meeting Summary RE: SP 121 -E, Revised 5/13/82 Misc. Conditions of Approval RE: SP 121 -E, Revised 10/5/82 Resolution City Council Res. No.82 -54 Adoption of SP of Land Use No.121 -E, Revised 5/13/82 Misc. Conditions of Approval RE:Revised SP Repeat Doc. 1982?l Initial Study RE -.SP 121 -E, Revised Environmental questionnaire for proposed project Amendment #1 8/23/881 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.88 -018 Rec. approval of amend. #1 to SP; conditions of approval 9/20/881 Staff Report (City Coun.) ProjectAnal sis and Recs RE:Amend. #1, CZ 88 -031, PP 88 -393, TPM 23749 10/3/881 Negative Declaration Notice of Det. RE :Amend. #1; no mitigation measures required 1988jMisc. Project Description RE:Amend. #1, CZ 88 -031, PP 88 -393, TPM 23749 8/8/881 Initial Stud (checklist) EA 88 -095 RE:Amend. #1, CZ 88 -031, PP 88 -393, TPM 23749 Amendment #2 110/10/891 Resolution jPlan. Comm. Res. No.89 -064 I Rec. approval of amend. #2 to SP 10/24/89 Memo iCont. Hearing RE:Amend. #2 /PP 89 -041 7Letters of protest ;10/10 Plan. Comm. Staff Report (see next) 10/10/89 Staff Report Plan. Comm. Staff Report Request for approval of amend. #2 ;letters, comments, init.study 10/3/89 Initial Study (checklist) EA 89 -141 For PP 89 -421; Mitig. Neg. Dec. to be prepared; Response to EA 10/10/89 Staff Report Plan. Comm. Staff Report Repeat Doc. 10/10/89 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.89 -064 Rec. approval of amend. #2; conditions of approval 11/21/89 Misc. Final Cond. Of approval RE-.PP 89-421 10/3/89 Initial Study (checklist) EA 89 -141 Repeat Doc. Amendment#3 6/27/95 Plan. Comm. Staff Rep. Report RE: Amend. #3 /PP 95 -555 Request for Mitig. Neg. Dec., amend & PP approval 6/27/95 Draft Resolution Plann. Comm. Res. No.95- Rec. approval of amend. #3 to SP;conditions (amend /PP 95 -555) 7/5/95 Misc, START OF LARGE DOC (100pp) City Council recommendations RE: amend. #3 /PP 95 -555 7/5/95 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.95 Certify Neg. Dec. for EA 95 -304 amend. #3 /PP 95 -555) 6/20/95 Initial Study Initial Study - Addendum for EA 95 -304 For PP 95- 555 /amend. #3 6127195 Plan. Comm. Staff Rep. Report RE: Amend. #3 /PP 95 -555 Repeat Doc. Jun -95 Letters Letters of protest and responses RE :amend. #3 /PP 95 -555 6/5/951 Resolution City Council. Res. No. 95 -56 Approval of Amend. #3 to SP 7/5/95 Misc. Final Cond. Of approval RE:Amend. #3;conditions 6/27/95 Misc. Conditions of Approval RE:PP 95 -555 Repeat Doc. 7/5/95 Resolution City Council Res. No.95 -55 ICertify Neg. Dec. for EA 95 -304 (amend. #3 /PP 95 -555) 6/20/95 Initial Study (checklist) EA 95 -304 For PP 95- 555 /amend. #3 6/20/95 Initial Study Initial Study - Addendum for EA 95 -304 For PP 95- 555 /amend. #3 6/27/95 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.95 -002 Certify Neg. Dec. for EA 95 -304 amend. #3 /PP 95 -555) 6/27/95 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.95 -023 Rec. approval of amend. #3 to SP ;approval conditions Amendment #4 7/8/97 Plan. Comm. Staff Rep. START OF LARGE DOC (156pp) 7/8/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -� Rec. Mit. Neg, Dec.(EA 97 -340, Amend.#4, permits, zones, etc.) 7/8/97 Initial Stud (checklist) EA 97 -340 Amend. #4, GPA 97 -054, TTM 28545, SDP 97- 607/8, CZ 97 -083 7/3/97 Initial Study Initial Stud - Addendum for EA 97 -340 Amend. #4, GPA 97 -054, TTM 28545, SDPs, CZ 97 -083, COA 97 -003 7/8197 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -� Rec. approval of amend .#4;conditions of approval 7/8/971 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -_ Rec. approval of zone change 97 -083 7/8/971 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -_ Rec. approval of tentative tract map 28545;condtions of approval 7/8/97 Misc. Cond. Of approval RE: SDP 97 -607 7/8/971 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec. approval of construction (RE:COA 97- 003) ;cond. of approval 7/8/97 Misc. Cond. Of approval RE: SDP 97 -608 Jun -97 Letters Letters of protest and responses 8/25/97 Initial Stud (checklist) EA 97 -343 For Amend.#4, GPA 97- 054.TTM 28545,SDP 97- 607 /8,CZ 97 -083 8/25/97 Initial Study Initial Study - Addendum for EA 97 -343 Amend.#4,GPA 97- 054,CZ 97- 083,TTM 28545,SDPs,COA 97 -003 9/16/971 Notice of Determination Notice of Det. Amend.#4.GPA 97- 983,TTM 28545,SDPs,CZ 97 -083, COA 97 -003 9/16/971 Negative Declaration RE: EA 97 -343 Amend.#4,GPA 97- 983,TTM 28545,SDPs,CZ 97 -083, COA 97 -003 7/8/971 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -042 Rec. approval of amend.#4,conditions of approval 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -058 Rec. Certify Neg. Dec. for EA 97 -343 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res, No.97 -065 Rec. approval of construction (RE:COA 97- 003);conditions of approval 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -061 Rec. approval of amend.#4 9/16/97 Misc. Cond. Of approval RE: Amend.#4 9/16/97 Resolution City Council Res. No.97 -74 Approval of Amend. #4 to SP;conditions of approval 9/16/97 Resolution City Council Res. No.97 -72 Certify Neg. Dec. for EA 97 -343 9/16/97 Agenda START OF LARGE DOC 137pp) City Council recommendations RE:EA 97 -343 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97-� Certi Neg. Dec. for EA 97 -343 8/25/97 Initial Study Initial Study - Addendum for EA 97 -343 Repeat Doc. 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97- Approval of general plan amend. 97 -054 1997 Draft Ordinance No title, No date Approval of zone change 97 -083 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97-� Approval of amend.#4 ;conditions of approval 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97-� Approval of tentative tract map 28545;conditions of approval 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97- Approval of site development permit 97 -607; conditions of approval 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97- Approval of site development 2ermit 97-608.,, conditions of approval 9/16/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97- Approval of certificate of appropriateness 97- 003;conditions of approval 8/25/97 Initial Study (checklist) EA 97 -343 Repeat Doc. Sep -97 Letters Traffic Study 7/15/97 Misc. Frequently Asked Questions RE:New spa and residential community 7/15/97 Misc. START OF LARGE DOCUMENT (179p p) 7/15/971 Draft Resolution Ci Council Res. No.97-� Certify Neg. Dec. for EA 97 -340 7/11/971 Initial Study Initial Stud - Addendum for EA 97 -340 *Revision of 7/3/97 version 7/15/97 1 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97-� Approval of general plant amend. 97 -054 19971 Draft Ordinance No title, No date Approval of zone change 97 -083 7/15/971 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97 -_ Approval of amend.#4;conditions of approval 7/15/97 Draft Resolution Ci Council Res. No.97- Approval of tentative tract map 28545; conditions of app roval 7/15/97 Draft Resolution Ci Council Res. No.97 -J Approval of site development permit 97- 607;conditions of approva! 7/15/971 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97- Approval of site development 2ermit 97-608 ; conditions of approval 7/15/97 Draft Resolution City Council Res. No.97-� Approval of certificate of appropriateness 97-003-,conditions of approval Jun -97 Letters Letters of protest and responses Originals and duplicates 718/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -042 Repeat Doc. 7/8/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -043 Rec. approval of tentative tract map 28545;condtions of approval 7/8/97 Resolution JlPlan. Comm. Res. No.97 -044 Rec. approval of site development permit 97 -607; conditions of approval 7/8/97 Resolution JlPlan. Comm. Res. No.97 -045 Rec. approval of certificate of appropriateness 97- 003;cond. of approval c 7/8/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -046 Rec. approval of site development permit 97- 608;conditions of approval 9/15/97 Resolution Plan, Comm. Res. No.97 -058 Repeat Doc. 9115/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -059 Rec. approval of general plan amend. 97 -054 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -060 Rec. approval of zone change 97 -083_ 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -061 Repeat Doc. 9/16/97 Misc. Cond. Of approval RE: Amend. #4 Repeat Doc. 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -062 Rec. approval of tentative tract map 28545:condtions of approval 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -063 Rec. approval of site development permit 97 -607; conditions of approval 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -064 Rec. approval of site development permit 97 -608; conditions of approval 9/15/97 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -065 Rec. approval of certificate of appropriateness 97- 003;cond. of approval 9/15/97 Plan. Comm. Staff Rep. START OF LARGE DOCUMENT {151 pp} RE: EA 97 -343 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec. Certify Neg. Dec. for EA 97 -343 8/25/97 Initial Stud (checklist) EA 97 -343 Repeat Doe. 8/25/97 Initial Stud Initial Study - Addendum for EA 97 -343 Repeat Doc. 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec. approval of general plan amend. 97 -054 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97-� Rec. approval of zone change 97 -083 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec, approval of amend.#4;conditions of approval 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec. approval of tentative tract map 28545;condtions of approval 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comma Res. No.97-� Rec. approval of site development permit 97- 607;conditions of approval 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97-� Rec. approval of site development permit 97- 608.conditions of approval 9/15/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec. approval of certificate of appropriateness 97- 003;cond. of approval 9!16/97 Agenda Ci #y Council Recs. RE :EA 97 -343 Repeat Doc. Sep -97 Letters Traffic Study Repeat Doc. Jun -97 Letters ILetters of protest and responses Repeat Doc. 7/8/97 Draft Resolution I Plan. Comm. Res. No.97-� Rec. approval of site development permit 97 -607 7/8/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97- Rec. approval of site development permit 97 -608 7/8/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97-� Rec. approval of general plan amend. 97 -054 _ 7/8/97 Draft Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. No.97 -_ Rec. approval of zone change 97 -083 8/25/97 Initial Study i Initial Study - Addendum for EA 97 -343 Repeat Doc. 7/30/97 Memo EA Support Documentation EA test question of potential impact;city's EA response 2009 _ 5/8/01 Staff Report !Architecture and Landscape Rev. RE: Amend.#4, SDP 2001 -703 5/22/01 Resolution IPlan. Comm. Res. 2001 -081 Rec. approval of general plan amend. 2001 -078 5/22/01 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. 2001 -082 Rec. approval of zone change 2000 -101 5/22/01 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. 2001 -084 Approval of SDP 2001 -703 w /in SP amend. #5;conditions of approval 5/22/01 Resolution Plan. Comm. Res. 2001 -085 Rec. approval of tentative tract map 30125; conditions of approval Misc. 10/28/86 Letter Time ext. for Map No. 18765 10/14/86 Misc. Cond. For TT Map No. 18765 Attach. memo considering request for time extension 1/29/86 Letter ITime ext. for TT Map No.18765 Attach. Conditions 1/28/86 Memo Time ext. for TT Map No. 18765 12/22/87 Staff Report Plan. Comm_ . Analysis /Findings Rec. approval of PP 87 -387 1987 Misc. N/A Description of hotel expansion /renovation 12/16/87 Letter RE: La Quinta Hotel Expansion Clarification of "shops" and "nightclub" 9/27/79 Misc. East Area Plan. Coun. Conditions IRE: Conditional use case 2286 -E planned residential community / ,,,, 1A OUINTA COVE G" AM MWIS CUM April 11, 1975 Mr. Jerry DuPree, Sr. Planner 46 -209 Oasis Street, Suite 304 Indio, California 92201 Dear Mr. DuPree: �1 A °R1i1 75 9 Rh, - i 'L I i T pLANINING COMNJSSION DESEi:1 OFFICE { Enclosed please find a copy of the report entitled . "Archaeological Survey of the La Quinta Hotel Project ", as conducted by S.R. McWilliams. I thought that you would like to have a copy of this for your files as it pertains to our project. Also, I had a call from_John Craib, County Archaeologist, and he was quite impressed with the report and felt that it would be more than sufficient to meet the re- quirements which weizb originally set forth. Mr. Vossler plans to contact you on Monday, to discuss the upcoming April 15th meeting with r_he Board of Supervisors. If we can be of any.further assistance in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Si rely, �thILon- g J47� - Secretary to Ernest 0. Vossler If c1 Encl: IX1QT / %VVTP`D Dr'1v [ In T R /"%T TTT Tm a / 9 T TT� TT . ­r ^ 1­ .. . ­.,.-. ,.., o ical Surve of the La Quinta Hotel Pro ect Conducted ,:y--5 R. McWilliams April 4. 1975 Report Outline: 1. Regional Setting of the Project Area 2. Survey method Employed 3. Survey Findings 4. Recommendations •A'I� a 5T S� • ' , JI/...(��,.tr� �J"r� �. 1 : • G�Ma1NNR, ;�' ...111... _ ! ,,. f 9 _Al WeIL occ N dq f B 1Y II / ff 1 • ir. •,t a 7� 1 AZ lIx 14fly ece .., I a'A • star :. a uEArus �. _ � ;,,.P.�•,..• ,=-� = �p.�+�+�.- 1'0'9 — ° -' — wate 1 �- .—� I I��.�. � � it k •1 � I ..� �` _ r !.•frf .�..•. ,, •... 43 Sj 1 � °- ++- ��e_a =a �' —Ir-`T ���.smrau =I. • � --, .:•.,1 � . •..��Wa ter I 1 � �: '� .�� r , ��� +i �• Is �? !' � � • � , JLL iij, 61 N �.., iii ai �f"_•• t =_ �. �'• J ,. �� I If�7�II!1� I1 Alk 'I��I it `� 11 •I�I �1�II %�il _� �. La Quinta�" Y , - +;'�'` . `, - •r4 AIL �: • �_1t —Jp.H •� ,�'�° f 5 �+` II �� 1f I P k . L21 , j. 1 i- JR'y �"!_ ,tiA ..II•�' ' - i •' E - � '� ~� � " •�: i �r ��r�I I .��i� �i �• li I� 'i_ •� � � I� • I� � u��! ....... < { r �}•-� -.... c � Survey method Two types of land -use characte3rize the survey area and each required a different archaeological survey technique. The project area was classified as hither: (1) land considerably modified by modern mans, or (2) land in a relatively natural state. most of Tthe project area was of the first type and only a small portion was of the second type. An approximate distriybution of the two types of land -use is shown on Chap A'.. 1. The modified Land Agricultural and residential vises are predominant on land of this type. It also includes the surfaced roads, access roads, flood control channel:$, and even a small -scale rock or.sand quarry (in the extreme northwestern portion of the project area). Obviously, umder these conditions of preservation, relatively little wndisturbed archaeological material at the surface would be expected. Such material that was not in fact masked by the :existi'ng structures, landscaping, or crops would certainly be greatly disarranged to a depth in some areas of many fe!.Et. In fact the farm land portion of.-this category of land -use may have been extensively graded for irrigation flooding and,thus, archaeological materials would have been - removed. ( Observations in this portion of the project area were consequently restricted in scar pe and of a less intense nature. The farm land was walked a.zross on a relatively random basis in an effort to determine the general frequency of archaeological material at the surface. most attention was devoted to those areas where the soil was relatively free of vegetation and surface observation could most readily be made. No exploratory test excavations were dugs and at no time did they appear waranted. 2. The Unmadified Land A small portion of the project area contains land which could be considered in its natural state. Ungraded slopes and native plant cover were the best indicators of this condition. The most extensive tracts of land in this category were found outside the specific boundaries of the project area. These tracts occur to the west, north, and east of the project area. Land to the south is greatly modified, and is the location of the older core of the town of La Quinta. Only the western -most portion of the project area can be considered as in a natural state. It was assumed that the most abundant evidence of Indian cultures in the area would occur on this little- disturbed land. It may be misleading to'suggest this category is truly pristine. Everywhere there is abundant evidence of modern man's visitations as seen by the accumulated debris or litter. This fact was particularly apparent within the Survey Findings Archaeological material does occur within the proposed boundaries of the La Quinta Hotle project area. However, based on this survey the material present does, not represent any significant concentration. The finds located within the project boundaries appear to this author to be of minimal importance, 1. material Found on the modified Land Curiously the-most frequently encountered artifacts came from the portion of the project classified as agricultural and residential land. Two localities yielded this material, and both are plotted on map A where they are designated by the letters a and b. In neither case was the material so plentiful as to suggest any depth to the deposit at all. Locality -a is situated immediately south of Avenue 50 and along the eastern -most boundary of the project. The site is marked by the existence of an exceedingly large mesquite -hill sand dune. It is quite likely the mesquite which currently exists at the site was alive during the 19th century and probably constituted a food source for the Indian inhabitants of the valley at that time; its shape is typical of very ancient growth in that a very large central core area is quite barren of vegetation at this time. A.few potsherds (nine fragments were collected which represented all those seen) littered the dune surface and nearby southern shoulder of Avenue 50. This material is typical of other sites in the Coachella Valley and is often described as simply plain brown ware. The material was best exposed along the northern face of the sand dune where the road -cut and subsequent:wind erosion have combined to expose the material at'the surface. Occasionally rocks are found in this vicinity', which naturally would not occur on :a sand dune, but they may represent recently intruded items; in any case their occurrence is rare and significance is minimal. The western portion of locality -a is greatly modified in that it has been quarried for sand, and currently has been used as a place to dump soil. The quarrying has exposed the dune to a depth of ten feet or more, and yet no archaeological material protrudes from this cut. This may support the belief that the site lacks any significant artifact concentration. However, the mesquite seems to have been growing most actively towards the irrigated field immediately to the west, and, thus, the accumulated sand where the quarry exists may be only a recent addition to the otherwise large dune. No artifacts would be expected from the quarry cut-if the sand accumulation-there is itself of recent age. This mesquite dune may possess buried archaeological material fifty yards or so to the east of the irrigated field. Such a location would place the site outside the boundaries of project area as described to this author. Based on previous is indicated on map -A as location -c. many fragments of plain brown ware litter the surface here, as well as numerous rocks from an aboriginal hearth, and skeletal fragments of a local fauna. Interestingly, the remains of the freshwater mollusc typical of lakeshore "sites occurs in abundance at this location. The site seems to be associated with the western -most shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Fortunately the site is not'on'property slated for development in the La Quinta Hotel project and, therefore, . may be preserved for a while longer permitting interested archaeologists to examine its contents. To my knowledge, this the closest site of any importance to the proposed project area. It should be carefully avoided by any construction vehicles or activities associated with the hotel project. Summary and Recommendations The archaeological survey at the La puinta Hotel project yielded little in the way of important sites thatt would be lost by the proposed construction activity. No further investigation seems to be requited within the boundaries of the project area. The major archaeological finding within the project is negative in natures it seems significant that material was not encountered. This fact has implications relative to the nature of the aboriginal occupation of the Coachella valley environment. The minor concentration of-artifacts associated with the sand dune and mesquite vegetation (location a) may warrant further attention if in the course of the construction work it is leveled. In that case the developer is requested to advise the author of this report in, order that the excavation be- briefly examined. most likely this examination would be of academic interest only and would not entail any interruption of the construction schedule. Finally, it is hoped that construction activity will avoid the sand dune area to the east of the project.area. It is in this vicinity that potentially important.ar.chaeological sites occur which should not be damaged before they have been properly examined and excavated if necessary. Hopefully this will not present a problem for such sites are beyond the boundaries of the project by considerable distance. R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y PLANNING 0 E P A H T T M'� SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE LO Z-Z) Case No. 4- EA No. L-'4-C Total Fee Paid t-Gin. Plan Area Ln C:1 L, APPLICATION PROJECT NAME La Q.,inra.-Coup- Gn1X--4L—Tenn-is C11th APPLICANT INFORMATION e ,APPL I CANT xnie 8sl r —:/() �LaVn''d�wark Lqn4 Co n P H 0 N E MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 1000 No., Street/P. 0. Box ptr No. Suite Nn, La Quinta. CA 92-253 (ity State Zip Code .01.1NER NAME Same as above_ PHONE: In I.L I H G. ADDRESS Street/P. 0. Box No./SuftQ No. City State zip Code. REPRESENTATIVE J•F. DavidsorkAssociates PHONE: (714 686-0844 14AILING,ADDRESS P.O. Box 493 Street/P. 0. Box p. Na. cite 140, Riverside CA 92:)U1 Ci ty te p Code NQT�; I. if more than one person is involved in the ownership of the property, a S?parate page must be. attached to this application which llst� the 'names and .aJdresse$ of all persons having an interest in the ownership. of the property.. 2. the Planning Department will only mail correspondence regarding Specific Plan opplication..to the person identified above as the opplicant'.s ."representative." The representative maybe the land owner, an -engineer or consultant. A name, address and phone number must be provided above for the Spec Jfi4 Plan application io':§G'accepted. A. L4'; GENERAL - PLAN OF LAND USE DESIGNATION Open Space & Planned Development /Wager Course & EqueE triar�/Medium. Density. Resid6ntial/Low Density Residential/11& Density Residential: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATIQN Urban Areas' M1 7- ao z R I V E R S I D E C O U N T Y PLANNING 0 E P A H T T M'� SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE LO Z-Z) Case No. 4- EA No. L-'4-C Total Fee Paid t-Gin. Plan Area Ln C:1 L, APPLICATION PROJECT NAME La Q.,inra.-Coup- Gn1X--4L—Tenn-is C11th APPLICANT INFORMATION e ,APPL I CANT xnie 8sl r —:/() �LaVn''d�wark Lqn4 Co n P H 0 N E MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 1000 No., Street/P. 0. Box ptr No. Suite Nn, La Quinta. CA 92-253 (ity State Zip Code .01.1NER NAME Same as above_ PHONE: In I.L I H G. ADDRESS Street/P. 0. Box No./SuftQ No. City State zip Code. REPRESENTATIVE J•F. DavidsorkAssociates PHONE: (714 686-0844 14AILING,ADDRESS P.O. Box 493 Street/P. 0. Box p. Na. cite 140, Riverside CA 92:)U1 Ci ty te p Code NQT�; I. if more than one person is involved in the ownership of the property, a S?parate page must be. attached to this application which llst� the 'names and .aJdresse$ of all persons having an interest in the ownership. of the property.. 2. the Planning Department will only mail correspondence regarding Specific Plan opplication..to the person identified above as the opplicant'.s ."representative." The representative maybe the land owner, an -engineer or consultant. A name, address and phone number must be provided above for the Spec Jfi4 Plan application io':§G'accepted. A. L4'; GENERAL - PLAN OF LAND USE DESIGNATION Open Space & Planned Development /Wager Course & EqueE triar�/Medium. Density. Resid6ntial/Low Density Residential/11& Density Residential: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATIQN Urban Areas' M1 7- ao �':-:ALBe lip. aL DMPOhlllF aAL. L4FOP- 1LkTIOH FORM Please complete Parts 1 and II of this form and provide all of sh,- addir.:Wxxai, mar-4r14-18 requested in Part III. Failure co do so raay delav the review and processing of vour, jR fo ect. If you are unable ,[o provide the information,. or you need asgi.stance, plc*ake ' feel free to contact the Enviroaaencal Quality Section of the Plsaaiag.Depart�C Ar. ' (714) 787 -2331. PAST I: General Information 1. Whac is the cocal.acr #age involved? 635.03Ac 2. Is there a previous appllcatiou.filed for the Rama site? It* X No If "Yes," provide Case dumber. Also provide the Enviioumeacal AasesaraaaF pTEsmsb�er� 1 jcauwa and Environmental Impact deport Number. i# appLi"ble# Specific, Flan 121 E Caae No. �� (Parcel Zia►p, Zone Change, etc.) Zd No.: UvVU) - 911 -ti4, 41 (Il Applicable) 3. Additional commmuts you may with to supply regardir►g your rach a= additional. cheat if necessary) ftevieed Specific Plan �►RT Ii: �nvir��.ncal Quescioasisp . L. Is the project within ati Alquisc- Priolo Special Studies 40041 'acs Zia X To determine tf your project is located in a Special Studies Zor►e,.contact the Environmental Quality Section. or refer to the Special Study Zoacp dap■ aveUab,le at the Public Information Counter of che Plan -nine Department. I: tha project is %,tithiu a zone.-refer to Ordinance 547.1. or discuss che situatioa xith ;;ha rl-snaiag Aepart- ment Geologist. It a fault hazard report is necessary, complete the investig;tctgq prior to subuicci g Xaur a221ic2tion aud'provide 6 copies of tha report withAChi* form. X ai� Fi yet of the TequlremenCa is 4x4pcod, Submit a Cony y of the waiver with his Eon. 2. T$ the project located wi[hia a hazard m4nagemeaC" Zone or ttquifgcr area ao �cbawn on n►ap$ of the "Seismic Safacy 'Element Technical Repq.rt7r To's No % s. To determine i-f your project is subject to the geologic hazards t}oced abgv¢ you should. consult the "Seismic Safecy. & Sate-ty Clement Technical, Repottl" Whir -h is aval -lable 3c che•Public Information Coirpter of the Planning DeparvAenC. If the answer to question 62 is "yes," contact che Environmental Q.vAl:L vy S«xct;ioa to discuss appropriate measures to oinimize the hazard,. InCarporeGe -my mltigaeion, measures into the project design prior to submitting the.applicaatioa, or indicate in the space provided below the results of your discua3.siouv v*C4 Che F=Vi-ror0at- a Quality SectioU. H4ppy +gT•�f.fHA1Ea• C9 .9u :.�• ..... e'• �o .. -I .. BM '9 •� •' 11. •'• .' _� ®.. • " +Y CHANNEL' .. - ♦ , , _�' _ _ y . � ti� te 4,41x` did 72 E a w bo WE I(k _4 vLr 50 we - 8 �� la 4� art,. F • ..I ,safe " , � {. -`; . � it �• '� C' � �y\ I \ \\ r``... ir• f na• 6 .....r.. RM 36 ix 0 to to 1 I tJ z -, 1. G $i 2 r y1 .� 1 sp d � 'r 1 ���• as PR]x„ .Arl: MEAN n faCcAr:GLC LG rT.]� , � c� S il. If .1.. - - SOURCE. — I - USCiS 1.0UA� NEAP �1 'J Mn5 s� � ±QU NTA QUAD December 4, 1980 (Revised 1/7181) Landmark Land Company - Specific Plan 121 -E Page 2 Thence S.00 °39'07 "E., along the East line of said Northwest one - quarter, a distance of 2671.70 feet to the center one - quarter corner of said Section 36; Thence S.00 °07'02 "W., along the East line of the Southwest one - quarter of said Section 36, a distance of 867.79 feet to the Northeast corner of the Record of Survey on file in Book 8 of Records of Survey, page 90 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California; • Thence °' " S. $� 0 �52-3 �2 E . , a distance of 619.72 feet; Thence Southeasterly along a curve concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 178.37 feet, through an angle of 38 °16'20 ", an arc length of 119.15 feet to a point of reverse curvature; Thence Easterly along a curve concave Northeasterly, having a radius of 161.99 feet through an angle of 61 °17'40 ", an arc length of 173.30 feet- (the initial radial Line bears S.38 °23'48 "W.) - Thence N.67 °06'08 "E., a distance of 181.76 feet;" Thence Northeasterly along a curve concave Southeasterly, having a radius of 300.00 feet, through an angle of 23 °01'00 "., an arc - length of 120.52 feet; Thence S.89 °52'52 0'E., a distance of 103.05 feet to the Westerly line of Lot "T" (Eisenhower Drive as shown by map of LA QLTINTA GOLF ESTATES N0, 1) on file in Book 37, pages 96 through 98 of Maps, Records of Riverside County, California; Thence S. 0.0 °05'03.. "W., along said Westerly line, a distance of 150.03 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot "T "; Thence S,89 °54`57 "E., along said Southerly line, a distance of 6.71 feet to the Westerly line of said Eisenhower Drive (80.00 feet wide); Thence 5.00 °14'34 "W „ along said Westerly line, a distance of 1655.93 feet to an angle point in said Westerly line, said point bears N.00 °11'20 "E, a distance of 0.08 feet from the South line of said Section 36; Thence S.00 °11'20 "W., continuing along said Westerly line, a distance of. 50.08 feet; .Thence S.89 053'38 "E., along a line which is parallel with and 50.,00 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the centerline of 50th Avenue and its Westerly prolongation thereof, also being the Southerly line of Parcel 3 December 4,'1980 (Revised 1/7/81) Landmark Land Company - Specific Plan 121 -E Page 4 Thence N.89 °52'02 "W., along the Northerly line of said parcel conveyed to DESERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a distance of 270.00 feet; Thence S.00 °07'38 "W., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one - quarter, a distance of 657.77 feet; Thence N.89 °52'02 "W., a distance of 67.00 feet; Thence S.00 °07'38 "W., a distance of 57.20 feet; Thence N. 89 °53'02 "W. , a distance of 317.99 feet; Thence 5.00 °07 °38 "W., a distance of 429.90 feet; Thence S.89 °52!02 "E., parallel with the South line of said Southwest one-quarter, a distance of 425.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one - quarter, a distance of 390.00 feet; Thence N.8.9.°50'00"W., a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence S.89 °50100 "E., a distance of 250.00 feet to a point on the East line of said Southwest one - quarter; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., along said East line, a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence N.89 °50100 "W., a distance of 230.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., parallel with the East line of r$id Southwest one - quarter, a distance of 228.58 feet; Thence N.89 °50'00 "W., a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one - quarter; a distance of 370.00 feet; Thence S.89 950'00 "E., a distance of 250.00 feet to a point on the East line of said Southwest one - quarter; Thence.N.00 °07'38 "E., along said East line, a distance of 116.53 feet to the point of beginning. z Q a z [0 O 0) m N to N 1- J } U J J W 3 cD 0 N z Q 0 z. WELLS CITY 2658.76 A CZ 3045 N O ti to M %X> 5. 635.03 AC± — r f1 it i� Q N.A- M CALLS MAZATAR' II 1� zl i °II wil ml 0 11 011. zit >II 2644.22' ¢ f 1450,33 _ 11 I 1 S P 121 E 50th w 0 z W CALLE AVE. TAMPICO fl App. LANDMARK LAND CO. LOCATIONAL MAP Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE- V1 Dist. LA Q.UINTA Sup. Dist. 4 Sec. 36 T.8 S.�R.6E Assessor's Bk'3 P '" _ 733 9• � 0th AV. Circulation EISEHOWER DR. MAJOR 100' 0 0 Element 50th AVE. MAJOR 100' # Z Rd. Bk. Pq.1!% Date 8-- 24 -79 Drawn By Dick SITE W 3 I = 1200' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NO s & __ 1 DECLARATION OF FRANK USHER 2 I, Frank Usher, declare as follows: 3 1. I am personally familiar with the following 4 facts and if called as a witness, I would testify as 5 follows: 6 2. I am the City Manager for the City of La 7 Quinta, California; and have custody of the City records. 8 3. My duties include the accumulation and 9 maintenance of the City's records and documents. _10 4. A La Quinta ity Council Transmittal from the 11 Riverside County Plannin rtment; dated .June 4, 1982, is $ 12 represented in the do m n at ed hereto as, Exhibit "A" m N Oi �Z z$ 13 and incorporated he e' t is reference. I have examined 3 ° >0� aQaa mca�� 14 Exhibit "A" and +er e y that it is. a true and correct w�avw 15 copy, of the n a' ain ed in the files of the City of w ��YoF 16 La Quinta. a 3 - z 17 5. Ri erside County Planning Department Staff 18 Report, (5 pages), is represented in the document attached 19 hereto as Exhibit "B" incorporated herein by this reference. 20 I have examined Exhibit "B" and hereby certify that it is a 21 true and.correct copy of the document maintained in the 22 files of the City of La Quinta. 23 6. A Riverside County Planning Commission Staff. 24 Report, (1 page), is represented in the document attached 25 hereto as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated herein by this .26 reference. I have examined. Exhibit "C" and hereby certify 27 that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained S8 in the files of the City of La Quinta. 1 2 3 4 5 ® 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 wz g 13 �oyo� z go 14 �0: Q Da x 15 •� w a`Ro 16 a 3 z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 dated December, 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "H" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "H" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of, La Quinta. 12. The Roll Call Vote Results memorandum, dated May 13, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "I" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "I" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the f' es of the City of La Quinta. 13. Resoluti o. 4 of the City Council of the City of La Quinta., - C if rnia, is attached hereto as Exhibit "J" and incur o rein by this reference. I have examined true and co of the City of 14. The hereby certify that it is a document maintained in the files verside. County Planning Department memorandum to the La Quinta City Council, dated June 10, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "K" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "K" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 15. The Resolution Recommending Approving Specific Plan Of Land Use No. 121 -E Revised, is attached hereto as Exhibit "L" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "L" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy maintained in' the files of the City of La Quinta. -3- J " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hereto as Exhibit "Q" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "Q" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 21. The Inter - Departmental letter from the County of Riverside, Road and Survey Department, to Patricia Nemeth, Planning Director, dated January 26, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "R" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "R" andereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the files of the City of La Qu 22. ThINoti, Cam. Department to I a March ]�, 1982, i ated herein by th t maintained in the Riverside County Planning dated JK eto as Exhibit "S" and incorpor- e: I have examined Exhibit "S" and hereby certify that r a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 23. The Notice from the Riverside County Planning Department to various county agencies and departments, ✓dated March 15,' 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "T" and incor- porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit ' "T" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the 'Liles of the City of La Quinta. 0 The Notice from the Riverside County Planning pepartment to various county agencies and departments, dated December 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "U" and incor- porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "U" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the -5- 12 m 13 �aQa 14 �0 15 16 O� F 3 z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 hereto as Exhibit "Q" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "Q" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 21. The Inter - Departmental letter from the County of Riverside, Road and Survey Department, to Patricia Nemeth, Planning Director, dated January 26, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "R" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "R" andereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the files of the City of La Qu 22. ThINoti, Cam. Department to I a March ]�, 1982, i ated herein by th t maintained in the Riverside County Planning dated JK eto as Exhibit "S" and incorpor- e: I have examined Exhibit "S" and hereby certify that r a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 23. The Notice from the Riverside County Planning Department to various county agencies and departments, ✓dated March 15,' 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "T" and incor- porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit ' "T" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the 'Liles of the City of La Quinta. 0 The Notice from the Riverside County Planning pepartment to various county agencies and departments, dated December 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "U" and incor- porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "U" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the -5- 1 } 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 N OI �z zS 13 owa� mgwm 14 C6x 15 a w Qe°'zw 16 aF a 3 z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Riverside, Road and Survey Department, to Patricia Nemeth, Planning Department Director, dated April 8, 1982 is attached hereto as Exhibit "Z" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "Z" n hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of t e do u et maintained in the files of the City of a u z DATED: -7- Frank Usher La q' inta District Fourth Supervisorial Dt_-,;xVrict 'elated Files: SP9121 -E iQevised Change of Zone Case No. 3491 EA #15145 PC Hearing Date:_ 5/13/82 (Contd. from 1/27/, 2/17 &.:4/ Agenda Item: FVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING -DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: J. F. Davidson Associates 2. Type of Request: - Change of Zone R -5 to R -2 and W -1, R -2 to R -5,.:. W =1 to R -2, R -1 to R -3 3. Location: Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue and west of Eisenhower Drive, northerly of Avenida Fernando adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains. 4.' Parcel Size: Total of 36.97t Acr=es 5. Existing Roads: Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue 6.- Existing Land Use: Vacant 7.. Surrounding Land Use.: Golf Course and Vacant 8. Existing zoning: R -5 and R -2:,- W -1 , R =1 . 9. Surrounding Zoning: .: R -1, R-42-8 0, W -1 10. General Plan Elemen tom: Land Use: See Specific Plan #121 -E Revised Cove Communities. Open Space-,& Conservation: Urban Area Circulation: 50th and Eisenhower Dr. - Major 100' R 11. Sphere of- Influence: None 12 Letters: None in support /opposition. 'INALYSIS: �hange of Zone Case #3491 was continued from the April 14, 1982 Planning Commission hearing to revise the original zone change request. An additional 19.24± acres with a requested change from .--1 (Single Family Residential) to R -3 (General Residential) zoning being added to the request. Change of Zone Case #3491 is proposed as an implementation of Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, tentatively approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 1982. Specific Plan #121- E.Revised proposed an expansion of the La Quinta Hotel and related recreationa and condominium facil.it.ies. _.A total.of 36.97± acres is involved in the subject zone change. The property easterly of Eisenhower Drive' and southerly of 50th Avenue is being changed for three basic reasons: The 0.72+ acre parcel where a change of zone from R -5 to X41-1 is being requested reflects the conveyance of this property to the Coachella Valley Flood. Control District, for flood control purposes. The property is still being pro- posed for golf course usage. The two parcels of 1.76 ±.and 1.59± acres respectively where a change of zone from R -2 to R -5 is requested were formerly proposed for use as horse stables and a temporary sewage treatment plant.. These uses are no longer proposed, and this acreage would b,e a portion of the golf course. The other parcels of 4.58± and 5..09-1 acres respectively where a change of zone from R -5 to R -2 is re- quested reflect the changes necessary to implement the proposed pattern of golf course and condominium land uses. This area is anticipated for development of 110 condominium units. i( .'g. 1 F—M r CY d 1 CHANGE OF ZONE # 3491 R -5 to W -T. 0.72 acres reflect the conveyance of land to GVWR R -2 to R-5 1.76 acres change in. land use from horse stable and 4 .temporary sewage.. plant _to golf course R-2 to R_5 1.59 acres , same above R -5 t0 R -2 4.58 acres reflect planned pattern'of condo /golf development R -5 to R -2 5.09 -acres same as above W--1 to R -2 0.51 acres mare space for TR. 14496-;.Phase 1.(NO additional Gn R -5 to R -2 3.31+ acres more space for TR -14496 -Phase 7 .(NO additional un r CY 9 i i W- I I t" = 1p©O' App. J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOC. { !I 4-1 .I I AYENJOA FENN-ANPo -I !!` i I R-I e r f lk N f Use R-2& R -5 , TO R-?--,R-5,.a W--1 Dist. LA QUINTA 4th - Sup. Dist. Sec. , T.S S.;R.6 E Assessors ek. 731 P�• Circulation-5'0 th AVE. MAJ. 100' Element EISENHOWER DR. MAJ, *100' Rd. 8k. Pg. 121 Date 108 0 82 Drawn ®y • RIVERSIDE COUATY AL ANJt ING DEPAI?T�4ElV i C -P -3 16 • A I NAL VAAP rP ! 3tA R -2 -10000 R -5 1L ' ! R -, R- - -CZ3045 _ R -2- 10,000. R-5 R- I A 19.24 AC± CU 2286• I R -3 - R-2 R-2- ,000 ' c n R -I ' 9 i i W- I I t" = 1p©O' App. J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOC. { !I 4-1 .I I AYENJOA FENN-ANPo -I !!` i I R-I e r f lk N f Use R-2& R -5 , TO R-?--,R-5,.a W--1 Dist. LA QUINTA 4th - Sup. Dist. Sec. , T.S S.;R.6 E Assessors ek. 731 P�• Circulation-5'0 th AVE. MAJ. 100' Element EISENHOWER DR. MAJ, *100' Rd. 8k. Pg. 121 Date 108 0 82 Drawn ®y • RIVERSIDE COUATY AL ANJt ING DEPAI?T�4ElV i C -P -3 16 • A I NAL VAAP 4 f�La.Qui&LU District Tourth §upervisorial District Zeiated files: SP #121 -E Revised i 1. Applicant: 2. Type of Request: 3. Location: CHti „LI'E 'OF ZONE CASE PLO. 3491 EA #15145 PC Hearing Date: 4/14/82 (Contd. from 1/27/82 & 2/17/82) Agenda Item:, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 4. Parcel Size: 5. Existing Roads: 6. Existing Land Use: 7. Surrounding Land Use: 8. Existing Zoning: 9. Surrounding Zoning: 10. General Plan Elements: Cove Communities 11. Sphere of Influence: 12. Letters: J. F. Davidson Associates Change of Zone R -5 to R -2 and W -1, R -2 to. R-5, W -1 to R -2. Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue. and west of Eisenhower Drive, northerly of Avenida Fernando adjacent to the Santa Rosa•Mountains. Total of 17.56+ Acres Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue Vacant Golf Course and Vacant R -5 and R -2 R -1, R -2 -8000, W -1 Land Ilse: See Specific Plan 1#1121-E Revised Open Space & Conservation: Urban Area Circulation: 50th and Eisenhower Dr. - Major 100' R/ None None in support /opposition ANALYSIS:. This case was continued from the January and February hearings at the applicant's 6quest to. resolve deta ils with the associated Specific Plan #121 -E Revised. Change of Zone Case #3491 is proposed as an implementation of Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, an expansion of the La Quinta- Hotel. and related facilities. A total of 17.56± acres is involved in the subject zone change. The property .easterly of Eisenhower Drive and southerly of 50th Avenue is being changed for three basic reasons. The 0.72± acre parcel where a change of zone from R -5 to W -1 is being requested reflects the conveyance of this property to the Coachella Valley Flood Control District for fl.00d he purposes. The property is still being proposed for golf course.usage. .The two parcels of 1.76± and 1,59± acres respectively where a change of zone from R -2 to. R-5 is'requested were formerly proposed for use as horse:stabTes and a temporary sewage treatment plant. These uses are no longer pro- posed, and this acreage would be a portion of the golf course. The other parcels of 4.58± and 5.09± acres respectively where a change of zone from R -5 to R -2. is requested reflect the changes necessary to implement the proposed pattern of golf course and condominium land uses. This area is anticipated for development of 110 condominium units. Immediately ;lest of Eisenhower Drive, the parcel of 0.51± net acres has a change of zone front W -1 to R -2 being requested. This request is to allow for space for the expansion of the condominiums already approved under Tentative Tract #14496 Phase 1. No changes in the number of condominium units are proposed.' Pg. l of 2. OS/ �c�e CALL E. 6 M,4Z47Z-AN 930' N 00 !4 '.34 e PR5Awe'o Rr EISEN110WER DRIVE -AIV ZANO1vf,4RX I V CO. as //vii Y.6 I)Ijlvrd rd ,171.d) ed -5 eV.9R bai nge ucf 2ZDr" #3491 pC. pear-°ing Vie: 1- 27 -�... Pg. 2 f i ther -the= R. 5 or R -2.. zone would allow both the access road and the flood control wall uses.. Pks no other uses are proposed in this 3.31.0 acre parcel. the requested zone dniangn is not necessary and would serve no vale ;6albe purpose. STAFF recommends DENIAL tof , th:ms portion of the subject zone change request. F INO1INIGS: 1 Imrlemi h.tation of previously adopted Specific. Plan #121-E as amended by Specific. plan. , -; 12 -9-E Revised (scheduled at this same Planning Commission Hearing) requires - the `adiopu.ion of -the requested zone changes (with the exception of the 3.31 a,cr6 parcel'ivest of Eisenhower).. 2. Er Jire_nmenta1 impacts of the proposed developments will be adequately mitigated per tra provisions. of. Specific Plan #121 -E, the related EIR 141, and. Specific PI en. x121 -E Revised. 3, D - ve7;0pr�.!ent pursuant too the proposed zone change is simi 7 ar in scale and nature to surc:indi ng developments. C6ACLU,SI07 S: 1 . T :e .-p reposed zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan 1121 -E f' and Secific Plan ;121 -E Revised. 2. Evironmental.impacts resulting from the subject zone chards and pursuant devel opm ent wi 11 not adversely affect the imliedi ate or rnearl'y environment. 3. Peveloprzents associated with the proposed zone changes would be cortipatible w th existing neighborhood 1 and .uses RECOMIMENDATIONS STAFF recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmenta:l:Assessment r151 and APPROVAL of Change of Zone ,3491 as shown on Exhibit "A" with the exception of the re parcel: west 'of E isenfiower Drive, which i s recommended for DENIAL on 3.37 +ac the basis of being unnecessary. ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUB, ,GENCY 1�7I T R I'C� COACHELLA VALLEY 'CATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 TELEPHONE (714) .398 -2051 33OAff^TORS OFFICERS fiAY11MDNDRi RU1MMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL 0. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER- CHIfFENGINEER, 'TELL'1lS COO--KAS, VICE PRESIDENT _ _ BERNARD(NE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN) P_ PGwELL VICTOR W HARDY, AUDITOR :�AULL %w.NIOHOLS January 12, 1988 REDWINEANDSHERRILL,/1TTORNEYS' �TEU� n. BL�rON y File: 0163.11 --c ��I Riverside County. Planning Commission IAN 1 s 1982 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 R' 1'EZS10E COUNTY P ANNING COM'X'M 311 0 N Gentlemen: Re: Change. of Zone 3491 sec. 3o, T5S, RD-E, S.B.:M. Sec. 1, T6S, R6E, S.B.M.. This area is designated Zone A3 on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at. this time. This area will. be protected from stormwater flows except in rare instances when the construction of Oleander Reservoir and La Quinta Evacuation channel are completed. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District, Yours very truly ' Lowell. Weeks Cenearal Manager -Chief Engineer CS•ra cc: ,Riverside County Department of Public Health 46 -209 Oasis Street. Indio, California 92201 Attention: Don Park TRUE CONSERVATION 1 rnnV S+anF fin �i�sArl ,n# #ic USE WATER WISELY 1. MAY 13, 1982 C,; � VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Commissioners Bresson, Steffey, Katzensteia, Campbell, Olesen and Sullivan NOES-. None ABSENT: Commissioner Purviance (REEL .723 ­SIDE' 1 - .1969 -2010) 1:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING (Cont. from 2/17/8-2Y:. CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 3491 (36•:51± acres, southeast corner. Adopt Negative Declaration for EA 15145 Eisenhower .and Avenue .50) Landmark Land R -5, W 1 and R -2 to--R-2, W -1 and R =5, etc. La Ouinta District -= Fourth Supervisorial District The hearing was opened at 2:35' p.m. and closed at 2 :40 P.M. STAFF. RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative' declaration for EA 15145 and approval of Change. of Zone Case No. 3491 from R -5, W -1 and R -2 to W-1, R -2 and R -5 in accordance .with Exhibit 2. The'zone change had been submitted in order. to implement Specific`Plan No. 121 -E Revised, which:had previously been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission: The zoning changes reflected changes. proposed for the different areas as reflected on the revised specific plan.- Staff felt that development in accordance with these proposed zone changes would be similar in scale and compatible with existing neighborhood land uses. 5 . Bob Kipper, representing Ahe applicant., concurred with staff's analysis and recommendations. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed at 2:40 p. u,. .Upon. motion: by Commissioner Olesen, seconded by Commissioner Campbell and unanimously carried, the .Commission recommended to the City Council, City of La Quinta,:adoption of the negative declaration for EA 15145 based on the finding the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS: The proposed zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan No. 1,21 -E and Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised; environmental impacts resulting from' the subject zone changes and pursuant development would not adversely affect the immediate or naart,.. •- 1 -- - - -- - state agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by .the City Council of the City of. La Quinta, California, in regular session assembled on October 5, 1982, . that it makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The original Specific Plan 121-E was approved and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report No. .41 was certified in April, 1975, by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. : The revised Specific Plan 121 -E would result in a development similar in .nature and scale. to the original Specific Plan No. 121 -E., 2. -A large majority of the residents would utilize their. _.dwellings as a second or retirement home, which: would ,result in minimal impacts on the schools and the lack of a heavy concentration of "peak" hour traffic to and from work. 3. Revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E represents an expansion of existing - facilities and developments associated with the existing La Quinta Hotel. 4.: Environmental. impacts and urban service demands. of this project.would be minimized by the nature of the development (second and retirement homes). These impacts can be mitigated--and services provided by incorporating the measures. outlined by the Riverside County Planning staff in their report dated April 14, 1982, and in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 41. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the La Quinta City Council, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County Rules to implement the Act, have reviewed and considered Environmental Assessment No. 15626 in its evaluation of the specific plan. and find that no significant impacts to environment will result from the project; and therefore, adopts the negative declaration for- Environmental Assessment No. 15626. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED ANDS ORDERED' that the Specific Plan on file with the City Clerk entitled Specific Plan of' Land Use No. 121 -E, Revised, including the final approved conditions. and exhibits, is hereby adopted as the Specific Plan of Land Use for the real property shown in the Plan and said real property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the Specific Plan unless the Plan is repealed or amended by the La Quinta City Council.: . .: 'BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND' ORDERED that copies of the. Specific.Plan of Land Use shall be filed in. the Office of the Clerk of this Council, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Director of Building and..Safety, and that.no applications for conditional use permits, or the like, shall be accepted for the real property shown on the Plan- unless such Ta: LR:QUINTA CITY COUNc. FROhI: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT nAT`E_ June 10, 1982 SUBJECT: Revised Specific Plan #121 -E Landmark Land Company 641.23± Acres U La Quinta District Fourth Supervisorial District Negative Declaration - EA #15626 BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan #121 -E in conjunction with EIR #41 for the La Quinta Hotel and related condominium developments was approved by the Board of Supervisors in April, 1975. A revised Specific Plan was submitted because of the addition of 19.23± Acres and a desire to make changes in the land use plan previously approved. A total of 279 additional condominium units and 146 additional hotel rooms would be permitted by the revised specific plan as proposed. The following is:a summary and comparison of the changes proposed by the Revised Specific Plan Original Revised,. Net Original Revised Net Land Use Acreage- Acreage Change Units Units Change' Condominiums 132.8 Ac. 161.86 Ac. +29.06 637 916 +279 Motel Complex 43:2 Ac. 43.2 Ac. 0 496-. 642 +146 Mountains - -. 211.4 Ac. 211.4 Ac. 0 Not applicable Goif Course ��en 1.91.5. Ac. 185.2 Ac. -6.3 (TWenty -seven holes) Area 30.8.Ac. 27.27 Ac. -3.53 Not applicable ub House 5.& Ac. 5.8 Ac. 0 Not applicable service Facilities 3-.5 Ac. 3:5'Ac. .0 Not applicable Totals 619.0 Ac. 638.23 Ac. +19.23 Ac. 1,133 1,558 +42 _ 5 - RECOMMENDATION: The Riverside County Planning Commission recommends to the City' of La Quinta City Council ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for EA#`15626; and ADOPTION of the Planning Commission Resolution recommending APPROVAL of the Revised Specific Plan #121 -E. ajp Pared by: ricia raeme�n, �„i.i.Y„ Planning Uirector 9:1,141AIT It 2 t � � S •I 17'. •� water, sewer, police protection, and fire protection. 2 D. COMMUNITY DEVELOP:11INT 3 Expandinq on the existing resort hotel complex, the proposed 4 project closely compliments the exi sting: development in the immediate area. 5 Significant open space areas are provided; including the maintenance of the 6 mountainous areas and in many areas are ad.iacent open space acreage (golf 7 course) at the foot of the mountains. The open-.space, natural mountain 8 backdrop, and recreational facilities further-enhance the existing resort 9 atmosphere of the La QUinta Hotel and La.Quinta Country Club area. 10 WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and 11 documentation presented by the public, and various county, local and 12 state agencies;, now therefore, " 13 HE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Planning Commissicn 14, of the County of Riverside, State of California, in regular session assembled 15 on May 13, 1982 that it makes the following findings and conclusions: 16 1: The original Specific Plan 121 -E was approved and the asso- 17 ciated Final Environmental Impact Report No. 41 was certified 1 8 in April 1975 by the Board of Supervisors. The revised 19 Specific Plan 121 -E would result in a development similar in 20 nature and scale to the original Specific P1an'No.121 -E. 21 2. A:large majority_ of the residents would utilize their dwellings 22 as a second or retirement home,. which .would result in r1inimal 23 impacts on the schools and the lack of a heavy concentration 24 of "peak" hour traffic to and from work. :25 3. Revised Specific Plah No. 121 -E represents an expansion of 26 existing facilities and developments associated with the 27 existing La Quinta Hotel. ` a 28 2 t Fie„_ '-^u'N'= ^- �tr�.`✓t"�',f �r�ar.f �+. s... a.,. s w..' Llfl�td CSC " . Fourth Super-visorial Dist- ict Related Files: SP #121 -E, EIR #41 PM #14273, TR #14496, C/Z #3045, PP #5829 1. 2. .. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. SP .r ,FIC PLAN #121 -E Revised. EIk d41 - EA #15626 PC Hearing Date: 4/14/82 Agenda Item: 8 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Applicant: Type of Request: Location: Parcel Size: Existing Roads: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land Use: Existing-. Zoning:' Surrounding Zoning: 10. General((Plan Elements: rove C-,-snlun1tlaa Landmark Land Company Specific Plan of Land Use Mostly westerly of intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue 641.23± Acres Eisenhower Drive, 50th Avenue, Avenida Mazatlan Hotel, condominiums, golf course, vacant Residential, Vacant (.including mountainous terrain) R -1, R -2, R -2 -4000, R -2 -7000, R -2- 8000,: R- 2- 10000, R -3, R -5, W -1 R -1, R -5, W -2, R -2 -8000, W -1, R- 2- 4000,:C -P -S, R -3, N -A Land User. See SP #121= E,,.NAP portion is Low Density Residential (3 -5 DU /Acre) Open Space and Conservation:_ Urban Area Circulation: Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 Major 100' R/W ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Environmental analysis of the revised specific plan resulted in a determination that no major adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. .A - negative. declaration for. Environmental Assessment #15626 . has been prepared. -SUMMARY The subject application was :continued from the January and February hearings at the. request of the applicant in order to clarify details of the project with staff. A previous case,.Specific Plan #121 -E, in conjunction with the associated EIR #4.1, was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in April, 1975. Specific Plan #121 -E encompassed a 619 acre project adjacent to the La Quinta Hotel. Components of the development plan approved under Specific -Plan #121 -E include the following: 637 condominiums on 132.8 acres, 496 unit additions to the La. Quinta Hotel on..42.3 acres, and a 27 hole golf course on 191.5 acres. Upon completion, the 916 condo- miniums would have a population of approximately 12292 and the 542 hotel rooms - -.-.would.have a transient population of approximately 1,250 people at full occupancy. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A revision of the original Specific Plan is required because of changes in the proposed land uses for the development. These changes include the following: (1).1The.addition of a 19.23 acre. parcel labeled "not a part" on the original Specific Plan -. This parcel was recently purchased by the Landmark Land Company. A complex of tennis courts and a maximum of 200 condominiums is planned for this acreage. (2) A total of 6.3 acres located east of Eisenhower Drive and south of 50th Avenue, originally intended for other uses, is now proposed for develop- anent of 64 condominium units. The 6.3 acres was originally proposed for use as Lgi IAil� LAND USE 'COMPARISON Original Specific Plan # 121 -E and Revised Specific Plan .# 121: -E Land Use Original .Acreage' Revised Acreage Net Change Original Devised` Units ' Net g _ Units Change - Condominiums :�. 132.8 ac 161.86 ac +29.06 637 916 + 219 Hotel Complex 43.2 ac 43.2 ac .O_ 496 fi42 +146 Mountains .211.4 ac 211.4 ac -0_ Not applicable. Golf Course 191.5 ac 185.2 ac -6,3 (7wentyseven hales) Open Area 30,8 ac 27.27 ac -3.53 Not applicable � t i f�cr� y y': ptc ;f`1C Plan #121 C ,flevf S--U. ff Report tfhis specific instance, the transfer of densities permits a character of develop- ment -which is ideally suited to the vacation, retirement home, and resort type mlark,et. Homeowners are provided the advantages of a large array of recreational opportunities., community social events, minimal maintenance ,responsibilities,.and . security provided by the clustered community of neighbors, Privacy is somewhat compromised in a clustered development, but the other advantages are, of critical . importance in the resort market place. ANALYSIS: ARCHAEOLOGY.: An archaeological survey was conducted in April, 1 75 by S. R. McWilliams in con- junction with the original specific Plan. Findings - of.the survey were that no significant sites would be destroyed by the proposed project. Further surveys were not required. However, the archaeologist did request that a site east of Eisenhower Drive with minor concentrations of artifacts associated with the sand dune and mesquite vegetation be investigated during excavation by the author for academic interest only. SCHOOLS As a vacation and retirement. home type development, the' proposed project would have no significant impacts..on the Desert Sands Unified: School District which serves . the area. However; should the school district file. a. notice of impaction, with the county, the.developer. shall be required to adequately mitigate school impacts prior r the issuance of building.permi.ts. l AIR QUALITY Short term air quality impacts of-exhaust from construction. equipment and dust from grading and, construction would be experienced during the.temporary construction period. These impacts would be minor in nature and can be adequately mitigated by watering of dust prone areas and confinement of construction activities to normal working hours. � From a longer term prospective, the emissions from automobile traffic would consti- tute the major air quality .impact for the life of the project. As computed in the table below, the entire (original and revised) project would result in approximately 2,115 pounds or 1.057 tons per day of additional pollutants. being emitted into the atmosphere. These calcuiations are premised on a project trip generation of 11,550 trip ends, or one way trips on the average week day. From a regional perspective, the additional air pollution would be relatively, insignificant. Also, the nature of the project would lead to the greatest levels'of traffic and pollution on week- ends when permanent residents would be driving less. "Peak" traffic volumes would be minimal because traffic would tend to be very spread out rather than concentrated in a to and from work pattern inherent in a development of permanent residents. #121 -E Revi s4 _ 5r�fff, ate port milling units will have to be connected to a sanitary sewer system of Coachella' Via.T %r Water District. This system may be either the proposed. sewage treatment. plant �- tti. existing "temporary" system, depending on the progress of the Coachella Valley Wa ter- oDis trict in finding a location acceptable to the community for the treatment plazrr_ In ' ei they event, adequate treatment capacity must be avai l abl a before any buii►.rffrng and /or.occupancy permits can be issued, L,4)L � PoT -5r--- protection is provided to the La Quinta area by the Riverside County',Sheriff Depar -=ent :Indio Office.. The Sheriff Department has indicated that a request_ is saa by their department to the Board of Supervisors for 'additional manpower and/ or immding, as required by the demands of additional population and development: T.he sisbjeet.'project will result in increased -crime as would any other project which inc*- -ases the population of the area.. However, a need'for specific increases in she = =f personnel or. equipment.is not anticipated by the Sheriff Department,. Mini- .mi2-i"'' 7g any additional crime in the project vicinity .;gill he the on ite. pri`iate sec:: ty force provided by the La Quinta Cove Golf Club. FIRE Fire protection is provided to-the site by the Riverside County Fire Department. The r..earest station is. located at 78136 Avenue 52 in La Quinta. ^1�h; ugh some additional' services will inevitably be required. by the subject project, sL,?cific additional manpower or equipment requirements have been mandated by the Ire Department. FLOOD Shallow flooding could occur on.the project property. However, no significant flood dangers will exist for the proposed development following construction of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which is now in progress. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Primary access. to the site is provided from - Interstate 10 and Highway 111 via Washing- ton Street, and then Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue. As proposed, the revised specific plan would increase trip generation by almost 30% aver :the levels an.t.icipated with the original Specific Plan. Because of these sig. nificant impacts, the Riverside County Road Department proposes the mitigation measures outlined below. (1) A General Plan Amendment shall be initiated to restore Eisenhower Drive as a major highway- between 50th Avenue. and Washington Street. (2) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling units exceeding 750 including hotel units, the project proponent shall contribute toward the installation of the following signals in,the proportion. indicated: a. Eisenhower Drive at 50th Avenue (75 %) b. Eisenhower Drive at Avenida Fernando (25%) c. Eisenhower Drive at Washington Street (25%) Specific Plan fUT+-� Mevi 1..,q. 1 5 Staff Report Pg. 7. _NDINGS AND CQ1WCLME-;_MNS- 1. . Specific Plan 0' 12 -E was approved and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report #41 was, anertified in April, 1975 by the" of Supervisors. 2. The revised Sµcafic Plan #121 -E will result.in a development similar in nature and scale to tthe Original Specific Plan #121 -E. 3. A large majmrf*T±Y of 'the residents would utilize their dwellings as a second or. retirement .illorrtil-2_ This would result in minimal impacts on the schools and the lack of a h+eav:y concentration of "peak" hour traffic to and from work. 4. Revised. Sp ecif:ac Plan #121 -E represents an expansion of existing facilities. and developme7its associated with.the existing La Quinta Hotel. 5. Environmental impacts and urban service demands of this project will be minimized by the nature of the development (second and retirement home). These impacts can be mitigated nand services can be provided by incorporating the measures outlined- in previous sections -of this report and in Final Environmental Impact Report #41. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, staff :recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment. #15626, and APPROVAL of Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, in accordance with Exhibit "A" and -subject to the attached conditions. DM:ajp 3/30/82 5pecif7c i'lai� #1211 --'E ivied .-Conditions of Appro"I Pg.. 2. a) The document to convey title. b) Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded. The approved Cowenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time and listed on the final subdivision map when recorded. A homeowners association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance cost and management costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of this: assessment. Such lien shall not be subordinate, to any, encumbrance other than a.first. deed of trust, provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of.record prior to the lien of the homeowners association. 11. All conditions listed herein apply only to those parcels changed or added since the original specific plan was approved. .These parcels include the following: 1) A 19.23± acre parcel proposed for 200 condominiums, purchased since approval of. the original specific plan. 2) A 3.526± acre parcel at the base. of the mountains which is now proposed for 15 condominium units. 3) A 6.3+ acre.parcel located east of Eisenhower Drive,: which was. ori- ginally proposed for use as a temporary: sewage treatment plot and horse stables is now proposed as part'of'the condominium and golf course facilities.. Conditions in the original Specific Plan #121 -E remain applicable to all portions of the subject project with the exception.of the three parcels noted above. 12. Prior to recordation of final tract maps for the 19.23±, 6.3± and 3.526± acre parcels, water, sewer, and circulation systems must be adequately provided,. - LAND USE CONDITIONS 13, Lots created pursuant to this specific plan shall be -in conformance with the development standards of the zone(s)-ultimately applied to the property. 14. Each Planned. Residential Development (PRD) shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance 3413 and 460. 15. Prior to the. issuance of building permits, common open space area improvement plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. 16. The total specific plan shall be developed with a:maximum �of 916 condomin-i.m and 64 hotel units. specific PIdn x1121 -E Revised ,onddatioris of Approval d. Landscaping. Cojivion areas, parks, entry gates and streets shall be landscaf)ed with, plant species comps -. tible with the desert environment, e. Drainage Through 'Coordination with the Coachella'Val'ley Water District, all development.shall be designed to. protect all dwellings from storm flow.: February 11, 1982 ;Chairman Sullivan :.,Riverside •County Planning Commission -.4b -209 Oasis Street, Room 304 Indio, Ca. 92201 .:Reference:.. SP121 =E= Revised, change of Zone 3491 Dear Chairman Sullivan: As a -result of meeting with the Indio Planning Staff, we request a further continuance to the March 10, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting. This continuance is requested to allow us to further- review our project in detail with staff. We would like to clarify the issues detailed in the staff reports pre- pared for the January 27, 1982 hearing and subsequent revisions to ,these conditions. Thank you for your consideration'of this matter. Sincerely, .- loyd W. Watson LWW:Iw Ernest O. Vossler, Director and Senior Vice Resident LANDMARK LAND COMPANY. INC.. P.O: Box 1000. La 9uinta. California 92253 (714)345-2888 �161� INTO DG-PARYMENTAL. LETTER �._. - -.'' (C®UNTV IMF ROVER -SIDE -' ��t ►e t &, rr s! ti i. Y ��5 Road and Survey Department Memo To: Patricia Nemeth, Planning Director January 26, 1982 From-: A. E. Newcomb, Road Commissioner -and County Surveyor By: Edwin Studor, TransportationrP anne Re: Proposed Revision to Specific Plan No._- 1.21 -E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) Our staff recently had an onp6rtur.ity to rPat with represc.Intativa, for the.proponents of the above referenced proposal with regard to traf- fic impacts and mitigation measures. Based upon these discussions and our own analysis, we recommend that the special[ ciind'i tiviis for approval of the specific plan revision as stated in our letter of,December 14, 1981 be revised to read as follows: 1) A. General- Plan Amendment shall be initiated to restore Eisen:-' homer Drive as a major highway - between 50th Avenue and Washington Street. 2) Prier to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling units exceeding 750 including hotel units, the project proponent shall contribute toward the installation of the following Signals in the proportion indicated: a. Eisenhower Drive at 50th Avenue (75%) b. Eisenhower Drive at Avenida Fernando (25 %). c. Eisenhower Drive at Washington Street (25%) 3) To offset initial maintenance and energy costs incurred by.the - County due to signal installations., a fee based'on $25,000 per signal and totaling $31,250 shall tit- payable at the same time as the signal contributions. 4) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling units exceeding 1,000 including hotel units, the project proponent shall contribute 15% toward the total cost of the following off -road improvements: a. Widen Eisenhower Drive to- ultimate width from Avenida Fernando to Washington Street; and b. Widen Washington Street to ultimate width from 50th Avenue to Highway 111. ES: jn cc: Warren Stallard FXA41RIT R 1672(b OASIS ST. , RM, RYI I rM 16.4 CALIFORNIA 9"01 (71y - 342 -82/. DATE: March 15, 1982 TO: Assessor General- Telephone Co. Building & Safety Desert Sands School District Surveyor • -Road Dept. La Quinta Property Owners Assoc, FIealth Department Water Quality Control Board #7. Fire Protection La Quinta Chamber of Commerce CVWD - Flood CVWD , -Water Imperial Irrigation District 'VSo. Calif..Gas Company . :ILCT: SPECIFIC PLAtl #121 -E,. Landmark.Land:Co., P. 0: Box 1000, La Quinta, CA. 92253 To acid 19- acres and Change ,3.5 t Acres to Residential U:se; Increase of 279 condominium Units and IA6, hotel units YOUR MVENTS AND RECOMENDATIONS ARE REQUESTED PRIOR TO March 30;: 1982 SO THAT THEY MAY BE INCLUDED. IN OUR STAFF REPORT REGARDING THIS ITEPi, C IMENTS No objections, recommendations -or commnents at this time. DATE: March 1q" 1QR? SIGNED; V. C. ield Tprbnician THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD ON 1) YOU 411 SH TO BE PRESENT. WETURN THIS COPY TO f Liti`+N I N(i DEPARTmENT, y6 -209 OASIS ST.., Rm. 304, IND IO, CA., 92201) rVU1Q1T -1r. WEI 'IL -209 OASIS ST., RM. 3(Y1 111L)10,: CALI FORNIA T2201 : (714 - 342- 82/7)L.�'. t7 1STF2fCT . �r DATE: March 15 ,d TO: Assessor General Telephone Co. Building & Safety Desert Sands School District Surveyor, -Road Dept. La Quinta Property Owners Assoc. %Ilealth Department Water Quality Control Board #7. Fire Protection- La Quinta Chamber of Commerce CV140 - Flood CVWD , -Water Imperial Irrigation District So. 'Calif. -Gas Company StlBJE CF: . SPECIFIC PLAN #121 -E, Landmark Land Co., P.: 0. Box 1000, La Quinta, CA. 92253 To add 19f acres and Change 3.5 t Acres to Residential Use;7Increase of 279 condominium. Units and 146 Hotel units.- YOUR CCtji`lE TS AND RECO�.TIUDATIONS ARE REQUESTED PRIOR TO March 30, 1982 SO THAT THEY MAY BE INCLUDED IN OUR STAFF REPORT REGARDING THIS ITEM C 14TS The Riverside County Department of Public Health has reviewed the specific plan proposal, 'fitted by the applicant, Landmark Land Company, requesting approval to add approximately acres to.the original project. plan and change approximately 32 acres of the original project plan for residential usage in order that development. of approximately 279 additional condominium units and.146 hotel units Tn be made in phases. 1. With respect to the Conditions of Ai%proval for the above referenced plan, or any use allowed under this plan, this Department has the following additional recommendations: 1. All new construction within each phase of the project shall be connected to the domestic water system of the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the. current regulations of the District. 2• All new construction_ within each phase of the project shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system of the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the current regulations of the District. Before any permits are approved, the sewage disposal treatment facilities will have to be of adequate capacity to receive any additional sewage effluent from each phase of the prof ect development. DATE: March 29, 1982 G LU <' �'c .:_ ..,J. SI NED: THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD ON St 'YULD YOU WISH TO BE PRESENT. 0-04 1 H I S COPY TO PLANN I f 1r DEPARTMENT, 46 -209 OAS I S ST. , R1, 3a , I I0, CA, , 92201) EXHIBIT Riverside l;uunty East Area -2- March 18, I982 Planning Council :here niay be conflicts with existin" District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withijuld the issuance of a building `permit until arrangemunts:have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours. very truly Lowell 0. Weeks General. Manager- Chief Engineer cc': Riverside.Gounty Department of Public,. Health. 46 -209 Oasis Street lndio; California 92201 . Attention :. Don Park RI':ERS11A. COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTh-ENT 4080 I.I:1•ON STREET 9Lh F1 .RIVERSIDE, CALIF. 92501 REGIONAL TEAM $ 4 DATE: DEC. 1981 RE: SPECIFIC PLAN 1[-I TO: `BLDG & SAFETY Landmark Land Co ROAD, DEPT PO Box 1000 HEALTH DEPT La Quinta Ca ,;92253 FIRE PRO: FCTIO ?, • �r • ^ k rte. .. ' .. •,.4....4�.. ,.. .., :... FLOOD CONTROL-COACH ELLA•-VAL LEY WATER DIST: "�- --LA E�UIN -fA DIST: ���-� � . �:�- ��• -�-_ -� a t.. ,t ». :' *i s� y i•.,a - r r +► �- e rsif! l r ca �S. •,j h= !r.! +''v..i3'�,;it:•'= vrty,,.y,. ,; F ^..� :r . _y /:..y,y^1:. C RA. �6. a... `'� • - a. DESERT SA'�1) UN I t~ SCH00'L: IYTST = . rsa...K.:.- . •,•. , LA QUINTA PROP 0!•!(1ERS- ASSN " .....: ._...__... ,.,_ '..`... � ._ ..... WIATER QUALITY CONTROL BD 7 Please review the case described above and the attached map A publi . CL hearing, has been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 27, 1982. Your comments and recomrner)dations are requested prior to Jan. 17, 1982 in order to include them in the staff report for �. this itein- Should you have.any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin Manning at 342 - 8277. Related Case Files: PM 14273; TR 14496; CZ 3045 C01-11,11ENTS : / ..� . DATE - - - - Signaturerl _�,3�� i RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION' Case No. (Mod) /ZI;C �2evI,xcr,1 EA No. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: See attached Initial Study Patricia Nemeth, AICP, Planning Director COMPLETED Date L 2 Case No. (Mod) .2j- Land Div Sch �"'� 44 Appl/R{eP '*WA - - -�. Developable Lots Dev. Ac Date Submitted Open Space Lots -- O.Sp. Ac Existing Zones - z'r, 1 -�DUp 3 /� i i �- Changes of Proposed - Zones Only zoning Acreage ADOPTED - � Board of Supervisors Planning Commission O Area Planning Council Q Manning Director 0- HEARING BODY OR OFFICER C] Board of Supervisors 0 Planning Commission 0 Area Planning Council 0 M tinning Director Person verifying adoption. Date (Other) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION [�7 _ (Other) • .................. Developable Lots Dev.Ac Changes of Approved Zones Only Zones Acreage ACTION ON PROJECT O Approval 0 Disapproval Date Open Space Lots 0. Sp. Ac The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted and may be examined at the Planning Department at the address below. f`!rson verifying action Title ST COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT sf LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 Ite - Orlyinal (Case file with Original Initial Study) Idenrod — Development Information re - County Clerk Files CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN # 121 -E General Conditions 1. The specific plan approval shall consist of the following: Exhibit A Specific Plan Text and Addendum Exhibit B Specific Plan Conditions of Approval Exhibit C Summary of Specific Plan Development Standards 2. If any of the following conditions for approval differ from the commitment made by the develop in the specific plan text or map exhibits, the conditions enumerated h -rein shall ta4u precedence or as annroved by the Riverside County ,.., p ..r r `.J ,. Road Commissioner. 3. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory re- quirements of all Riverside County ordinances and state laws and shall conform substantially with the approved Specific Plan # 121 -E Revised as filed in the office of the Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amemded, No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify any ordinance or other legal requirement for the development, or to set special time commitments for the development, shall be considered to be a part of the adopted specific plan. 5. !later and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. S. Road improvements shall be rovided in accordance with the requirements of the implementing subdivision ,for this project and /or as recommended by the Road Commissioner. 7. Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance With the coachella Valley Water District requirements. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the Riverside County Planning Department that all pertinent conditions of approval have been satisfied in accordance with the specific plan. 9. An Environmental Assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of Zone, plot plan, or any other discretionary permit within the specific plan. . 10. Prior to recordation of any final subdivision map for a phase of development requiring a homeowners, association, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department t-he following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County that the homeowners association will be established and will operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan. �.4 •fy�: Conditions of Approval Revised Specific Plan # 121 -E Page 3 Phasing Conditions 20. Construction of the development permitted hereby may be done progressively in phases, provided adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each phase and further provided that such phase development conforms substantially with the intent and purposes of the specific plan. 21. Phasing shall not be carried out in a manner which will cause newly completed structures to be in danger from dust generated by grading for a subsequent phase. 22. Fire protection Shall be provided in accordance with all applicable requirements of Ordinance 450 and 0rd;nance 545. 23. The developer shall pay any public facilities and /or school district fees which may be applicable at the tentative map approval. 24. The developer shall comply with the following specifc plan development standards: a. Security Police Protection Walkway and parking areas will be adequately lighted. b. Circulation Gates at entrances will be at least 80 feet from the public street to allow for stacking and turn around. c. Grading rill grading will be completed under the direction of a soils engineer and in conformance with applicable County ordinances. Grading permits will be obtained for all grading and shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for environmental review where applicable. d. Landscaping Common areas, parks, entry gates and street$ shall be landscaped with plant species compatible with the desert environment. e. Drainage Through coordination with the Coachella Valley Water District, all development shall be designed to protect all dwellings from storm flow. f. Energy and Resource Flow restrictors in bathrooms and kitchens, small Conservation reserve tank toilets and water saving washing machines in common laundry facilities shall be standard features of the development. Dwelling unit construction shall include site orientation and design so as to maximi7e solar access. 46� 00; 7 L!J. (4 4 E D �j 11 aye jiwvv� 014mw*v. /Vao SPECIFIC' OPLAIM OF LAND USK Wn-M Pahn WfWcaiklm J•P. DAVIONON ASSOCIATWO ouvin,"04• rio ci.-I M. -04-, • GM. 00 AW. Ri . REV", PINIONS ru4 /1 MWVNMP MPNCW40 PL.AN ►LAM T a .b....,w,wa4ri•uu�.,Y..wulee ..e.,� ,_ .. ,. <-,�' :.�.` i., .,�.'.:.; ..a 'ehs" ^ <i : :.. �.. _.. . - e• ..« HULL CALL VOTE hLSUtTED AS FOLLLAIS: I AYES: CUnllnit,s- ;,hers Bresson, 'Steftcy, "tzenstettt, Ca Lap bell, (1,—F, a.Ild Sullivan NOES: None• ABSENT: Commissioner Purviancr (REEL 723 - SIDE - 1969 -2010) 1 1:50 p.m. PUBLIC 'r._AI :INC (Cons. from 2/17/82) CliANCE Ui ZUCE C.;L 60. 3491 (36.51_ acrcr,, SuUt`eak3L rnrnr•r Adopt Ne_•aL :•.,r• G•. = i.trat on for LA Eiseni -wet and ,weuue 30; !.tndmar6 hod Fourrh So ;,•r :isur : :,l !ii r[n ct The hearing was :,?ened at 2:35 p.m. and closed at 2:40 p.m. STAFF REC(kLIlE1JL`�__ION: Adoption of the negative declaration for E� 15145 and approval of Change of Zone Case No. 3491 from R -5, W -1 and R -2 to W-1, R -2 and R -5 in accordance with Exhibit 2. The zone change had been submitted in order to implement Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised, which had previously been reco=iended for - cproval by 'he Planning Commission. The zoning changes reflected changet proposed for the different areas as reflected on the revised specific plan. :.taff felt that developrLent in accordance with these proposea zone changes to -_' be similar in scale and compatible with existing neighborhoca ian. uses, Bob Kipper, reprs_enting the applicant, concurred with staff's analysis and recommendations. ?;ere being nc further testimony, the hearing was'clused a' 2:40 p.m. Upon aoriou b. L_- -issioner Olesen, econde? by Commissioner Campbell and unanimously carr_ec, the Commission recommended to the City Council, City of _ - La Quinta, adopon of the negative declaration for EA 15145 based on the finding the propcsed project Could not have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS: The proposed zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan No. 121 -E a d Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised; environmental impacts resulting from tl=- subject zone changes and pursuant development would mat adversely affect _he immediate or nearby environment, and developments associated w-ch _he proposed zone changes would be compatible with existing neighborhood Ian_ ages. t MOTION: Upon mot'' -on by Commissioner Olesen, seconded by Commissioner Campbell and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council, Citv of La Quinta, arcroval of Change of Zone Case No. 3491 from R -5, 1,1-1 and R -3 to R -2, W -1 and : -5 in accordance with Exhibit 2, based on the above findings and staff's reco =endations. ROLL CP.LL VOTE R -5MED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: Commis= ioners Bresson, Steffey, Ratzenstein, Campbell, Olesen and Sullivan HUES: None ABSENT: Commis_ -cner Purviance -:UU r..... ::t.._.I. Ku'OerL !,r.,u!a l2.7_ acres, unr[h ciao u; Reyuust ., . is i, : : :. : rur„ R -3 to c -P -` L ^ 11;, west a: !, n•• I'.._. kern'Ude '..nc1 1!;: :.-lit - I'ouru; 1ul,r rvi 6n- La' 'MSLricr P Thu applicant h:,� ,peaJrd Staff'_, d;Lernination that a chinrr is [rol° K -3 -4000 LL, -1'- the 2 suhjecL acre'p•arcaz would be in,:: ns :st :'ni 1! ,. 19' ATTACHMENT *2 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN - OF LAND USE NO. 121 -E, REVISED. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et. seq., public hearings were held before the La Quinta City Council on September 21, 1982, in the City of La Quinta, California, on proposed Specific Plan of Land Use No. 121 -E, Revised; and .WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County rules to implement the Act have been met and negative declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 15626 has been recommended for adoption by the Planning Director; and WHEREAS, the revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E will allow an additional 279 condominiums and 146 hotel units, the following issues were identified and resolved: A. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The units proposed in conjunction with the revised Specific Plan, when added to the original Specific Plan, will not exceed the overall density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION As proposed, the revised Specific Plan would increase trip generation by about 30% over the levels anticipated with the original Specific Plan. This additional impact was mitigated through the requirement for additional road improvements and contributions to traffic signals at three intersections along Eisenhower Drive. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES As a vacation and retirement home development, many of the impacts. on public services and facilities generated from the revised Specific Plan are minimized. These include impacts and demands on schools, air quality, water, sewer, police protection and fire protection. D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Expanding on the existing resort hotel complex, the pro- posed project closely compliments the existing development in the immediate area. Significant open space areas are provided; including the maintenance of the mountainous areas and in many areas are adjacent open space acreage (golf course) at. the foot of the mountains. The open space, natural mountain backdrop, and recreational facilities further enhance the existing resort atmosphere of the L Country Club area. a Quinta Hotel and La Quinta WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various county, local applications) are substantially in accordance with the adopted Revised Specific Plan of Land Use. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of ATTEST: r C T qLERK �P&RO JED AS TO FORM: 4f. ITY ATTORNEY October , 1982. MAYOR APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: GER v — i y8 uN�rS �� I. RQS�pt NTIAL_ Q' rf 18773 i 13 QAa rs i ►•i /- aoFA -CIO' aces_ rwGro •onsa I ly 7 ' rI � i lbw _ ' -� u LA QuiNTA, WOTCL TftNNIS CA_U /1� 148/2) 22 4 z I J-�Fivxfls �r� 4 _?S C56/ 2% -2 / -.... t w . 1 I TF2AGT 14415G - I r+SI I � _ 1 1� Jd CQUINTAN/L - � sttS�ocur�A.L. t f AREA ro GC Re zol4e D R -/ 7cp 9-3 LOTI► ATTACHMENT *4 _O H � l 'w • � Gil IV a �:� W Z $ c '?' LLI ,me LU cc :u a W i H� irl r l r1 + �� � town wr.. �:: r•��� V I r 7I �� u k� t • i �� Vol flits �W O3 W Q 7 J ui Z J l I I I I I I I 1 r r e • 'I' Y' I� I e v � I I E � Y r � M 6 N 1 E t-;.oI • Y -1 L� Y rra•sr•••,•••TI r� 0) F— z w Q F- Q In Q , rl d o AA Z. Q Q J • w [D G) 0140 CD r � � • W W c{ - d .•' 5peclfiC plan M121I -f R-- i! ' Conditions of Appmya ll Pg..2. a ) The dc}rument to convey title. b) Covenants, .Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded. The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time and listed on the final subdivision map when recorded. A homeowners association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance cost and management costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of this assessment. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed' of trust, provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the homeowners association. 11. All cotiditions listed herein apply only to those parcels changed or added since the original specific plan was approved. These parcels include the following: 1) A 19.23± acre parcel proposed for 200 condominiums, purchased since approval of the original specific plan. 2) A 3.526± acre parcel at the base of the mountains which is now proposed for 15 condominium units. 3) A 6.3+ acre parcel located east of Eisenhower Drive, which was ori- ginally proposed for use as a temporary sewage treatment plot and horse stables is now proposed as part of the condominium and golf, course facilities. Conditions in the original Specific Plan X1121 -E remain applicable to all portions of the subject project with the exception of the three parcels noted above. 12. Prior to recordation of final tract maps for the 19.23±, 6.3± and 3.526± acre parcels, water, sewer, and circulation systems must be adequately provided..- LAND USE CONDITIONS 13. Lots created pursuant_ to this specific plan shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone(s) ultimately applied to the property. 14. Each Planned Residential Development (PRO) shall coinply with the requirements of Ordinance 34A and 460. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, cuimion open space area improvement plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. 16. The total specific plan shall be developed with a maximum of 916 condominium and 642"hotel units. Specific nlaii 11121 -E Revised Conditioris of Approval Pg. 4. d. Landscaping Conriion areas, parks, entry gates and streets shall be Iandsca'ped with, plant species comps -. tible with the desert environment. e. Drainage Through coordination with the Coachella Valley 1. Water District, all development shall be designed to protect all dwellings from storm flow. d, e Q fob /- P�00 - Oho? — -, / - 045r- <:;� =-% - R -3 r�J 2 4 J21 cdaa 1 oi� 'I G T 144-CD6p — I ()` jp Qu N Nei -rANA. 4 f2 ES I mENT 1 AL APPLICANVOWNER: LANDMARK LAND CO. oe l44� 7, iT. N dT A 11.1 2l S' E R -3 pAi�GEL 2.37419 2l CZ X88 031 :. R- -!*to R -3-* XIST. B�C]G bi A oP ! a a z LU N. 20 20 H OF ZONE #8$ -031 CALLE, MAZA7L.A,iJ I i LOT 745' NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: (Public Agency) 1416 Ninth Street, City of La Quinta Room 1311 P. Or Box 1504 Sacramento, CA 95814 La Quinta, CA 32253 or X County Clerk County of Riverside SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 22108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Title Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, Amendment #1 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) N/A Wallace Nesbit (619) 564 -2246 Proiect Location West side of Avenida Obregon + 400' north of Calle Mazatlan Project Description Amendment to existing approval to incorporate a + 2 acre maintenance facility This is to advise that the City of La Quinta (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. 2. 3. The project will, X will not, have a significant effect on the environment. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of La Quinta Planning & Develoj2ment Dept. 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA 92253 Mitigation measures were, X were not, made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A sGGMVr0F&JRRWFtWng Considerations was, was gat, L.dccIted lEor fNs projects. j Date Received for Filing OCT 3 119$8 Signature CLERK of thny,�p�p•c►UFe,rv4SQR5 am" of SON of BY r KH /DOCWN. 001 ,/•� Associate Planner Title City Case No: Location: 4) uEG*nvE FJc-c4A'fAv PROJECT DESCRIPTION Specific Plan #12.1 -E, Amendment #1, Change of Zone No. 88 -031 Parcel Map No. 23749 Plot Plan No. 88 -393 Proposal Considered: Amendment of the Santa Rosa Cove (a.k.a. La Quinta Cove Golf Club) to incorporate +2 acres previously shown as not part of the Specific Plan and to . change zoning on the 2 acres from R -1 to R -3 to accommodate maintenance facility and appurtenant parking (PP88 -393). Parcel Map #23749 has also been filed to parcel off the maintenance building for future property transfer purposes, on a .5 acre parcel (see attached exhibits). Net Acreage: 2.48 acres + Net Density: N/A Land Use Plan: Medium Density Residential (4 -8 units per acre) Existing Zoning: R -1 & R -3 Proposed Zoning: R -3 Additional Comments: The scope of the Amendment request is limited to expansion of the Specific Plan area only, in association with the recent expansion of the La Quinta Hotel. No changes to unit count, densities, :or significant provisions of the Specific Plan are proposed. Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 23749 is linked to the southerly parcels by access Lot "A" (portion of Avenida Obregon). An easement•to provide access from Obregon through the parking area to the west parcel boundary is to be recorded with an already approved Lot Line Adjustment. CI'T'Y OF LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HJ /FORM.126 al -�I I 1 i z 1 L.aND use ,t,r C Z AVENIDA FUMANDO 1 ► I I 14 f f } 1 ' ,AC I I VAC. 3 I ! i► ; ' `, � Joe il""%_ i I . ' L — — � — • I � I r CZ 3045 '` '► 1 -\ 0 1 FERNANDOl— - - , 1 —f !t c LA ti CU22e6i ;� �� 19.24AC± m t Q111NTA f ti, f o HOTEL t ,cr,,FA it ``` If7AIRWAY MAZATLAN `: GOLF COURSE r App. J._F. DAVIDSON ASSOC. oo _• 1' F 'J f SING, ORES, SFR � r_ VA C 36.91 AC ± Use R -2 a. R -5 TO R- 2, R -5, & W =1 • I Dist. LA ' QUINTA' '4th Sup.Olat. Sec.3. T. 5 .S.,1!.6 E Assessors Bk. 631 Pg. 3 2 Circulation 5 0 th AVE. MAJ. 100' Element ' EISENHOWER DR. MAJ. 100' Rd. Bk. Pq.12' Date 1/ 8 / 82 Drawn By RlvFp.glD, COIJAfa' PLANNING DEPARruetyr u„ cI- it I r, f S MAP . +.r- _+•' �. �_ - � '. ... `ANA NNl: I._ - • _ _ . _ � .. • i -` lit ey• + tii� BM 72' 25 _ ro, WeIL Jr Iv ^ - — Law .1 +;{ ?r�" 1 - - •Sj `� ' - Y 5 1 ti-. l a �'1� •.: "ice ; ""'` 7• f •Water e ! 11� �• eKt S{1 till r ; � I''` �� r Q . `' N: sec "fly star AVE NU49 ` Wa[e ell �• � _ f �� - M`�^�.. L3J,7 �jl _Y — ;sir " =J`7f � ��. _ I. f - G,. -i !. � : � :{ ":i' �� � • '' a �� i�� ��_._�� '�J7c � � �' i,....� 1,�\ \ �•� {� /l~"` ~ _... c6 �,—r --°ti lr; r ,i rl. i � . J .�., { .rt w — _'Vlfaler• t t � � +� '� li I I .t Mimi L *L r'fsa ZI A A A . atb I .ff ! ��.� La Quints So w re e rc: 6 - . e CH 'L� •� ii. ti +:. `:'•` •!! T �L�! Y•^4•• . JT 1 � Reoional Setting of the La Quinta Hotel Pro'ect The Coachella Valley in general is a region of ln �} abundant rchaeolgical remains of Indian cultures. part this /idue.to the fact that artifactual material is well preserved in the extremely arid environment. Such material is also commonly exposed at the surface of the ground by the generally strong wind erosion in the desert. Finally, the activity of early man in the desert was rather w'despread and, in some situations, apparently quite intense and, thus, a considerable amount of debris was left from their activities. Two major kinds of environments were inhabited by early man in the Coachella Valleys (1) those areas of food and water re- sources which existed during times of normal and conditions, and (2) those areas of food and water resources which existed during those unusual times when ancient Lake Cahuilla partially' filled the Salton Trough. It is generally accepted that the Indians who occupied the Coachella Valley were technologically rather primitive in that they did not practice farming: ut depended rather directly upon the natural productivity the physical environment for their fond ant water. Th total productivity of the desert generally supported .human population, despite the fact that probably aHveryiewide when range of plants were classified as food sources. the Colorado River overflowed its channel and altered its course so as to inundate the Salton Trough (essentially the lower portions of the Coachella and Imperial Valleys), a radically desert t food-collecting was potentially q R cultures. The community of La Quinta Occupies a relatively unique position in this setting for both kinds of Environments described above were found in its vicinity. In fact, the La Quinta Hotel project itself may have encompassed bath the normal. desert -type of ` environment and the more unusual lakeshore environment. Studies have been undertaken to describe and - interpret the Indian occupation of the Coachella Valley, but truly thorough archaeological studies have yet to be completed. Potentially a great dead of knowledge concerning early human occupation of the Coachella Valley and its environs can be obtained from known archaeological sites, and the importance of identifying now localities of such data immense. The rapidity with which the Coachella Valley has been urbanized within the last ten to fifteen years is impressive. The result of this growth has affected the preservation of local archaeological sites significantly, and generally in an adverse way. From the standpoint of understanding both the ,prehistory of the Coachella Valley,,and the nature of human behavior among ancestral populations of this continent, it is vital to carry out archaeological investigations now before stir. more data is lost- L 1 Survey method Two types of land -use characte3rize the survey area and each required a different archaeological survey technique. The project area was classified as s;ithers (1) land considerably modified by modern man,., or (2) land in a relatively natural state. most of the project area was of the first type and only a small [p ortion was of the second type. An approximate distrilt ution of the two types of land -use is shown on map A ... 1. The modified Land Agricultural and residential uises are predominant on land of this type. It also includes the surfaced roads, access roads, flood control channel.$, and even a small -scale rock or sand quarry (in the extreme northwestern portion of the project area). Obviously, um der these conditions of preservation, relatively little Lundisturbed archaeological material at the surface would be ex;oected. Such material that was not in fact masked by the ;existi'ng structures, landscaping, or crops would certainly be greatly disarranged to a depth in some areas of many feet. In fact the farm land portion of-this category of land -use may have been extensively graded for irrigation flooding and,thus, archaeological materials would have been-removed. Observations in this portion of the project area were consequently restricted in scornpe and of a less intense nature. The farm land was walked across on a relatively random basis in an effort to determine the general frequency of archaeological material at the surface, most attention was devoted to those areas where the sail was relatively free of vegetation and surface observation could most readily be made. No exploratory test excavations were dugs and at no time did they appear waranted. 2. The Unmodified Land A small portion of the project area contains land which could be considered in its natural state. Ungraded slopes and native plant cover were the best indicators of this condition. The most extensive tracts of land in this category were found outside the specific boundaries of the project area. These tracts occur to the west, north, and east of the project area. Land to the south is greatly modified, and is the location of the older core of the town of La Quinta. Only the western -most portion of the project area can be considered as in a natural state. It was assumed that the most abundant evidence of Indian cultures in the area would occur on this little- disturbed land. It may be misleading to' suggest this category is truly pristine. Everywhere there is abundant evidence of modern man's visitations as seen by the accumulated debris or litter. This fact was particularly apparent within the boundaries of the project area. It can be assumed that artifact - hunters or relic - collectors have visited such potentially productive lands and may have removed the more obvious remains :of Indian cultures. The relatively undisturbed land within the - project boundaries was intensively examined. The area was walked across throughout its north -south extent and was subdivided into nine easily identified field units for purposes of recording observations. As with the modified land mentioned previously, orientation was maintained in the field and on the working map by closely following an aerial photograph (whose approximate scale was 1x12,000). The undisturbed land outside the boundaries of the proposed project area was examined with much less intensity. That area to the west and north of the proposed project area consist primarily of steep rocky slopes and short, dry canyons with a few well established alluvial fans. These canyons and their alluvial fans received the most attention (in terms of the surveyor's observations) in this marginal area. The undisturbed land to the east consists of sand dunes and possible former Lake Cahuilla sediments. This area is a well -known archaeological area, but did not specifically fall within* the confines of this study and, thus, was not emphasized. In summary, the goal of the survey was to identify surface remains that would suggest former aboriginal occupation of an extensive nature or in fact more intensively used specific sites. The project area consists of about a square mile which is relatively small in terms of the range of archaeological surveys in general. Consequently, the area could be examined in some detail, and this examination was facilitated by distinguishing between the "developed" versus the "raw" land within the project boundaries. Survey Findings Archaeological material does occur within the proposed boundaries of the La Quinta Hotle project area. However, based on this survey the material present does, not represent any significant concentration. The finds located within the project boundaries appear to this author to be of minimal importance. 1. material Found on the Modified Land Curiously the-most frequently encountered artifacts came from the portion of the project classified as agricultural and residential land. Two localities yielded this material, and both are plotted on map A where they are designated by the letters a and b. In neither case was the material so plentiful as to suggest any depth to the deposit at all. Locality -a is situated immediately south of Avenue 50 and along the eastern -most boundary of the project. The site is marked by the existence of an exceedingly large mesquite -hill sand dune. It is quite likely the mesquite which currently exists at the site was alive during the 19th century and probably constituted a food source for the Indian inhabitants of the valley at that time; its shape is typical of very ancient growth in that a very large central core area is quite barren of vegetation at this time. A few potsherds (nine fragments were collected which represented all those seen) littered the dune. surface and nearby southern shoulder of Avenue 50. This material is typical of other sites in the Coachella Valley and is often described as simply plain brown ware. The material was best exposed along the northern face of the sand dune where the road -cut and subsequent wind erosion have combined to expose the material at the surface. Occasionally rocks are found in this vicinity, which naturally would not occur on a sand dune, but they may represent recently intruded items; in any case their occurrence is rare and significance is minimal. The western portion of locality -a is greatly modified in that it .has been quarried for sand, and currently has been used as a place to dump soil. The quarrying has exposed the dune to a depth of ten feet or mare, and yet no archaeological material protrudes from this cut. This may support the belief that the site lacks any significant artifact concentration. However, the mesquite seems to have been growing most actively towards the irrigated field immediately to the west and, thus, the accumulated sand where the quarry exists may be only a recent addition to the otherwise large dune. No artifacts would be expected from the quarry cut -if the sand accumulation -there is itself of recent age. This mesquite dune may possess buried archaeological material fifty yards or so to the east of the irrigated field. Such a location would place the site outside the boundaries of project area as described to this author. Based on previous experience it is my opinion that this site is not worthy of further investigation. It might also be noted that none of the typical indicators of a shoreline location (freshwater shellfish remains, fish, turtle or aquatic bird skeletons) were present. It is difficult to believe that such material is totally buried by accumulated sand, but rather it seems the former shoreline of Lake Cahuilla exists farther to the east and that location -a is beyond its borders. Consequently, the site at, best is a food - collecting location perhaps visited during the intervals when Lake Cahuilla did not exist, and such sites are rather common in the Coachella Valley. Locality -b is situated immediately south of a small floodwater channel on what appears to be abandoned farmland. The land seems to be used recently, as a rubbish dump and is heavily overgrown by brush. Two fragments of plain brown ware (again that type common to archaeological sites in the Coachella Valley). were observed and collected here. The two finds came from an area perhaps the size of a city block. The site warrants no further investigation, but may be important as an indicator of how prevalent artifacts might be expected on the rest of the farm and residential land. were it feasible to locate them. Curiously, fra ments of modern Mexican ceramic ware (polychrome and glazed3 is found within this rubbish area, but it is certainly unrelated to the aboriginal Indian occupation of the land. 2. Material found on the Unmodified Land In contrast to what was expected by this researcher, the land surfaces in relatively natural states of preservation yielded totally insignificant quantities and types of artifactual material. One small fragment of plain brown ware was collected towards the extreme western end of Avenue 50, but within the boundaries of the project area. The interpretation of this situation suggests the aboriginal use of the desert environment (at least in a way that would leave a material remain) was restricted in this area to those sites away from the base of the western and northern mountain ranges. Certainly today this mountain -base location is quite arid and supports little in the way of plant growth= no surface water would be present in this location in aboriginal times and the elevation appears to be above that of the former lake by a few feet (assuming the lake stood at approximately 40 feet above sea level). The rocky slopes of the mountain ridge and the alluvial fan surfaces at the mouths of the small canyons yielded no evidence of archaeological material. It must be assumed the land of this nature was simply an unuseable food- collecting area. In contrast, the sandy area to the east of the project boundaries (although well outside the study area) possesses a significant concentration of archaeological material. This , is indicated on map -A as location -c. many fragments of plain brown ware litter the surface here, as well as numerous rocks from an aboriginal hearth, and skeletal fragments of a local fauna. Interestingly, the remains of the freshwater mollusc typical of lakeshore "sites occurs in abundance at this location. The site seems to be associated with the western -most shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Fortunately the site is not'on property slated for development in the La Quinta Hotel project and, therefore, may be preserved for a while longer permitting interested archaeologists to examine its contents. To my knowledge, this the closest site of any importance to the proposed project area. It should be carefully avoided by any construction vehicles or activities associated with the hotel project. Summary and Recommendations The archaeological survey at the La Quinta Hotel project yielded little in the way of important sites thatt would be lost by the proposed construction activity. No further investigation seems to be requited within the boundaries of the project area. The major archaeological finding within the project is negative in natured it seems significant that material was not encountered. This fact has implications relative to the nature of the aboriginal occupation of the Coachella Valley environment. The minor concentration of artifacts associated with the sand dune and mesquite vegetation (location a) may warrant further attention if in the course of the construction work it is leveled. In that case the developer is requested to advise the author of this report in, order that the excavation be- briefly examined. most likely this examination would be of academic interest only and would not entail any interruption of the construction schedule. Finally, it is hoped that construction activity will avoid the sand dune area to the east of the 'project. area. It is in this vicinity that potentially important archaeological sites occur which should not be damaged before they have been properly examined and excavated if necessary. Hopefully this will not present a problem for such sites are beyond the boundaries of the project by considerable distance. HARRY H. . SCl :lIU ITZ & ASSOCIATES July 1974 Planning Commission / Board of Supervisors County of Riverside 4080 Lemon Street, Room 101 Riverside, California 92501 Re: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Attention: Environmental Impact Section Gentlemen: Enclosed is the draft Environmental Impact'Report (EIR) for the proposed LA QUINTA COVE Golf $ Tennis Club project in La Quinta. The Specific Plan of Land Use is conceptual in nature and exact building and site details may be subject to some minor revision; however, the concepts will remain un- changed. Since EIR's, by law, are intended to be used as informational :documents in evaluating environmental aspects of a project, this report is submitted at the preliminary stage, enabling adequate consideration to be given these factors. Further, "an EIR may not be used as an instrument to rationalize ap- proval of a project, nor do indications of adverse impact, as enunciated in an EIR, require that a project be disapproved. While CEQA requires that major consideration be given to pre- venting environmental damage, it is recognized that public agencies have obligation to balance other public objectives, including economic and social factors in determining whether and how a project should be approved: "1 Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions concerning information found in the report. Sincerely, Harr H. Schmitz AIP (iHS/ j s ; Enclosure IScction 15012, California Administrative Code, Title 14, I'llivision 6 (Implementation of CEQA) URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL TELEPHONE (7 14) 346 -2022 PLANNING CONSULTANTS 's 43 -900 PRIMROSE DRIVE • PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 R I V E R S I D E C 0 U N T Y Lzl SPECIFIC PLAN OF. LAND USE P. A N N I N Q 0 E P T M. 11- T Ln Z-Z) Case No. EA No. Total Fee Paid ---------- :r unGin. Plan Area C:) APPLICATION PROJECT NAMI A G111]5 APPLICANT INFORMATION 'Ernip, vossier !%P P L I CAN T c/o Landmark Land Comany PHONE 345-2$x$: 11AILI.N.G AD-DRESS No.. Street/P. 0. Box Agt. No. /Suite 'N La Quinta, CA 22253 or 'Tip 'Cq- 10 pity -0111N.ER NAME Same as above PHQNE: '!.AILING ADDRESS No. Street/P. 0. Box t. No./Sufte No Ci ty $tate 2i P ,Code. REPRESENTATIVE J.F-. Davidson, Associates PHONE (714 686-6844 MAILING ADDRESS P.O. Box 493 Street/P. 0. Box No. /S uite No'. Riverside CA 92501 -cl —ty- te 2 p Code NOTE I If more than one person is involved in the ownership f th pr" erty, a se 0 e op parate Page must be attached to this application which lists the names - and aVrqsses of All persons having an interest in the ownership of the proPert 2. The Planning Department will only mail correspondence regarding Specific Plan oppl I ' cation to the person identified above as the applicant's ."representative." The representative maybe the land owner, an engineer or consultant. A name, address and phone number must be provided above for t4 TSpecifi4 Plan applicttion tDba accepted. , GENERAL PLAN OF LAND USE DESIGNATION Open Space & Planned Development /eater Course & EquaE Irian /Medium Density Residential /Low Density Residential /H S11 Density Residential: OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENT DESIGNATION Urban Areas' S J Ml 7- ao A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 1. Location in the Community of La Quinta. 2. Parcel Size see exhibits X Acres 63 2_4c 631- 390 - 007,014,019,631 - 370 - 001,002,003,008 ?009,010,+ 3. Assessor's Parcel NVmber(s)773- 021 - (complete ),631 -360- com Ie 773- 022 - 017,018 4. Legal Description of Property (Give exact legal description as recorded ih the. office of the County Recorder. - may be attached) see attached 4 �3- 5 South 6 East 5. Section 1 Township 6 South Range 6 East " G. Existing Property Use Recreation,Usa a Multi -Tamil Hotel B. UTILITIES AND SERVICE (if none. write "none ") 1. Folder Company southern California Edison Company 2. Gas Company Southern California Gas Company 3: Telephone Company General Telephone Company 4. Water Company Coachella Valley Water District -5, School District Desert Sands Unified School District NOTE: An W' X 11" legible reduction of the proposal should accompany application. The reduction may accompany the staff's report t0 the PlanPing Commission and Hill, aid in thg review of the proposal. IMPORTANT: ANY FALSE OR MISLEADING INFORMATION SHALL BE GROUNDS FOR'DENYING THIS . APPLICATION SJGNATURES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL OWNERS MUST sE 1NCLUpEQ. SIGNATURE OF AV i`IT k , ,cL DATE AUTHORITY - FOR THIS APPLICATION IS HEREBY GIVEN:' SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER(S), X DATE - (,l— Written authority may b.e attached "_ ADDRESS P -6. Box 1000 DATE La Quinta, CA 92253 EdV1RDNrJQNTAL L4FOMATION FORM Please complete Parts I and II of cbis form and provide all of th-, additioD4 Macerlal:m reque9ced in Part III. Failure to do so may delav the review and Processing of your r-oJ ect. If you are unable ,to provide the information, or you need assistance, pleaae feel free to contact the Environmental Quality Section of the Planning pepa"uw -ac #fir (714) 787 -2331. PAHT I: Cenaral Iaformati.on ]. Nhot is the total acreage involved? 635.03Ae 2. Is there a previous application filed for the game site? Us Wq If "Yes," provide Case Humber. Also provide the Environmtntal Aae;eaaioaanr Vvnvher, 1f ]cnuvn and Environmental Lmpacc Leport Numbed, if appLicablit. Specific-Plan 121 Case Na. (Parcel (dap, Zone Change. etc.) Z& Ho. M x4QVa) "'SIR tia. 41 (If Applicabla) 3. "dltional commeata you may wish to supply re$ardiiag your p oject. (i►ttach am additional sheet if uecesaary) Revised Specific Plan i' t►RT II: Raviranmeacal QuastionairF 1. Is the project within an Alquisc- Prialo Special Studies Zot±e7 T,ee ^^ Na _ To determine if your project is located in a Special Studies Zonz,..contact tha Envl.ronneucal Quality Section, or refer to the Special Scudy Z•oaep #aps avaa4ble at the Public iafo,w3tion Catw.te- of the Plaar. +..= o De artme =t. I a oiec o p r�2 - p5 J 6$ smith a zone,•refer to Ordinance 547.1, or discuss the situacloq Kith Oa 111-anning depart - ment Geologist, 0 If a fault hazard report is necessary, complete the investiWatios► prior to submittin5 your eoplic3tion aud'provide 6 copies of the- report with thl form. 'Z#; a W.aiyaX, Af rho raquirementa is ,=anted, submit• a copy of the waiver with this, form. 2. Is the project located Within a hazard m nagemenc' zone or ttqui.fgrr1p}a area sus ao on maps of the "Seismic Safety Element Technical p•epgrtI US Yo X To determine if your project is subject to the geologic hazards noted abgv* you ahou.1 consult the "Seis-mic Safety & Safety Elepeat Technical Reporc2" Whi.cb is availabla fit. the Pub],..ic Inf9roation Coisgter of the Planning DepartaaenC:; If the answer to question 62 is "yes," contact the Environmental Q.uaLi t-y Section to discua,y appropriate' measures to a4inimize the hazard.. ln;orporatee and mitigation, measures into [he project design prior to submitting the applicatioq or indinate in . the apace provided below the results of your diacua.sions vit,b [he F.4 irgamqpatal, Quality SectioP• } r•. •t . %J 2. Is there a previous application filed for the game site? Us Wq If "Yes," provide Case Humber. Also provide the Environmtntal Aae;eaaioaanr Vvnvher, 1f ]cnuvn and Environmental Lmpacc Leport Numbed, if appLicablit. Specific-Plan 121 Case Na. (Parcel (dap, Zone Change. etc.) Z& Ho. M x4QVa) "'SIR tia. 41 (If Applicabla) 3. "dltional commeata you may wish to supply re$ardiiag your p oject. (i►ttach am additional sheet if uecesaary) Revised Specific Plan i' t►RT II: Raviranmeacal QuastionairF 1. Is the project within an Alquisc- Prialo Special Studies Zot±e7 T,ee ^^ Na _ To determine if your project is located in a Special Studies Zonz,..contact tha Envl.ronneucal Quality Section, or refer to the Special Scudy Z•oaep #aps avaa4ble at the Public iafo,w3tion Catw.te- of the Plaar. +..= o De artme =t. I a oiec o p r�2 - p5 J 6$ smith a zone,•refer to Ordinance 547.1, or discuss the situacloq Kith Oa 111-anning depart - ment Geologist, 0 If a fault hazard report is necessary, complete the investiWatios► prior to submittin5 your eoplic3tion aud'provide 6 copies of the- report with thl form. 'Z#; a W.aiyaX, Af rho raquirementa is ,=anted, submit• a copy of the waiver with this, form. 2. Is the project located Within a hazard m nagemenc' zone or ttqui.fgrr1p}a area sus ao on maps of the "Seismic Safety Element Technical p•epgrtI US Yo X To determine if your project is subject to the geologic hazards noted abgv* you ahou.1 consult the "Seis-mic Safety & Safety Elepeat Technical Reporc2" Whi.cb is availabla fit. the Pub],..ic Inf9roation Coisgter of the Planning DepartaaenC:; If the answer to question 62 is "yes," contact the Environmental Q.uaLi t-y Section to discua,y appropriate' measures to a4inimize the hazard.. ln;orporatee and mitigation, measures into [he project design prior to submitting the applicatioq or indinate in . the apace provided below the results of your diacua.sions vit,b [he F.4 irgamqpatal, Quality SectioP• 3, If your project is in the desert area, is is within a blo'.rsand bazard areal Tea The Planning Offices in Indio and Riverside will provide you with iuformxtion =ncio l blowab.nd hazards. You may also wish to coptact the U.S. Soil Coaaervaciou ServY ce. If your project is subject to blo%+eand hazards, submit a blowsaad c.= trol plan with the application. (Also refer to Section 14.1 of Ordinance 450, it your• project is 4 pgrtel map or subdivision) . 4. Is water service available at the project aitel °es _{X No If "No." how far most the water lines) be extended to provide serviea? UL-=ber of feet or miles Further explanation: S. Is sewer service available at the project site? Yes X No If ":io," how far must the sewer -lina(s) be extended 'to. provide' *ery c :3 Number of feet or wiles V further explanation: . 11� 6. additional Commrrits: PART III: Additional Materials The following items must be submitted with this form: 1. At least three (3) panoramic photographs (color priors) of ci s iu- p',:gje:cc ai.te, or an aerial photo of the•aite. ' 2. A clear photocopy (14 rox or similar copy) of the appropriaca porr3on of tha U.5. Geological Survey quadrangle map, delineating the boundarieq og:tbe project. alra. A1eo note the title of the map. I certify that I have investigated the que$tions in Parts I b II and the a-M.su►ers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. J.F. Davidson Associates Name and Title of Person Cowlecing For-m i Si &nature HaIppy •�•` 3a +] +4 lei,. • i W9II U 43 Ap {{ Y �:. S 1.TE Ld • _ T Wetw It 5 5 ,� t� �s• .,Qr � �: � � r• F� k • � • ••1 W � ++x~ O`• VS W l ; ��t G�41i •' l_ 1 " • r t r �l ��t/li1 dro Vi A4[1 jZ, ll: NCAry ?'.fACSAr;L.0 SOURCE: USGS =AL MAP' , l iJ ATMOATF-4Z -LA QMTA QUAD December 4, 1980 Revised January 7, 1981 LA2%IDMARK LAND COMPANY REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E ASSOCIATES Those portionsof Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, and Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Section 1; Thence 5.00 °00'40 "E., along the East line of said Section 1, a distance of 1184.86 feet to the Southeast corner of Government Lot 1 in said Section 1; Thence N.89 °51'07 "W., along the South line of said Government Lot 1, a distance of 1321.69 feet to the centerline of Eisenhower Drive, 80,00 feet wide, (formerly Morgan Road) as conveyed to the County of Riverside by Deed recorded February 18, 1936 in Book 265, page 521, Official Records of Riverside County, California; Thence S,00 °11'20 "W., along said centerline, a: distance of 1318.76 feet to the South line of the North one -half of said Section 1, said South line also being the centerline of Calle Tampico; Thence N.89 °57'00 "k'., along said South line, a distance of 1450.33 feet to the center one - quarter corner of said Section 1; Thence continuing along said South line N.89'55'06'1%1., a distance of 2644.22 feet to the West one - quarter corner of said Section l; Thence N ..00 °03145 "W., along the West line of said North one- half of Section 1, a distance of 2506.51 feet to the Northwest corner of said Section 1; Thence S.89 °52'02 "E., along the North line of said Section 1, a distance of 137.28 feet to the Southwest corner of said Section 36; Thence N.00 °06'16 "W., along the West line of said Section•36, a distance of 5289.08 feet to the Northwest corner of said Section 36; Thence N.89 °39'20 "E., along the North line of said Section 36, a distance of 2628.25 feet to the Northeast corner of the Northwest one - quarter of said Section 36; _. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES /IL ENGINEERING - PLANNING • SURVEYING • ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS i TLt=TH SIREET • P 0 60X. 155 • RIVERSIDE, GALIFOPNIA 92502 (714) 6F6-0E1 December 4, 1980 (Revised 1/7/81) Landmark Land Company - Specific Plan 121 -E Page 2 Thence S.00 °39'07 "E., along the East line of said Northwest one - quarter, a distance of 2671.70 feet to the center one - quarter corner of said Section 36; Thence S.00 °07'02 "W., along the East line of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 36, a distance of 867.79 feet to the Northeast corner of the Record of Survey on file in Book 8 of Records of Survey, page 90 thereof, Records of Riverside County, California; The -ice S. 89 °52' 32 "E. , 'a distance of 619.72 feet; Thence Southeasterly along a curve concave Southwesterly, having a radius of 7.7$.37 feet, through an angle of 38 °16'20 ", an arc length of 119.15 feet to a point of reverse curvature; Thence Easterly along a curve concave Northeasterly, having a radius of 161.99 feet through an angle of 61 °17'40 ", an arc length of 173.30 feet (the initial radial Line bears S.38 °23'48 "W.); Thence N.67 °06'08 "E., a distance of 181.76 feet;' Thence Northeasterly along a curve concave Southeasterly, having a radius of 300.00 feet, through an angle of 23 °01'00 ", an arc length of 120.52 feet; Thence S.89 °52'52 0'E., a distance of 103.05 feet to the Westerly line of Lot "T" (Eisenhower Drive as shown by map of LA QUINTA GOLF ESTATES N0, 1) on file in Book 37, pages 96 through 98 of Maps, Records of riverside County, California; Thence S.00 °05'03. "W., along said Westerly line, a distance of 150.03 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot "T "; Thence S.$9 °54'57 "E., along said Southerly line, a distance of 6.71 feet to the Westerly -line of said Eisenhower Drive (80.00 feet wide); Thence S.00 °14'34 "W., along said Westerly line, a distance of 1655.93 feet'to an angle point in said Westerly line, said point bears N.00 all '20 "E, a distance of 0.08 feet from the South line of said Section 36; Thence S.00 °11'20 "W., continuing along said Westerly line, a distance of, 50.08 feet; Thence S.89 °53'38 "E., along a line which is parallel with and 50..00 feet Southerly, measured at right angles from the centerline of 50th Avenue and its Westerly prolongation thereof, also being the Southerly line of Parcel 3 December 4, 1980 (Revised 1/7/81) Landmark Land Company - Specific Plan 121 -E Page 3 3 of the parcel of land conveyed to the County of Riverside by deed recorded August 13, 1979 as Instrument No. 170510, and re-recorded_ August 30, 1979 .: as Instrument No. 184054, Official Records of Riverside County, California, a distance of 654.93 feet; Thence Northeasterly, continuing along said Southerly line on a curve concave Northerly, having a radius of 2050,00 feet, through an angle of 12 °17'3Q ", an arc length of 439.79 feet; Thence N.77048'52`'E., continuing along said Southerly line, a distance of 272.40 feet to a point on the East line of the Southeast one- quarter of said Section 36; Thence S.00 °01'08 "E., along said East line., a distance of 54.98 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion lying within Eisenhower Drive, 80.00 feet wide, as conveyed to the County of Riverside by Deed recorded February 18, 1936 in Book 265, page 521, Official Records of Riverside County, Cali- fornia. ALSQ EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the County of Riverside by Deed recorded August 13, 1979 as Instrument No, 170510 44d re- recorded August 30, 1979 as Instrument No. 184054,.all of Official Records of River- side County, California. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of the East one -half of the SouthWest. one- quarter of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the East line of said Southwest one - quarter, being N.00 °07'38 "E., a distance of 1394.98 feet from the South one - quarter corner of said Section 36; said point being the Northeast corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed to DESERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY by deed r,. fecorded May 12, 1928 in Book 766, page 117 of Deeds, Records of River- side County, California; December 4,'1980 (Revised 1/7/81) Landmark Land Company - Specific Plan 121 -E Page 4 Thence N.89 °52'02 "W., along the Northerly line of said parcel conveyed to DESERT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a distance of 270.00 feet; Thence S.00 °07'38 "W., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one-quarter, a distance of 657.77 feet; Thence N.89 °52'02 "W,., a distance of 67.00 feet; Thence S.00 °07'38 "W., a distance of 57.20 feet; Thence N. 89 053'02 "W. , a distance of 317.99 feet; Thence 5.00 °07'38 "W., a distance of 429.90 feet; Thence S.89 °52!02 "E., parallel with the South line of said Southwest one - quarter, a distance of 425.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one - quarter, a distance of 390.00 feet; j Thence N. 8.90.50'00 "W., a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07'38 "E., a distance of 25.00 feet; Thence S.89 °50'00 "E., a distance of 250.00 feet to a point on the East line of said Southwest one- quarter; Thence N.00. °07'38 "E., along said East line, a distance of 15.00 feet; Thence N.89 °50'00 "W., a distance of 230.00 feet; Thence N.00°07'38"4E., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one - quarter, a distance of 228.58 feet; Thence N.89 °50'00 "W., a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence N.00 °07138 "E., parallel with the East line of said Southwest one - quarter; a distance of 370.00 feet; Thence S.89 950'00 1.'E., a distance of 250.00 feet to a point on the East line of said Southwest one - quarter; Thence .N.00 °07'38 "E., along said East line, a distance of 116.53 feet to the point of beginning. December 4, 1980 (Revised 1/7/81) Landmark Land Company - Revised Specific. Plan 121 -E Page 5 ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion of the, East one -half of the Southwest one- quarter of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East,'San Bernardino Meridian; described as follows: Commencing at a point on the East line of said Southwest one- quarter, said point being the Northeast corner of that certain parcel of land conveyed to Lyman C. Hisey by deed recorded February 19, 1931 in Book 10, page 360, Official Records of Riverside County, California;:: Thence N,89`52`32 "W „ along the North line of said parcel conveyed to Lyman C. Uisey, a distance of 250.00 feet; Thence N.$9 °52'12 "W., continuing along said Northerly line, a distance. of 444.00 feet to the true point of beginning; Thence 5.00 °07'38 "W., a distance of 93.00 feet; Thence N. 89'52'12"W. a distance of 44400 feeti Thep ce- N.00 °07138 "E., a distance of 93.00 feet; Thence S.89 °52'12 "E. , a distance of 44.Q0 feet to the true point of beginning. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion conveyed to the Coachella ya11ei Water District by deed recorded December 31, 1980,.. as Instrwment No, 245205, Records of Riverside County, California, WELLS CITY P-658.76' S P 121 E z a 0 z_ �1 CZ 3045 CV ti \11 M CD O CD N io N 635.03 AC± . � r 1� o II I) U N.A.0 50th CALLE MAZATLAN ^� J II w zll 3 tool 1 0: wll w 011 0 ILO I I, Z II z nll w a o III , z III 2644.22' `L f 1450.33' CALLE I� I I - AVE. TAMPICO App. LANDMARK LAND CO. LOCATIONAL MAP Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE- Esc Dist. LA QUINTA Sup. Dist. 4 � ,� N Sec. 316 T. C S.,R.6E Assessors Bk" j733Pg. J;th AV. Circulation EISEHOWER DR. MAJOR 100' Element 50th AVE. MAJOR 100' Rd. Bk. p9 l2� Date, 8— 24 —i9 Drawn By Dick SITE w N Q W I ` a 1200' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NO s A� -7a -i- p r` J 1 FO 3 4 5 6 2. I am the City Manager for the City of La 7 Quinta, California; and have custody of the City records. 8 3. My duties include the accumulation and maintenance of the City's records and documents. 4. A La Quinta Katy Council Transmittal from the Riverside County Plannin rtment, dated .Tune 4, 1982, is represented in the do n at ed hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated he e' t is reference. I have examined Exhibit "A" and er 'e Y that it is a true and correct copy of the n aa' wined in the files of the City of :La Quinta. \ DECLARATION OF FRANK USHER I, Frank Usher, declare as follows: 1. I am personally familiar with the following facts and if called as a witness, I would testify as follows: 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ya` e 5. _111Ri erside County Planning Department Staff Report, (5 pages), is represented in the document attached hereto as Exhibit "B" incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "B" and hereby certify that it is a true and.correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 6. A Riverside County Planning Commission Staff Report, (1 page),, is represented in the document attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined, Exhibit "C" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. -1- 1 �ft 9 10 11 12 $ N O� wz 13 z8 0 �m 14 *:-0 UY.< i�z 15 �w a Co 16 3 z 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ya` e 5. _111Ri erside County Planning Department Staff Report, (5 pages), is represented in the document attached hereto as Exhibit "B" incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "B" and hereby certify that it is a true and.correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 6. A Riverside County Planning Commission Staff Report, (1 page),, is represented in the document attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and is incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined, Exhibit "C" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. -1- 1 �ft 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 €w`M a 10 11 12 N Ol woWZB13 x� o� Q a 14 Z z 15 i43�W a 16 o� a 3 z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 241 25 � 26 27 28 7. A Riverside County Planning Department Staff Report, (3 pages) is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "D" and hereby certify that it a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 8. A Riverside County Planning Department Staff Report, (2 pages), is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by this ref ce. I have examined Exhibit "E" and hereby certif h t it is a true and correct copy of the document maint in h files of the City of La Quinta. *� 9. A le el- r nY e Riverside County Planning Department to va 'o i e County agencies and departments, dated December, 1:9 , a egarding Change of Zone Case No. 3491, is attached he et as Exhibit "F" and is incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "F" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 10. A letter from the Coachella Valley Water District to the Riverside County Planning Commission, dated January 12, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "G" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 11. A letter from the Riverside County Planning Department to various Riverside County agencies and departments, ti -2- 1 dated December, 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "H" and 2 incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined 3 Exhibit "H" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct 4 copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of, 5 La Quinta. ® 6 12. The Roll Call Vote Results memorandum, dated 7 May 13, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "I" and incorporated 8 herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "I" and 9 hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the 10 document maintained in the f' es of the City of La Quinta. 11 13. Resoluti o. 4 of the City Council of 12 the City of La Quinta,, C if rnia, is attached hereto as w =s 13 Exhibit "J" and incor oe rein by this reference. I a. aAa 14 have examined Ex i '° d hereby certify that it is a W�aca�. :0 15 true and corn c he document maintained in the files �a o 16 of the City of 4 i ta. a 3 z 17 14. The iverside County Planning Department 18 memorandum to the La Quinta City Council, dated June 10, 19 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "K" and incorporated 20 herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "K" and 21 hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the 22 document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 23 15. The Resolution Recommending Approving Specific 24 Plan Of Land Use No. 121 -E Revised, is attached hereto as 25 Exhibit "L" and incorporated herein by this reference. I 26 have examined Exhibit "L" and hereby certify that it is a 27 true and correct copy maintained in the files of the City 28 of La Quinta. -3- 1 16. The Riverside County Planning Department 2 Staff Report (9 pages) , is attached hereto as Exhibit "PSI" 3 and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined 4 Exhibit "M" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct 5 copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of 6 La Quinta. 7 17. The Conditions Of Approval Revised Specific 8 Plan # 121 -E, dated May 13, 1982, is attached hereto as 9 Exhibit "N" and incorporated herein by this reference. I 10 have examined Exhibit "N" Oe hereby certify that it is. a 11 true and correct copy *f�e u nt maintained in the 12 files of the City of 13 18. The R i nty Planning Department 14 Staff Report, (1ked hereto as Exhibit "O" QSu. 15 and incorpirate h this reference. I have examined s o 3 mx kco�a .W7, F..4 Exhibit "O" and'he� b ertify that it is a true and correct a z 17 copy of the document intained in the files of the City of 1=3 La Quinta. 19 19. The letter from Lloyd W. Watson of the 20 Landmark Land Company to Chairman Sullivan of the Riverside 21 County Planning Commission, dated February 11, 1982, is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit "P" and incorporated herein by 23 this reference. I have examined Exhibit "P" and hereby 24 certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document 25 maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 26 20. The Inter- Departmental letter from the County 27 of Riverside, Road and Survey Department, to Patricia Nemeth, 28 Planning Director, dated December 14, 1981, is attached -4- 1 hereto as Exhibit "Q" and incorporated herein by this reference. 2 I have examined Exhibit "Q" and hereby certify that it isia 3 true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files 4 of the City of La Quinta. 5 21. The Inter - Departmental letter from the County 6 of Riverside, Road and Survey Department, to Patricia Nemeth, 7 Planning Director, dated January 26, 1982, is attached hereto 8 as Exhibit "R" and incorporated herein by this reference. 9 I have examined Exhibit "R" and ereby certify that it is a 10 true and correct copy of the u nt maintained in the 11 files of the City of La Qu` t $ 12 22. The Noti h Riverside County Planning C r w gg 13 Department to dated Z w z � x :� ft__ P°2'22 14 March 4/_5, 1982, is eto as Exhibit "S" and incorpor= 15 ated herein by this e e: I have examined Exhibit "S" and aeaaW 16 hereby certify that i a true and correct copy of the °a e. 3 z 17 document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 18 23. The Notice from the Riverside County Planning 19 Department to various county agencies and departments, ;dated 20 March 15, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "T" and incor- 21 porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit 22 ' "T" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy 23 of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 24 0 The Notice from the Riverside County Planning 25 Department to various county agencies and departments, dated 26 December 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "U" and incor- 27 porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "U" 28 and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the -5- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [.*IN 9 10 11 12 < 13 �Z,z o �o 14 W�a�ti w e`o':R6 0 15 x Wa��w s F a 16 °a 3 z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '26 27 28 document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 25. The - N- pti,ce.:, from th:e% Riverside - County, Planning Department to various county agencies and departments, dated March 15, 1982, is attached hereto as Exhibit "V" and incor- porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "V" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 26. The Notice from he Riverside County East Area Planning Council to va s county agencies and departments, dated November 20, 1981, is to e hereto as Exhibit "W" and incorporated here' bv reference. I have examined Exhibit "W" and h ,y c that it is a true and correct copy of the d qwe ned in the, files of the City of La Quinta. 27. The'\Vtter from the Coachella Valley Water District to the Riverside County East Area Planning Council, dated December 2, 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "X" and incorporated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "X" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 28. The Notice from the Riverside County Planning Department to various county agencies and departments dated December, 1981, is attached hereto as Exhibit "Y" and incor- porated herein by this reference. I have examined Exhibit "Y" and hereby certify that it is a true and correct copy of the document maintained in the files of the City of La Quinta. 29. The Inter- Departmental letter from the County Ir :v 1 of Riverside, Road and Survey Department, to Patricia Nemeth, 2 Planning Department Director, dated April 8, 1982 is attached 3 hereto as Exhibit "Z" and incorporated herein by this reference. 4 I have examined Exhibit "Z" n hereby certify that it is a 5 true and correct copy of u en t maintained in the 6 kedd files of the City of a 7 DATED: 8 9 Frank Usher 10 11 12 N 01 �zwz$ 13 o z , maga� 14 adove :' C6x 15 Wa as W deaw off 16 n. 3 z z 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ¢ 28 -7- QU INTA CITY COWICIL FROM: RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLAToINING DEPARTMENT DATE: June 4, 1982 SUBJECT: Change of Zone Case No. 3491 J. F.- Davidson Associates R -5 to R -2 and W -1, R -2 to R -5, W -1 to'R -2, R -1 to R -3 La Quinta District Fourth Supervisorial District Negative Declaration = EA #15145 BACKGROUND: Pursuant to 'Ordinance 348-and Riverside County. Rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning Commission on May 13, T982 conducted a public hearing on the, subject change of zone application and environmental assessment. En- vironmental Assessment #15T45 was submitted by the applicant. An initial study was prepared by 'the Planning staff. Written comments were not received during the 21 day- comment period. Public notification and advertisement for the application and environ- mental negative declaration hearing were performed pursuant to effective county rules. Several zone changes are requested by the applicant in order to pursue the development of the property around the-La-Quinta Hotel in accordance with Revised Specific Plan #121 -E. -The resolution for Revised Specific Plan #121 -E was adopted by the Planning Commission -at the May 13, 1.982 hearing. Revised Specific Plan #121--E along with the associated Change of Zone Case #3491 would•, result in an increase of -279 .condominium units and 146 hotel units to the existing La Quinta Hotel and resort community. Change of Zone Case No. 3491 would be consistent with the Coachella - Thermal -Indio General Plan and the development plans as proposed and approved Revised Specific Plan #121 -E. REC ONMENDATION: The Planning Commission and staff recommend ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for EA #15145; and APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 3491 from,R -5 to R -2 and W -1, R -2 to R -5, W -1 to R -2, R -1 to R -3 as shown on Exhibit 2. raji_ Jeffrey D. ManqqUpervising Planner Pr dared by: IB UT A aLr icia a e�r� *►, _,�_ ann1.nq ire_ or a- Vii'• - _ :..4 ,a ,. ,� , .. - • La Quinta District Fourth Supervi sori al i7nsx:Vrict 'elated Files: SP #121 -E RRevised 1, Applicant: 2. Type of Request: 3. Location: Change of Zone Case No. 3491 EA #15145 PC Hearing Date: 5/13/82 (Contd. from 1/27/, 2117 & °4/ Agenda Item: R=te VERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING•DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 4.' Parcel.Size: 5. Existing Roads: 6. Existing 'Land Use: 7. Surrounding Land Use=_ 8, Existing Zoning: 9. Surrounding Zoning: 10. General Plan Element±:: Cove Communities 11. Sphere of,Influence: 12 Letters: J. F. Davidson Associates Change of Zone R -5 to R -2 and.W -1, R -2 to R -5,. W -1 to R -2, R -1 to R -3 Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue and west of Eisenhower Drive, northerly of Avenida Fernando adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains. Total of 36.97 +• Acres Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue Vacant Golf Course and Vacant R -5 and R -2.," W -1 , R -1 . R -1, R -2 -8000, W -1 Land Use: See Specific Plan #121 -E Revised Open Space-& Conservation: Urban Area Circulation: 50th and Eisenhower Dr. - Major 100' R None None in support /opposition 'ANALYSIS: .hange of Zone Case #3491 was continued from the April 14, 1982 Planning Commission hearing to revise the original zone change request. An additional 19.24± acres with a requested change from R.--1 (Single Family Residential) to R -3 (General Residential) zoning being added to the- request. Change of Zone Case #3491 is proposed as an implementation of Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, tentatively approved by the Planning Commission on April 14, 1982.' Specific Plan #121 -E Revised proposed an expansion of the La Quinta Hotel and related recreationa and condominium facilities, ,A total. of 36.97± acres is involved in the subject zone change. The property easterly of Eisenhower Drive and southerly of 50th Avenue is being changed for three basic reasons: The 0.72- acre parcel where a change of zone from R -5 to W -1 . is being. requested reflects the conveyance of this property to the Coachella Valley Flood Control District for flood control purposes. The property is still being pro - posed for golf course usage. The two parcels of 1.76±--and 1.591 acres respectively where a change of zone from R` -2 to R -5 is requested were formerly proposed for use as horse stables and a temporary sewage treatment plant. These uses are no longer proposed, and this acreage would b. , e a portion of the golf course. The other parcels of 4.58} and 5.091 acres respectivly where a change of zone from R -5 to R--2 is re- quested reflect the changes necessary to implement the proposed pattern of golf course and condominium land uses. This area is anticipated for development. of 110 co- ndominium units. LgA15-111 13 .o Change of Zone Staff Report Pg. 2. Case No. 3491 Immediately west of Eisenhower Drive, the parcel. of 0.51 ±net acres has a change of zone from W -1 to R -2 being - requested. This request is to allow for space for the expansion of the condominiums already approved under Tentative Tract #14496 Phase 1: No changes in the number of condominium units are proposed. The 3.31± acre parcel west of Eisenhower Drive and at. the base of the mountains has a change of:.zone from R -5 to R -2 being. requested.' This request is to allow for a more 'flexible design in terms of siting for the 55 condominiums already approved under the original Specific Plan #121 -E Revised and Tentative Tract #14496.(Phase 7).'No addi- tional units over those previously approved are being proposed. Also, a five to six foot. high block wall is proposed along. the northern boundary of the 3.31± acre parcel for flood :con.trol purposes per the request of the Coachella Valley Water District. A 19..24 ±-acre parcel located immediately to the west of the existing La Quinta. Hotel has been added to the change of zone request. Existing zoning on the parcel is R -1 (Single Family Residential), and the requested zoning is R -3 (General Residential). The proposed R -3 zoning would be appropriate for the proposed complex of tennis..* courts and a maximum of 200 condominiums. FINDINGS: 1. Implementation of previously adopted Specific Plan #121 -E as amended by Specific Plan #121 =E Revised requires the adoption of the requested zone changes.. 2. Environmental impacts. of the proposed developments will be adequately mitigated per the provisions of Specific Plan #121 -E; the related EIR #41, and Specific >> Plan #121 -E Revised. 3. Development pursuant to the proposed zone changes is similar in scale and nature to surrounding developments. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan #121 -E and Specific Plan #121 -E Revised. 2. Environmental impacts resulting from the subject zone changes and pursuant de --:, velopment will not adversely affect the immediate or nearby environment. 3. Developments associated with the proposed zone changes would be compatible with. existing neighborhood land uses. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment #15145 and APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No..3491, as shown on Exhibit 2. DM: ajp 4/27/82 �y CHANGE OF ZONE # 3491 R -5 to W -T 0.72 acres reflect the conveyance of land to GVWp R -2 to :R -5 1.76 acres change inland use from horse stables and a temporary sewage..plant to golf course R -2 to R-5 1.59 'acres same as above R -5 to R -2 4.58 acres reflect planned pattern'of condo/golf (leveloprnent R -5 to R -2 5.09 acres same as above W -1 to R -2 0.51 acres more space for TR 14496-Phase 1 (NO additional Gr! R -5 to R -2 3,31 acres more space for TR.14496 -Ph6se 7 .(NO Witional urn L-AINU it I I I I . I A CU 2286 h 3 a s I AVEN10A FUMANAo I I j VAC. .1 . '► , , AIL, I CZ 3045 .. / /'$ PR I �'! f �, I ` i i` r _iii `�_.• -i' �� \_ �. i +f .. LA r GUI VTA I 19.24AC HOTEL kill �, II ffAIRWAYl -r (HOMES ti GOLF COURSE r r . App. J.T DAVIDSON A.SSOC. SINGL,F r r �SOth VAC 36.51 AC ± I Use R -2 a. R -5 TO R- 2, R -5, a W-=1 I Dist. LA' QUINTAL '4th Sup.D15t. Sec. T. T.5.S.,R.6 E Assessors 8k. 631 Pg.32 Circulation 5 O th AVE. MAJ. 100' Element ' EISENHOWER DR, MAJ. 100' Rd. 8k. Pq.121 Date I / 8 / 8 2 Drawn By CR. RIVERS/DE COUNTY PLANNING DcPAR MEN i Nn czrai it --� ` IR-ES. ` S F R 5 r. t .I t MAP b - IA- I -il I I I AVENJOA FERNANpo I —� R 1 .31A i I ��• ji ii s r I}►�+ 1� '' I 00' .�► R-2 -10000 R�5 1� 1 j R- CZ3045 R-2 -10000 ' R- ► � fr �rt�� � R-5 - - CU 2266 19.24 AC+ -3 r R _- R_2 ' ,000 a ...... AVE.. -.' R -2- q0a R-2 R -5 R-5 pp (1111 -1) LV U) ` i1J _ �Q App. J.E DAVIDSON ASSOC. ° A I .�,aL YAAP Use R -2 & R -5 • TO R -2', R -5 "a W —I iii "' Dist. LA QUINTA 4 th - Sup. Dist. Sec.36 T.5 S.;R,6 E Assessors i3k.631 7 P' Circulation-5'0 th AVE. MAJ. 100 .err €, F �b �� Element EISENHOWER DR, MAJ, 100' Rd. ®k. Pg. i 2 I Date 1/ 8 1 8 2 Drawn By CR, lie• 1j0O' - RIVERSIDE COUATY PLA011ltl/i1/ii DEPARrAiEW NO Af:ALc b - IA- I -il I La Quinta District Change of Zone #3491 Fourth Supervisorial District Planning Commission: Related Files: SP #121 -E Revised Agenda Item: 4 •EIR #41 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: 2.' ,Type of Request: .3. .Location: 4. Parcel Size: 5. Existing Roads: 6. Existing Land. Use: 7. Surrounding Land Use: 8. Existing Zoning: 9.. Surrounding Zoning: 10. General Plan Elements: (Cove Communities) 11. Sphere of Influence: 12. Letters: February 17, 198; J.F. Davidson Associates Change of Zone R -5 to R -2 and W -1 , R -2 to R -5 Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive to 50th Avenu( Total of 17.05 acres Eisenhower Drive and 50th-Avenue Vacant Golf Course and Vacant R -5 and R -2 R -1, R -2 -8000, W--1 Land Use: See Spegi:fic Plan #121 -E Revised Open Space and Con serva tion: Urban Area Circulation: 5 t h and Eisenhower Drive m Major 100' R/W None None in support /opposition FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - February 17, 1982 This case was continued from the January 27th hearing at' the applicant's request' The. applicant and staff request an additional continuance in order to further resolve planning issues involved with this project. /sr V .a.QU if pistrirct Tourth §upervisorial District Related files: SP #121 -E Revised 1. Applicant: 2.. Type of Request: 3. Location: CHA, E 'OF ZONE CASE NO. 3491 EA#15145 PC Hearing Date: 4/14/82 (Contd. from 1/27/82 & 2/17/82) Agenda Item:, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 4. Parcel Size: 5. Existing Roads: 6. Existing Land Use: 7. Surrounding Land Use: 8. Existing Zoning: .9. Surrounding Zoning :. 10. General Plan Element;S - Cove Communities 11. Sphere of Influence: 12. Letters: J. F. Davidson Associates Change of Zone R -5 to R -2 and W -1, R -2 to.R -5, W -1 to R -2. Southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue. and west of Eisenhower Drive, northerly. of Avenida Fernando adjacent to the Santa Rosa - Mountains. Total of 17.56± Acres Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue Vacant Golf Course and Vacant R -5 and R -2 R -1, R -2 -8000, W -1 Land Use: See Specific Plait tt.121 -E Revised Open Space & Conservation: Urban Area Circulation: 50th and Eisenhower Dr.'- Major 100' R/ None None in support /opposition ANALYSIS. This case was continued from the January and February hearings at the applicant's request to. resolve details with the associated Specific Plan 1121-E Revised. Change of Zone Case #3491 is .proposed as an implementation of Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, an expansion of the La Quinta Hotel and related facilities. A total of 17.56± acres is involved in the subject zone change. The property .easterly of Eisenhower Drive and southerly of 50th Avenue is being changed for three basic reasons. The 0.72± acre parcel where a change of zone from R -5 to W -1 is being requested reflects the conveyance of this property to the Coachella Valley Flood Control District for flood he purposes. The property is still being proposed for golf course usage. The two parcels of 1.76± and 1.59± acres respectively where a change of zone from. R-.2 to. R-5 is requested were formerly proposed for use as horse stables and a temporary sewage treatment plant. These uses are no longer pro - posed, and this acreage would be a portion of the golf course. The other parcels of 4.58± and 5.09± acres respectively where a change of zone from R -5 to R =2 is requested reflect the changes necessary to implement the proposed pattern of golf course and condominium; land uses. This area is anticipated for development of 110 condominium units. Immediately ►rest of Eisenhower Drive, the parcel of 0.51± net acres has a change of zone from W -1 to R -2 heing requested. This request is to allow for space for the expansion of the condominiums already approved under Tentative Tract #14496 Phase 1. No changes in the number of condominium units are proposed: Pg. 1 of 2 Idi U Change of ZonEe 'Case Nc - 3491 Staff Report Pg. 2. The 3.31± acre parcel vwest of Eisenhower Drive and at the base of the mountains has a change of zone - rom R 6 to R -2 being requested. This request is to allow . for a more flexible design in terms of siting for the 55 condominiums already approved under the or-5 Dina] Specific Plan. #121-E Revised and.Tentative Tract 414496 (Phase 7).. No additional units over those previously approved are being proposed. . .Alsy-o, a 'fiu1-L:i to six foot high block wall is .proposed along the northern boundary of t1iae 3.31t acre parcel for flood control. purposes per the. request of: the Coachella Malley water District. FINDLNGS 1. Implementation of Previously adopted Specific Plan #121 -E as amended by Specific Plan #121-1E Revised (Scheduled at this same Planning Commission hearing) requires the adoption of the requested zone changes. 2. Environmental imp acts of the proposed developments will be adequately mitigated per the provision- of Specific Plan #121 -E, the related EIR #41, and Specific Plan #121 -E Revised. 3. Development pursuant to the proposed zone change is similar in scale and nature to surrounding developments. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed zone changes would be in conformance. with Specific Plan #121 -E and Soeci-fic Plan #121 -E Revised. 2. Environmental impacts resulting from the subject zone changes and pursuant de- velopment will not adversely affect the immediate or nearby environment. 3. Developments associated with the proposed zone changes would be compatible wit �! existing neighborhood land uses. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment #15145 and APPROVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 3491, as shown on Exhibit '2. DM: ajp 3/16/82 `l � M 4j. dO' dip CALM .9.30, Ay 00 14 N,. EISENVOWER DRIVE ZANOlvf.4R,< IAW CO. xv3 ,/Yri /.d 1)1.11vrA rd f71,d) ed .5 PARR sup @r:visorial District- fourth Reldod Files: SP #12I- E.Revised EIR 1#47 Hearing Date: 1 -27 -82 Agenda Item: 12 RIVERSIDE COU14TY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1) Applicant: . 2) Type of Request 3) Location 4) Parce1._Si.ze:' 5) Existing Roads:::' 6) Existing Land Use: 7) Surrounding Land Use:. 8) Exi s.ti ng Zoning: 9) Surrounding 'Zoning: 10) Generate Plan: Elements: Cove Communities 11) Sphere of Influence :. 12) Letters: ANALYSIS: J.F. Davidson Associates Change of Zone R -5 to R =2, R -5 and R -2'; R -2 to R,-5 Southeast corner of Eisenhower to 50th Ave. Total of 17.05 ± Acres Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue Vacant Golf course and vacant R -5 and R -2 R -1, R- 2- 8000., W-1 Land Use: see Specific Plan #121 -E Revised .Open Space & Conservation: Urban Area Circulation:. 50th and Eisenhower- - Major 100' R/W None None in support or opposition Change of Zone ;'3491 is proposed as an implementation of Specific Plan. '121 -E Revised, expansion of the La Quinta hotel and related facilities. A total of ?- 17.05-x" acres is involved in the subject zone change. The property easterly of Eisenhower and southerly of 50th Avenue is being changed ;or three basic reasons. The 0.72 ± parcel where a change of zone from R -5 to W -1 is being requested reflects the conveyance of this property to the Coachella Valley Flood Control District for flood control purposes. The property is still being proposed for golf course usage.. The two parcels. of 1.76 f and 1.59 - acres respectively where,a change of zone from R -2 to R -5 is requested were formerly proposed for use: as horse stables and a temporary sewage treatment plant., These uses are no loner propose , and this acreage would .be a portion of the golf course. The other parcels of 4.58 - and 5.09 t acres respectively, where a change of zone. from R -5 to R -2 is requested reflect the changes necessary to implement the desired .pattern of golf course and condominium land uses. This area is anticipated for development of -110 condominium units. The 3.31 ± acre parcel %,rest of Eisenhower and at the base of the mountains has a change of zone drom R -5 to R -2 being requested. This parcel.,would be used primarily for ail access road to the 3.52 - acre parcel proposed for the development of :l5 condominiuris via Specific Plan ;`121 -E Revised. In addition to the access road, a five to six foot. block wall is proposed along the northern boundary of the 3.31. - acre parcel for flood control purposes per the request of the.Coache.11'a Valley !•rater District. fi EMfBIT Cha e Mf 2ZOM ' PC. Hearting:e Pg- 2 ..wall inns. AS zone d :ianc �s DES {IAL ;of t�th:- s #3491 or R -2. zone would no other uses are I ot necessary and portion of the sul allow both the access road and the flood control proposed in this 3.3.1_ acre parcel, the requested would serve no val '6lbe purpose. STAFF recommends )ject zone change ruest. FINDINGS: 1, Imoiernpn.ta.tion of previously adopted Specific Plan '121 -E as amended by Specif.ic..; Plan_# -12� -E Revised (scheduled at this same Planning Commission Hearing) regciires the "ad by t.i on of -the requested zone changes (with the exception of the 3.31 acre pairce-T 'west of Eisenhower). 2. Enr. -vi re:nmental 'impacts of the proposed developments will be adequately mitigated per th:e provisions of Specific Plan 7121 -E, the related EIR 1#41, and. Specific P11 an:: T127 -E Revised. 3 . G�vei _pPF -ent pursuant to the proposed zone change i s s imi i ar• i n seal e and nature to su ^rmindi ng deve.l:opments . C6NCL 1-:1 S 107111 S : - 1 . T :e.pro.posed zone Changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan ;;121 -E \, ae,d Specific Plan ri21 -E Revised. 2. E vironm.ental.impacts resulting from the subject zone charges and pursuant develops ent :-sill not adversely affect the immediate or nearly environmient. 3. Devel oprents associated with the proposed zone changes would be carnpati bl e with existing neighborhood land uses. RECD,"„ =,ENDATIOiiS SIA' F recommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environnental Assessment #151 and APPROVAL of Change of Zone 43491 as shown on Exhibit "A" with the exception of the 3.31 t acre parcel: west of Eisenhower Drive, which is recommended for DENIAL on the basis of being. unnecessary.:. JAN P. 0 1982 W _� fIDE COUNTY r r�I1NQ C0MMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DE RTMENT 4080 LEMON STREET 9th FT . RIVERSIDE, CALIF. 92501 REGIONAL TEAM $ 4 I �--'= DEC. 1981 RE: CHANC OF ZONE CASE N0. 3491 -yDG & SAFETY J.F.-Davidson Assoc SAD -DEPT 74 -133 E1 Paseo Suite 10 DEPT; m. RE RO TECTI011 _ . } �r�Jfy1;1`i1 °��= "; { t. i'� •�'�•., , r�` i +►i�.4 � ti r . v S ,', � � �� i:aLSf.� •� �v +# .sr..,{l�:T' ► tic _00D • CONTROL•= GOACHELL.P- VAL'LRY..WATER,w.D S7, - ' 'kii 01j"iClk— z_:una sit � "� "; •rte" = i : 4di. -i0. }l Jw `119.1.::R •4&%J'A: its!.! •3::k'S'itC4."6 °rJJ+.T'!V,'•`ir di Ywi lj N+ ir�r '1":+ }rYd.iX:- �u.F7r+Jp4,i!4 {r1Ms.::e.!°.::+F s."4 �i�si�- • °n•-. .-,y, :•,fr •. -;.r •.«, se `review the case described above and the attached map. A public hearing has �1 tentatively scheduled for Jan. 27, 1982. Your comments and recommendations ?.re, requestea prior to J•an. 17, 1982 in order to include them in the staff report for �- item. uId•you.have any questions regarding this item, please:do not hesitate to cont;z' Ka, n Manning at 342 -8277. ,? fe" :ted.Case Files: SP 121; CU 2286,; TR 14496. �'0' •'E��TS: 5T C -T= _���, /% /J,-;� Signature. - r-z,se print name and title: f i, XR1 ESTADlISHEp IN 1918 AS A PUB, ,GENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (714) 398' -2051 33IREE --TORS i:AYfMONOFN i1UMMONDS.PRESIDENT 7EL11115 COCW -KAS, VICE PRESIDENT JOH1M P, POI/✓ELL ;PAUIL.W. NICHOLS �TE11 D. BUXTON OFFICERS LOWELL O. WEEKS, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINESUTTON,SECRETARY VICTOR B. HARDY, AUOITOR January 12,' 1982 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS Riverside County ,Planning Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92501 Gentlemen: File: 0163.11 Lui IAN 181982 RWE-f�SIDE COUNTY F INr 1NG CONIXIISS,ON Re: Change of Zone 3491 l Sec. 36, T5S, R6E, Sec. 1, T6S, R6E, S.B.M. This area is designated Zone A3 on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at. this time. This area will.be protected from stormwater flows except in rare instances, when the construction of Oleander Reservoir and La Quinta Evacuation channel are completed. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District Yours very truly Lowell Weeks General Manager- -Chief Engineer CS:ra cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health .46 -209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 Attention: Don Park TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 1 rnnv SPnf fn 4: -1qArf off+i _ LL, RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNUNG DEPARTMENT 4080 LENON STREET 9th F1 RIVERSIDE, CALIF. 92501 REGIONAL TEAM 4 DATE: DEC. 1981 RE: CHANGE OF ZONE CASE NO. 3491 TO: BLDG VSAFETY J.F. Davidson-Assoc DEPT 74-1133 E.1 Paseo Suite 10 9 EALTH DEPT V FIRE PROTECTION .. ..... CONTROL-t&OACH81-LA- -WATERr.,131-51,, L4 • +.s .VLLW Y NO.6; 1 VQ. �V 0 iWW F, N11W Tq Ax .1 lin- o fuwft : ij b2l, Oi 0 Please re . view the case, described above and the attached map. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 27, 1982. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to. Jan. 17, 1982 in order to include 'them in the staff report for this item'.. Should you..have any.questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to cont'.- Kevin Manning at 342-8277. Related Case Files: SP 121; CU 2286,; TR 14496. COMMENTS: The Health Department has objection to.the proposal. Our records s indicate the site will be served water and sewer service by the Coachella Valley. Water District. EET: cg DATE 1 -1 X31 Signature Please print name and title:. CVU • Earl E. 1untF`an_d_,_W.S., R.P.A. Administrative Supervisor �GLI. G,LL VOTE RESULTED AS FOLLOWS: MAY 13, 1982 AYES: Commissioners Bresson, Stef fey, Katzensteia, Campbell, Olesen and Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Purviance (REEL .723 - SIDE 1 - 1969 -2010) 1:50 p_m= PUBLIC HEARING (Cont. from 2/17/82). CHANGE OF ZONE CASE. NO. 3'491 (36'.5i± acres, southeast cornet Adopt Negative Declration for EA 15145 Eisenhower and Avenue 50) Landmark Land R -5, ti;-1_ and R -2 to-It-2, W -1 and R =5, etc. ; L.a Ouinta District Fourth Supervisorial District The hearing was opened at 2 :35 p.m. and closed at 2:40 p.m. STAFF:. RECOMMENDATION:. :Adoption ot . the negative' declaration for EA 15145 and approval of Change of Zone Case No. 3491 from R -5, W -1 and R -2 to W-1, R -2 and R -5 in accordance with Exhibit 2. The 'zone change had been submitted in :order. to implement Specific. Plan No. 121 -E Revised, which had previously been recommended for °approval by the Planning Commission. The zoning changes reflected changes proposed for the different areas as reflected on the revised specific plan.- Staff felt that development in accordance with -these proposed zone changes would be similar in scale and compatible with existing neighborhood land uses. Bob Kipper, representing 'the applicant, concurred with staff's analysis and recommendations. There being no further testimony, the hearing was closed at 2:40 p.m. Upon motion. by Commissioner Olesen, seconded by Commissioner Campbell and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council, City of La Quinta,:adoption of the negative declaration for EA 15145 based on the finding the proposed project would no t ' ha%re a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS: The proposed zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan No. 1,21 -E and Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised; environmental impacts resulting from' the subject zone changes and pursuant development would not adversely affect the immediate or nPa,-�,,, j -- - - -- G,U- 101T 4i ,e RESOLUTION NO. 82 -54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY'COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA; ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE NO. 121 -E, REVISED. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et. seq., public hearings were held before the La Quinta City` Council on September 21, 1982, in the City of La Quinta, California, on proposed Specific Plan of Land Use No. 121 -E, Revised; and WHEREAS all the procedures ofthe California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County rules to implement the Act have been met and negative declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 15626 has been recommended for adoption by the Planning Director; and, WHEREAS, the revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E will allow an ::additional'' 279 condominiums and 146 hotel units, the following .issues ..were identified and resolved: A.. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The units proposed in conjunction with the revised Specific .Plan, when added to the original_ Specific Plan, will not exceed t o .he� verall density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan_' B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION As proposed, -the revised Specific Plan would increase trip generation by about 30% over the levels anticipated with the original Specific Plan. This additional impact was mitigated through the requirement for additional road improvements and contributions to traffic signals at three intersections along Eisenhower Drive. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES As a.vacation and retirement home development, many of the impacts on public services and facilities generated from the revised Specific Plan are minimized. These include impacts: and demands on: schools, air quality, water, sewer, police protection and fire .protection. D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Expanding on the existing resort hotel complex, the pro- posed project closely compliments the existing development . in the immediate area. Significant open space areas are provided; including the maintenance of the mountainous areas and in many areas are adjacent open space acreage (golf course- at the foot of the mountains. The open space, natural mountain backdrop, and recreational facilities further enhance the existing resort atmosphere of the La Quinta Hotel and La Quinta Country Club area. WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various county, local 1131 IT c3. state agencies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, in regular session assembled on October 5, 1982, . that it makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The original Specific Plan 121= -E was approved and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report No. .41 was certified in April, 1975, by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The revised Specific Plan 121 -E would._ result in a development similar in nature and scale to the original Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. A large majority of the residents would utilize their dwellings as a second or retirement home, which would: result in minimal impacts on the schools and the lack of a heavy concentration of "peak" hour traffic to and - from work. 3. Revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E represents'an expansion of existing facilities and developments associated with the existing La Quinta Hotel. 4. Environ mental. impacts and urban service demands of this project would be minimized by-the nat.tz.re of the development (second and retirement homes). These impacts can be mitigated -and services provided by incorporating the measures outlined by the Riverside County Planning staff in their.report dated April 14, 1982, and in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 41. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the La Quinta City Council, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County Rules. to implement the Act, .have reviewed and considered Environmental Assessment No. 15626 in its evaluation of the specific plan. and find that no significant impacts'to environment will result front the project; and therefore, adopts the negative declaration for. Environmental Assessment No. 15626. BE ST FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Specific Plan on file with the City Clerk entitled Specific Plan .` of' Land Use No... 121-E, Revised, including the final approved conditions. and exhibits, is hereby adopted as.the Specific Plan of Land Use for the real property shown in the Plan-and said real property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the Specific Plan unless the Plan is repealed or amended by the La Quinta City Council. 'BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND`.ORDERED that copies of the.Specific Plan of Land Use shall be.filed in.the Office of the i, Clerk of this Council, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Director of Building and.Safety,.and that.no applications for conditional use permits, or the like, shall ,be accepted for the real property shown on the Plan unless such application (s) are substantially in accordance with the adopted Revised Specific Plan of Land Use. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th. ,day of October 1982. MAYOR V ATTEST:: C T ERK APPROVED AS.TO FORM: APPROVED'AS TO CONTENT: >� /,CITY ATTORNEY T GER Tug LA-: QUINTA CITY COUNL f FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT nAA : June 10, 1982 SUBJECT: Revised Specific Plan #121 -E Landmark Land Company 641.23+ Acres L "�'7vv� La Quinta District Fourth Supervisorial District Negative Declaration - EA #15626 BACKGROUND: The original Specific Plan #121 --E in conjunction with EIR #41 for the La Quinta Hotel and related condominium developments was approved by the Board of Supervisors in April, 1975. A revised Specific Plan was submitted because of'the addition of 19-23± Acres and a desire to make changes in the land use plan previously approved. A total of 279 additional condominium units and 146 additional hotel rooms would be permitted by the revised specific plan as proposed. The following is:a summary and comparison'of the changes proposed by the Revised Specific Plan #121 -E. Ori gi nai Revised Net - Original Revised Net Land Use Acreac}e, Acreage Change Units Units Change Condominiums 132.8 Ac. 161.86 Ac. +29.06 637 916 +279 Hotel Complex 43.2 Ac. 43.2 Ac. 0 496 642 +146 Mountains 211.4 Ac. 211.4 Ac. 0 Not applicable. Golf Course 191.5 Ac. 185.2 Ac. -6.3 (Tvienty -seven holes) " en Area 30.8 Ac. 27.27 Ac. -3.53 Not applicable ub House 5.8 -Ac. 5.8 Ac. 0 Not applicable jeryi ce Facilities 1.5 Ac. — 3 : '5 'Ac. _ 0 Not applicable Totals 619.0 Ac. 638.23 Ac. +19.23 Ac. 1,133 1,558 +425 RECOMMENDATION: The Riverside County Planning Commission recommends to the City' of La Quinta City Council ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for EAz415626; and ADOPTION of the Planning Commission Resolution recommending APPROVAL of the Revised Specific Plan #121 -E. aJP frev D- Manny pared by: J ricia nemet,h, 1=1{.4i1'4t IA� I A 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 27 28 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING [} SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE NO. 121 -E REVISED WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Riverside County Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et. seq., regarding proposed Specific Plan of Land Use No. 121 -E Revised; and WHEREAS., all the procedures of the California Environmental duality Act and the Riverside County rules to implement the act have been met and negative declaration for Environmental Assessment 'No. 15626 has been recommended for adoption by the Planning Director; and WHEREAS, the revised Specific Plan 121 -E will allow an additional 279 condominiums and 146 hotel units, the following issues were identified and resolved: A. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The units proposed in conjunction with the revised' Specific Plan when added to the original Specific Plan, will not exceed the overall density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. B. TRAFFIC: ANN rTprrn ATTnm As proposed the revised Specific Plan would increase trip genera- tion by about 30% over the levels anticipated with the original. Specific Plan. This additional. impact was mitigated through the requirement for additional road improvements and contributions to traffic signals at three intersections along Eisenhower Drive. C. PUB[ Ir. FAM TT1FS Amn cFpv7rcc As a vacation and retirement home development many of the imraacts )n public services and facilities generated from the revised Specific Mar ire minimized. These include impacts and demands on schools, .ai.r qua,lit,$_- 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 .14 - 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21. 22 23 24 25 27 28 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING [} SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE NO. 121 -E REVISED WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Riverside County Planning Commission pursuant to Government Code Section 65450 et. seq., regarding proposed Specific Plan of Land Use No. 121 -E Revised; and WHEREAS., all the procedures of the California Environmental duality Act and the Riverside County rules to implement the act have been met and negative declaration for Environmental Assessment 'No. 15626 has been recommended for adoption by the Planning Director; and WHEREAS, the revised Specific Plan 121 -E will allow an additional 279 condominiums and 146 hotel units, the following issues were identified and resolved: A. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The units proposed in conjunction with the revised' Specific Plan when added to the original Specific Plan, will not exceed the overall density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. B. TRAFFIC: ANN rTprrn ATTnm As proposed the revised Specific Plan would increase trip genera- tion by about 30% over the levels anticipated with the original. Specific Plan. This additional. impact was mitigated through the requirement for additional road improvements and contributions to traffic signals at three intersections along Eisenhower Drive. C. PUB[ Ir. FAM TT1FS Amn cFpv7rcc As a vacation and retirement home development many of the imraacts )n public services and facilities generated from the revised Specific Mar ire minimized. These include impacts and demands on schools, .ai.r qua,lit,$_- 2 3 4 5 6 7. 9 10 11 12 13 14 {` 15 16 17 18 19' 2.0 21 22 23 24 :25 26 27 x` 281 water, setter, police protection, and fire protection. D. CWT-WHITY DEVELOnaENT Expandinq on the existing resort hotel 'complex, the proposed project closely compliments the existing development in the inunediate area. Significant open space areas are provided; including the maintenance of the mountainous areas and in many areas are adJ acent open space acreage (golf course) at the foot of the mountains. The open= space, natural mountain backdrop, and recreational facilities. further enhance the existing resort atmosphere of the La Quinta Hotel and La Quinta Country Club area. . WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation iiresented by the public, and various county, local and state ag.encies;. -now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Planning Commissicn of the County of Riverside, State.of California, in regular session assembled on May 13, 1982 that it makes the following findings and conclusions: 1, .The original Specific Plan 121 -E was 'approved and the asso- ciated Final Environmental Impact Report No. 41 was certified in April 1975 by the Board of Supervisors. The revised Specific Plan 121 -E would result in a development similar in nature and scale to the original Specific Plan No: 1:21 -E. 2..:A large majority_ of the residents.would utilize their dwellings as. a second or retirement home, which.would result in. minimal impacts on the schools and the lack of a heavy concentration of "peak" hour traffic to and from work: 3_ Revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E represents an exoansion of existing facilities and developments associated with the existing La Quinta Hotel. - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 S 9 10 lz 12 13 .1.4_i 15 16 17 181 191 25 27 28 4. Environmental impacts and urban service demands of this project would be minimized by the nature of the development (second and. retirement homes). These impacts can he mitigated and service 1 provided by incorporating the measures outlined by the Planning staff in their report dated April 14, 1932 and-in Final Environ- mental Impact Report No. 41. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the Planning Commission,"pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the kiverside County Rules to implement the Art, has reviewed and considered - Environmental Assessment No. 15626 in its evaluation of the specific plan and finds, that no significant impacts to environment will result from the project, and therefore, recommends adoption of the negative declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 15626: BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND DETERMINED that the Riverside County , l� Planning Commission at' its regular: meeting held on May 13,1982 approves the specific plan and recommends to the City Council of the City of La Quinta that it hold a public hearing and adopt the negative declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 15626 and adopt Revised Specific Plan of Land Use 121 -E Revised, based. upon the findings and conditions of the .Planning Commission -- 3 - t:a Quinta u- striez SP! FIC PLAN # IZl -E Revised Fourth Supervisurial Dist-i ict EIk 941 - EA #15626 Related Files: SP #121 -E, EIR #41 PC Hearing Date: 4/14/82 PM #14273, TR #14496, Agenda-Item: 8 C/Z #3045, PP #5829 •RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT 1. Applicant: Landmark Land Company - 2. Type of Request: Specific Plan of Land Use -3. Location: Mostly westerly of intersection of Eisenhower. -Drive and 50th Avenue 4. Parcel Size: 641.23± Acres -... 5. Existing Roads: Eisenhower Drive, 50th Avenue,. Avenida Mazatlan 6. Existing Land' Use: Hotel, condominiums, golf course, vacant 7: Surrounding Land Use: Residential, Vacant (.including mountainous terrain•) 8. Existing Zoning:' R -1, R -2, R -2= 4000., R -2- 7000: R =2- 8000,: R -2- 10000, R -3, R -5, W -1 9. Surrounding, Zoning: R -1, R -5, W -2, R -2 -8000, W -1, R -2 -4000, C -P -S, R -3, N -A 10. General Plan Elements: Land Use: See SP #121 -E, NAP portion is Low Cove Co1-1 all unities pensity Residential (3 -5 DU /Acre) Open Space and Conservation: Urban Area Circulation: Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 Major 100' R/W ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. Environmental analysis of the revised specific plan resulted in a determination that no major adverse environmental )he impacts would occur as a result of implementation of proposed project. A negative declaration for - Environmental Assessment #15626. . has been .prepared. -SUMMARY The subject application was :continued from the January and February hearings at the request of the applicant in order to clarify details of the project with staff. A previous case, Specific Plan #121 -E, in coniunction with the associated EIR #41, was approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in April, 1975. Specific Plan #121 -E encompassed a 619 acre project adjacent to the La. Quinta Hotel. .Components of -the development plan approved under Specific-Plan #121 -E include the following: 637 condominiums on 132.8 acres, 496 unit additions to the La Quinta Hotel on 42.3 acres., and a 27 hole golf course on-191.5 acres. Upon. completion, the 916 condo - miniums would have a population of approximately 12292 and the 642 hotel rooms would have a transient population of approximately 1,250 people at full occupancy. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A revision of the original Specific Plan is required because of changes in the .proposed land uses for the development. These changes include the following: (1). The addition of a 19.23 acre parcel labeled "not a part" on the original Specific Plan -. This parcel was recently purchased by the Landmark Land Company. A complex of tennis courts and a maximum of 200 condominiums is planned for this acreage. (2) A total of 6.3 acres located east of Eisenhower Drive and south of 50th Avenue, originally intended for other uses, is now proposed for develop- went of 64 condominium units. The 6.3 acres was originally proposed for use as WIBIT Im 'z�pe T-lc r earl M 141 r- nrsv IZIcu Staff Report .Pg; 2. horse stables and a temporary sewage treatment plant. .Change of Zone Case #3491 was filed concurrently with SP #121 -E Revised to reflect the proposed land use changes. (3) A 3.5 acre parcel located at the northern portion of the La Quinta development originally proposed for open space uses is now proposed for the develop- ment of 15 condominium units. Change of Zone Case #3045., which. reflects the proposed land use changes for this area, has already received coLtnty approval. During the interim.period between adoption.of the original Specific Plan and the submission -of -the Revised Specific Plan, several facilities have actually been constructed, including the following: 1. Drainage: facilities 2. Hotel expansion 3. Golf course improvements 4. Tennis complex on the 19.23 acre site. Drainage facilities constructed include Oleander Reservoir, which utilizes a portion of the acreage of the 27 hole golf course for flood control purposes. Other' facili- ties include an excavation channel being constructed by Landmark Land Company, from Eisenhower Drive northeasterly to a point north of Avenue 50. -The remainder of the excavation channel will be constructed to the Whitewater River by the Coachella Valley Water District. Coachella Valley Water District has already completed construction of bridges at Washington Street and. Eisenhower Drive. A total of eleven "bungalows" containing 88 units have.be'en added to the existing t'..,'l Quinta Hotel in the area designated as "Hotel Expansion" on the original Specific ). The remaining 478 hotel expansion units are slated for completion by spring 1984. Construction of the golf course is now complete, with a total of 27 holes. Thirteen of the proposed tennis courts on the 19.23 acre parcel have already been completed after receiving county approval (Plot #5829) in January, 1981. Construc :f-ion of the 200 condominium units proposed for the 19.23 acre parcel is dependent .on the prerequisite approval of the subject Specific Plan revision. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN In. accordance- with the. previously adopted Specific Phan 1/121 -E, the function of Re- vised Specific Plan #121 -E-is to serve as an implementation device for the :Cove Comnunities'General.Plan. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the 19.23 acre site as Low Density Residential, (3 -5 DU /Acre). The property included in the previously adopted specific plan is also designated Low Density Residential, which is refined by the adopted Specific Plan. Urban land uses are planned for the subject property in the Open Space and Conservation elements of the General Plan. Through the mechanism of a Specific Plan, a transfer of densities can be accomplished so that clustered types of dwelling units with associated common recreation areas can be developed. This, mechanism permits higher densities on the development site itself than would be allowed by the General Plan. However, when including the open space and recreational areas, the overall density'is within the range allowed by the General Plan. '� LAND USE COMPARISON Original Specific Plan # 121 -E and Revised Specific Plan # 121 =E:` Land Use Original Acreage' Revised Acreage Net Change Original Revised Units Net -� w :" Units Change 9 Condominiums A 132.8 ac 161.86 ac +29.06 637 t16 +279 Hotel Complex 43.2 ac 43.2 ac -0- 496 642 +146 Mountains 211.4 ac 211.4 ac -0- Not applicable: Golf Course 191.5 ac 185.2 ac -6.3 (Twentyseven hales) Open Area 30.8 ac 27.27 ac -3.53 Not applicable Club House 5.8 ac 5.8 ac -0- Not applicable Service Facilities 3.5 ac 3.5 ac -0- Not applicable Totals 619.0 ac 638.23 ac +19.23 ac 1,183 1,558 +425 0 LAN U _Ot BAR ISM t Original Specific Plan 1 121 -E . and Revised Specific: Mtn � 1214 Original Revised Mt Original Revised Xat Land Use Acreage Acreage Change Units Units Changa Condominiums 132.8 ac 161.86 ac +Z9.O6 36 1� 916 _. +219 � Hotel Complex 1 P 43.2 ac; • a 43.2 ac ''-Q- 496 642 +146 Fountains 211.4 ac 211.4 ac -0- Not applicable Golf Course 191.5 ac 185.2 ac •4.3 (Twentyseven boles) Open area i 30.8 ac Zr1.21 tc -3.53 ht a 1lcable Club House 5.8 ac 5.8 ac -Or •. .PA Not apPli cab ie Service Fa0l -sties 3.5're 3.5 ac -0- Not applicable . Totals + rl p ac 63823 ac +)9,23 'ac 1,133 11558 +425 0 'ai 'Plan #121-C flea4 J �_ err',, av Siff Report r tfhis specific instance, the transfer of densities permits a character of develop - mneent which is ideally suited to the vacation, retirement home, and resort type worket. Homeowners are provided the advantages of a large array of recreational cippartunities, community social events, minimal maintenance,responsibilities, and security provided by the clustered community of neighbors. Privacy is somewhat compromised in a clustered development, but the other advantages are. of critical importance in the resort market place, ANALYSIS: ARCHAEOLOGY An archaeological survey was conducted in April, l 75 by S. R. McWilliams in con- junction with the - original specific Plan. Findings of the survey were that no significant sites would be destroyed by the proposed project. Further surveys were not required. However, the archaeologist did request that a site east of Eisenhower Drive with minor concentrations of artifact's associated with the sand dune and mesquite vegetation be investigated during excavation by the author for academic interest only., SCHOOLS .,As a vacation and retirement home type development, the proposed project would have no significant impacts..on the Desert Sands Unified School District which serves the. area. However, should the school district file. a.notice o.f impaction, with the county, the.developer shall be required to adequately mitigate school impacts 'prior p the issuance of building permits. C1 , AIR QUALITY Short term air quality impacts of - exhaust from construction equipment and dust from grading and. construction would be•experienced during 'the. temporary construction period. These impacts would be minor in nature and can be adequately mitigated by watering of dust prone areas and confinement of construction activities to : normal working hours. � From a longer term prospective, the emissions from automobile traffic would consti -- tote the major air quality impact far the life of the project. As computed in the table below, the entire (original and revised) project would result in approximately 2,115 pounds or 1.057 tons per day of additional pollutants -being emitted into the atmosphere. These calculations are premised on a project trip generation of 11,550 ..trip ends, or one way trips on the average week day. From a regional perspective, the additional air pollution would be relatively insignificant. Also, the nature of the project would lead to the greatest levels of traffic and pollution on. week- ends when permanent residents, would be driving less. "Peak" traffic volumes would be minimal because traffic would tend to be very spread out rather than concentrated in a to and from work pattern inherent in a development 'of permanent residents. Specific Plan NIZI -t Kev1 x Staff Report Pg. 4 AIR POLLUTION 1 ASSUME: 916 Permanent Dwelling Units X 1.5 cars /unit X 365 days X 30 miles /car /day = 15,045,300 miles /year Carbon Monoxide Emission factors for CO = 0.075 lbs. /VMT Correction Factor of 0.5 CO emission /year = 15,045,300 X 0.075 x 0.5 564,198 lbs. :: Daily Rate = 412 :,500 - 1545 lbs. 365 Oxides of Nitrogen Hydrocarbons Emission Factors for NO = 0.0077 lbs. /VMT Correction Factor of Li NOx emission /year = 15,045,300 x 0.0077 x 1.3 = 150,603 lbs. Daily Rate = 15 0,503 - 412 lbs. 365 Emission Factors for HC - 0.0064 lbs. /VMT Correction Factor of 0.6 HC emission /year 15,045,300 x 0.0064 x 0.6. 57,773 =.158 lbs. 365 Daily.Rate 57,773 158 lbs. 365 MAJOR VEHICLE TOTAL EMISSIONS = 772,574 lbs. or 386.3 tons /year MAJOR VEHICLE TOTAL DAILY = 2,115 lbs. or 1.057 tons /day WATER Water service to the original hotel units and the previously existing portions. of the golf: course- -..is. provided by 'an on -site well owned and operated by Landmark Land Company. New construction will be serviced by the domestic water services of the Coachella Valley Water District,. SEWER Existing development in the project area is connected via "wet" sewer lines to a septic tank and seepage pit system located east of Eisenhower Drive in the area pro- posed for 110 condominiums:. This system is. operated and maintained by Coachella Valley Water District.(CVWD)'; and is considered a "temporary" facility.• CVWD is now planning a sewage treatment plant to serve the entire La Quinta area, but this project is presently embroiled In controversy regarding its location. pec . Plf�n #121 -E Rey is, I ling units will have to be connected to a sanitary sewer system of Coachella Vr ,a.TTe Water District. This system may be either the proposed. sewage treatment plant 6r existing "temporary" system, depending on the progress of the Coachella Valley WaiCe_nr 03is trict in finding a location acceptable to the community for the treatment p3anT In'either event, adequate treatment capaci.ty must be available before any buiiu�jing and /or.occupancy permits can be issued. PDL'FL Poles protection is provided to the La aJuinta area by the Riverside County Sheriff Depa3r—L.anent 1 ndio Office. The Sheriff Department has indicated that a request is made by their department to the Board of Supervisors for 'additional manpower and/ or irnmd ing, as required by the demands of additional population and development: The s:sbject'project will result in increased crime as would any other project which i n t —uses the - population of the area. However, a need for specific increases in :she r'1f personnel or. equipment is not anticipated by the Sheriff Department,... Mini= Miz-jr,2 any additional crime in the project vicinity will be the on -site. private sec:: --ity force provided by the La Quinta Cove Golf Club. Fire protection is provided to -the site by the Riverside County Fire Department. The r..►earest station is located at 78136 Avenue 52 in La Quinta. ^1nnc ugh some additional: services will inevitably be required by the subject project, specific additional. manpower or equipment requirements have been mandated by the i r-- Department. FLOOD Shallow flooding could occur on the project property. However, no significant flood A angers will exist for the proposed development following construction of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which is now in progress. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Primary access to the site is provided from Interstate 10 and Highway 111 via Washing- ton Street, and then Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue. As.proposed, the revised specific plan would increase trip generation by almost 30% over the levels an- t.icipated with the original Specific Plan. Because of these sig nificant impacts, the Riverside County Road Department proposes the mitigation measures outlined. below. (1) A General Plan Amendment shall be initiated to restore Eisenhower Drive as a major highway between 50th Avenue. and Washington Street. (2) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any - dwelling units exceeding 750 including hotel units, the project proponent shall contribute toward the installation of the following signals in.the proportion.indicated: a. Eisenhower Drive at 50th Avenue (75 %) b. Eisenhower Drive at Avenida Fernando (25 %) c. Eisenhower Drive at Washington Street (25 %) SpeeltiC Flan Aic.# z rswris Staff Report Pg. 6 (3) To offset -iinitial maintenance -and energy costs incurred by the County due signal iinstallations, fees shall be payable at the same time as the signal contributions. ' These fees total. $31,250. based on a 100% contri- bution rates of $25,000 per signal. The developer will be required to contribute: at the percentage rates outlined in. #2 above. (4) Prior to tine issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling umits exceeding 1,000 including hotel units, the project pro - ponent shall contribute 15% toward the total cost of the following off- _ road .imprawements: a. (Widen Eisenhower Drive to ultimate width from Avenida Fernando to Washington Street b. Widen Washington Street to ultimate width from 50th Avenue to :Highway 111. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Expanding on the ex.is ring resort hoteir.iomplex,. the proposed project closely compl i- ments the existing development in the immediate area. Significant open space areas are provided; including the maintenance of the mountainous areas and in many areas are adjacent open space acreage (golf course) at the foot of the mountains.. The* open space, natural mmuntain backdrop, and recreational facilities further enhance the existing resort atmosphere of the La Quinta Hotel and -La Quinta Country Club area. On .a.1arger scale,. this project is a continuation of the recent trend in La Quinta towards a more urbanized character. The unique. setting of- the La Quinta area ) established by the geographical features of the. Santa Rosa Mountains will result. in a- continued demand for additional housing in the community; thereby continuing the trend towards a mare urban character in La Qui_nta.. In the past, .many people .were attracted to La Quinta by its rural character, which will inevitably .gradually diminish as further growth occurs in the area. Although the project unquestionably lessens the rural characters of the area which is cherished by many local residents, substantial acreage of open space is provided— Offsetting the disadvantage of urbanizing the area are the economic benefits (parti- cularly in light of the potential incorporation of La Quinta) and the enhancement of the resort image of La Quinta. In any event,.further development in:one form or another-can be anticipated with certainty because of the area's unique assets and desirability which were previously discussed...` A resort type development such as that proposed versus a conventional residential development clearly has some advantages in terms of preservation of the .rural atmos- phere. Resort developments not only provide much greater- open space and recreational facilities, but they also have much smaller permanent residential populations: Urban services required by resort residents and visitors also tend .to be.minimal. If, A Specific Plan iI2TeVvi Staff Report Pg. 7. ,ND INGS AND COrNCLi1�"flNS ; Specific Man 0 -E was approved and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report #41 waste c recertified in April, 1975 by the. Board of Supervisors. 2. The revised Sµ'Eecafic Plan #121 -E will result -in a development similar in nature and scale .to trhe original Specific Plan #121 -E. 3. A large ma,yc _y.. of the residents would utilize their dwellings as a second or retirement homes. This would result in minimal impacts on the schools and the lack of: a heav , concentration of "peak" ..hour traffic to and from work. . 4. Revised. Specific Plan #121 -E represents an expansion of existing facilities and developme-i s associated with,the existing La Quinta Hotel. 5. Environmental in--pacts and urban service demands of this project will be minimized by the nature of the development (second. and retirement home). These impacts can. be mitigated zand services can be provided by incorporating the measures outlined in previous sections -of this report and in Final Environmental impact Report #41. RECOMMENDATION Therefore, staff - ecommends ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for.Environmental Assessment- #15626; and APPROVAL o.f Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, in accordance with• Exhibit "A "' and -s:ubject to the attached conditions.. DM: ajP 3/30/82 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING COMMISSION REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN #121 -E May 13, 1982 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. pzri air to issuance of a building permit for cota�a r urcG1 earancenfromethenRi viers f de . by t1hi s approval, the'appli can t shall first Gouny Planning Department to verify that all, pertinent conditions of . approval have been satisfied in accordance with the specific plan. The specific plan approval shall consist of the following: 2. a. Exhibit "A" Revised Specific Plan Text b_ Exhibit "8" Specific Plan Conditions of Approval c_ - Revised specific plan of land use .(development plan) d_ Revised specific plan onsite circulation plan 3. If any of the following conditions for approval differ from the commitment made by the developer in the specific plan text or map exhibits,.the conditions enumerated herein shall. take precedence unless otherwise approved. by.the Planning. Direc.to.r: Any changes pertaining to road improvements conditions. shall be subject to the approval of the Riverside County Road Commissioner, 4_ The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory requ= ments of all Riverside County ordinances and state laws and shall conform sub- stantially with the approved Specific Plan #121 -E Re -vised as filed in the office of the--Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amended. 5_ No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify any ordinance cr other legal requirement for the development, or to set special time commitments for the development, shall be considered to be a part of the adopted specific plan. .6: Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with. the requirements and specifications of.the Riverside County. Heal th: Department. 7. Road improvements shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the implementing subdivision(s) for -this project and /or as recommended by the. Road* Connai ss -i oner. 8. Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with the Coachella Valley Water District requirements. 9. An Environmental Assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, plot plan, or any other discretionary permit within the specific plan. 10. Prior- to recordation of any final subdivision map for a phase of development . requiring a homeowners association, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of :the County that the homeowners association will be established and will operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan. Pg. 1 uMI. + Specific i'1 an #1211 -E Revi d t Conditions of Appro " n Pg. .2. a) The document to convey title. b) Covenamts, .Conditions and Restrictions -to be recorded. The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time and listed on the final subdivision map when recorded. A homeowners association, with the.unqualified right to. assess the owners. of the individual units for reasonable maintenance cost and management costs .shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of this assessment. Such 'lien shall not be subordinate, to any encumbrance. other than a. first deed of trust, 'provided such deed of trust. is made in good faith and for value and i.s of record.prior to the lien of the homeowners association 11_ All conditions listed herein apply only to those parcels changed or added since the original specific plan was approved.. These parcels include the following: 1) :A 19.231 acre parcel proposed for 200 condominiums, purchased since approval of original specific. plan. 2) A 3.526± acre parcel at the base of the mountains which is now proposed for 15 condominium units: 3) A 6.3+ ac re-parcel located. east.of Eisenhower Drive, which was. ori- ginally proposed for use as a temporary: sewage treatment plot and horse stables is now proposed as part 'Of' the : condominium and golf course facilities.' Conditions in the original Specific Plan #121 -E remain applicable to all portions of the subject project with the exception.of` the three parcels noted above'. 12. Prior to recordation of final tract maps for the 19.231, 6.3± and 3.5261- acre parcels, water, sewer, and circulation systems must be adequately provided,.- LAND USE CONDITIONS 13. Lots created pursuant to this specific plan shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zones) ultimately applied to the property.'': 14. Each Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall comply with the requirements. of Ordinance 34.9 and 460. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, common open space area improvement plans Shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. 16_ The total specific plan shall be developed with a:maximum'.�of 916 condomini.:um and 64 °2­ hotel units. w I I §i)ec-i f i c Plan #121-E Revised Conditions of A!,pr• oval 17, All Planned Residential Developments (PRD's) shall incorporated a new or be annexed to an existing homeowners association for maintenance and management of comnon open space areas, private street systems, landscaped areas; signing and lighting or other-defined responsibilities as necessary. lei. All c6mnon oiren space areas including developed landscaped areasi shalt inctuae an autaIlatic irrigation system. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be sub - mitted for Planning Department approval prior to on -site installation. CIRCULATION CONDITIONS 19. Dedication and.improvement of rights -of -way for general plan and public roads and streets adjacent to' the site will be required in accordance with the provi- si oris of - Ordinance 460 and 461. 20. The applicant shall provide all road improvements as specified in the letter dated April 8, 1982 by the Riverside County. Road Commissioner. 21. The basic circulation system shall be developed substantially in accordance - with'-the specific plan text: 22. Construction of the development permitted hereby may be done progressively i.n.phases, provided adequate vehicular access: is. constructed for all dwelling units in each phase-arrd further provided that such phase development conforms substantially with -the intent and purposes of the specific plan... 23. Phasing, shall be done in a manner which will not cause newly completed structures to be impacted by dust generated by grading from subsequent phases. 24. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with all applicable requirements of .Ordinance 460 and Ordinance 546. 25. The. developer shall mitigate any.public facilities and /or school district impacts i.n accordance with notices of impaction which may be applicable at the time of tentative map approval and /or requests. for' extensions of time. 26. The developer shall comply with the following specific: plan development standards: a. Security Police Protection Walkway and parking areas will be adequatel lighted. b. Circulation Cates at entrances will be at least 80 feel .from the public street to allow for stacki.r and turn around. c. Grading All grading will be completed under the direction of a soils engineer and in con - formance with applicable_ County ordinan- Grading permits will be obtained for (,,- , , grading and shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for environ - mental review where applicable. . � t y Specific flan #121 -E Revised CITditions of Approval ''t1 jA d. Land scap.jrig. Conmon areas, parks, entry gates and streets shall be 1 andscal�ed with plant species compa -• tible with the desert environment. e. Drainage Through coordination with the. Coachella Nalley Water District, all development.shall be.designed to. protect all dwellings from'storm flow.: ..La Qutnta uistrict 5pecitic P.-in OIZ] -E Tourth Supervisorial District EIR #41 EA 15626 Related Files: SP #121 -E, EIR #41 Planning Commission: PM #14273, Tr. #14496 Agenda Item: 3 CZ #3045 & PP #5829 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT I. Applicant: 2. Type of Request: 3. Location: 4. Parcel Size: 5. Existing Roads: 6. Existing Land Use: 7. Surrounding Land Use: 8. Existing Zoning:.; 9: Surrounding Zoning: 10. General Plan Elements: (Cove Communities) FURTHER PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - Revised February 17, 1982 Landmark Land Company Specific Plan of Land Use Mostly westerly of intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue. 641.23+ acres Eisenhower Drive, 50th Avenue, Avenida Mazatlan Hotel, Condominiums, Golf Course, Vacant - Residential Vacant (including mountainous terrair R -12 R -2, R -2- 4,000, R -2- 7,000, R -2- 8,000, R- 2- 10,:000, R =3, R -5, W -1 R -1, , °. -5, W =2 R_2y8, 000, 14 -1, R- 2- 4,0000, C -P -S R -3, N -A Land Use: See SP #1217E, 'NAP portion is LOR 3 &u/ac) Open Space and Conservation: Urban Circulation: Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 Major R /W. February 17, 1982 This case was continued from the January 27, 1982 hearing at the applicant's request. The applicant and staff have concurred to an additional continuance in order to further resolve planning issues involved with this project. Conditions Will be, presented,at the next Planning Commission meeting. /5r° IBIT, P a 9 February 11, 1982 Chairman Sul 1ivan Riverside County Planning Commission 46-209 Oasis Street, Room 304 Indio, Ca. 92201 :Reference: SP121 -E- Revised, change of Zone 3491 Dear Chairman' ,Sul.lIvan: As a-result of meeting with the Indio Planning Staff, we request a further continuance to the March 10, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting. This continuance is requested to allow us to further- review our project in detail with staff. We would like to clarify the issues detailed in the staff reports pre- pared for the January 27, 1982 hearing and subsequent revisions to ,these conditions. Thank you for your consideration,of this matter. Sincarely, �..- l oyd W. Watson LWW:Iw Ernest O. Vossler, Director and Senior Vice President LANDMARK LAND COMPANY. INC.. P.O: Box 1000, La 9uinta, California 92253 (714),345-2888 OT (' •= ��i'rrt f`ir'vt�1:: COUNTY OP RIVERSIDE ` Road and Survey Department Memo To Patricia Nemeth, Planning Director December 14, 1981:. Attn: Kevin Manning:, Regional Team Flo. 4 From; A. E. Newcomb, Road Commissioner and County Sur eyor �� By: Edwin Studor -, Supervising Planner t Re :_ Proposed Revision to Specific Plan No. 121 -E LJrX 1 81 (La Quinta Cove Golf Ciub) RIVERSIDE t,;U We have-:reviewed the above referenced proposal and are.dee'ply concerned regarding the traffic, impacts. Our analysis indicates that four lane improve- ments will be warranted along Eisenhower Drive from 50th Avenue to Washington Street and along Was.hington Street from 50th Avenue to Highway 111. In addi- tion,'severa.l new traffic signals will be warranted. General Plan Amendment 154 - 789 -C -24 adopted September 11,. 1979 deleted Eisenhower. Drive as a major highway between 50th Avenue and`Washinaton Street based'on the premise that proposed 'low density development in the area would not 'warrant such a facility. The proposed revision to Specific Plan 121 sub stantially increases densities and increases anticipated trip - generation by nearly 30 percent. The impacts of the propos.al w.i11 be. significant and for this ,reason we propose the following conditions for approval: (1) A General Plan Amendment shall be initiated to restore Eisenhower Drive as a major highway between 50th Avenue and Washington Street. (2) Prior to-the issuance of any building or'development permits for. any dwelling units exceeding 500 including hotel units, the project pro- ponent shall provide signalization at the intersections of: a. Eisenhower Drive at 50th Avenue and; b. Eisenhower Drive at Washington Street. (3) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwell ing units exceeding 750 including, hotel units, the project pro ponent shall provide signalization at the. intersections of: a. Eisenhower Drive at Avenida Fernando and;. b. 50th Avenue at Washington Street. (4) To offset initial- maintenance. and energy costs incurred by the County due to signal. installations, a fee of $25,000 per signal shall. be pay- able .upon the completion of each installation. (5) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling units exceeding 1,000 including. hotel units, the project proponent shall provide the following off -site road improvements: a. Eisenhower Drive from Aveni -da Fernando to Washington Street, widen to provide at least 52 feet of pavement throughout ands b. Washington Street from 50th Avenue to Highway 111, widen to, provide at least 52 feet of pavement throughout. ES:jn L WIT LI INTH( 13MPARTMENTAL.. LETTEW COUNry ' C®UNTV OF- ROVER -SIDE '�'��i1C HJVE ItSJtli; � .tv�,s l ��� Road and Survey Department Memo To: Patricia Nemeth, Planning Director January 26, 1982 From: A. E. Newcomb, Road Commissioner and County Surveyor By: Edwin Studor, Trans portation,P anne) Re Proposed Revision to Specific Plan No._•1.21 -E- (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) Our staff recently had. an npportcir.ity to r:Pet with representativ e, for the.pr.oponents of the above referenced proposal with regard to traf- fic impacts and'mitiga.tion measures. Based upon these discussions and our o� n anaIy5is,. 'we r ecoimiimend that tAle special cond'1 tio71s for approval ' of the specific plan revision as stated in our letter of December 14, 1981 be' revised to read as follows: 1) A- General- Plan Amendment shall be initiated to restore Eisen= hover Drive as a major highway between 50th Avenue and Washington Street.-' 2) Prier to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling units exceeding 750 including hotel units, the project proponent shall contribute toward the installation of the following signals in the proportion indicated: a.. Eisenhower Drive at 50th Avenue (75%) b. Eisenhower Drive at Avenida Fernando (25 %) c. Eisenhower Drive at'Washington Street (2S%) 3) To offset initial maintenance and energy costs incurred by. the....', County due to signal installations., a fee based' on $25,000 per signal and totaling :$31,25.0 shall. ht- payable at, thP came time as. the signal contributions. 4) Prior to the issuance of any building or development permits for any dwelling units exceeding 1,000 including hotel units, the project proponent shall contribute 15% toward the total cost of the following off -road improvements: a. Widen Eisenhower Drive to ultimate width from Avenida Fernando to Washington Street; and b. Widen Washington Street to ultimate width from 50th Avenue to Highway 111. ES: jn cc: Warren Stallard FXHIRIT R R 1 VL. ,)1 I DE CCUM PLU I NG DEPAR WE : 46 -209 OASIS ST., RM. 304 INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (714 -342 -8277) DATE: March 15_,_ 1982 TO: Assessor General Telephone Co. Building & Safety Desert Sands School District .Surveyor, -Road Dept. La Quinta Property Owners Assoc. Health Department � -Water Quality Control Board #7_ Fire Protection. La Quinta Chamber of Commerce CVWD - Flood CVWD, = Water Imperial Irrigation District So. Calif. Gas Company MECT: SPE=CIFIC PLAN #121 -E, Landmark Land Co., P. 0. Box 1000, La Quinta, CA. 92253, To add 19f-acres and Change 3.5 t. Acres to Residential Use; Increase of 279 condominium Units and 146 Hotel units. YOUR COfTVEXT5 AND RECOMMSIDATIONS ARE REQUESTED PRIOR TO March 30, 1982 SO THAT THEY MAY BE INCU DED IN OUR STAFF REPORT REGARDING THIS ITEM. CC"-LENTS: The Regional Board.staff has approved waste discharge requirements, contained in Board Order No: 81 -92, for a maximum discharge of 150, -000 gallons per' day from 100 condominium units and 165 hotel units. Since this new proposal consists of an additional 279 condominiums and 146 hotel units, which would add 115,000 gallons per day to the total discharge, then it is necessary to update requirements... We are requesting that CVWD submit a Report of Waste Discharge. DATE: March 18, 1982 SIGNED:_ �/ £� - way ---=� Charles Spr.i�g , Environmental Speci THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD ON SHQULD YOU WISH TO BE PRESENT. (RETURN THIS COPY TO RLANNI c, DEPARTMENT, 46 -209 OASIS ST., RM. 3M, IND10, CA., 92, FXHIRIT Ill 'L.1 , l lk (,(1Uf J (Y f LMN I NG DLE A[fl I-L; , ; 11672(YJ OAS I S ST.,, Rm, MY] Ir1DId, CAL-I FWNIA 'I201 (71y- 342- 8277) DATE: March 15, 1982 T -Q; Assessor General Telephone Co. Building & Safety Desert Sands School District Surveyor, -Road Dept. La Quinta Property Owners Assoc: Health Department Water Qualify Control Board #7. Fire Protection La Quinta Chamber of Commerce CVWD - Flood CVWD , -Water Imperial Irrigation District -�So. Calif.:.Gas Company ' J 1LCT: SPECIE'IC PLAN #121 -E, .Landmark Land:Co., P. 0: Box 1000' Quinta, CA. 92253 To add 19± acres and Chanyte 3.5 t Acres to Residential Use;' Increase of 2.79 condominiur: Units and lA6' Motel units -. YOUR CCc"MErfTS AND RECOMaMATIONS ARE REQUESTED PRIOR TO March 30;: 1982 SO THAT TF;EY MAY BE INCLUD.ED.IN OUR STAFF REPORT REGARDING THIS ITEM, C-U %LENTS -No objections, recommendations -or comnents at this time. DATE:: March 1 ._1 a SIGNED: V._ C, Barastgd ,1F:jP1d Tpr -hn-ir a i THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD ON "-D YOU WISH TO BE PRESENT. W.L 4 1JR N THIS COPY TO: PLFVN I N(i DEnARI7,iENT., 46-209 OASIS ST . , Rm . 3, INDIO, CA., X2201) rvU1Q1T -T- RI'!EkS IL DE COUiII Y PLANiI I;;u QEI'i+RTI'EII I 4080 LEMON STREET 9th F1 " RIVERSIDE, CALIF. G2501 REGIONAL TEAM $ 4 D�- T E: DEC. 1981 RE: SPECIFIC PLAN I?l .TO: BLDG. &- SAFETY Landmark. Land Co \ ROAD DEPT PO Box 1000 `+iEALTH . DEPT La Qui nta Ca '92253 _ FIRE .PROTECTIO°; . •. . FLOOD CONTROL- COACHEL:LA VALLUY 'WATER DIST QUINTA IIISY ��--�- •« +�-- -�- ��--�° - r ... t .: .. f.r: �w . • ..s.= k .i' 7 .fi rl'; r_w.e q* ^.Y 7. Yr ..try I..11i mss... sa''t . :.^L'f[r: }- •1r�Y. •r `. fS�i. +..?',.'7f r::. i1rl: �ca. M' M�•rti..'s•i- iv�""r.- +�.71+YVL 9'r.d 4.4eW •wC irL i.:• DES ERT ':'SAPID��EJNIF. •�SEH[l01_ I� QIST- - LA 'QU.INTA PROP 01•INERS ASSN' ,•DATER: , QUALITY CONTROL BD 7 Please review the case described above and the attached. map. A public hearing has .been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 27, 1982. Your comments and recommendations are requested prior to Jan.. 17, 1982 in order to include them in the staff. report for this item-: Should you have any questions regarding this item, please do. not hesitate to cont, Kevin Manning at 342 - 8277. Related Case Files: PM 14273; TR 14496; CZ 3045 CC' -114ENTS. The Health Department has no objection to the proposal. Our records indicate the site will be served water and sewer service by the Coachella Valley Water District. EET:cg f O�;TE_ 1 -4 -82 _Signature -«CC Earl E. Tuntland,.R.S., M.P.A. Please print name and title: __Administrative Supervisor _ .. I ^�1L.vU_lll'/L.I. r'14: _;111 (,(UNfY f LIVINING DEPA1011 lUj l+ 1I6-109 OASIS ST... RM. 3(a !•�"�� ! ti X j 1 IUDIO; CALIFORNIA T2201 (714- 342- 8277)L.��y DISTRICT DATE: March 15 -19$ TO: Assessor General Telephone Co. Building Safety Desert Sands School District Surveyor, -Road Dept. La Quinta Property Owners Assoc. % Health Department Water Quality Control Board #7. Fire Protection- La Quinta Chamber of Commerce CVI4D - Flood CVWD , -Water Imperial Irrigation District So. 'Cal if.: --Gas Company S118.JECT:: SPECIFIC PLAN #121 -E, Landmark Land Co., P.: 0. Box 1000, La Quanta, CA. 92253 To add-19* acres and Change 3.5 -t Acres..to Residential Use; Increase of 279 condominium Units. and 146 Hotel units YOUR CC7I,�S AND RECOTISIIDATIONS ARE REQUESTED PRIOR TO March 30,1982 SO THAT THEY MAY HE INCLUDED IN OUR STAFF REPORT REGARDING THIS ITEM CC�1�fTS The Riverside Count Department of Public Health has reviewed the specific plan proposal, r fitted by the applicant, Landmark Land Company, requesting approval to add approximately ,. acres to.,-the original project -plam and change approximately 31x acres of the original project plan for residential usage in order that development of approximately 279 additional condominium units and .146 hotel units Tn be made in phas -es. With respect to the Conditions of Approval for the above referenced plan, or any use allowed under this plan, this Department has the following additional recommendations: 1- All new construction within each phase of the project shall be connected to the :domestic water system of the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the current regulations of the District. 2. All new construction - within each phase of the project shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system of the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the current regulations of the District. Before any permits are approved, the sewage disposal treatment facilities will have to be of adequate capacity to receive any additional sewage effluent from each phase of the proj ect development. DATE: March 29, 1982 SIGNED: G'?� `,ti•� THE PUBLIC HE ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD ON SFPUI -D YOU WISH TO BE PRESENT. �•�` URN THIS COPY TO PLANN1rr, DEPARTMENT, 46 -209 OASIS ST., Rm, 3014, IND I O, CA @ , 92201) EXHIBIT RIVERSIDE COUNTY LAST ARLA PLANNING COUNCIL 46 -209 Oasis Street, Roum*304 I dio Cal ifurnia 9.2201 - �L=.v�u L IUJ NOV 19 191'"i n � , Assessor's TO: Building Dept. C vi 41 ter Distr. Flood Control DESERT DISTRICT DATE: November 20 1 a Div. of Forestry - FIRE Dept. Ilea1 th Dept. C.V. Cable Road Dept•, Sheriff's Dept. Water Quality Con.tro.l.Brd, 07 General Tel. Co: Imperial Irrigation.District Riv. Co. Flood Control Desert Water Agency So. Calif. Gas Co.- Desert Sands School Distr. La Quinta Prop.Owners Assn. La Q.uinta Chamher.of Commerce Case-No.. Specific Plan of Land Use #121 -E Rev. APN 631-- 390. =047 014 0 # ,608,010 =011 , Reolic::nt: Landmark Land Company /Ernie Vossler Related Files• . P_ L. pMld2J_3, Tr.14496; CZ #3045 Pro.iect Description: Revise SP #121 to add 19+ Acres and change 3,5-acres to Residential use; increase of 279 condo units and 146 hotel,units. Project Location: At Eisenhower Street and Ave. 50, surrounding existing La Quinta Hotel Please reviet -the attached. as it pertains to your area of expertise. Your wa=nts and recoasnendations are requested- prior to the date Qf as soon as os i )1 COid•TENTS OR RECOMMENDATIONS: The Riverside County Department of Public Health has reviewed the revised specific plat: proposal, submitted by the applicant, Landmark Land Company, requesting approval to add approximately 19+ acres to the original project plan and change approximately 3�-2 acres of the original project plan for residential usage in order that .development of approxi =at= 279 additional condominium units and_ 146 hotel units can be made in phases. With respect to the Conditions of Approval for -the above referenced plan, or any use allowed under . this plan, this Department has the following additional recommendations: 1. All new construction within each phase of the project shall be connected to the domestic water system of the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the current regulations of the District. 2. All nee,* construction within each phase of the project shall be connected- to the sanitary sewer system of the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the current regulations of the District. Before any permits are approved, th of a..dequate capacity to receive any project development. DATE, January 12, 1982 Please return original to Planning PH; l�M: l rd s.ewage.disposal treatment facilities will have to be additional sewage effluent from each phase of the S,IGNED: Department,.46 -209 Oasis St., Room 3040 Indio: CA 92 H1�1� W Riverside County East Area -1- March 18, 1982 Planning Council - rhure� may be conflicts with existirib District facilities. We request the appropriate public aguncy to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arranbemunts have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. CS; r2 c,:: Riverside, County Department of Public Health 4b -209 Oasis Street lndio; Calif :ornia 92201 Attention: Don Park Yours very truly.. r� Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager -Chief Engineer E A E�c�� Aj RIVEKSIL)k_ COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESERT OFFICE �1 ATE/? ESTABII:III f7 IN IYItl AS A PUL'LIC AGENCY 'd /STRIC' COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Posr OFFICE eOx 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (7141398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R. HuMMUNDS, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS. GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGIrIEER TELLISCOOEXAS, VICE PRESIDENT DL:(- 'uII11 t: I gh I DERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY JOHN P. POWELL VICTOR D, HARDY, AUDITOR PAUL W. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS. .STEVE D BUXTON File: 0163.11 Rivurside County East Area Planning Council 40 -209 Oasis Street, Room 304 Indio, California 92201 Ge.TiL Ic1L,:,1: Re: Parcel Map Specific Plan of Land Use # 121 -E Rev. NEB,, Sec. 36, T5,R6L,.S.B.M, u NE' -L, Sec. 1, T69 R6E,. S.B.M. This area: is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone -A3 on Federal flood Insurance rate maT)s which are in effect at tfiis time. however, when the construction of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel is completed, the area outside of the channel and Oleander Reservoir will be considered safe frow stormwater flows except in rare instances. Pl..lris ror housing pads shall bet submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review of their location in respect to the stormwater facilities. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. This, area ;shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley water District for sanitation service. There may be. conflicts wi th' existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours Very truly, Lowell 'O. Weeks - /eneral Manager -Chief Engineer CS:dlb cc: $iverside County Department of Public Health ! i 46 -209 Oasis Streot. � l�lT Indio, California 9220TRUECONSERVATION Artentiou: Don Park USE WATER WISELY VIE RIVERSI1A. COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTh,ENT 4080 f.f:(,U�J STIIELT 901 Fl i RIVERSIDE. CALIF.- 92501 REGIU;IAL TEAM $ 4 DATE: DEC. 1981 RE: SPECIFIC PLAN 1'GI TO:`-B[ -DG & SAFETY Landmark Land Co ROAD- DEPT PO Box 1000 HEALTH f DEPT La Qui nta Ca , 922�� ' FIRE PRO•FECTIO'; • .. - ..:gty : � .., .,. ..r ,.. . FLOOD CONTROL - COACH ELLA—VALLLY WATER DI ST QUINTA DIST •,�� _r � -� - -•ri ` "DESERT SANDl "UNI F SCN+OOL3'1YIST. ;, -.rd ,. , , :� - • e . r, f ►, ...;} aur.. - : . LA QUINTA PROP 0'.- INERS' ASSN ......._.._......_...__ , .. __ ..... IdATER QUALITY CONTROL BD 7 Please rev iew the case described above and the attached map. A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for Jan. 27, 1982. Your comments and recommendations pre requested prior to Jan. 17, 1982 in order to include them in the staff report,'for this itei�l_ Should you. have any questions regarding this item, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin (Manning at 342 - 8277. Related Case Files: PM 14273; TR 14496; CZ 3045 COI,I1MENTS: v DATE Signature RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND NOTICE OF DETERMINATION' Case No. (Mod)/? /;C Acyi51r1 EA No. NEGATIVE DECLARATION Based on the Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: See attached Initial Study Patricia Nemeth, AICP, Planning Director Ct)M -,, PL TED Ti t l e ffL&! Lt, Date 2 2 � . .......... Case No. (Mod) - Land Div Sch Appl/ReP Alm ZIA Developable Lots Dev. Ac Date Submi tte Open Space Lots r O.Sp. Ac Existing Zones �_� pup Changes of Proposed Zone.s Only zoning Acreage ADOPTED Board of Supervisors Planning-Commission ❑ Area Planning Council ❑ P"Ianning Director ❑ __. HEARING BODY OR OFFICER ❑ Board of Supervisors Planning Commission ❑ Area Planning Council tinning Director Person verifying adoption Date (Other) NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ACTION ON PROJECT ❑ Approval ❑ Disapproval Date (Other) - _ - Developable Lots Dev.Ac Open Space Lots O.Sp. Ac Changes of Approved Zones Only Zones Acreage The project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted and may be examined at the Planning Department at the address below. f`ar °son verifying action Title ?SIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT _-0 LEMON STREET, 9TH FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 Ite - Orjginal (Case file with Original Initial Study) Idenrod — Development Information County Clerk Files CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN # 1214 General Conditions 1. The specific plan approval shall consist of the following: Exhibit A Specific Plan Text and Addendum Exhibit B Specific Plan Conditions of Approval Exhibit C Summary of Specific Plan Development Standards 2. If any of the following conditions for approval differ from the commitment made by the develop in the specific plan text or map exhibits, the conditions enumara +&A herein shall ta4a nreredence or as annr wed b the Riverside County �. w vv.r herein shall n.. Y• v rrY. .i Road Commissioner. 3. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the mandatory re- quirements of all Riverside County ordinances and state laws and shall conform substantially with the approved Specific Plan # 121 -E Revised as filed in the office of the Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amemded, No portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify any ordinance or other legal requirement for the development, or to set special time commitments for the development, shall be considered to be a part of the adopted specific plan. 5. Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements end specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. S. Road improvements shall be rovided in accordance with the requirements of the implementing subdivision (s� for this project and /or as recommended by the Road Commissioner. 7. Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with the coachella Valley Water District requirements. 8. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the Riverside County Planning Department that all pertinent conditions of approval have been satisfied in accordance with the specific plan. 9. An Environmental Assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of gone, plot plan, or any other discretionary permit within the specific plan. 10. Prior to recordation of any final subdivision map for a phase of development requiring a homeowners, association, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County that the homeowners association will be established and will operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan. Conditions of Approval Revised Specific Plan # 121 -E Page 2 a) The document to convey title b) Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded. The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time and listed on the final subdivision map when recorded. A homeowners association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance cost and management costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of this assessment. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed of trust, provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the homwowners association. Land Use Conditions 11. Lots created pursuant to this specific plan shall be inconformance with the development standards of the zone (s) ultimately applied to the property. 12. Each Planned Residential Development (PRD) shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance 348 and 460. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, common open space area improvement plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. 14. The total specific plan shall be developed with a maximum of 916 condominium and 642 hotel units. 15. All Planned. Residential Developments (PRDs) shall lncorporate.Qr be annexed to an existing homeonwers #sgociation for maintenance and management..Qf PWMn open space area;, private street systems, landscaped areas,.signjng and,lighting or other defined responsibilities as necessary. 16. All common open space areas including developed landscaped areas shall include an automatic irrigation system. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall . he submitted for Planning Department approval prior to construction, Circulation Conditions 17. Dedication and improvement of rights -of -way for general plan and public roads. and streets adjacent to the site will be required in accordance with the provision of Ordinance 460 and 461. 18. The applicant shall share in the off -site road improvements per a letter dated January 26, 1982 by the Riverside County Road Commissioner, 19. The basic circulation system shall be developed substantially in accordance with the specific plan text. I Conditions of Approval Revised Specific Plan # 121 -E Page 3 Phasin2 Conditions 20. Construction of the development permitted hereby may be done progressively in phases, provided adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each phase and further provided that such phase development conforms substantially with the intent and purposes of the specific plan. 21. Phasing shall not be carried out in a manner which will cause newly completed structures to be in danger from dust generated by grading for a subsequent phase. 22. Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with all applicable requirements of V N 114A -TUU rld Vr U I HLA Ice CAA . 23. The developer shall pay any public facilities and /or school district fees which may be applicable at the tentative map approval. 24. The developer shall comply with the following specifc plan development standards: a, Security Police Protection Walkway and parking areas will be adequately lighted. b. Circulation Gates at entrances will be at least 80 feet from the public street to allow for stacking and turn around. c. Grading All grading will be completed under the direction of a soils engineer and in conformance with applicable County ordinances. Grading permits will be obtained for all grading and shall be submitted to the County Planning Department for environmental review where applicable. d. Landscaping Common areas, parks, entry gates and s1re�t4 shall be landscaped with plant Species compatible with the desert environment, e. Drainage Through coordination with the Coachella Malley Water District, all development shall , designed to protect all dwellings from storm flow. f. Energy and Resource Flow restrictors in bathrooms and kitchens, small Conservation reserve tank toilets and water saving washing machines in common laundry facilities shall be standard features of the development. Dwelling unit construction shall include site orientation and design so as to maximize solar access. Conditions of Approval Revised Specific Plan # 121 -E Page 4 Architectural elements (window placement, tinted. glazing on the southern and western exposures, size, roof overhang) and landscape planting shall - be used to reduce summer heat. Solar heatin systems shall be used to heat water used for recreational purposes. Units shall have double- glazed windows to reduce heating /cooling energy consumption, in compliance with Title 24. Units shall have R -19 and R -21 walls and ceilings respectively. Units shall have a minimum roof overhang of one foot in width to provide shade from the hot: summer sun. " ''� ©■ . a SPECIFI46 PWLAN Or- LAND USE Wn-K .I.F. DAVIONON AGROCIATNO ,"Woo" pf-. �;ji Ll MVNMP OPUCWM PM-AN "VXL93PWAWrwr 'LAN Mew tl(GtN HULL CALL VOTE KLSUTA ED AS FOLLWS: AYES: Wnunissiunars Brussor., 'Steftey, "* tzensteitf, Carnpbull, .,nd Sullivan NOES: Noll, ABSENT: COmmiSS1011er Purviance The hearing was maned at 2:35 p.m. and closed at 2:40 p.m. STAFF RECtY?�1k;11a.T1021. Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 15145 and approval of Charge of Zone Case No. 3491 from R -5, W-1 and R -2 to W-1. R -2 and R -5 in sceordance with Exhibit 2. The zone change had been submitted in order to implement Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised, which had previously been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.. Tire zoning changes reflected change, proposed for the different areas as reflected on the revised specific plan. E:aff felt that development in accordance with these propos.o zone changes to -.' b^- similar in scale and compatible with existing neighborhoG'- sari uses, (HEEL 723 - SIDE - 1969 -2010) ` 1:50 p,m, PUBLIC HEA1:INC (Cons, frum 2 /17/82) ChANGE OF ZONE Cq E NO. 3491 (36.51_ ac_rrn, SnUtheaCL ,•orn,•r Auupt t:e ::l:vt• L•. _1.Jra4on iur LA 15i :-� ELsanin,wur and f'.veuue SU; resulting from the subject zone changes and pursuant development would nos !�ndmxr6 i�ud adversely affect -he immediate or nearby environment; and developments associated with zhe proposed zone changes %vuld be compatible with existing neighborhood lane uses, l MOTION: Upon rnot -on by Commissioner Olesen, seconded by Commissioner Camo1e11 and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council, City iourtll 1;4LLr)ct The hearing was maned at 2:35 p.m. and closed at 2:40 p.m. STAFF RECtY?�1k;11a.T1021. Adoption of the negative declaration for EA 15145 and approval of Charge of Zone Case No. 3491 from R -5, W-1 and R -2 to W-1. R -2 and R -5 in sceordance with Exhibit 2. The zone change had been submitted in order to implement Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised, which had previously been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.. Tire zoning changes reflected change, proposed for the different areas as reflected on the revised specific plan. E:aff felt that development in accordance with these propos.o zone changes to -.' b^- similar in scale and compatible with existing neighborhoG'- sari uses, .ABSENT: Comrriis__cner Purviance "_t UO P..- AS 'i Y? T!!: c is i�..,• . _ 6;IT11 .. G!...._...,_ c'LA1. Ku lie rL h.r u•,S - - t -. /_ acres, north - I ruin H -3 to C -P -Y. 11 west o: hr.'`- •,.n,: I!i Four t:: Sii re rvisnn Li : ^IlisLrict T'h, u;aplic,tni hr. iI,pealed stuff'., duLernination .hat a chdnrr Jr :or,-. t;om H- 3 -400i; L"' -I' -S Or the Suhiuct 2.177 acre -parco.1 would be inc'n =1�t :•ra _i 19' Bob Kipper, rep.-s_enting the apclicant, concurred with staff's anaivsis and recommendations. "- re bEing nc ruriher testimony, the hearing was clu5ed at 2:40 p.m. Upon motion by C._•_Jissioner Olesen, < econded by Commissioner Campbell and unanimously carr_ac, the Commission recocr ended to the City Council, City of La Quinta, adopt-tan of the negative declaration for EA 15145 based on the finding the propose$ project would not have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS: The proposed Zone changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan No. 121-E acd Specific Plan No. 121 -E Revised, environmental impacts resulting from the subject zone changes and pursuant development would nos adversely affect -he immediate or nearby environment; and developments associated with zhe proposed zone changes %vuld be compatible with existing neighborhood lane uses, l MOTION: Upon rnot -on by Commissioner Olesen, seconded by Commissioner Camo1e11 and unanimously carried, the Commission recommended to the City Council, City of La Cuinta, ancroval of Change of Zone Case No, 3491 from R -5, F11-1 and R -2 to R -2, W -1 and 1-. -5 in accordance with Exhibit 2, based on the above findings and staff's reco =Endations. ROLL CP_LL VOTE R-EFULTED AS FOLLOWS: AYES: C6mmis-zioners Bresson, Sreffey, Ratzenstein, Campbell, Ole.;en and Sullivan r NOES: Pont .ABSENT: Comrriis__cner Purviance "_t UO P..- AS 'i Y? T!!: c is i�..,• . _ 6;IT11 .. G!...._...,_ c'LA1. Ku lie rL h.r u•,S - - t -. /_ acres, north - I ruin H -3 to C -P -Y. 11 west o: hr.'`- •,.n,: I!i Four t:: Sii re rvisnn Li : ^IlisLrict T'h, u;aplic,tni hr. iI,pealed stuff'., duLernination .hat a chdnrr Jr :or,-. t;om H- 3 -400i; L"' -I' -S Or the Suhiuct 2.177 acre -parco.1 would be inc'n =1�t :•ra _i 19' n a r ATTACHMENT iP2 RESOLUTION NO. 82 -54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN - OF LAND USE NO. 121 -E, REVISED. : WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et. seq., public hearings were held before the La Quinta City Council on September 21, 1982, in the City of La Quinta, California, on proposed Specific Plan of Land Use No. 121 -E, Revised; and WHEREAS, all the procedures of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County rules to implement the Act have been met and negative declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 15626 has been recommended for adoption by the Planning Director; and WHEREAS, the revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E will allow an additional 279 condominiums and 146 hotel units, the following issues were identified and resolved: A. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The units proposed in conjunction with the revised Specific Plan, when added to the original Specific Plan, —will not exceed the overall density allowed by the Riverside County General Plan. B. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION As proposed, the revised Specific Plan would increase trip generation by about 30% over the levels anticipated with the original Specific Plan. This additional impact was mitigated through the requirement for additional road improvements and contributions to traffic signals at three intersections along Eisenhower Drive. C. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES As a vacation and retirement home development, many of the impacts. on public services and facilities generated from the revised Specific Plan are minimized. These include impacts and demands on schools, air quality, water, sewer, police protection and fire protection. D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Expanding on the existing resort hotel complex, the pro- posed project closely compliments the existing development in the immediate area. Significant open space areas are provided; including the maintenance of the mountainous areas and in many areas are adjacent open space acreage (golf course) at. the foot of the mountains. The open space, natural mountain backdrop, and recreational facilities further enhance the existing resort atmosphere of the La Quinta Hotel and La Quinta Country Club area. WHEREAS, the matter was discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented by the public, and various county, local . . w • 0 W and state agencies. NOW, THEREFORE,. BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California,.in regular session assembled on October 5, 1982, that it makes the following findings and conclusions: 1. The original Specific Plan 121 -E was approved and the associated Final Environmental Impact Report No. 41 was certified in April, 1975, by the Riverside. County Board of Supervisors. The revised Specific Plan 121 -E would result in a development similar in nature and scale to the original Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. A large majority of the residents would utilize their dwellings as a second or retirement home, which would result in minimal impacts on the schools and the lack of a heavy concentration of "peak" hour traffic to and from work. 3. Revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E represents an expansion of existing facilities and developments..associated with the existing La Quinta Hotel. 4. Environmental impacts and urban service demands of this project would be minimized by the nature of the development (second and retirement homes) . These impacts can be mitigated and services provided by incorporating the �l measures outlined by the Riverside County Planning staff in their report dated April 14, 1982, and in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 41. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the La Quinta_ City- Council, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside County Rules to implement the Act, have reviewed and considered Environmental Assessment No. 15626 in its evaluation of the specific plan and find that no significant impacts to environment will result from the project, and therefore, adopts the negative deblaration for Environmental. Assessment No. 15626. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DEj.,±;RMINED AND ORDERED that the Specific Plan on file with the City Clerk entitled Specific Plan of Land Use No. 121 -E, Revised, including the final approved conditions and exhibits, is hereby adopted as the Specific Plan of Land Use for the real property shown in the Plan and said real property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the Specific Plan unless the Plan is repealed or amended by the La Quinta City Council. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that copies of the Specific Plan of Land Use shall be filed in the Office of the Clerk of this Council, in the Office of the Planning Director and in the Office of the Director of Building and Safety, and that no applications for conditional use permits, or the like, shall be accepted for the real property shown on the Plan unless such applications) are substantially in accordance with the adopted Revised Specific Plan of Land Use. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of October , 1982. MAYOR ATTEST: T ERK ppDOIdED AS TO FORIM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: L. ITY ATTORNEY MANAGER 7 11 I( aI y8 ova r s 7 i RC�ICL°NT11.L -rr? J 376.5 -1 T u•v/S J:1 JI.J 2 -';J�,:� YID` •� 29 aAnrs I I i Jz Q I J ai Erj d I� J .Q V i rr.rl l a /� ~ u ; v ME 148/21 -22 - � 1W � h TRACT 14474 - 1 (43)1 sI S r QESIOC. AfT1iL It /NGLuop -o /r SPECIPIC PLAm LOT A I ATTACHMEN' -� I r�71 Olt 71 GC INT I A L_ i I - J -� rf? J � �6 .,. i 2 3 vN,rs Ir A f- AP+® -rte I� �•rlr_ !moo -oao IrE' 7e' tl I y, p, � r u LA QUINTA. WOTCL Ter.r%iift Cum Z I rr 16 p a 1\/l S 148/21- 22 !' a 1S 'tl��t3c rj 0e0 O0. 7 J (06/24-27 I i TRACT 144- 'DG - I 11 /0 Y QUINTANA �1 I \ at5lorwIT1AL. I 1 1 k w AREA ro W Rff ZONED: Q -/ m ks LC-r"^ ATTACHMENT *4 34P � � I- If - ,. _ .. _.- .._ -- _ s AVCNIDA F'Ei2l�iAN4?CJ - - • —J `- - I RE 51 of NT I AI i :'i�:� I• :i ca 14 8/2 1- 2 -2 z �a J a 'N i d i J J a TRACT I4.4-'56 - I i QUINJ_ANA + 1\1 I \ \ ¢ESI OE NT IP- L \ I� j� I LOT A 7[1j� ATTACHMENT �l 0,2 3�el9 O 1•a agr M •a M+t4 ai•!a M aftow." 0-.y1 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ' .+•� � mar ra.nr....wl r •sr r w a.r..wi • � ���w a+wlws� � awnnw a► 1 � ••s �. exx� iiy T��, ��,, I.�I� *. •E� ��: J4NQ /SAe • pow" •s ,.......� {3 r r � �^ yam. til r� -00'4 ate, y 1 J!r �� of 1 gyp/ Zoe L g +�y •A: ,a�►asrsr aR �,Iaai F sxwtw• � Nw 1 34 • �... jw —, (ftA4406 Al co C•s `"il l ` cc L:I .I • t l l• CASE NO. Sg -�� A5 } 24 1 1 35 .✓/ ' ,-� � F-L 11919-1,5 A /U' r�.ail •�rwr .��. ti • •w' �. s rye # • ATTACHMENT *6 M •uV n.— fteml, 74"1701 VOW '} NWOk MOM V"L alli a n-& }utm terra! Wan L'm Wad ♦ n=- T 0 F GL !— - 1 - la'i1blh ,f^1 tiw KYI■} w"� �4r /ra'M1Y�Y OK 1 C n rl ay{I�y1 -, M■4M a�{y I . +^reA �r .r.:.■ if . �,�.a e.■ > port- ) ■4 y1ML 1 _.) a..,.■ c4 .__ _ (. ...T �AFKpq.11 9►AC-R:11 E! ll MI. I A'Ri N.R. pmo) TN. � w_ _ r 1 4x pAllKilfA; la7 SrACCS ~�i6 i T 71 - `• S -w— y ■a WWTEIL►NCE ►MD Lsff 1 j rl 1 3 y. 1 -4waaw 1 J L� * • al +sxm 4 -AWL S r.M w�a u NOT A MAT . }Ilry • i .� poq w ..a. ...p w�+a G'i/.71I L fT 1 -r.�,m a . ,r....+•.a� �.a.N.rwT` ; a 11 AVEMDA OBREOON 0 i) •1 J J S i - WM5- ,r y - ':.l�o6clf= �Tf+lf' 3i �CS'�I:Calf 6L,t/:/LL {hGH] 4-1 ' 20pJ 291 ., MAJ. fENANGE FAC -Mry r { � �°d �/ NOT A PART. Oj •. •, ai s,•ya.•►•aaaa•.� ••I a x PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION 0 0 0 • a 6 ♦ a 0 a a • a i 1 FUTURE HOTEL s EXPANSION SITE, - .4 FFFFFFFM ai 3 ai - 6 ,t 14 2 3 4 O rl A tj nc1igtn:,: P�DEsTRJA-, /evu t�S ATTA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING COMMISSION REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN #121 -E May 13, 1982 EXHIBIT 1 GENE RAd- 03NDITIONS 1, Prior- to issuance of a building permit by Mis approval, the 'applicant royal Coun -ly Planning Department to verify that all pertinent conditions of app have been satisfied in accordance with the specific plan. 2. The specific plan approval shall consist of the following: a. Exhibit "'A" Revised Specific Plan Text b. Exhibit "8" Specific Plan Conditions of Approval c. Revised specific plan of land use (development plan) d_ Revised specific plan onsite circulation plan l� 3. If any of the following conditions• for approval differ from the commitment made by the developer in the specific plan text or map exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director Any changes pertaining to road improvements conditions shall be subject to the approval of the Riverside County Road Commissioner. 4. The development of the property shall be in accordance with-the mandatory rec," inents of all Riverside County ordinances and state laws and shall conform sul stantially with the approved Specific Plan #121 -E Revised as filed in the office of the. Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amended. 5. !do portion of the specific plan which purports or proposes to change, waive or modify any ordinance cr other legal requirement for the development, or to set special time commitments for the development, shall be considered to be a part of the adopted specific plan. 6. Water and sewage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the Riverside County Health Department. 7. Road improvements shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the implementing subdivisions) for this project and /or as recommended by the Road Connmissioner. B. Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with the Coachella Valley Water District requirements. 9. An Environmental Assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, plot plan, or any other discretionary permit within the specific plan. 10. Prior to recordation of any final subdivision map for a phase of development requiring a homeowners association, the applicant shall submit to the Plannin- Department the following documents which shall denionstrate to the satisfacti of the County that the homeowners association will be established and will operate in accordance with the intent and purpose of the specific plan. Pg. 1 r Specific Plan 0121 --E Re d Conditions of APPmval Pg..2. a) The dacument to convey title. b) Covenzn ts,.Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded. The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time and listed on the final subdivision map when recorded. A homeowners association, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance cost and management costs shall be established and continuously maintained. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of this assessment. Such lien shall not be subordinate to any encumbrance other than a first deed' of trust, provided such deed of trust is made in good faith and for value and is of record prior to the lien of the homeowners association. 11. All cotiditions listed herein apply only to those parcels changed, or added since the original specific plan was approved. These parcels. include the following: 1) A 19.23± acre parcel proposed for 200 condominiums, purchased since approval of the original specific plan. 2) A 3.526± acre parcel at the base of the mountains which is now proposed for 15 condominium units. 3) A 6.3+ acre parcel located east of Eisenhower Drive, which was ori- ginally proposed for use as a temporary sewage treatment plot and horse stables is now proposed as part 'of the condominium and golf course facilities. Conditions in the original Specific Plan #121 -E remain applicable to all portions of the subject project with the exception of the three parcels noted above. 12. Prior to recordation of final tract maps for the 19.23±, 6.3± and 3.526± acre parcels, water, sewer, and circulation systems must be adequately provided- LAND USE CONDITIONS 13. Lots created pursuant to -this specific plan shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone(s) ultimately applied to the property. 14. Each Planned Residential Development (PRO) shall coinply with the requirements of Ordinance 3419 and 460. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, caimion open space area improvement plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval. 16. The total specific plan shall be developed with a maximum of 916 condominium and 642"hotel units. 9i)ec i T l c r an v. or • ..� Condi tioiis of A!,proval 17. All Planned Residential Developments (PRD's) shall incorporated a new or be ) annexed to an existing homeowners association for maintenance and management of common open. space areas, private street systems, landscaped areas; signing and lighting or other defined responsibilities as necessary. 18. All colli,101) omen space areas including developed landscaped areas snail induce an auL(X11dtic irrigation system. Landscaping and irrigation plans shall be sub- mitted for Planning Department approval prior to on -site installation. CIRCULATION CONDITIONS 19. Dedication and improvement of rights -of -way for general plan and public roads and streets adjacent to the site will be required in accordance with the provi- sions of Ordinance 460 and 461. 20. The applicant shall provide all road improvements as specified in the letter dated April 8, 1982 by the Riverside County Road Co missiorier. 21. The basic circulation system shall be developed substantially in accordance. with the specific plan text. 22. Construction of the development permitted hereby may be done progressively in phases, provided adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each phase and further provided that such phase development conforms; substantially with the intent and purposes of the specific plan. 23. Phasing shall be done in a manner which will not cause newly completed structures to be impacted by dust generated by grading from subsequent phases. 24. Fire prc)t:!ction shall be provided in accordance with all applicable requirements of Ordinance 460 and Ordinance 546. 25. The developer shall mitigate any public facilities and /or school district impacts in accordance with notices of impaction which may be applicable at the time of tentative map approval and /or requests for extensions of time. 26. The developer shall comply with the following specific plan development standards a. Security Police Protection Walkway and parking areas will be adequate 1 ighted. b. Circulation Cates at entrances will be at least 80 fe from the public street to allow for stack and turn around. , una c ral A i r gr au i ng w i r y 'we completed Ue - the direction of a soils engineer and in con - formance with applicable County ordinance ( ',riding permits will be obtained for � grading and shall be submitted to th County Planning Department for envir+on - wern to l review where applicable. Specific f ldII #121 -E Revised Con.:itioris of Approval Pg. 4. d. Landscaping Comhon areas, parks. entry gates and streets shall be landscai)ed with, plant species. comps -. tible with the desert environment. e. Drainage Through coordination with the Coachella Valley Water District, all development shall be designed to protect all dwellings from storm flow. C i Izl la J alI" i I� a I r ll_ �i lei RC�I�CNTIAL -rr? J 816 125k.-V49 J f1 !8 6 7-9FivA'e1s vft,c4rs 2c IWirs _emsIMN I 1 I T12AGT 1447G - I I I,4 � �� � �UIP�I`0•APVA �1 J GPVA/ -� AREA TD (3 /NGLUDEO , SPEeepde PEA *- lZ t -o,ifty LOT . A -EXHIBIT "A i T C.ALLF— MAZA7L -A Pal i NOTICE OF DETERMINATION TO: Secretary for Resources FROM: (Public Agency) 1416 Ninth Street, City of La Quinta Room 1311 P. O. Box 1504 Sacramento, CA 95814 La Quinta, CA 92253 or X County Clerk County of Riverside SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 22108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Project Tit Specific Plan #121 -E Revised, Amendment #1 State Clearinghouse Number Contact Person Telephone Number (If submitted to Clearinghouse) N/A Wallace Nesbit (619) 564 -2246 Project Location West side of Avenida Obregon + 400' north of Calle Mazatlan Project Description Amendment to existing approval to incorporate a + 2 acre maintenance facility This is to advise that the City of La uinta (Lead Agency or Responsible Agency) has approved the above described project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: 1. The project will, X will not, have a significant effect on the environment. 2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. X A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. The EIR or Negative Declaration and record of project approval may be examined at: City of La Quinta Planning & Development Dept. 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Mitigation measures were, X were not, made a condition of approval of the project. 4. A sV009r0F&±RfiWng Considerations was, was gpt, Tdo&ted'[gor s project. / Date Received for Filing OCT 0 3 ;988 Signature s.�.,,•.__- Associate Planner ^�ERKoi Tttt' [?.�'.- .►�J €ciiVl$[1R" o,, qof ;swuof Title By KH /DOCWN.001 � -,,iot UFRUBOARD SUPERWORS' ,jJR SEP 3 3 M S' City Case No: Location: 4 +- #S8 - 09 5- PROJECT DESCRIP`rION Specific Plan #12.1 -E, Amendment #1, Change of Zone No. 88 -031 Parcel Map No. 23749 Plot Plan No. 88 -393 Proposal Considered: Amendment of the Santa Rosa Cove (a.k.a. La Quinta Cove Golf Club) to incorporate +2 acres previously shown as not part of the Specific Plan and to . change zoning on the 2 acres from R -1 to R -3 to accommodate maintenance facility and appurtenant parking (PP88 -393). Parcel Map #23749 has also.been filed to parcel Off the maintenance building for future property transfer purposes, on a .5 acre parcel (see attached exhibits). Net Acreage: 2.48 acres + Net Density: N/A Land Use Plan: Medium Density Residential (4 -8 units per acre) Existing Zoning: R -1 & R -3 Proposed Zoning: R -3 Additional Comments: The scope of the Amendment request is limited to expansion of the Specific Plan area only, in association with the recent expansion of the La Quinta Hotel. No changes to unit count, densities, :or significant provisions of the Specific Plan are proposed. Parcel 1 of Parcel Map 23749 is linked to the southerly parcels by access Lot "A" (portion of Avenida Obregon). An easement•to provide access from Obregon through the parking area to the west parcel boundary is to be recorded with an already approved Lot Line Adjustment. CITY Or LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BB J / F0RM . 122 5 �Az'- cA"lk- y9 �LOr f�A•� t'`88 -393 (."V rr uowrw ! AV M .�- S �•t 3 CILOum; or N a io s = a i f!� o= z z o i Uj > 9/ ICINIT'Y MAV= fy� 5Gi�1s� 9 m I..AND ub ,I a �I 1 1 1 i' F CU 2286 e I 1 �c AVENIDA FONBNDO • 1 11 I I ,1���, ' ` I miAC I VAC. % I t I I I � 1 '�►► 1 1 CZ 3045 .\ I r �r ✓ t 1 FERNANDO a — -I o� LA. _ W i QUITA ! II 1 19.24ACt M I/ T II o HOTEL III - t t ,ter s ` O- MAZA—I `- „'HOME S \N GOLF COURSE App. J.F. DAVIDSON ASSOC. J.00��i�,; SING r ,, _ r"_ - -�, ORES, S F�AV r. VAC 36.51 AC ± Use R -2 a. R -5 TO R -2, R -5, a W =1 I Dist. LA QUINTA'- '4 th sup. 013t. Sec.36 T. .S.,R.6 E Assessors Bk. 6 31 P9. 5 2 Circulation 5 O th AVE. MAJ. 100' Element ' EISENHOWER DR. MAJ. 100' Rd. Bk. Pq.121 Dotal/8/82 Drawn By CR. 1 � I IONAL MAP a. m 61 € M I un sf-Al 97 Q AV_ENIDA FEI2NAND0 T RE t, I OE NTI AI_ 3' 2 J a. -* ,- mwz,cz� -��� ti9 /- .X O -050 P4-/ZG�-c. /'I.-P 23��/9 LA Q LOT ��A a63 /4 7 5 LA QUINTA I-IDTEL TENNIS LUE Z G zz iv lJ•I1 =f�3 21 2_ z }.a rj Iz G � � 4 LU J J FRIS U v /QEML7 1AAC2 n N&T O. � h — ,._.144) 1+lei• Cdd, n1QT A _ z; Z, T2AGT 144-cD G - I II (4F- o -_• QUINTANfo, •^ \ I VACANT VAUNT y I ce !i kESIr� E N7' IP. 2A La I \i \ � � KE�IOL`NTIAL (4'�l J P4-/ZG�-c. /'I.-P 23��/9 LA Q LOT ��A a63 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89 -064 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED. CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the 10th day of October, 1989, hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to to allow additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A portion of the east half of the southwest one - quarter of Section 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, and; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of ' "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: BJ /RESOPC.020 --- 1 - FA 1. That the above recitations are true and correct ands' -``'1 constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this Y case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 'No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental, impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should be filed; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Amendment request to allow 80 hotel units subject to approval of a Plot Plan for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A ", on file in the Planning and Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Moran, Bund, Steding, Zelles, NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman walling ABSTAIN: None LU 'IA MORAN, Vice qhairman Cty of La Quinta, ',California ATTEST: ERRYERMAN, Planning Director ity(o,t La Quinta, California BJ /RESOPC.020 - 2 --- TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: r MEMORANDUM :PH -2 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCTOBER 24, 1989 CONTINUED HEARING FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT #2 AND PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -041 This matter was continued from the October 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting to permit the Applicant and property owners the opportunity to resolve their concerns. Therefore, the matter is now before the Commission. The Commission has various options available, such as the following: 1. Continue the Hearing. 2. Approve the request as presented. 3. Modify the request. 4. Deny the request. Attachment: 1. Letters of protest received since October 10, 198 9, meeting. 2. October 10, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report BJ /MEMOJH.014 f( v `a vo `44) October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark °s intention to build a further 77 -80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend. 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parking 80 units /14 parking spaces? Please clarify. 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic- -eith, employee or guest. 3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify. Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful deb community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars but over - developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Security It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard - gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in paxt to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam - rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protectin. my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled, r Judy Blum 76 -941 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Tel. 564 -1921 i t- Al Calle Mazatlan OCT 6 1969 La Quinta California 92253 CITY OF LA QuINTA October 122 1989 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. To the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, I want to thank you all very much for your extraordinary patience and willingness to listen to our problems (especially at such a late hour and involving issues not on your agenda!), and for your decision to give us time to meet with Landmark with the hope of resolving our most pressing issues. I also want to "put in writing" my personal feelings about what it looks like, to me, is happening not only in Santa Rosa Cove but in La Quinta as a whole. Yes, I agree I have been very "naive" about the likelihood of new develonmmnt hcrc, Also T do not believe T could have foreseen quite this kind of rape of the land. When I chose to buy my home in Santa Rosa Cove (rather than at PGA West) it was because I was led to believe this cove would retain its natural beauty and would not be "over- built." I was told specifically that "there would be a total of just over 300 units in Santa Rosa Cove." No mention was made of the "legendary" La Quinta Hotel changing its image and changing this cove by adding over seven hundred units. No mention was made of the other projected developments by La Quinta Joint Venture - -Los Estados, The Enclave, and the soon -to -be development off Fernando. I cannot help feeling I was purposely misled, and I learned, at the meeting on Tuesday night, that I am far from being alone. Misrepresentation seems to be rampant among major developers here in the desert. As it turns out this unique cove, once truthfully called "the gem of the desert," now has buildings and projected buildings of one kind or another packed and /or stacked on every available piece of land. I feel very strongly that this is an assault on my home and on the land. I am not against "progress." At the same time I am very much against spoiling a place of such natural beauty by over- building out of pure financial greed. In our hearts I feel those of us who live here because we love it (and not because our property value is increasing- -for now...) want it to continue to be a special place. I also feel strongly that the City of La Quinta will not benefit, longterm, by allowing the two largest developers in this area to assert their political /f inancial power to essentially "take over" our community. And I am grateful to be able to say that I feel alot better after Tuesday nights meeting because I felt "heard," and because I feel you too are concerned. We all understand that Sunrise and Landmark benefit our City. And we give them great credit for their standard of design and building. But there has to be some kind of control, now, if we are to safeguard our homes and our lifestyle. Landmarks La Quinta Hotel advertises itself as a "Do Not Disturb Sign." As a permanent resident of La Quinta and, specifically, of Santa Rosa Cove, I would really appreciate it if they would respect my home and their own advertising. Thank you again for listening to us, I Sincerely, John W. Lucas 77 -253 Calle Mazatlan La Quinta, CA 92253 October 17, 1989 Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RECEIVED OCT 1 9 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Reference: Case No. EA 89 -141, Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #2, Plot Plan 89 -421 Dear Commissioners: This letter follows the Planning Commission Public Hearing which was held on October 10th on the Reference item which is the request by Landmark Land Company to be allowed to construct 77 hotel units on the west side of Avenida Obregon at the La Quints Hotel. My condominium is at 77 -253 Calle Mazatlan in Santa Rosa Cove. We believe that this is one of the finest developments and we feel that the hotel adds greatly to it. First of all, I am a member of the Hotel Tennis Club and I am concerned that this request will mean that the present championship court as well as other tennis courts will be razed. When I became a member it was my understanding that courts were to be added rather than taken away. I hope this is not a new trend but that new courts will be added as was stated at the hearing. As I told you at the hearing, I am especially concerned about water drainage as this project goes ahead. The entire area surrounding the proposed site is almost flat. Currently water is pumped periodically from the Tennis Club through a pipe which empties onto the east side of Calle Mazatlan just to the south of the existing tennis villas. The recent addition of an employee parking area and a utility area just north of the site have added to drainage problems. The proposed construction will only make them worse unless, as Landmark representatives stated at the Hearing, they have a plan for disposing of the additional run -off. I respectfully ask that you make sure that Landmark has a workable plan and that it is implemented. It is my understanding that my neighbors are sending you letters addressing other issues which must be resolved such as traffic, parking, security and entrance gates. I want to take this opportunity to thank each of you for your personal time in helping to keep La Quinta a gem in the desert. Sincerely, cc: lly Dowd Melissa Layton Elaine Lloyd 7V� X Jane Redner Dale Walter RECEIVED OCT 19 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta, CA 92253 77321 Camino Quintana La Quinta, CA 92253 After the last marathon meeting of gripes and emotion, ourrespect and admiration for the members of this commission has magnified. You displayed knowledge of the situations discussed and maintained control of the meeting with tact and authority.. we, zoo, have a lot of respect for Landmark and their developments. The main reason we bought in Santa Rosa Cove was the proximity to and availabilty of their facilities. However, in their pursuit of profits, to which we fully arknowlcaeyfye they ar Qntuitled, we feel they are sacrificing some of these amenities without fully considering the residents of the Cove, their neighbors. They seem to be viewing their added units to the hotel and now the motel only from the commercial aspect and insensitive to the already existing parking problems, especially on Los Arbolles. I walked down Los Arbolles this morning, October 14, 1989, at 7:10 a.m. and at that time there were 16 cars parked along the street on the hotel side.. This is only one time and one example. I A -A -re. to 1 1:rzie 4;hy ire e (:,ar3 pst -k -d T cry une concern voiced by Landmark at the last meeting seemed to be with the proposed relocation of the Fernando gate below the turn at Obregon, as outlined in the staff report, also, a new gate to be installed at the south end of Obregon. If their problem is with the movement of their service vehicles with proposed gate barriers,, a possible solution would be to install gates such as the one at the entrance to The Enclave. These gates would not need to be as large nor as elaborate. Small service vehicles could then move freely, yet auto traffic would be controlled. In addition, and very important to us, it should reduce traffic through the front gate by routing motel- traffic via Fernando. Landmark indicated they did not feel it feasible to request mot--' res' dent to drive aY the w out to Fernando, to Eisenhower and the front gate, thence to the golf club, yet these same people undoubtedly drive an average of ten miles to get to their golf course in their home ,area. If this really would be an item, the motel /hotel should offer van or small vehicle transportation to and from the pro shop, a service already being done by the hotel. With regard to noise pollution, some better control should be exercised at the many outdoor festivities of the hotpl� We live close to the Tennis Club, La Casa, and now the motel and benefit from the fall -out on all of these many occasions. Several evenings there were two such partied and on one occasion I recall there were three bands, one at La Casa, one at the Tennis Club, , J one outside at stop at 10 p.m., however there have played longer. Recently California had signed a bill carried more than a distance of exceeds that. the hot. Most times they do have been times when the bands I read that the Governor of prohibiting outdoor music fifty feet. The hotel certait >f Others have already mentioned the need for additional security and traffic control. We are not secure if the Fernando is inoperable, as it has been so much of time. All of us are extremely concerned and will support your efforts in helping solve these problems. Respectfully, YN , - SANDSTROM { NF! S E. SANDST!?OM STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 HOTEL UNITS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) R -3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. The original Specific Plan No. 121 -E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82 -54 - Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised). The revised Specific Plan was-approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 1987, Plot Plan No. 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. in September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -Ei (,Amendment ##1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot two - story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate the new hotel units. Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, .spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989 -90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS: 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78 -85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and /or construction workers. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 - 2 `" 4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. �. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10 -feet as required for front yards in the R -3 Zone. This will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121 -E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R -3 Zone and Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment provided traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and relocated gate locations. EiiSTAFFRPT.016 - 3 - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-. recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. 2s Location map Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 1989. 3. Comments from various City Departments and other agencies. 4. Initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141. 5. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121 -E (Amendment #2) & PP #89 -421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending SP #121 -E (Amendment #2). 7. Recommended conditions of approval for P1 #89 -421. n -F /a M 7. VVV torn A1G - •' - H l CASE MAP CASE N. S P 12.1 -E PP S9 -421 LOCATION MAP F, 4&� ORT,H SCALE: NTT 0 September E; 1989 Stan Sawa Planning Dept. CITY OF LA Q',;INTA 78- 105.Ca1IF ratedo. La Quints, CL 92253 Dear Stan, RECEivaj SEP 1ggg CITY OF LA QUINTA '3' CITY It DEVELOPMENT DEPT. Landmark : zed '.;- -Mnany Is prOPOsin•� a 7 ; ro Mote am addition to the l �:`ict! wiA the include ,several tent:a4 3u-tes, a courtyard Pool and spas z d additi The ch , T; or +�h.�r• L w:�:zis cI ,L1 and r i- Cove e- == r pleasant and zelaxe�+esb � -�rvp 0, Santa Rosa Courtyard. stir:, f:•r the Spar.i.nh La Quirta with swimming The Spar<<c;. •ecturax motif is :nodelsr�l aftF.c the Rt;uLR? of the larg,�ing•�r�,cl. :he courtyard a] lows for a t'arie *_•,' s including g: G �nr iiz k e parties, of se g ] :•ok dor :: on The guest rooms a landscaped CvZ7zt Y rcl fE3t_u� 3:iy a ^1 erge P ^t'l, spa, and $il. ^,:.lf: j e.if�a P1 rat@ uest one 'er.-- s t 9 while ;'"clvoe Eun t eTraces and ba ;4o:�iea ter entertaining w:�ile v��:`R; ;g bel:!w, t ;� �er,r. �� „r•�s and courtyari Additional parking for the vexpar.r_ftir: wi11 ::a 1- , ^� -s�.: .:::.::ai x.vendYa _ty he rew parkin? Ic:'. _��, _ facii= ,. 4c:es•� t o the parkin ;..,.e 4. :.= Nr�4L_ny rl:Gintenance 34iit�lUii.;g1` 1 v� wr a•`• i•:, y:.w ,s: ' ,7A �” i'Czawa ' or 4 };e r 'd.'.'1f�:7t;��'tUdjTl the �i�d?t�'Qr.._��:� s r' 4 +e.. ad r'�:'f7ll�r, tLe La Quinta Hotel ¢ hotel :. i'�: ..4j Cblllit to iO�J rpa'b:?: :rinc- zap total space r : i',lil� s :I if.: 'With The City La Q�'i. ^.;a`s a�cning- ordinance chap' _._E,C�. y cif Sin- rely, A?ex ondos Landmark Land Design 6 Pla::nin CC= Stephen Caplinger Paul Qluall Forrest Nag, Gary Forney Gene i:e:ver AT ! CHME LANDMARK [AND COMPANY OF CAL!F^RN A, iyC.. Land Pkandng, Engineering, Design & Construction M -•1 :Q (.OUP '1( -rru' r-n Pn slew 4nnn , r�ATEA ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY *IS TR1G1 COACHELLA VALLEY MATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS DIRECT ODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMPRESID VICE PRESIDENT SERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY JOHN P POWELL KEITH H. AINSWORTH. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH August 29., 1989 File: 0163.1 1 It . Planning Commission 'set? City of La Quinta �• U •. Post Office Box 1504 �� -4yN� r0f: La Quinta, California 92253 404 Gentlemen: Dpi Subject: Plot Plan 89 -421, Portion of Southwest Quarter, Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes maintained by the developer, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. RF:gh cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public health 46 -209 Oasis Street Indio, California 92201 You s very tru PlrY Tom Levy General Manage TRUE CONBERVAT!ON 1-4 AUG ' 9 1989 CITY OF LA QUINTA ol>,NNiNG & � Yrwrm DEPT. RECEIVED AUG 2.9 =9G9 CITE( OF LA QUINTA MANNING & DE`dUMAENT DEPT. A , n/f/j 7 o0 - PS Cc 17111,7Fn is ov /r/ F/ A./,r,c-()v 7 j'/e-f f - yai �`v rFi /'0s. Ile- 4 i �� she 411143 10W Ar n.lSiu�lCl4 [ �iof lq-u LLI . ,x�les eel /7cw-(e' s /,n tJ L�fyt NP Zed, x4o �i do Pi11 10"cn f A4 vZoll / SF�a1yr' RECEIVED .AUG 2 2 CITY OF LA QUINTA Pi141YNING & DMOPMEW DEPT. MwminS & Enomrirs Office 46-209 Oasis Street, Suite 405 Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342 -8886 To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 r.�u •e IN COOPERATION WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION GLEN NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF Manning & L*"_ring 0 August 21, 1989 4080 L moo Street, Suitt Riverside, CA 92501 RECEIVED (714) 787 -6606 AUG 2 3 1989 CITY OF I.A. QUINTA PLANNING b DEVLOPMENT DEPT. With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Dian, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and /or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. The applicant /developer shall be responsible to submit written certificati!' from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant al that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow ror a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the applicant /developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been fade to provide them. 3. A combination of on -site and off -site super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2J" x 2} ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. 4. Applicant /developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the Water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribe( by the Riverside Count' Fire Department." 5. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 6. insrai! a complete fire sprinkler syatem per $iy'PA 13R. Fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and.. minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be subsitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. City of La Quinta - Planning Div. Re: Plot Plan 89 -421 11/21/89 Page 2. 7. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 8. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 9. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet 110, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 10. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 1503. 11. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 12. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 13. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12', with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6 ". 14. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagramatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4' x 4' in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning b Engineering Staff at (619) 342 -88$6. Sincerely, � & nEViu Chief Fire Department planner i By � im Reeder Fire Protection Specialist to SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY Mi uiCO LA A fflWA. AEDIANM CauFO. MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 300.3 REDLANDS CALIFORNIA 92373-0`906 August 18, 1989 City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 ATTENTION, Stan Sawa RE, Specific Plan 121E The Southern California Gas Company has a gas main in Eisenhower Drive near the project. Distribution lines could be extended from these mains to serve the proposed development without _any significant impact. on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actionr federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which a.ft,_� gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for, a. Residential (System Area Average /Use Per Meter) Tearl Single Family 799 therms /year dwelling unit Multi- Family 4 or less units 482 therms /year dwelling unit Multi- Family 5 or more units 483 therms /year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so Widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a Wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. r To insure the existing facilities are adequate to accommodate the new development, an engineering study will be required. Detailed information including tract maps and plot plans must be submitted to the Gas Company Market Services Representa- tive, 1 -800- 624 -2497, six months prior to the actual construction of the natural gas pipeline. We have developed several programs which are available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Area Market Services Manager, P.O. Box 3003, Redlands, CA 92373 -0306, phone 1 -800- 624 -2497. Sincerely, Roger L. B an Technical Supervisor RIB:vjs - cc: Environ Affairs - ML209B I II CITY of i.1 QUINI ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM HACKGROW 1. Name of Proponent: C /ij ,rek, La 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: a— )OCO 0 3. Date of Checklist: I. Agency Requiring Checklist:{• S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: h �? ENV I ROMENITAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers L required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ X c. Change in topography or gre►md surface relief features? ZC d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 1. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. fie creation of objectionable odors? r e. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 1� 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? �. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, In- cluding but not limited to temperature, disscl:ed oxygen or o-rMAity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? ,. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? is Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. will the proposal result in: A. Change in the diversity of species, or. number Of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or nicrofauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique; rare, or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. LIjht and Glare. Will the proposal produce new a. Land Ilse. Will the proposal result in a substantial alterat on of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk a an exp orsion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil. pesticides. chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. population. Will the proposal alter the location, str ut on, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Yes Maybe No X X k x )C )C _ K 9C x x c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? di Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 13. EnerIX Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Store water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Is. Aesthetics. will the proposal result in the 0o struction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upouality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? 20. Archeolo ic&I/Hiatorica1. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? 21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the g1.ml2ty Of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Yes Etaybe Kfi 1 VIA IX 4 Yes Maybe Ao b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -ter:, to the disadvantage of long -term, en- vironmental goals? (A short_ -term impact on the environment is one which'occuis in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts_ on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly'. III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVAUUTION IV. DETERHMATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; — I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant — effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment., there will not be a significant effect in this csse because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. — I.find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect — on the environment, and an ENVIRONaWAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 10 — _� —50 M RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will be provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior sighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. Miti ation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan tc allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Trans ortation /Circulation: The proposed use will generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Miti ation Measures: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from. existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. 3J /RSPC:itiP1.001 ° I - II :Mom ma, e wn Won i �]1 ZS i7 LEA Ld f- �Q .L R .a LEGEND I:T I L_ I' -- o -P"" 1Mi�Al1 OM[f10M -,.U. k;,- - T4f11L 'lll m "4111.0 1 p 0. C= EXH1131T . _. . -- •--- _.__.,.- - -�-- -- -� - ---- - -- -- -CASE P10, t�'-'�Sa1i - s RECEIVED ftwa eeworo a SEP 2 6 1969 CITY OF LA QUINTA 'LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 0. d x W J W a Q N Z Q FIRST FLi PLAN ow r rm �a re..wr rJrcar_tK ini RECEIVED SE P 2 6 1959 CITY OF LA QUINTA 'LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. I LLli z CL x w J w r x H a 0 t J SECOND FLO 'LAN o� uw�.s -COTTAGE WHITE •' cwnru r ciro F— MISSION CLAY TILE to wiru tomaiwo unTr, rra•ucinu -.dim IIIIII�rP�� r !� rr Y i- ��E �� ! ry ID v �1t _•�,#. III11i ItirPltlrl }Ijl�! I }ItItIIIFIt![Illi!llll I l9'pI,I�IIIIl1111 lull. I'.11lr;l I I}p li PllelllllllW 1 ill III ! "'Ill ! II II Pf i 1,PI ll�Il�ll III I . tit �. "r,i � 'l: Y. 'A t �i.S..0 �w Tlrt.S;},7•F �j., � w t�.�"±:•�`.'SiwT FRONT (AVENIDA OBREGON) ELEVATION ^I � - — - -' -I t I iPP!!IP IIIPIIIt�1�11 .rg,r,IPI�ngP�,•�,I rjgp I }II it #II Ill1p IRIS N I I 41PIIII!Ilr I�Ilil IrIII III' }It 1111 I 1 If .L.iLU- i�illWill li[ ►tllkl �i[ xk,ii,xiiLilli,lxi , t xL L'! I1� lL[ NORTH FI f VAI I ON r �I 1 0 V RECEIVE} SEP 2 6 196 CITY OF LA QU .ANNING & DEVELOPME REAR ELEVATION Lowy m A qw— 11t tm 1-� M W J W M z R t_ z a a EXTEA EILEVAT MW PH -3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 10, 1989 ITEM: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E (AMENDMENT #2) PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 APPLICANT: LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (LA QUINTA HOTEL) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT AND CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL HOTEL UNITS AND PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 77 WnTF.T. TTNTTS IN A TWO -STORY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE WHERE THE CHAMPIONSHIP TENNIS COURT PRESENTLY EXISTS ON 1.7+ ACRES. LOCATION: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: BACKGROUND: WEST SIDE OF AVENIDA OBREGON, APPROXIMATELY MIDWAY BETWEEN AVENIDA FERNANDO AND CALLE MAZATLAN ON THE LA QUINTA HOTEL SITE. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) R -3* (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL, 1,200 SQ. FT. MINIMUM DWELLING UNIT SIZE REQUIRED). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED BY REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT AND IMPOSITION TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED. The original Specific Plan No. 121 -E (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was approved by Riverside County in 1975. The Plan authorized construction of 637 condominiums, 496 hotel rooms, golf course, with clubhouse, and service facilities. The Plan was subsequently amended in 1982. The City Council authorized the addition of 279 condominiums and 146 hotel rooms (Council Resolution No. 82 -54 - Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised). The revised Specific Plan was approved to increase project acreage and to add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. In December, 19871, Plot Plan No. 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 336 rooms to 609 units of which 603 rooms were constructed. rR.7 /.tiTA w P PIPT iii n - i - In September, 1988, Plot Plan No. 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -E (Amendment #1) was granted which permitted a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot just south of the site presently under consideration. In May, 1989, Plot Plan No. 89 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to a total of 641 rooms. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Applicant is proposing to eliminate the championship tennis court, a small Tennis Club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replace them with a 43,065 square foot two - story, 77 -room hotel addition. Additionally, a small mechanical room addition is proposed to be added to the adjacent maintenance building to the south and several tennis courts to the west will need to be relocated to the west to accommodate rite new hotel units . Adjacent land uses are as follows: North: Tennis Club South: Maintenance Facility East: Hotel Units (detached) West: Tennis Courts & Vacant Land The hotel structure would be rectangular in shape with a large central courtyard reminiscent of a Spanish hacienda. The courtyard would have a pool, spa and sunning area. The typical guest room would be 495 square feet with one 2 -room suite with 990 square feet. All units would have a balcony or patio. Materials for the Spanish style building would match the 1989 -90 hotel expansion. 44 new parking spaces are proposed adjacent to the proposed construction. ANALYSIS: 1. The building would replace a championship tennis court that is no longer needed since major tournaments are not held there any longer. 2. The architecture and materials would be compatible with adjacent existing buildings. 3. The recently approved maintenance building and overflow parking area have been completed. A weekday morning inspection of the parking lot found it to be 78 -85 percent full. It appeared to be used by employees and /or construction workers. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 .- 2 - 4. Over the past there has been problems due to hotel employees and to an extent guests driving through the condominium area to the south. The proposed expansion may increase the concerns. This can be greatly alleviated by restricting access to the condominium area by installation of an "emergency only" vehicular gate across Avenida Obregon at or near the border between the hotel and condominium area. Additionally, relocation of the existing Avenida Fernando gate arm to the area west of Avenida Obregon will facilitate access for hotel guests and employees while maintaining security for the residential areas west of Avenida Obregon. A condition requiring this has been drafted to achieve this. 5. The 44 new spaces are proposed in front of the new hotel rooms on both sides of Avenida Obregon. This will provide convenient parking for most of the new rooms. The new 154 space lot and other nearby lots could provide additional parking. 6. Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141 has been prepared in conjunction with this request. No significant affects will be created that cannot be mitigated through the recommended conditions of approval. 7. The proposed plans indicate a small landscape strip between the new parking spaces on the west side of Avenida Obregon and the patio walls of the proposed building. Staff feels this landscape strip should be increased by 10 -feet as required for front yards in the R -3 Zone. This will decrease the mass of the building, provide a more attractive streetscape, and increase distance between patios and parked cars. FINDINGS: The findings necessary to approve the amended Specific Plan No. 121 -E can be supported and found in the attached Resolution. The findings necessary to approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421 are as follows: 1. The proposed hotel units are consistent with revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposal is consistent with the standards of the R -3 Zone and Title 9 of the Lea Quinta Municipal Code, as conditioned. 3. Environmental impacts from the proposed project will not haves a significant impact on the environment provided traffic impacts as noted are mitigated through new and relocated gate locations. B /STAFFRFT,016 - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following action: 1. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #2, subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -421. 2. By minute motion, approve Plot Plan No. 89 -421, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Applicant dated September 6, 1989. 3. Comments from various City Departments and other agencies. 4. Initial study for Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141. 5. Plans and Exhibits for SP 121 -E (Amendment #2) & PP-#89-421. 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 89- recommending SP #121 -E (Amendment #2). 7. Recommended conditions of approval for PP #89 -421. BJ /STAFFRPT.016 4 - N PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 89- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 121 -E, REVISED. CASE SP 121 -E, AMENDMENT #2 - LANDMARK LAND COMPANY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 82 -54, on October 5, 1982, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did, on the 10th day of October, 1989, hold a duly- noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Landmark Land Company, Inc. to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to to allow 77 additional hotel units, more particularly described as follows: A portion of the east half of the southwest one - quarter of Section 36 T5S, R6E, SBBM, and; WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82 -213, adopted by reference in Citv of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the approval of the Specific Plan Amendment: 1. That Specific Plan No. 121 -E, Amended No. 2, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. 2. The proposed Amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed revised Specific Plan No. 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: n-r In ,mcnnr+ n1ri - 1 1. That the above recitations are true and correct an' constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in th ' case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment No. 89 -141, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Negative Declaration should.be filed; 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described Amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A ", on file in the Planning and Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 10th day of October, 1989, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN WALLING, Chairman ATTEST: FERRY HERMAN, Planning Director PJ /RESOPC.020 - 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY OCTOBER 10, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: O City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions Coachella Vallev Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. 6. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demons tra 9- colopii.a nce with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 39 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final. inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to -m z /r- r%mAD'OUT. n1 Q - 1 - assure such compliance. Said inspection or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the.discretion of thk Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2 -1/2 ") will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent two hydrants in the system. B.i / CONAPRVL . 019 w- 2 - 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA.I3R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterf low alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet ##10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be BJ /C0NAPRVL.01q - I approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width; shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical clearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows *name of complex, all streets, building_ designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans .7 71 1 check L__ L � a. r_ are reviewed . n p.L %tic�,� LCC dust be pair to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Vallev Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN: . 26. All on -site utilities shall be accordance with City standards and 27. Prior to issuance of any building shall submit to the Planning approval a plan (or plans) showing installed underground in requirements. permits, the Applicant Division for review and the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding ing properties. Preparation of the detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the, Planning and Development Department. M.z >r r)MAP'tvr._ n1 q - 5 - October 10, 1989 As a permanent resident of Santa Rosa Cove since February 1986, I am deeply concerned about Landmark's intention to build a further 77 -80 hotel units on Avenida Obregon. As a concerned homeowner, I would like to call your attention to the following facts and comments: 1) Property owners were given minimal notice of this project. 2) This meeting was scheduled at a time when very few property owners are able to attend, 3) Inspite of Landmarks considerable political "clout," as property owners we have rights that need to be respected and addressed and action taken to implement BEFORE this project is allowed to commence. The issues that need to be dealt with in order to protect our rights are: 1) Parking 80 units /14 parking spaces? Please clarify, 2) Traffic Santa Rosa Cove should not be subjected to hotel traffic- -eithi employee or guest. 3) Density The project description states "Medium density residential 4 -8 dwellings per acre. Net acreage 1.7." Please clarify, Between Landmark and La Quinta Joint Venture, Santa Rosa Cove is beginning to look more like a city than a beautiful deF community. This "progress" undoubtedly brings in dollars - but over - developing a unique area does not enhance the City of La Quinta longterm. 4) Secures It is imperative, if Landmark goes ahead with this project, that they first ensure our security by removing the existing "joke of a guard- gate" on Avenida Fernando and building (and landscaping) a new guard -gate on Fernando beyond Avenida Obregon, and another gate at the other end of Obregon. That way their staff, their guests, and anyone visiting their tennis club would not jeopardize our security. 5) Drainage We have existing drainage problems which are being checked and which may be due at least in part to Landmarks tennis courts. It is therefore necessary that their drainage plans for this project and for any further tennis courts they plan to build be carefully studied and implemented so they do not create drainage problems on our streets. I would like to add that I feel like I am being steam - rolled, and I would like to feel that the City of La Quinta is truly concerned about protectin my rights as a homeowner and permanent resident here. I love my home. And I don't want it spoiled. Judy Blum 76 -941 Calle Mazatlan La ;uinta- e :22 3 Tel. 5,64-192_ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 LANDMARK LAND COMPANY NOVEMBER 21, 1989 GENERAL: 1. The development of the site shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit "A" for 77 hotel rooms as contained in the file for Plot Plan 89 -421, unless otherwise amended by these conditions. 2. The approved Plot Plan shall be used within the one year time period set forth in Section 9.180.070 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning and Development Department, Planning and Building Divisions 0 Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above - mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Division at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5, All applicable conditions of Specific Plan No. 121 -E, as amended to date, shall be complied with. a'. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permit or final inspection, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Plot Plan No. 89 -421 and Environmental Assessment 89 -141, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of any permits /final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to 'R.7 : rnn a P PvT. - n 1 it - 1 - assure such compliance. Said inspection -or monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the-discretion of the Planning Director, and all costs associated shall be borne by the Applicant /Developer. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, DRAINAGE: 7. Street improvement, parking and. drainage plans shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer. A. Drainage to be retained (100 -year storm) on -site. Earlier plans may have proposed drywells, and retention which may conflict with proposed plans. 8. Prior to issuance of grading or building permits, the Applicant shall document access /egress on Avenida Obregon and determine if Parcel Map is needed to satisfaction of Engineering Department. 9. Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Fernando west of Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates with pedestrian and golf cart access only shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES: Fire Marshal: 10. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2500 gpm for a 2 -hour durations at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 11. The Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to submit written certification from the water company noting the location of the existing fire hydrant and that the existing water system is capable of delivering 2500 gpm fire flow for a 2 -hour duration at 20: psi residual operating pressure. If a water system currently does not exist, the Applicant /Developer shall be responsible to provide written certification that financial arrangements have been made to provide them. 12. A combination 4" X 2-1/2—) wi more than 165 me 'CA urGd alVlll� required fire two hydrants in of on -site and off -site fire hydrants (6" X 11 be located not less than 25 feet or feet from any portion of the building(s) as approved vehicular travelways. The flow shall be available from any adjacent the system. BL /C0NAPRVL.0i9 -- 2 - { 13. Applicant /Developer shall furnish one bludline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department 'for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 14. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 15. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13R. Fire Department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and A TninimL, -Tn of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. _ A statement that the building(s) will be automatically -ire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 16. Install a supervised waterflow alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 17. Install a manual pull, smoke detection system as required by the Uniform Building Code and National Fire Protection Association. 18. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 19. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503. 20. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code. 21. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 22. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shall be made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner approved by the Fire Department. All controlled access devices that are power operated shall have a radio - controlled over -ride system capable of opening the gate-,when activated by a special transmitter located in emergency vehicles. Devices shall be equipped with backup power facilities to operate in the event of power failure. All controlled access devices that are not power operated shall also be 'A.7 /rnua -QPvr. n7 q - I _ approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening width shall be 12 -feet, with a minimum vertical dlearance of 13 -feet, 6- inches. 23. Directory display boards will be required adjacent to each roadway access to the development. These shall be an illuminated diagrammatic representation of the actual layout which shows name of complex, all streets, building designators, unit numbers, and fire hydrant locations within the complex. These directories shall be a minimum 4 -feet by 4 -feet in dimension. Addressing of buildings and units shall conform to the Riverside County Addressing Policy. Additional information and details may be obtained by contacting the Fire Department Planning and Engineering Staff. 24. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must.be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Coachella Valley Water District: 25. Plans for grading, landscaping; and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review isi for ensuring efficient water management. SITE DESIGN• 26. All on-site utilities shall be installed n unrier -ro di in �7�.. accordance with City standards and requirements. 27. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: A. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. The plan shall also indicate methods for shading of the parking and pedestrian areas, including tall canopy trees. B. Location and design detail of any proposed and /or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. Bi / CONAPRVD . +31 9 _ 4 H Preparation of the detailed landscape and - irrigation plans shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan (Exhibit "A") on file with the Planning and Development Department. The plans submitted shall include the acceptance stamps /signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's office and ,CVWD. All plant materials to be used shall be consistent with those species identified in the VSP. 28. A minimum of 44 new parking spaces per` City requirements shall be provided in conjunction with proposed construction. 29. Any removed tennis courts may be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department. 3J /i'_f NAPRUT. n 1 Q -- s Sp 04-S a ". Crrt Of LA pUIRTA pe " ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM � I. BACKGROWM 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address d Phone Number of Proponent: 3. Date of Checklist: f d - 3 Jgq: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: 44 S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: L49 C I,� 44 '�' II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe' answers L required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ X C. Qange 1^ tnnnaTanhV nr n,- e���m.i �,yrf��. - relief features? — X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X b. 'the creation of objectionable odors? _ , c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, _ either locally or regionally? 3. Water. will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? r �( b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? a. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- eluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? S. Change in the quantity of ground waters, e either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? � �. h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? I.. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species ;'or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisas, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new i t or g are S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial a tiro a- lt on of.the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of set. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub - stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, ut strz on, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Yes Fta�bi Nc r X x �c k A _ !s X v Yes Maybe No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? 4 x dA Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? 15. Epergy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of- energy, or require the development - of new sources of energy ? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need Tor new systeas, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the o stT` ruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact 5pone quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? �( 20. Arrheolo icai/Historicai. Will the proposal result Man alterat ono 'a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? v �y 21. Mandatory Finding of Si ificance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or.wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long - to", en- vironmental g0215? (A short -tern impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts i.hich are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant'.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OP ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) Date, i Yes Maybe Mo a On the basis of this initial evaluation; — I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant — effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to tha project. A i ,MGATIVE DEC..a.°•.,TION N1LL BE PREpkUn. — I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect — on the environment, and an ENVIRON1W TAL IMPACT REPORT is required. a RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will be ;provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. t, Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Trans ortation /circulation: The proposed use will generate additional hotel and employee traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Mitigation Measures_: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. BJ /RSPCMT.00i - 1 RESPONSE TO "YES" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 89 -141 FOR PLOT PLAN NO. 89 -421 6.a. Noise: During the demolition and construction phase there will be a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall comply with prescribed work hours permitted by City ordinance to minimize nuisance - caused by noise impacts. 7.a. Light & Glare: New building and exterior lighting will be provided with proposed construction. Mitigation Measure: Developer shall submit exterior lighting plan in compliance with any adopted "Dark Sky" Ordinance, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 8. Land Use: The proposed hotel use of the site will alter the existing recreational use (tennis court) of the site. Mitigation Measure: Amendment of the Specific Plan to allow the hotel use will mitigate any adverse impacts. 13.a.b.Trans ortation /Circulation: The' proposed use will generate additional hotel and emplovee' traffic hazards and parking demand on Avenida Obregon and surrounding streets. Mitigation Measures: Existing security gate arms on Avenida Fernando shall be relocated from. existing location to Avenida Obregon. "Emergency only" vehicular security gates shall be installed on Avenida Obregon near southern boundary of recently completed overflow parking lot to separate hotel traffic from condominium traffic. Gates to be approved by City Engineer and be operational prior to final occupancy approval of new 77 -room addition. 19. Recreation: The proposed construction will necessitate removal of at least two tennis courts. Mitigation Measure: The extensive number of tennis courts mitigates the loss of the two tennis courts. Additionally, they may be relocated. ,m.i iAc :,Drmm r)nl - 1 - - �.. on srpom dd rw,� jQdRqtft polwo w" ki RECEIVED "ea! #Mim S E P 2 6 1989 fa-M CITY OF LA QUINTA 3LANNING & DEVELOFMENT DEPT. IV FIRST F MAI 6 Ik ■ MOht^AA �mnaw `~ s anam RECEIVED SEP 2 6 1969 CITY OF LA QUINTA 'LANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPT. a W z CL x W J W r 2 < H 2 A J SECOND FEOOF PLAN n% I. —� tmbm Nee ao rrs low a W z CL x W J W r 2 < H 2 A J SECOND FEOOF PLAN n% I. —� COTTAGE MNI TE F- MISSION CLAY TILE ^I �I �I � r FRONT (AVENIDA OBRECON) ELEVATION mummiummigil lllliililllllluilllill an 111111111111tif 11117 tt111t11I t 1111 HI114111111 111 i l 11 1111111111 � 511111111If 1411111 i 1111111 hill tilll' Im fI l 1I I 1° I f -. RECEIVED SEP 2 6 198 QITY OF LA QU PLANNING & OEVELOPME NORTH FI rVA110N REAR ELEVATION Ill 1 I11 wane � U U ZM 4 a x w J 0 z 2 a EXTE EI_EVO -- A[IIlI �II,Isu +jell }I} l III,l,`llj!!�INI3il11 I PI'IIEPtP1E9f11 I1411III. I !!IOi11 Illi � I�I,JIIIIIIII I I Ill R i ' ` if I i� it IlI f111 I � }4I11 I � � n I lLi: =1 !ll MaLwimmil � �4'.'�* 1`, :5 w• fi t%4; II, '1rL �rn ^I �I �I � r FRONT (AVENIDA OBRECON) ELEVATION mummiummigil lllliililllllluilllill an 111111111111tif 11117 tt111t11I t 1111 HI114111111 111 i l 11 1111111111 � 511111111If 1411111 i 1111111 hill tilll' Im fI l 1I I 1° I f -. RECEIVED SEP 2 6 198 QITY OF LA QU PLANNING & OEVELOPME NORTH FI rVA110N REAR ELEVATION Ill 1 I11 wane � U U ZM 4 a x w J 0 z 2 a EXTE EI_EVO Li Tennis CAb t SP 121-E Amendment 2 + PARTIAL SITE PLAN ILL Proposed 77 �. _ Room Expansion ropo: 44 aw AN �`- File Access _ Pedestrian Access Maintenance Facility F Not A Part• y 154 --s¢uez pee -k-, vt5 Iaj - 9 north --+r— —,-- —r-•-), P� i r� 1�} P� i DATE: CASE NOS.: REQUESTS: 1 -) LOCATION: APPLICANT: PH *2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION June 27, 1995 SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, Revised (AMENDMENT 3) AND PLOT PLAN 95 =555 CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2.) APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF PART OF THE NORTHERN PARKING LOT OF THE LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB; AND 3.) PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 37,000.SQ. FT. BUILDING ADDITION, WHICH INCLUDES A BALLROOM AND SUPPLEMENTAL FACILITIES WITH A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE IN THE R -3 ZONE ON PART OF A 17.8 ACRE SITE. PROPERTY OWNER: ARCHITECT: GENERAL PLAN: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: PCGT.117 1000 -FEET WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENIDA FERNANDO (ATTACHMENT 1) GREG BURKHART, CHIEF ENGINEER FOR THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB KSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION GIN WONG AND ASSOCIATES TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) R -3 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95 -304 FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT, UNLESS MITIGATION MEASURES ARE IMPLEMENTED WHICH LESSEN THE IMPACTS TO AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL. THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR CERTIFICATION. 1. The hotel was designed by Mr. Gordon Kaufman and built in 1926. The design theme of the hotel is early California Mediterranean because the hotel was made from natural materials (i.e., adobe brick and clay tiles handcrafted at the site). The hotel initially consisted of 56 guest Casita units. 2. Specific Plan 121 -E /EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was processed by the County of Riverside for the Elkee Corporation to enlarge the hotel complex in the early 1970's. The plan authorized construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms (76 rooms existed), 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities on 619+ acres. The specific plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County in 1975 (Attachment 2). 3. At the request of Landmark Land Company, the master plan layout was subsequently amended in 1982 to allow an addition of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms. The revised plan was approved to increase project acreage to 638+ acres and add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. The revised plan increased the project to 916 condominium units and 642 hotel rooms (i.e., 1,558 units). The City of La Quinta accepted the development plan in 1982 (Attachment 3). An environmental assessment was prepared for the 1982 revision, which resulted in the adoption of a Negative Declaration. 4. Tract Map 14496 was processed in 1979 by Landmark Land Company to allow 591 single family condominium units on 122 acres. The subdivided portions excluded the golf course lots created by Parcel Map 14273. This tract included all properties west of Eisenhower Drive and was to be built in seven phases. However, only three phases were built. This area makes up the Santa Rosa condominium project. The other existing residential areas were remapped under separate subdivision map applications (i.e., Tracts 21120, 25237, and 23813). 5. In December 1987, Plot Plan 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 342 rooms to 603 rooms. Also added were 69,192 sq. ft. of ancillary hotel uses (i.e., restaurants, offices, etc.) with 876 off - street parking spaces. Five existing structures were removed. A traffic study was also completed with the project. The Council required the applicant to post funds to insure that traffic signals would be built on Eisenhower Drive. 6. Plot Plan 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -E (Amendment 1) were approved by the City in 1988. The approval permitted construction of a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot west of Avenida Qbregon north of Calle Mazatlan. PCGT.117 7. In May 1989, Plot Plan 88 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to 641 rooms: 8. Landmark Land Company processed a second amendment to the Specific Plan and Plot Plan 89 -421 in 1989. The approvals eliminated one championship tennis court, a small tennis club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replaced them with 77 additional hotel rooms within a 2 -story courtyard - style building. This site is located west of Avenida Obregon between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan. This expansion project was approved but never built. 91 At this time, the resort- oriented and office /retail space. The resort also has three 18 -hole Pete Dye golf co tTt�ng pools, 3i8 rx }) :,J lub. Private (gated) re _en ... .. #4�5 7 �k4Yffi tw' par PY i 2� C I iin 1 0. ...... i ,� p ., IReL IQ ed � Jura uul.0 the site. The following residential summary is provided based on development in the project for the last ten years: A. cl��;:lots v� t) B. R '° '*� , . µ �ii({�,3 ieritly o C vc f+gjd'r� ' D. Tennis Complex - The number of units approved was 200, but only 48 were built on part of the site. There is still some vacant property left for expansion of this use. E. East side of Eisenhower Drive - The number of units approved in concept was 110. This area is vacant at this time. Note: The number of residential units has been reduced from 916 to 775 based on subdivision map approvals. The hotel complex is located approximately 1,000 feet west of Eisenhower Drive south of Avenida Fernando. Avenida Fernando is a two lane (private) street serving the northern portion of the La Quinta Resort & Club and other adjacent residential properties,. The existing site is developed with paved parking for the hotel complex. vlhfst:t)mo, there arq`-324 "'parking`.spaces:in this northern- must parking kept. The main access driveway into the hotel registration is south from Avenida F61nando, off of Eisenhower Drive. PCGT.117 North: R -1, Existing Single. Family Homes /Vacant Properties South: R -3, Existing Hotel Facilities East: R -3, Existing Hotel Facilities West: R -3, Existing Hotel Facilities The applicant is proposing to eliminate part of the northern -most parking lot servicing i�.�,) a ;,ft building hed to the (i.e.,' 18,300+ sq. ft. ballroom a t I-Supp faCt es two -story portion of the hotel. The parking is to be replaced below the new building in a subterranean (basement) garage. The sublevel parking lot will accommodate 91 parking spaces. Seventy -six parking spaces will be lost even with the new sublevel parking area as proposed. The new addition will double the size of the hotel's convention /ballroom space. The new expansion will be approximately 50 -feet south of Avenida Fernando. The ballroom entry is on the east side of the building. Access into the sublevel parking area will be on the north side of the new ballroom. Service access is also provided in this area and along the existing service lane to the west of the proposed building. The new building is rectangular and measures approximately 185 -feet by 240 -feet. The architectural theme is consistent with the Spanish -style character (1920s Theme Architecture) of the existing hotel. Parking will be provided on all sides except the south side of the building which attaches to the existing hotel. A new pedestrian arcade will be established replacing the existing stamped concrete walkway. The new single story addition is approximately the same height as the existing two -story facility. The total height of the building varies because different roof heights have been provided. The tallest portions of the building occur at the ballroom (32 -feet) and the theme tower (39- feet). The renderings suggest that the new addition will be similar in height to the existing two -story structures to the south. They are also comparable in overall height to the existing Salon de Fiesta. The Zoning Code allows buildings to be no higher than 50 -feet in height for leasable areas. This height excludes architectural projections such as towers. This building is consistent with these guidelines. A new landscape design theme has been submitted for this project. The applicant ! PCGT.117 would like to replace some existing Mexican Fan Palms, in the parking lot, with Southern Live Oak trees. This change is being proposed because the existing palms do not provide adequate shade for customers during the summer months. However,- palms will still be used along some portions of the parking lot and next to the new .pedestrian arcade. Southern Live Oaks are used locally, and can be seen at the Rancho La Quinta Country Club, in their parking lot, or at the Ralph's Shopping Center, in Palm Desert, on Cook Street. This large tree was depicted in the original Landmark Land logo. The site is designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan as Tourist Commercial. This means: "Primarily businesses specifically oriented to the tourist and resort industry. Destination resort hotels, convention - oriented hotels /motels, eating and drinking establishments, accessory retail and personal service businesses, and recreation uses such as golf, tennis and equestrian facilities." The maximum building height allowed is 3- stories. The property is currently Zoned R -3 (General Residential) which allows hotels, resort hotels, and motel uses in Chapter 9.52 (Item 5) of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the Zoning Code and General Plan are consistent with this project request. According to SP 121 -E (Revised), the function of this document is to'serve as an ! implementation device for the long -range development of the "La Quinta Cove Golf and Tennis Club." The specific plan allowed the transfer of densities to permit clustered condominium housing and associated recreational uses. Public Notice The case was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on June 5, 1995, and all property owners in the Specific Plan area plus adjacent landowners were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice, before the public hearing, as required by the City's Municipal Code. No written comments were received from the adjacent property owners. Staff mailed to all public agencies a copy of the applicant's development plan on May 11, 1995. No negative responses have been received. All agency comments are on file with staff. The applicants have contacted the two property, single family, homeowners to the north of this development request. On June 7, the applicants told staff that both owners were aware of their expansion plans. Also at that time, the applicants had PCGT.117 stated that they would be meeting with the other existing Homeowners' Associations in the Specific Plan. area to make them aware of their application. Additional ' information will be available at the meeting. Based on a survey, taken in 1992, by the Inland Empire Business Journal, the La Quinta Hotel was the second largest hotel in the Valley in terms of hotel rooms. However, in terms of meeting space accommodations, the hotel was ranked 6th. The following information is provided: 1. Marriott (P.D.) 985 rooms /51,000 sq.ft. 2. La Quinta Hotel 640 rooms /30,000 sq.ft. 3. Stou.ffers (I.W.) 560 rooms /33,000 sq.ft. 4. Westin (R.M.) 512 rooms /75,000 sq.ft. 5. Riviera (P.S.) 480 rooms /50,000 sq.ft. 6. Marriott (R.M.) 450 rooms /29,700 sq.ft. 7. Wyndham (P.S.) 410 rooms /26,497 sq.ft. 8. Doubletree (C.C.) 368 rooms /14,600 sq.ft. 9. Hyatt (I.W.) 336 rooms/17,000 sq.ft. 10. Marquis (P.S.) 264 rooms /32,000 sq.ft. 11. Hilton (P.S.) 260 rooms /15,000 sq.ft. 12. Ramada (P.S.) 241 rooms/ 7,200 sq.ft. 13. Ritz - Carlton (R.M.) 240 rooms /11,642 sq.ft. Note: This information is provided for general purposes only. KSL did a market survey of this area and other large developments in California and Arizona this year. They examined ratios between number of rooms and interior meeting room space. Based on this survey, their hotel came out fifty percent (50 %) lower . than other comparable facilities. This new addition would make their facility in -line with the Scottsdale Princess, Westin La Paloma (Tucson), and other larger facilities in the Valley. In discussions with KSL personnel, convention facilities have a great deal to do with large firms coming to a hotel for extended periods. This marketing edge would be reduced with the new expansion request by the applicant. The specific plan in 1982 required a supplemental environmental review for all future discretionary permits. Therefore, staff has prepared an environmental assessment to analyze the effects of this proposal under current standards and guidelines. Attached for your review and consideration is the Environmental Checklist accompanied by staffs explanations for "Yes ", "Maybe ", and "No" answers. Pleas be advised that all recommended mitigation measures will be included as Conditions PCGT.117 of Approval. Based on the completed environmental analysis, staff is recommending certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (Attachment 4). The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the expansion plans by KSL on May 18, 1995. The Commission felt the new addition was compatible with the existing architecture of the hotel although the adjacent portion of the hotel is not a historical structure because it was built in the last ten years. Typically, historic buildings are 50 years or older. The final vote of approval was 4 -0 -1 (Mr. Pallette was absent). The current parking requirement for this project would be: I i i i nn n i ne^ i « Hote, �� +U rooms' 1. c spaces /roorii — 1 ,280 spates 2; Restaurants @ 1/50 sq.ft. (public area) = 123 spaces 3. Retail /Ofc. @ 1/250 sq.ft. (lease area) = 120 spaces Total = 1,523 spaces Note: Conference areas /ballrooms can be excluded if it is determined that the facilities are primarily for on -site guests or patrons. Otherwise, the total number of parking spaces needed would be 2,923. The Off- Street Parking Code does provide that applicants can provide "shared parking" plans if certain standards are met. Compact parking spaces have been proposed in this new application request. The existing Off- Street Parking Code permits compact parking up to 20 percent of the required total. Based on the applicant's request, no more than 206 spaces could be compact spaces; provided the spaces are not less than 8Y2 -feet by 16 -feet (e.g., 1,032 X .2 = 206). Generally, the compact spaces will be created by restriping based on the attached exhibits. In 1989, during the review of the hotel addition (38 rooms), the City received various letters of opposition from the Santa Rosa Cove homeowners. One letter summarized the general concern of the residents: "We do not oppose properly controlled growth, and hotels in that total area apparently find it necessary to expand in order to stay competitive. However, the La Quinta Hotel should be forced to provide ample parking for both overnight and special event guests and also its employees. The streets in our subdivision were not approved by the City to accommodate hotel guests." "Our home is on Calle Estrella, close to the south side of the La Quinta Hotel, and even now on weekends there are cars on our street with hotel guest cards on their dashboards. If this becomes a serious problem, I would propose all PCGT.117 such cars be towed away by order of the Santa Rosa Cove Association. The hotel would be the loser with irate guests, but if they do not provide proper parking, they would deserve it." Staff has included this statement to make the Commission aware of this previous correspondence because we might receive new correspondence from residents in the immediate area. Staff has received a few letters of opposition from some homeowners in the specific plan area. Based on these letters, staff felt that reviewing some transportation statements from the past twenty years was appropriate. They are as follows: "The major loop street in the project area will have a 66400t right -of -way. The feeder streets i !I be 60 fe t wide and cul-de-sacs a r e 50 fee t i o wid4th. All streets will 'be privately maintained by the homeowners' association. The streets will be developed according to Riverside County standards." (Page 12 - 1975 Specific Plan document) "The project could generate about 6,000 trips per day; approximately 50% would be north on Eisenhower; 25% south on Eisenhower; and 25% east on 50th Avenue. Assuming 10% of traffic occurs during peak hour, 300 trips will / be generated on Eisenhower north, 150 trips on Eisenhower south, and 15( ) trips on 50th Avenue east. In all cases, the ultimate route capacities will not be exceeded due to traffic generated by the project." (Page 111 - 1975 SP document) "The Landmark Company Chief Security Officer has provided an estimate of 600 daily two -way trips on Avenida Fernando (a private internal hotel circulation roadway) and 500 daily trips for the main hotel entrance. During 1986, gate log records indicate that daily volumes through the private gate to the west were approximately 275 trips daily. Records thus far in 1987 indicate a daily volume of approximately 370 trips. In order to be liberal in capacity calculations, the security office's estimate has been increased to 750 trips for this study." Additionally, ". . . the expansion project (342 hotel rooms) is expected to generate an additional 1,400 trips (700 in - 700 out) ". (Pages 5 and 7 - 1987 J.F. Davidson Traffic Report) Based on the above information plus past additions, the following vehicle trip generation figures are presented: Pcc..,,7 1975 Project 637 units @ 6.2 vt /d 496 rooms @ 4.1 vt /d Total 1989 Project 916 units @ 6.2 vt /d 718 rooms @ 4.1 vt /d Total 3,966 trips per day 2,034 trips per day = 6,000 trips per day = 5,679 trips per day 2,943 trips per day = 8,622 trips per day We can attribute the increase in traffic coming and going from this project to both the residential units and the hotel. The project's access points on Eisenhower Drive were developed so traffic would be evenly distributed from this master planned site. The 1989 traffic figure is an ultimate figure, and it was based on an enlargement of the property by Ar4ir,g 7r- acres. These traffic figures will ban less if the r;�,irrZbE;r of LI a V a%J%A111 4� � „ traffic figures vv units (or rooms) in the project is reduced as part of this application request. The existing Zoning Code allows developers to submit shared parking programs using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) standards and local adopted data. In 1987, during review of the hotel expansion project, a Shared Parking Study was submitted and approved by the City that allowed the applicant of record, Landmark Land Company, to have 950 (peak -hour) parking spaces for their expansion request. The study was prepared by JF Davidson and Associates of Palm Desert (Attachment 5). KSL has submitted their parking proposal to the City, for their expansion request. (The document can be found in the spiral bond document in your packet.) The document was prepared by International Parking Design, Inc. of Sherman Oaks. Their conclusion is that at 9:00 p.m. the amount of parking needed (peak hour) to hold patrons and visitors will be 1,032 spaces. Therefore, the minimum number of parking spaces allowed for the hotel complex would be 1,032 per Chapter 9.160.035 of the Municipal Code. This plan meets this requirement. The ULI Study identified restaurants and hotels as having peak periods of customers in the evening with midday patronage at 30 to 50 percent. Many factors influence the demand for parking spaces in a particular location: type and intensity of land use, availability and design of parking space, parking fees, service levels of transportation, other than the automobile, and income level of the population. For planning purposes, it is easier to use the measure of building space units (floor area, for example) rather than employees, because forecasts of employment are usually not accurate or available. The ULI Study recommends that floor area include gross leasable area and exclude space used for lobbies, hallways, elevators, mechanical equipment, etc. The study states: "In effect, most major, high - quality hotels are self - contained, multi -use developments containing major restaurants /lounges, banquet /meeting rooms, and convention facilities in addition to the guest rooms. 2CGi.117 Because of this factor, hotel parking demand is complex and subject to substantial day -to -day variation., Room occupancy changes, as does the use of the additional facilities. Therefore, the parking demand at a major hotel is best understood in terms of activity levels and corresponding parking demand of each major component." , In the past, the City has received a few complaints from surrounding residents concerning outdoor functions at the existing hotel. The complaints seem to have surfaced when private parties at the Tennis Complex were held. Staff received complaints that amplified music was used and the party went beyond 11:00 p.m.. They lodged the complaints after the private event. Previously, KSL Management have spoken with staff about this problem, and have stated that they would discourage outdoor events that have amplified music. This expansion should help to eliminate any future need to have outdoor events at the Tennis Complex in the evening if we permit this expansion request. If the Commission believes the City should regulate this issue, a specific plan condition should be added that states: "No amplified music or groups larger than 100 people shall be allowed at the Tennis Complex after 10:00 p.m.. A Minor Temporary Outdoor Event permit shall be obtained from City staff if more than 500 people gather outdoors for a public function on the hotel grounds if admission is being charged. All public concerts (i.e., live bands, etc.) shall be held in an enclosed building designed to hold large groups of people." The evolution of the project area to date has been to reduce the number of condominium units that were originally plotted in 1982 while increasing the number of hotel rooms through purchase of additional land inside the project boundaries. The reduction in the number of homes can be attributed to market demands that dictate larger single family homes and other design changes during the tentative tract map process. Staff presently estimates that 141 homes will probably not be built in the project area, thus reducing the general impact of the project on the City and immediate area around the specific plan area. New Traffic Signal: In 1987/88, the City discussed having the hotel contribute toward the installation of a new traffic signal at Avenida Fernando and Eisenhower Drive and possibly the hotel entrance to the south (Plot Plan 87 -387). The signals were to be installed if traffic levels warranted them. The applicant was obligated to contribute, 50 percent of the cost of the signal(s). The City is currently designing the signal that will be installed at Avenida Fernando to help traffic movement in this area based on warrant demands. The Conditions of Approval do not address this issue because it is covered in 1988 requirements of Plot Plan 87 -387. Installation of the new traffic signal will help traffic movement in this area, and allow safer exiting from,, PCGT.117 Ave ia..,,ont4o Fisenho.wer...Drive, ,a. malor public .street. KSL has been Ballroom: The project is architecturally compatible with the existing buildings of the hotel complex. The design features match those features used in various areas of the hotel complex: The location was chosen based on the applicant's need to have the ballroom facilities close to the existing restaurant facilities. The existing campus -style design of the hotel does not allow the , applicant much flexibility in placing the structure in another area of the property. Initially, staff felt that another site should be explored for the ballroom building because the existing Plaza parking (324 spaces) area is an important parking area for restaurant /convention patrons. However, after additional review of the proposal with the subterranean parking area, we feel the addition is appropriate for the site since the minimum number of on -site parking spaces will be 'provided based on the developer's shared parking study. Sy, Wp.yel Parking Garage: Staff was initially uncomfortable with the planned access point into the sublevel parking garage. We thought the developer should have the access point on the east side of the building. We felt that one of the proposed four two -way access lanes (possibly the third one) should be ramping down to the lower level since traffic movement to the parking lot usually occurs from the south (from the registration area) or Avenida Fernando. However, after discussion with the developer, they stated that they are planning to restructure many of their underground utilities during construction and this type of change could affect their needs. They understood that accessing the garage from the west would be difficult, but they believe traffic movement will be from the east and not from the west. This was their reason for placing the access point on the north side of the ballroom. They also pointed out that if the access point for the ara a was on the east, it would impacts their pro-o€f la.rle :'ihe r assume the undd� r r �lmfo . the' hotel's vale# service rather than by the. self - parking guest. Parkioa Quiciou QQ,n,,S.r=. 'on: Parking could be a major problem during the construction of this expansion request. The loss of parking in this area during construction could be severe if work is done: between the months of January to April. Staff would request that the developer submit a temporary parking program that can identify how they will help traffic movement in and around the hotel should the expansion request occur in these time frames. However, if work commences and is completed before January, staff feels comfortable that the applicant can adequately v provide parking areas for their employees and guests (Plot Plan Condition_ 37). TranspQrtiation Demand Management Plan: We have devoted much discussion in this report to parking and related problems during future construction. Accordingly, making sure that the Hotel /Resort has a current Transportation Demand Management Plan (i.e., ride- sharing, etc.) is important to staff. The Municipal Code requires a plan to be prepared unless the Resort has an approved plan under the South Coast Air PCGT.117 Quality Management District (SCAQMD). To insure compliance, we have provided Plot Plan Condition 39. Shared Parking: A 1992, Urban Land Report indicates that full- service hotels had occupancy averages of 61 to 62 percent (5 -year average). These percentages can vary depending on the location of the resort and its relationship to a major highway or airport, and whether it is in an urban or suburban area. Hotel resorts were higher in percentage figures than full- service hotels (i.e., 66 to 68 percent). With this in mind, staff called the City of Cathedral City to ask if they have allowed shared parking (peak period) for the Doubletree Hotel on Vista Chino Road. Their 1985 study showed that 60 percent occupancy (80% winter occupancy) was an acceptable figure for hotels that charge more than 5104.00 /room /night. I4,aj p, g theQr stuffy, we project that this grojeq.�,,y%o ^ul� re= ire_ 1 07.6 r if the 10[? /Q occupancy figure e� "(817' a# W.. /o occuoro "7+67 -- at 6 No occupancy). The 100% occupancy requirement figure would be. consistent with the number of spaces planned by IPD for this project. Nevertheless, for comparison information, if the Commission applied an 80% occupancy figure to the City's parking standards (1,523 parking spaces) the number of parking spaces would be 1,218. Staff is inclined to accept the parking proposal since the same parking information contained in this new study is similar to the one reviewed by the City 'in 1987, during the expansion of the Hotel to 603 rooms. The American Planning Association "Off- Street Parking Requirements" Report states that many cities require only one on -site parking space per hotel room plus additional spaces for other related facilities. The employees of the hotel are also included, but at a discounted rate (1/3 employees during each shift, etc.). The City's Code assumes that one parking space is for the room plus one for the related employee. This parking requirement would probably be acceptable if this were a stand alone complex, but it is a fully contained complex With various facilities accessible to its patrons. Although most people do rely on their automobiles for day -to -day needs, this complex does have many of its employees using public transportation (bus system - Sunline) for their needs. The hotel also encourages its large convention patrons to use shuttle buses to ferry patrons to their resort for multiple day events both for convenience and because vehicles are generally not necessary once they arrive for their stay. Additionally, other forms of transportation are also used and can be provided by hotel personnel. In closing, if the City's parking standards are too restrictive, the City will be encouraging a dependence on automobile travel. To reaffirm the project, and to insure that we weigh the impacts of the project equally, staff would like the Commission to consider reducing the number of allowable units (including hotel rooms) in the project area from 1,635 to 1,494. (A net loss of 141 units) The applicant, under this provision, could have 719 hotel rooms and 775 residential homes that are consistent with the status of the project at this time. Staff PCGT.117 feels this reduction is appropriate because 141 single family homes would generate 874+ vehicle trips /day. This amount of traffic would help mitigate some project impacts identified by the 1987 addition plus future development.. The residents in the surrounding area that are part of the project area would be assured that no additional expansion requests could occur unless they subsequently amended the specific plan -document. Otherwise, any development request within the adopted plan would have to conform with this amendment and other past provisions of the City Council. Specific Plan Condition #4 addresses this new provision proposed by staff. 1. The proposed changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan 121 -E (Revised) and the past amendments. 2. Environmental impacts resulting from the subject development will not adversely affect the immediate or nearby environment. 3. The proposed development is compatible with the existing hotel complex uses and consistent with the City's R -3 Development Standards. 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 95- , recommending to the City Council concurrence with the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact according to the findings. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 95- , recommending to City Council approval of Revised Specific Plan 121 -E, (Amendment #3), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 3. That the Planning Commission adopt Minute Motion 95 -_ approving Plot Plan 95 -555, a request to develop a new north wing to the existing La Quinta Resort & Club pursuant to the attached Conditions. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Specific Plan (1975) 3. Specific Plan (1982) 4. Initial Study (with Attachments) 5. 1987 Parking Study 6. Draft Resolution 7. Draft Resolution 8. Draft Conditions 9. Large Exhibit Maps /Booklet (Planning Commission Oniy)Large Exhibit PCGT.117 IROQUOIS DR T#TL z I 24 25 RACUVET C $dld 1 }�c� __ . r� G L ■ 9RXL G LN TER 4 �a °j LN — I I ANAPANOE W1' , 1MAE AH 7 ARAPO( LN c f + ARAPANOE CT $ O rsl sow 1 ANVAIgE TER,7i..,, uyllinrn.' 1 a.+/+.- .L1"I^JDSlCr E }� I ARAPwNOE CIR I E YAVAPA CT I A J T y �a plg i 1 1 YAOUI I, aAy m !� C s'+ 1 Z >< F �YA GRAXIAriNA C' d'1s�q1 i1 cn I 'r� �yt S! t r k A +'11m\ r ,� t._.,,.A x I 1 YA A / •• + . ':;wY^waw a .A_ , I y pE�S. �S2 - � ^L�� 1lSCNl_ 44 rQWTA l 6 t- I.f dl y PA3*0 r ic.1cm I � 7.-Al �t�I D�'� A, ` I `�%/IN11" iI •.� : '+,\` S �- � :aY'Erri�a F ",t�•''���"j� L.•, �NO;sF _��- n r, 7 � . RAIVCNp^ .,. __ i yr E`A✓,. " /rr� ydl �.7Xxusiami 1 #�E .. ? @ \y" -�NgTl OR - lAOU1NTA •. J C04c"4 A�� •*.. E �hnr1l }37 $�s r a'� N .•F' 1 SoU'rNJ,.,.. sS,ijjp S' tiY rj I tir d A TIM T O ST r7 . I ti! rrrj""I� %99 ,�• R•3.z� -.!� .4 E`( t wj�5 11 •'�.QR'- -� �y.. Q! fir•" °" {� 4 YIA ,�.y z� -wi— - Ip`•'� .,bra ��y.i�. •-tr '"��"' J 4y., T ,T /R : ' •.l �T •'L'iw S Y Y`!`.^q ... �f S ti •'[r FrA�. Q'r 's...®VHFS r P1�7(�HA $ r r a �.' In�1kMti� ���`��i�c ,�m.ceil�sF wrr a: r rp� L+ r�t}1y 'r+, ` 1 r Lr"!}� arAV �L EA yr I VALL @YW l i t g,�pykN -T ...L.�.T___-"1....�` ' Irr 'yr�[,p-• lam c'rm'.+kWr� s.A eslrusx •{ yr LA GUMA I it5� ' 0.ig i{ ®° +3 1iGN�RfL TT R HOTEL i - W - r0 . `.. �' u " •r GOLF d ■ C+S . alwcrE'L �Y`T^,' E' A AP R TENNIS RESORT 3 CLUSHOuse ,ii.r* CjiS„O. -EiE ySE u ti�M1" + I 1u [A _ Y 1 PAINTEO COVE CC7MPLEX f ... ' y I I ii #�$ vu�+ E DAY CREEA DR Mto } �, M I,Ry!"d+•' r LPS SYA�LBI�i� �,. .7 ' R'. "4PA _ Fwrr,fi, GAL ] RN[A ROCK RO nr r ♦ KINGS f — L tom" cf� d`.� viz i• - • 767L0 iRepp r-r ZrLL+lw'bQ• `� y. iM67,AT Li OnouA -•. Jr�SR# -it ii yar 517 7FZNaTiia[���� �r'A1__ Sri AV .r QG •9VF .tsr - U +v I 7` i i y r "x'h5T4N3�w'� 40 . --A r C���R � yiy'M/ . •. CH. *, a - . . - . L �,� LL -- - ""•y 'q ORN ,F la 4 CLUeNWlSF•. - , -. -Q... J `/! PQ -• I -i. �AV `11L lMi7 ' C.I 11"2 ANOARL r LA OilINTA p ..... i N r 1^ M R. i !k A I T. i •Y A g l I 0: .� J °- f °- o ii uG�jrNra '* ':! fS v1�4lw�cF V) �I L I } CAM ialfljr t S: - 11 • U > K w w +� 4 a Aw 5 .1, -?p,N LA OUINTA -I E <' -CAL c/ratus cauRS i x •: W Xa < rAMPo DR m L� • a o O a P a A ir~ I+ ■ 1 PlkA "•'z $� Y CAT AVENIDA N OIV " 147 nr ^, a "'xl...• s A u eO+.vA J A A r - IA:Mr4..' �.� �L •'r..F. - yj 77 _ ♦ , -f4' LLL I V N 5 A� „„ t� •• _ CASE MAP CASE am Ballroom Expansion Request La )uinta Resort and Tab r SCALE. nts PLAE(t TAf m R :..._ . Ho OR " r r�F L,4 Oflflf cSwv 'rRG I LA OUIN'TA HS ii ELEVEN rSREI � LA SNOPFrlNC I'•, PN...S CAMEO ciuP& a L'£ NT1=R Ir fJ4 EANO E R n I �5~ t PALM MrtyN PL I An I 1 }�c� __ . r� G L ■ 9RXL G LN TER 4 �a °j LN — I I ANAPANOE W1' , 1MAE AH 7 ARAPO( LN c f + ARAPANOE CT $ O rsl sow 1 ANVAIgE TER,7i..,, uyllinrn.' 1 a.+/+.- .L1"I^JDSlCr E }� I ARAPwNOE CIR I E YAVAPA CT I A J T y �a plg i 1 1 YAOUI I, aAy m !� C s'+ 1 Z >< F �YA GRAXIAriNA C' d'1s�q1 i1 cn I 'r� �yt S! t r k A +'11m\ r ,� t._.,,.A x I 1 YA A / •• + . ':;wY^waw a .A_ , I y pE�S. �S2 - � ^L�� 1lSCNl_ 44 rQWTA l 6 t- I.f dl y PA3*0 r ic.1cm I � 7.-Al �t�I D�'� A, ` I `�%/IN11" iI •.� : '+,\` S �- � :aY'Erri�a F ",t�•''���"j� L.•, �NO;sF _��- n r, 7 � . RAIVCNp^ .,. __ i yr E`A✓,. " /rr� ydl �.7Xxusiami 1 #�E .. ? @ \y" -�NgTl OR - lAOU1NTA •. J C04c"4 A�� •*.. E �hnr1l }37 $�s r a'� N .•F' 1 SoU'rNJ,.,.. sS,ijjp S' tiY rj I tir d A TIM T O ST r7 . I ti! rrrj""I� %99 ,�• R•3.z� -.!� .4 E`( t wj�5 11 •'�.QR'- -� �y.. Q! fir•" °" {� 4 YIA ,�.y z� -wi— - Ip`•'� .,bra ��y.i�. •-tr '"��"' J 4y., T ,T /R : ' •.l �T •'L'iw S Y Y`!`.^q ... �f S ti •'[r FrA�. Q'r 's...®VHFS r P1�7(�HA $ r r a �.' In�1kMti� ���`��i�c ,�m.ceil�sF wrr a: r rp� L+ r�t}1y 'r+, ` 1 r Lr"!}� arAV �L EA yr I VALL @YW l i t g,�pykN -T ...L.�.T___-"1....�` ' Irr 'yr�[,p-• lam c'rm'.+kWr� s.A eslrusx •{ yr LA GUMA I it5� ' 0.ig i{ ®° +3 1iGN�RfL TT R HOTEL i - W - r0 . `.. �' u " •r GOLF d ■ C+S . alwcrE'L �Y`T^,' E' A AP R TENNIS RESORT 3 CLUSHOuse ,ii.r* CjiS„O. -EiE ySE u ti�M1" + I 1u [A _ Y 1 PAINTEO COVE CC7MPLEX f ... ' y I I ii #�$ vu�+ E DAY CREEA DR Mto } �, M I,Ry!"d+•' r LPS SYA�LBI�i� �,. .7 ' R'. "4PA _ Fwrr,fi, GAL ] RN[A ROCK RO nr r ♦ KINGS f — L tom" cf� d`.� viz i• - • 767L0 iRepp r-r ZrLL+lw'bQ• `� y. iM67,AT Li OnouA -•. Jr�SR# -it ii yar 517 7FZNaTiia[���� �r'A1__ Sri AV .r QG •9VF .tsr - U +v I 7` i i y r "x'h5T4N3�w'� 40 . --A r C���R � yiy'M/ . •. CH. *, a - . . - . L �,� LL -- - ""•y 'q ORN ,F la 4 CLUeNWlSF•. - , -. -Q... J `/! PQ -• I -i. �AV `11L lMi7 ' C.I 11"2 ANOARL r LA OilINTA p ..... i N r 1^ M R. i !k A I T. i •Y A g l I 0: .� J °- f °- o ii uG�jrNra '* ':! fS v1�4lw�cF V) �I L I } CAM ialfljr t S: - 11 • U > K w w +� 4 a Aw 5 .1, -?p,N LA OUINTA -I E <' -CAL c/ratus cauRS i x •: W Xa < rAMPo DR m L� • a o O a P a A ir~ I+ ■ 1 PlkA "•'z $� Y CAT AVENIDA N OIV " 147 nr ^, a "'xl...• s A u eO+.vA J A A r - IA:Mr4..' �.� �L •'r..F. - yj 77 _ ♦ , -f4' LLL I V N 5 A� „„ t� •• _ CASE MAP CASE am Ballroom Expansion Request La )uinta Resort and Tab r SCALE. nts e CASE MAP CASE No. SPECIFIC PLAN -- PHASING 1975 Approval by County of Riverside V 4&� NORT SCALE: nts �144�C�InI�II��14 � Project Boundary SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE �oQ ' ' ' ��n,�� J.I, OAVIO�ON A��OCIATr■ .IVt11�lV•.C4�awL MOUNTAINS ,,.,,,., •„• Total Acres = 621.4 acres '. ■ G ...' Density = 1.8 du/ac. (Total Project) Units = 1,133.0 (includes Hotel Rooms) Ac jl� �l[�• f L ��. .> rl Avenida Fernando E My! rexw �[ J ' •••! / Iw'lRL [[w.•rx ('^li !• n oe ,. „, Avenue 0 rlA\� fiYN\ a.r f ^w • r- � r-r� � � M•u n,•rw�r n•[rr � '•' wr[..s[ r••. 1 '4i V] MOUNTAINS 1 — Project Boundary ” _ Calle Tampico CASE MAP CASE No. SPECIFIC PLAN -- PHASING 1975 Approval by County of Riverside V 4&� NORT SCALE: nts 1 Projec''lRoundary acel I SPECII'IC 4e�,s4 I PLAN OF tiars �° I LAND USE M - E paill J.P. w►v�owti wrSouwrr■ cauian■r- •.. ... • nom..., ■�...... ' Total Acres = 638.2 acres .�X �""_,.� Density = 2.4 du/ac. (Total Project) Units = 1, 558.0 (includes Hotel Rooms) Avenida Fernarn IT i 1. ...., a..,. 4 `�,l r� � .,,� .t '••', J'�= ". -"� ��' ' -fit, l�' r Y Y rt Calle Tampico CASE MAP CASE No. Revised Specific flan 121 -E 1982 Approval J` La Quinta Country Club r IVO RTH SCALE: nts �` e ATTACHMENTS -#4 jo lo� c�t� %. "i NOV 24 '87 11:27 LANDMARV aND SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS FOR ACTMcmNarT 0 LA QUINTA REbvRT HOTEL P. 2/2 The following. chart lists the variables used in an Urban Land Institute (ULI) nixed -use shared parking analysis. SHARED PARKING ESTIMATION - INPUT- ASSUMPTIONS LARD USES SIZES RATIO X AUTO PERS /AUTO S-CAPTIV Office 7,770 SF GLA 4.00 100 1.20 MIA Retail 21,150 SF GLA 4.00 100 1.80 75 Restaurant 7,180 SF GSA 22.2 100 2.00 60 Hotel -Rm 697 Rooms 1.00 80 1.40 MIA Hotel -Conf. . 2,053 Seats 0.33 100 2.00 55 Explanatory Notes: 1) Ratio: represents the number of vehicles per 1,000 SF GLA or ver one seat. (As per La QuintA.City Ordinance.) 2) X Auto: represents the percent of auto users for a land use (i.e* versus people walking or taking public transportation); (as per U.L.I. standards.) 3) Pers /Auto: represents average.number of persons per auto as per ULI standards. 4) S Captive: represents the percentage of persons on -site who visit a particular land use. (As per Landmark's estimate.) The following chart reflects the results of the ULI analysis. peak parking demand occurs at 9 :00 p.m. for 950 vehicles. HOUR OFFICE RETAIL REST ROOM COMF TOTAL 6 00 AM 1 0 0 597 0 598 7 :00 AM 6 2 1 507 0 517 8:00 AM 20 4 3 388 122 537 9 :00 AN 29 9 6 328 305 677 10 :00 AN 31 14 13 269 305 632 11 :00 AM 31 18 19 209 305 582 12300 N 28 21 "32 179 305 564 1 100 PH 28 21 .'45 179 305 576 2 s o0 PM 30 21 38 209 305 603 3 :00 PH 29 20 38 209 305 .601 , 4 100 PH 24 18 32 269 305 641 Si 00 PH 15 _ +17 45 _ 358 305 739 6 :00 PM 7 17 57 418 305 805 7 s 00 PM 2 19 64 448 305 937 a: o0 PM 2 18 64 537 305 927 9:00 PM 1 13 64 567 305 > 950* 10:00 PH 1 7 57 597 132 784 11:00 PM 0 3 45 597 0 644 12:00 M 0 0 32 597 0 629 Peak Demand 1) Shared Parking Computer Program. ULI - The Urban Land Institute, Shared Parking. Washington, D.C.: ULI - The Urban LandAlfealwau 1983. r.OV ? 4 1987 ATTACHMENTS p44aCM22gry D PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO TIC CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #3) HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF PALM SPRINGS WHEREAS, the La Quinta Hotel was originally built in 1926; and, WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E/EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service faciliites on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5; 1982, allowing the master plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, i WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) and 1989 (Amendment 2) permitting additional enlargement and modificatino to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 27th day of June, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the Hotel Association of Palm Springs to amend the aforementioned specific plan to allow a new 16,000 square foot ballroom and other associated facilities including a new sub -level parking garage, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION 36, T5S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and RESOPC 149 0 0 Planning Commission Resolution 95 -, arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said lanning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation of the specific plan amendment: That Revised Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #3, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Zoning Code. 2. The proposed amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed Revised Specific Plan 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 95 -304, indicating that the proposed specific plan amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be filed. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above- described amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan 95 -555 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote; to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SP 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT 3) (LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM) JUNE 27, 1995 GENERAL Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment 3) shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This specific plan approval shall expire and become void on June 27, 1997, unless extended pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Plot Plan 95- 555. 4. The total number of single family homes /hotel rooms that will be allowed in the Specific Plan area shall be 1,494 (i.e., 775 units, 719 rooms). CONAPRA.157 9-IFAMNIENIF S CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED PLOT PLAN 95 -555 (LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM) JUNE 27, 1995 GENERAL 1. Plot Plan 95 -555 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This plot plan approval shall expire and become void on June 27, 1996, unless extended automatically pursuant to the City's Updated Zoning Ordinance. 3. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan 121 -E Revised (Amendment #3). 4. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be installed shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83.002 and Plot Plan 95 -555, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of The Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83-002-and Plot Plan 95.555, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final b�lilding inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigating measures of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83.002 and Plot Plan 95 -555. The Community Development Director may require inspections or other monitoring to assure such compliance: If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a subphasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith: 9. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 10. Site improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" X 36" media. All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed. If water and sewer plans are included on the site improvement plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. IMPROVEMENTS 11. Prior to issuance of any permit for construction of structures or site improvements approved or required under this plot plan, the applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's required share of future improvements to be constructed by others (deferred improvements). Deferred improvements for this development include: A. One half of the cost, or $25,000, whichever is less, for design and installation of median landscaping and irrigation improvements in Eisenhower Street for the full length of the La Quinta Hotel frontage. CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the deferred improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. STREEI AND C I P OVE ENTS 12. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets, access gates and parking lots shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20 -year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction traffic. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential and Parking Areas 3.0 "14.5" Collector 4.0 "15:00" Secondary Arterial 4.0 "16.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "16.00" Major Arterial 5.5 "16.50" If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section which will be subjected to traffic, the partial section shall be designed with the 20 -year design strength. GRADING 13. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 14. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ( "the soils report ") shall be submitted with the grading plan. 15. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 16. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 11. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad in the development, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by development phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 18. All 100 -year storm water run -off shall be retained on -site unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the developer is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. LANDSCAPING 20. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer if landscaping is adjacent to a public street(s). The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the Community Development Director or City l Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. MAINTENANCE 21. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual maintenance of private'street and drainage facilities, landscaping, and other improvements required by these conditions. EES AN— DEEOSITS 22. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee' amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 23. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 4000 gpm for a three hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible- material is placed on the job site. 24. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2'/ :"1 located not less than 25- feet or more than 165 -feet. from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. C9NAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95.555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant /developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review: Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 26. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 27. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group I. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50 -feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 -feet from the building. 28. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a planlinspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 29. Install a manual pull, smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code /Riverside County Fire Department and-National Fire Protection Association Standards 72. 30: Install Knox Key Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department'for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 31. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve (12) months. 32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1OBC. in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. UTILITIES 33. All existing and proposed utilities within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High - voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 34. The applicant shall abandon all unneeded sewer and water service laterals in this development and install new laterals as required. CONAPRA.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 35. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 9 QUALITY ASSURANCE 36. The applicant shall employ site improvement construction quality- assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. MISCELLANEOUS 37. The developer shall submit an interim parking plan to the Community Development Department for approval if work on the expansion request is to occur between the months` ofJanuary to April. The plan will identify the parking areas for employees, guests and workers during on -site construction. The plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the Fire Marshal before work begins. Special consideration shall be made to ensure that the development proposal does not affect the surrounding residents. Parking on Avenida Fernando should be discouraged, if possible. 38. The California Fish and Game Environmental filing fees shall be paid within 24 -hours after review of the case by City Council. The fee is $1,250 plus $78.00 for processing by Riverside County (checks to be made out to Riverside County).. 39. The developer shall submit to the Director of Community Development their existing Transportation Demand Management Plan for review to insure compliance with Chapter 9.162 of the Municipal Code. A plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District will meet this requirement. CONAPRVL.154 0 0 Ot U&M FILE COPY TAO,Yl Q AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCILJRDA MEETING DATE: . July 5, 1995 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Public Hearing on Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised PUBLIC HEARING: (Amendment 3) and Acceptance of Plot Plan 95 -555; Approval of a Specific Plan Amendment to allow the elimination of a part of the northern parking lot of the La Quinta Resort Club, and Plot Plan approval to allow construction of a 37,000 sq. ft. building addition, which includes a ballroom, supplemental facilities, and subterranean garage parking in the R -3 Zone on part of a 17.8 acre site located on the south side of Avenida Fernando, 1,000 ft. west of Eisenhower Drive. Applicant: KSL La Quinta Hotel Cor oration )1 Adopt Council Resolution certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental P fY 9 9 9 Impact, 2. Adopt Council Resolution approving Amendment #3 to Specific Plan 121 -E, (Revised), and 3. Accept the action of the Planning Commission on Plot Plan 95 -555, or modity as Council desires. None The La Quinta Hotel wasT developed in the 1920's. In 1975, the hotel complex was allowed to be expanded to 637 condominium units, 496 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course and other supplemental facilities on 619 acres by the County of Riverside (Attachment 1). In 1982, the La Quinta City Council allowed an additional expansion request that allowed 279 additional condominium units and 146 hotel rooms (Attachment 2). Since this time, additional modifications have been made. A summary of this process is attached in, the original Planning Commission report (Attachment 3). ccgL113 Jr In May, staff received a request by the applicant to develop a new north wing to the La Quinta Resort & Club. The addition will include a 16,000 sq. ft. ballroom and other supplemental indoor facilities (i.e., 37,000 sq. ft. addition). The new proposal is located on the south side of Avenida Fernando, 1000 -feet west of Eisenhower. Drive. The building is located north of the existing hotel restaurants (i.e., Morgan's and Adobe Grill). The addition is planned to be located in a portion of the existing northernmost 324 space parking lot, however, to mitigate the loss of parking, a subterranean parking garage is proposed. The new building is rectangular and measures approximately 185 -feet by 240 -feet. The single story addition is approximately the same height as the existing two -story facility to the south that contains both Morgan's and the Adobe Grill restaurants and to the east the Plaza Shops. The total height of the structure varies from 32 -feet to 39 -feet for the tower elements. The architectural theme is consistent with the Spanish -style character (1920's Theme Architecture) of the existing hotel. This height is less than 50 -feet and permissible by the existing Zoning Code. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is proposed for this project. Staff the previous environmental information for the project, and the information from the City's General Plan Update /EIR. On June 27th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the development request. The Commission took testimony from some residents who reside in the gated residential complexes surrounding the site (e.g., Santa Rosa Cove, Estados, Enclave, etc.). Those that spoke or submitted written letters were concerned about the expansion request because they felt the new addition would create. more traffic on Avenida Fernando (a private two -way street) or in their neighborhoods, create additional noise, or other related problems (Attachment 4). These issues were addressed by staff in the attached Planning Commission report. At the meeting, Mr. Scott M. Dalecio, representing KSL, spoke of his contacts Wth those residents that had submitted letters to staff and the Commission. He submitted letters to the Commission that he had written thal explained the mitigation measures they were willing to do to be a good neighbor to the surroundinc residents. These letters are attached (Attachment 5). He went on to explain their business practices and their on -site parking needs. Mr. Dalecio stated that their facility had won acclaim from the South Coast Air Quality District on their Transportation Demand Management Plan. The) would submit this document to staff. However, he stated the La Quinta Resort and Club i; marketed to group business clients. They estimate that 70% of their business is from this typ( of customer. Approximately 60% of their clients use alternate modes of transportation to nE to the hotel (i.e., bus, taxi, etc.). In the past when the hotel was at a 100% occupancy le\ stated they did have approximately 50% of the parking lot available to drop -in business other thar the hotel personnel or guests. =it.113 Y C The Commission was encouraged that the City was installing a traffic signal at Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Fernando. They felt this would benefit those residents that have to use this road for access to their homes. The Commission also felt that the loss of parking (76 spaces) was a critical issue, but they felt the shared parking program was adequate since the City's Zoning Code permits this type of arrangement. They concluded that the total number of on -site parking spaces during peak -hour demand (i.e., 1,032 spaces) was important to have and that under normal business usage it will be adequate for the hotel's needs. Mr. Tom Hill, representing Ohio Citizen's Investment, stated that his company has reduced the number of homes in the Santa Rosa Cove development and they would like to benefit from this reduction by possibly placing additional units on the opposite side of Eisenhower Drive (south of 50th Avenue) on property they own in this master planned development. He felt the ' hotel should not be given their credits. Staff explained to the Commission that the specific plan only allows 110 units at this time, and any change would require an amendment to the plan with or without the reduction proposed in Condition #4 of the Specific Plan Amendment. Mr. Hill was advised to provide his information on this issue in the future if he .believes the 110 units proposed are not economically feasible for this vacant property. Mr. Puget, property owner to the north of the hotel, stated that he had met with Mr. Dalecio and resolved many issues he had initially when he reviewed the preliminary plans in May. He stated That he supports the project. However, he would like KSL to fulfill the Conditions of Approval proposed and monitor their concerns once they build the facility. Mr. Puget hoped the new landscaping proposed by KSL would reduce the overall visual impact of the large structure. The Commission voted to approve the request provided the attached conditions were imposed. The final vote was 5 -0 (Commissioners Gardener and Anderson absent). The Commission modified Condition #11.A. because Mr. Dalecio explained Landmark Land had expended money a few years ago designing a landscape plan for Eisenhower Drive. The Commission felt KSL was entitled to a credit (against the request of staff for $25,000) for this purpose. The Commission also added Condition #40 that requires screening of the service bay that faces Avenida Fernando. FINDINGS AND ALIE NAMES Findings necessary to approve the project can be made and are contained in the attached material. 1. The proposed project will not impose a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended by the Planning Commission. 2. That the project conditions are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. 3.. That the proposed expansion request is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code as designed. 4. The specific plan amendment is consistent with the policies and guidelines of Specific Plan 121 -E and previous amendments. The options available to the Council are as follows: 1. Approve the request; 2. Modify the attached Conditions of Approval; 3. Deny the request; or, 4. Continue the request to your next meeting (July 18). arry H7tyV an ommu Development Director Attachments: 1. 1975 Specific Plan Exhibit 2. 1982 Specific Plan Exhibit 3. Excerpt from June 27th P.C. Report 4. Letters of Opposition 5. Letters from Mr. Scott M. Dalecio ccgt113 w s • RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95.304 PREPARED FOR PLOT PLAN 95 -555 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #3) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95.304 GREG BURKHARTIKSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of June, 1995, hold a duly. noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed Plot Plan 95.555 and Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment #3) for the La Quinta Resort & Club expansion project; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did approve the certification of the Environmental Assessment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of July, 1995, } hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed Plot Plan 95 -555 and Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment #3) for the La Quinta Resort & Club expansion project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did approve the certification of the Environmental Assessment; and, WHEREAS, said Plot Plan and Specific Plan amendment have complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) (Resolution 83.68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared Initial Study EA 95.304; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said plot plan and specific plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or indirectly. 2. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Ll Resolution 95- 3. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment do not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 4. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council for-this environmental assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 95.304 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the attached Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit "A ". PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held an this 5th day of July, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN 'HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta; California e • INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95-304 Prepared for: Plot Plan 95- 555 /SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT 3 #) Greg Burkhart/KSL La Quinta Resort & Club La Quinta, California Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 7 8-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 June 20, 1995 0 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project "Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics 4 2.4 Objectives 4 2.5 Discretionary Actions 5 2.6 Related Projects 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning 5 3:2 Population and Housing 7 3.3 Earth Resources 8 3.4 Water 10 3.5 Air Quality 13 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 16 3.7 Biological Resources 18 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 19 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 20 3.10 Noise 21 3.11 Public Services 22 3.12 Utilities 24 3.13 Aesthetics 26 3.14 Cultural Resources 27 3.15 Recreation 29 4 MANDA'T'ORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 29 5 EARLIER ANALYSIS 30 0 17L SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The La Quinta Resort and Hotel has submitted an application for plot plan review of a proposed 37,000 square foot building addition, which includes a 16,000 square foot ballroom, and supplemental facilities with a subterranean parking garage. The ballroom is proposed to be constructed in an existing parking lot on the north side of the resort complex. The building will feature parking underneath in order to accommodate required parking needsThe assumed density of the proposed ballroom is 12 square feet per seat, or 1,333 seats. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the proposed development. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the ballroom, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed ballroom. The purposes of the initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for the ballroom construction; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and A ' To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the proposed construction of the ballroom The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts on some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. Mitigation measures have been recommended in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded'on the west by the City of Indian - Wells, on the east by the City is bounded on the west by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed expansion request will consist of a 37,000 square foot building with subterranean parking garage below the proposed building. The project site is located in the Plaza Parking Lot on the north side of the existing hotel and restaurant facilities. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The ballroom will serve large group events such as dances, conventions, private parties, etc. There will be banquet storage space, general storage space, office space, restrooms, and a pre - function area. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objectives of the proposed ballroom are to accommodate larger groups, increase revenue i-th expended facilities, and provide greater flexibility in available facilities. 10 0 .9 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta ) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission for the following: * Approval of a Plot Plan for the project * Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no current projects related to the proposed ballroom project. The project site is, however, part of Specific Plan 121 -E that was approved prior to the City's incorporation, by the County of Riverside. T here have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last ten years. The proposed project for the ballroom addition requires that there be an amendment to the Specific Plan to permit the proposed elimination of a part of the existing parking lot where the new building will be constructed. This amendment is being processed concurrently with the proposed plot plan. SECTION 3; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the new ballroom addition to the La Quinta Resort. and Club. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (rnsl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia. Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site is located west of Eisenhower Drive and Southwest of Ave. Fernando, in the southwestern portion of the City of La Quinta. The project s•Le is pant of the La Quinta Resort and Club complex that was first constructed in the 1920's. The hotel is designated as a historical structure in the City's General Plan. The exact project site is within an existing parking lot that is adjacent to the hotel and restaurants. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within the R -3 zone classification that permits hotels and.accessory conference facilities. The General Plan land use designation is that of Tourist Commercial (TC). The land use designation and zoning designation are compatible with each other. Specific Plan 121 -E governs that development of the hotel complex. In order to eliminate a portion of the existing parking lot where the ballroom will be built, it is necessary to amend the Specific Plan. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental- plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project approval. The primary environmental plans and policies related to development of the ballroom are identified in the La Quinta General Plan, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and Specific Plan 121 -E. The project site is within Redevelopment Area # 1 which includes the Cove area and most of the southern portion of the City. The redevelopment plan for the area relies upon the General Plan to indicate the location and extent of permitted development. As a result, the development of the convention building is also consistent with the adopted . Redevelopment Plan. The development proposed will not exceed the development standards contained in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to, soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project. (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey) D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement-of an established community (including a low- income minority community)? No Impact. The project site will be developed with a 37,000 square foot building and subterranean parking garage as permitted by the proposed amendment to Specific Plan 121 -E and an approved Plot Plan for architectural review. The future ballroom will not affect the physical arrangement of existing neighborhoods or other types of development in the La Quinta Cove area of La Quinta. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 0 7 i 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125 %, as reported by the U.S. Census, making it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. The number of City residents blossomed, from 4,992 to 11,215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7 %, in 1980, to 5.1 %, in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The City's population as of January, 1994, is estimated by the State Department of Finance, to be 16,634 persons. This is an increase of 208% in the last ten years. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.5 persons per unit. The housing stock as of 1993, is listed at 7,755 single family units, 481 multi - family units, and 247 mobile homes, for a total of 8,483 units. Ethnicity information from the 1980 Census, for the area that is now the City. of La Quinta revealed that 80.0% of the La Quinta resident population as caucasian, 14.7% as Hispanic, 2.3% as Afro- American, 1.1% as Asian, and .5% as Native American. The results of the 1990 Census show a mix of 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 1.6% Afro- American, 1.5% Asian, and!. 0% Native American. The most current information available on employment of La Quinta residents is from the 1980 Census. At that time, almost 57% of the La Quinta workforce worked at white collar jobs, while 43% were in blue collar occupations. The n)ajor employers in the City include the La Quinta Hotel and Resort, PGA West, Von' s, Simon Motors, City of La Quinta. WalMart, Albertson's, and Ralph's. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project area is an existing asphalt parking lot. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed convention facility will result in no new residential units. Temporary construction jobs will be created if the project is built. New jobs related to the operation of the future ballroom will also be created. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? i No Impact. The proposed building will provide a second ballroom facility that will permit t \, a new large group meeting facility for the City. This will attract additional convention and V conference groups to the hotel which will result in additional bed tax paid to the City. It is not anticipated that additional development will result from the construction of the ballroom. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. There are no housing units on the project site. The proposed ballroom facilities will be constructed with private funds. (Source: Application Materials; Site Survey) 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillsides, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. Local Environmental Setting The area where the project is proposed is a developed resort complex. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has had structures on it since the 1920's when the first hotel building was constructed. The elevation of the project site is approximately 50 feet above msl. There has been no recorded seismic activity from the nearby inferred faults, thus, there is a low probability for such activity. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the area include the San Andreas fault located several miles to the north of the City. Faults within the City include two inferred faults transecting the southern section of La Quinta. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred faults in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site, while the other lies approximately 1.5 miles south. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard's anticipated for the project site. (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment) 0 0 ASP B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed ballroom project will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who will be subject to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone III. The ballroom facilities and subterranean parking garage will be required to meet current seismic standards to reduce the risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? { No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man -made reservoir located in the southeast area of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect the City in the event of a levee failure or seiche. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The immediate project site is within an existing parking lot that is several hundred feet away from the Santa Rosa Mountains. Thus, the project would not.be impacted by potential mudslides or landslides. F. Would the project. result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom facilities, if built, will require extensive excavation for the subterranean parking garage. Hazard barracades shall be placed around the excavation site to warn pedestrians of open constriction activities. M G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have-subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta MEA. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. (Source: La Quinta MEA) H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the project site consist of Indio Very Fine Sandy Loam (Is) and Gilman Silt Loam (GeA). Is soil has very slow runoff slight erosion hazard, and no flood hazards associated with it. The shrink/swell capacity is low. The GeA soil has slow runoff~ slight erosion, and flooding is rare. Shrink/swell is low. (Source: Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area) 1. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts. involving unique geologic or physical features? r' Less than Significant Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located within the project site or near enough to the project to be affected by the proposed ballroom hotel expansion request. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via thirteen wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower thermal subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub- basins near Point Happy Ranch, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. • C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site will be directed to the existing drainage system on the resort complex which ultimately terminates in the golf course lakes. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. 'No increase in runoff is expected since the project site is an existing paved parking lot. The proposed ballroom will not expand the paved area, but rather incorporate part of the existing paved area into the proposed building site. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Qu.inta does not have any substantial bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man -made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The Whitewater River and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel are stormwater channels that are usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawl, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the ballroom will consist of open meeting area, banquet storage areas, an office area, and restore facilities. Existing kitchen facilities in the hotel restaurants will be utilized for food preparation: Consumption calculation indicates that the ballroom would require 8,880 gals. /day of water. G. - Would, the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells. It is not anticipated that there will-be any alteration to the direction or rate of flow of the groundwater supply. No wells are proposed for the project. H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. The proposed ballroom will be, constructed in an existing paved parking lot, thus, there will be no additional pavement placed on the hotel site to reduce the absorption W V N The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 640 feet is considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated ground water; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La 'Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) an increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two -part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site does not have any standing water on it or near by. The nearest stands of surface water consist of several small lakes located on the resort golf courses. It has been calculated that the proposed ballroom facilities will consume 8,880 gallons of water per day. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed project will not require additional drainage facilities. There is an existing drainage system for the resort complex that directs-runoff to the existing golf course lakes. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding? Less than Significant Impact. The site is within a designated. 100 year flood plain zone (Zone A). The hazard factors for this zone have not been determined. However, there are existing flood control facilities in the Cove area that will protect the project site. nl�- 0 44, A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There will be some pollutants as a result of vehicular traffic during the construction phases and from employees and visitor to the ballroom. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Aar Quality Handbook, Table 6 -2, the proposed project 'best fits with the Restaurant category under the Commercial land use threshold of 20,000 square feet of area. The proposed building area for the ballroom project will be 37,000 square feet, which is more than the threshold. However, the proposed ballroom facilities are ancillary to the resort hotel complex. Thus, there would be, a significant air quality impact resulting from the proposed project. The Significance Emission Thresholds established by the District consist of the following: 55 pounds per day ofROG 55 pounds per day of Nox 274 pounds per day of CO 150 pounds per day of PM 10 150 pounds per day of Sox State 1 -hour or 8 -hour standard for CO Projects that exceed the above thresholds with daily operation - related emissions (averaged over a 7 -day week) are considered to be significant. Calculations were made for the proposed ballroom. A 180 -day construction period was assumed for the following short term construction impact: FLOG 39.3 tbs. /day Nox 575.9 tbs. /day CO 125.2 lbs. /day PM10 40.91bs. /day` Long Term Mobile Emissions consist of the following: ROG 225.31bs. /day Nox 97.71bs. /day Co 2037.2 lbs. /day PM10 20.0 lbs. /day Long Term consist of the following: FLOG 2'225.4 Nox 103.2 CO 2038.2 PM 10 20.2 SEDAB Thresholds: ability of the ground. Stormwater runoff will be directed into the existing drainage system at the resort which culminates in the golf course lakes. Y 3.3 AIR QUALM Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin ( SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA) The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent that then SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. Local Environmental Setting The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has a and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs and one in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The station has been collecting data for ozone and particulate matter since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate matter and has been in operation since 1985. • ROG 75 Nox 100 CO 550 PM10 150 Difference: Project and SEDAB Thresholds: ROG • -150.4 Nox -48.2 CO - 1488.2 PM10 129.8 Percent Over Thresholds: ROG 300.5% Nox 103.2% CO 370.6% PM10 13.4% Thus, there is a potential for significant impact from the development of the Ballroom. A detailed air quality analysis shall be required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The analysis shall include recommended mitigation measures. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant impact. Sensitive Receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential and golf development to the immediate west and south, with scattered residential to the adjacent north. Directly adjacent to the south is the existing hotel and restaurant complex, to which the proposed ballroom will be attached. The closest schools are Truman Elementary school and the La Quinta Middle School located at the northwest comer of Avenue 50 and Park Avenue. The closest existing park is the Village park located in the Cove area, south of the project site. The closest known day care center is the YMCA Preschool located adjacent to Truman Elementary School. The closest medical facility is a doctors office located on Calle Tampico, near Washington Street, over a mile from the project site. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? is Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts upon this issue area. The proposed ballroom facilities will be required to meet height and setback requirements, maintaining a compatible architectural style with the existing structures in the resort complex. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impacts. The proposed ballroom is not anticipated to create any objectionable odors. Food preparation will be done in the existing restaurant kitchens. There could be some noticeable odors from exhaust emissions from vehicles using the subterranean parking garage under the ballroom These odor, if detectable at all, will not be significant. 3.6 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 16,000+ permanent residents. There is a substantial portion of the City that is undeveloped. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982: Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late - winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service for the City is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems are to be completed as new developments come to the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is within the La Quinta Resort and Club complex, in an existing parking lot area. The project, as well as the hotel, are accessed by Avenida Fernando, (a private 2- way road) located immediately north of the parking lot. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The ballroom facilities are projected to serve as an accessory to the existing hotel and resort facilities. The users of the ballroom will for the 0 0 11 most part be staying at the hotel. Thus, there should not be any significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact. There are currently no hazards from design features of the existing roadway or the proposed project. The proposed project does not include any new roadways or the alteration of any existing roadways. It does eliminate a portion of an existing parking lot, which will alter circulation in the parking lot in order access the underground parking garage. There are no obvious hazardous design feature associated with the project. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom project will not obstruct emergency access to the surrounding area. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. A total of 91 parking spaces are proposed in the underground parking garage. The existing parking lot has 324 spaces, of which 76 will be eliminated by the new ballroom.. The resort and hotel complex require a total of 1,523 spaces excluding the ballroom since it has been determined that the ballroom is primarily for on -site guests or patrons. Otherwise, the total number of parking spaces needed would be 2,923. A shared parking plan is permitted by the Off - Street Parking Code if certain standards can be met. The shared parking program under Chapter 9.160.035 of the Municipal Code will permit parking spaces based on a parking analysis with the highest usage requirement setting the parking requirement. The study indicated that the highest usage was at 9:00 p.m_ with a parking need of 1032 spaces. These standards have been met in this proposed project. (Source: ULI Analysis; Site Plan) E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. Eisenhower Drive, in the vicinity of the resort complex, is a designated bikeway corridor. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact upon the corridor. Pedestrians crossing the existing parking lot will be required to go around the ballroom building depending upon the direction in which they are walking. The existing stamped concrete walkway will be replaced with a new pedestrian arcade leading to the existing hotel and restaurant buildings. Thus, there should be minimal impact upon pedestrians or bicyclists. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 0� No Impact. The proposed ballroom will not interfere with the existing alternative transportation modes and facilities or create new modes and facilities at the resort complex. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land in this environment is rich in biological resources and habitat. This ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have then ability to economize water use, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water: Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals and birds. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black - tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal found in this area is the Peninsular Big Hom sheep which is found at the higher elevation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The project site is developed and has been for approximately 70 years. Thus, any potential biological resources or habitat has been long gone from the site. The La Quinta NfEA indicates that the vicinity of the project site is within the traditional habitat of the Black - tailed Gnatcatcher bird. There is no existing habitat left on the resort complex. ea n- I A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? No Impact. The proposed project site has been developed for approximately 70 years, thus all habitat has been destroyed. (Source: Site Survey) B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey) C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. Surrounding" land uses include golf course, hotel units, single family homes, restaurants, retail shops, and parking lots. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City. (Source: La Quinta MEA) E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area. (Source: La Quinta MEA) 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (lID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting `a+ IROQUOIS DR rar► otc I. pR A 24 LA GNTA— LA QUINTA HS 25 8Iicil"46 * L�+EN I !SITE! !gyp C ri WJsit •1 . I CFNTf L 1A HO Ma 5 +N G`x 5 P S CENTER a?• T - C�I �5 } CAMEO tlY I, hfi K A SEMIMDL6 O rl �• }J SAND n [�- r � •..,• .r, e0'yY� Ok RaCOVfT CLVE �al LLO LN '� I q O 7 4.Ai `,:- - - - - -- =mac — .CgL''g%►iV+_ -%r ^° "7TT— - - -- _ �_ -.. — LN I AAAPA.M vrr 7 ARUAMOE �n a 'VI, soup AAAPAMOE CT `! $ 1 �A O 13TP . 7} r MAPAMOE TER +,• ..dYl.r r"i" o�•A' S j C I S ARAPAMM CIA �gT Cy ?, 2 I i vAVAPVAOA R UI U I }, I uIIE YOl11NTA "I IA GRAZIANNA ° I 5� � 3 Ij l 3u, � I II +'� I to �.a•^+'� o T i y``� � � }E i r v s $ l i1t •• +�'''�Ilt� I s" C I AY (gl�gl�S� 4' G(iF f I VIA wLLpNwur g /... As —A /._MrRllnlf'YnGM,_ +r+.� r `��� –�.a h 9AlSIi1tQ y4 GilI�+... T� I �_' uh`V �rn�Irl �, ' cM PAIM �d 5yM11,Ir'r�ITr I J-� �RLriN' CLU I _ ��1 /rlfll5 "�.,+ f hr r,,pqppA,. •� House 5 , - I _ . • . •I �. #°I'Aa :,•r � �AG►s y VO ,. � `�9I 11 ilia!! lr $s • +/! - r // [LT4C 1 1 ... -� M CR - LA RAQNUCINHTt? A yrr � I C �t�� e�+'� �'� (; �r.t• j +�g 1. r"y i. i•' '�!U�I•Ct' Y: N;4 }� SQ T���N — , aISL►ST� ^ .:1 Y �y ! •} =1 arrrllJrrr` •+Q9.�;F�k =#V TIM,�IT� rtt yam• l,AO�►�' j• R r ti w :y'�- q •y+?a.+{ =. .ii OYt via a rA S 1Pagr�i QVIYES .� '� fT��fr::'�"��. .;'- ,*'F`� •I �f/lnhVti' �k• 30 '+�l _ ,u;:Cd'�RSf w..�., wrr is 'Dplf� 'p�y it • r +Rl- AV�L'�'t�9un�. r �l ' *fir. wrL� —t•� r l VALLY ! i yxy���y r _7SE' °i �� *' 4o r sAe esu w t T CI r � 5 LA QWNTA i JS�A i 11 i 5 1 11 y_- I # • 1 r err I GOLF Jt caxpA F 1 pp �`- -•" I 91 TENNIS RESORT 3�. f C 0giN3 30 .. •,g P Q' ` LL UiI.HrrOUSC,:.• (j., ::.,M�A;+�_y , PAINTED COVE ca�f►r.FrD 1` IS,I - I LT+LAsI•" � � � .d17s'<'�r; _R`�' ' � RrvER Roca RD � - =. ■ � ":, ��.ISI+'!'G`3 ��. —I_ —M _ -� 1A`*s 40`'= 1+i°6;i •. 1`u . x a aI' "svo�° i DRCA1ai.'I li'S1ID (jAN{S1Ay J! r I4n.Jr�,1 9,y AV $+q r ii>iHV1lI I� oM ,w V - ' "Z/jf , .,q �, ir+� :. rr Yy� _ ..•r - y� i u _ �3 S $1TiCi KY.zL CJti �3/;, CLUe++ousr ; ULnM L_ rR U GUM11A..rr Y I+ A r r Id rA ~} {' , ' •' - ilfOilkTAlN COURSE t 33� a � G la ` I so " IO ¢ m uOd]+`NTA • �S�i�Qtl �-.t '• - O tir O 2 ¢ ir� w GE w ' �s Ii IYni+s+ r ,:. It , Pi! %irr -o •rp > > > < ° '"' LA OUINFA T S' a¢r 'a`c•. a s � > z z m ° + I. i � exL� s COL�gRSO E 5 xr r SEr cc e CH -' 1 I O ¢ < s < i yAlil AVID v Avdu r— �IM1. I I' " L` Y CA AVFMIDA M : , , •s: -c 7 y C I AV ... e•. A E M A P NORTH CASE Na Ballroom Expansion Request SCALE: nts La Quinta Resort and Club � s � There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. The project site is located within NW -3, a designation for areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel. The Housing Element 'contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. The ballroom development will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in its construction. No other mitigation is required or feasible for this project. B. Would the project use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include, air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, metals, and other resources needed for construction. Any landscaping will also be required to. comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District for water management. 3.9 RISK OF UPSETAIIUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting _ Decent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948- Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the recorded past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? FM Less than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance of the ballroom facilities. No other risks have been identified or are anticipated. B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Then Significant Impact. Construction and excavation activities will be confined to the proposed parking lot area where the building will be sited, except for minimal off - site work as will be necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency responses to the resort complex or the surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed ballroom. Any hazards would be less than significant. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no existing health hazards on the proposed project site. The proposed ballroom is not expected to create any health hazards, as long as OSHA and County Health Department safety regulations are followed by employees. The ballroom will be required to conform to zoning standards and all applicable health and safety codes of the City. E. Would the proposed involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed project site is an existing paved parking lot within a developed resort complex. There is no flammable vegetation near the project site. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic noise from Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Femando, the closest paved roads. 0 R Residential areas are considered noise - sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. The nearest residential use is located within the resort complex. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Any increase in vehicular noise resulting from the development of the ballroom is anticipated to be insignificant. The existing (1992) noise levels for the project site range between 50 to 60 dBA. Staff has determined that the proposed ballroom is most compatible with the Auditorium/Concert Hall land use category in Table 6.3 of the La Quinta MEA. Table 6.3, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL), indicates that this land use has a normally acceptable noise range of 55 to 60 dBA, and that above this range is unacceptable. In order for ballroom to have a less than significant noise impact, the operational noise levels will not be able to exceed 60 dBA/CNEL . Construction materials and design, should take noise containment and reduction into account for the ballroom B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City be establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Auditorium and Concert Hall land uses should have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 60' dBA. If the ambient noise level is higher than this standard, then it will serve as the standard. The proposed project will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels - ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The Municipal Code regulates construction hours to which the developer must comply. ( Source: La Quinta General Plan) . 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement service are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City at buildout. Based on this standard, the City is currently underserved. Fire protection service is provided to the City, by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station 432 on Old Avenue 52, at Ae. Bermudas, and Station 470, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved. The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Structural fires and fires from other man -made features are the most significant fire threats in the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. These schools are within the Desert Sands Unified School District. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and contains 2,065 square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes. The County unadopted planning standards are 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements. Utilizing these standards, in 1992, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility located in the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center. The Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility is a satellite clinic of the Eisenhower Medical Center, located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the project is Station #32 located approximately one mile southeast. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center and by County, State, and federal agency offices in the desert and region. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The development of the project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of 37,000 square feet of building area. The development shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required. Other code requirements (such as fire sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) will be required. B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? 0 -0 Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department responded with comments on this project. They had no negative comment and stated that the project will not significantly impact the Sheriffs Department's ability to provide services. Ample exterior and address lighting is requested by the Department. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to payment of school impact fees to mitigate potential impacts on local schools. D. Would the project have an effect upon,,or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities including roads. No Impact. The roadways within the resort complex are privately maintained, thus there will be no impact upon maintenance of public roads. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, planning, and inspection services provided by the City will be partially offset by application fees charged to the developer. Business license and code enforcement services will be provided by the City of La Quinta. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and the Southern California Gas Company'(SCG) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. lID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and Hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Colony Cablevision services the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from 13 wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The W 2& City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting There is an existing storm drainage system in place at the resort complex. Runoff is directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities exist at the project site. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations Jo power and gas services? Less Than Significant impact. Power, sewer, and gas lines has been brought in to the resort complex. The proposed ballroom facilities will require sewer, water, natural gas, and electricity. The projected electrical consumption has been calculated to be 1.039 kWH per day. Natural gas consumption is calculated at 2,434 cubic feet per day. (Source: Utiligen) B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant impact. The proposed ballroom will require service from GTE .or another purveyor for telephone communication. It is anticipated that an internal �. communication system will be installed in the ballroom that is an extension of the existing system at the resort complex. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom facility will require water service. It is not anticipated that the development will result in any significant adverse impact. on local water resources. Water consumption is calculated at 8,880 gallons per day for the project. (Source: Utiligen) D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection to the sewer system. Sewage generation is calculated at 7,400 gallons per day for the project. (Source: Utiligen) E. Would the project result is a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? 0 0 S Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is current an existing paved parking lot. There will be no additional pavement as a result of the construction of the ballroom. There is an existing storm drainage system within the resort complex. That system will serve this project. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will require solid waste disposal service from Waste Management of the Desert or other purveyor. Solid waste may be transported to the three existing landfills in the Coachella Valley. These landfills are reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Any on -site programs for recycling will be coordinated with Waste Management. Solid waste generation for this project is calculated at 259 per day. (Source: La Quinta General Plan; Utiligen) 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. The project site is located in a developed resort complex ion the west central portion of the City. The proposed ballroom height will not exceed that of the existing buildings in the complex. Architectural style and exterior colors will match or be compatible with that of the existing buildings nearby. A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No impact. The project site is located within a resort complex, away from any public roadway. The proposed ballroom will not be seen from Eisenhower Drive, the closest public roadway. The new structure will not adversely impact scenic vistas. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will be required to comply with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City. Thus, there should not be a significant adverse impact upon the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant impact. The anticipated development of the ballroom will include exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the resort complex. All lighting fixtures shall be required to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and other current policies of the City concerning lighting issues. 0 W -1114 1 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The history of the La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. Early inhabitants of the Colorado Desert were people who had migrated across the Bering Strait more than 20,000 years ago. As their migration progressed, they passed through the Colorado Desert on their gradual way to Central America. As time past, the Coachella Valley became the home to a band of people that migrated from the Great Basin. Ethnographically these people are known as the Cahuilla. The Cahuilla followed a hunting and gathering life style as they lived along the ancient lakeshore and cove areas in the valley. The archaeological record, as it is known today, extends back almost 6,000 years. The Cahuilla were divided into three geographic areas: the Western or Pass Cahuilla within the Agua Caliente (Palm Springs) area, the Desert Cahuilla (from Pahn Springs east to the Salton Sea ), and the mountain Cahuilla (south to San Jacinto Peak in the Santa Rosa Mountains). Traveling across boundaries to exploit seasonal resources was a part of their annual life cycle and life way. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber estimated that the population prior to white contact (2500 individuals) has been reduced to about 750 by 1923. The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills, however, many sites have been found in the open desert floor area. Camp and village sites are usually located near sources of water, food, and shelter. Temporary camp sites have been found near game trails, springs, mesquite groves, grass stands, bedrock outcrops, marshy areas, or along the ancient lake shore line. isolated milling features, sparse lithic scatters, and isolated pottery scatters have been found almost anywhere in the City. In 1540, the first European explorer, Captain Hernando de Alarcon, entered Southern California at the Yuma crossing, which is located to the southeast of La Quinta. Approximately 100 years later, Spanish missionaries visited the area. A trail was established by the Cocomaricopa Indians across the Valley in 1821 as they carried mail through the San Gorgonio Pass between Tucson and Mission San Gabriel. White settlement in the Valley did not occur to any degree until the transcontinental railroads were constructed. The construction of the railroads brought with it the technology to drill water wells deep enough to sustain settlement in the valley. The Bradshaw Trail brought in settlers and freight both before and after the construction of the railroad. The Coachella Valley was the site of the most popular immigration route to the southwest via the Southern Immigrant Trail. The Bradshaw —trail route passed through the Valley until 1915 when a graded gravel road was developed for automobile travel- 0 0 -A The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. La Quinta experienced rapid growth in the late 1970's which lead to incorporation of the City in 1982. The City has grown from a population of approximately 5,400 in 1982 to over 16,000 in 1994. The incorporated boundaries currently include over 31 square miles of area. Local Environmental Setting he proposed project site is locate within a designated historic resources, the La Quinta Hotel. There are recorded archaeological sites to the west of the project site that are of a prehistoric and protohistoric date. There are over a dozen recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a mile radius of the project site. A. , Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant impact. No significant paleontological resources have been found on the hotel property or the near vicinity of the resort. The project site is on ground that is higher than the highest stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla, thus it is not anticipated that paleontological resources will be found in the project site. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Less than Significant Impact. There are several archaeological resources within a one mile radius of the project site. Both insignificant and significant sites have been recorded. Prior to any excavation of the underground parking garage, a qualified, City- approved archaeological monitor shall be' enlisted to perform monitoring of all excavation and trenching activities for the project. It is possible that subsurface cultural deposits exist at the project site given the close proximity of known archaeological sites. The requirement for such monitoring shall be made a condition of approval for the proposed project. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta Hotel is a designated local historic site. The hotel has also been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed ballroom addition will not impact the hotel structure or the old grounds around the hotel. The architectural design of the ballroom is in keeping with that of the historic portions of the resort complex. The project was reviewed by the City's historic Preservation Commission, which forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the project as proposed. 2$- D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unigpe cultural values? No Impact. The development of the ballroom will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses or sacred uses on the proposed project site or adjacent to it. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the subdivision of land for residential units, therefore, there are no park fees required of the proposed project. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. The anticipated ballroom project will not affect any existing park or recreation facility. (Source: La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan) SECTION 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for the proposed ballroom addition could have potentially significant adverse impacts on some of the environmental issues addressed in the checklist. The potential significance can be lessen to levels below significance if the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for this project based upon this environmental assessment. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of.the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: * The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. * The proposed project will not have impact which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. * The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES a. Earlier Analyses Used. Specific Plan 121 -E was approved in 1975 by Riverside County. The project.was required to prepare an EIR (EIR 41). This project proposed an expansion to the hotel complex with the construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, and 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse and service facilities on 619+ acres. In 1982, the Specific Plan was amended to allow and addition of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms. An environmental assessment was prepared for the revision which resulted in the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Five other subsequent amendments for revisions to the specific plan were approved through 1989, each with a Negative Declaration being certified by the City. This project was not part of the previous approvals and thus not assessed in associated environmental assessments. The convention building was not considered prior to this current request, with the exception of a traffic study prepared for the 1988 revision to add 340 units to the hotel. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Not applicable. C. Mitigation Measures. N= Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum where possible. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MAD) has been prepared for the project that will become a part of the conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits. �r f� PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -30 SUMV ARY RESPONSIBLE TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.2 POPULATION & ROUSING OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: None required by the City of La Quinta. CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: JUNE 27, 1995 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 631 - 370 -022 (PORTION) CASE NO: PLOT PLAN 95 -555 & SP121 -E, REVISED PROJECT STREET ADDRESS: 49-499 EISENHOWER DRIVE EA/EIR NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95 -304 APPROVAL DATE: JUNE 27, 1995 APPLICANT:GREG BURKHART /KSL THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH 41 THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.1 LAND USE & PLANNING Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment 3) part of northern parking lot OBJECTIVE: To permit development of ballroom facility MEASURE: Approval of Amendment to SP Community Prior to SP 121 -E, 121 -E prior to approval of Plot Development approval of PP Zoning Plan 95-555 Department 95 -555 Ordinance SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE NU TIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING 3.4 WATER Landscaping and irrigation OBJECTIVE: To conserve local groundwater supplies and quality. To provide appropriate landscaping materials and quality installation. MEASURE: Landscaping and irrigation plans Community to comply with Ordinance 220. Development Review by CVWD of landscaping Department, and irrigation plans. Engineering/Public Works Department PP 95 -555 q La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -305 TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY During all Ordinance 220; phases of CVWD; and construction and approved plans on -going operations DATE SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES 3.3 E -A R'i`3EI & GEOLOGY Drainage and grading impacts. OBJECTIVE: To limit impacts to local topography and geology. To provide for adequate drainage. MEASURE: RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING Comply with Pubic Works Public Works Department conditions regarding Department drainage and grading TIMING I CRITERIA Grading and Approved. construction drainage and phases grading plans PP 95 -555 La Qainta Hotel EA 95 -30t COMPLIANCE DATE CHECKED BY PP 95 -555 c� EA 95 La Quinta Hotel -306 SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 16 TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION Traffic and circulation hazards OBJECTIVE: To mitigate traffic and pedestrian hazards. To provide adequate roadway improvements to service the project. MEASURE: Comply wi th the ]Public Works Department requirements regarding street dedications, Public Works Grading and Approved easements, and street Department construction grading and improvements. phases road improvement plans MITIGATIMEASURI±S � FOR MONITORING I TIMING � CRITERIA 3.5 AIR QUALITY Suspended dust particles (PM10) OBJECTIVE: To prevent and control suspended dust particles in the local environment. To comply with all air quality standards by the South Coast Ai Quality Management District. MEASURE: Submit Fugitive Dust Control Public Works During all earth- Uniform Plan for approval. Comply with Department - disturbing and Building Code FDCP. Grading Inspectors, construction Chapter 70; SCAQMD Inspectors activities. SCAQMD; and Ordinance 219 - Fugitive Dust Control; FDCP PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 COMPLIANCE DATE CHECKED BY PP 95 -555 e� La Quinta Hotel EA 9S -30f SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE [:MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.8 ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: None required by the City of La Quinta. PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY DATE 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: None required by the City of IA Quinta r PP 95 -555 1A Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 3.9 RISK OF UPSET /HUMAN HEALTH Food service, utility line modifications, safety OBJECTIVE: To protect the public and 1 employees from health hazards and upset. MEASURE: i Compliance with all require - Riverside County Plan Check, Riverside ments of the County Health Health Department; Construction County Health Department and the Building and Building and Safety Phases Department, Safety Department for the City of Department UBC La Quinta PP 95 -555 r� La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -30f PP 95 -555 La Hotel EA 95 -301 Quinta UMMARY RESPONSIBLE TEW NG CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE TION :MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECI{ED BY C SERVICES F acts OBJECTWE: To offset impacts to local schools. MEASURE: Applicant to pay school impact Building and Safety Prior to Desert Sands fees established by Desert Sands Department issuance of any Unified School Unified School District, unless building District exempted by the School District permits Board. PP 95 -555 La Quint& Hotel EA 95 -30t SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.10 NOISE Temporary construction noise; operational noise. OBJECTIVE: To maintain ambient noise level for project area. MEASURE: Comply with ambient noise levels for the project area and comply Code Enforcement On-going La Quinta with all applicable local, regional, operations; General Plan; and State requirements. Construction La Quinta MEA Phases ,r PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE TIMING CRITFPTA COMPLIANCE DATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.13 AESTHETICS Architectural design, height of structure. OBJECTIVE: To maintain enhanced architectural design standards. MEASURE: Approval of architectural plans Community Planning, plan Approved by the Planning Commission and Development check, and architectural Historic Preservation Commission Department and construction plans is required, Building and Safety phases Department �k SUIVIl ARY RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING 3.12 UTILITIES Electricity Natural Gas Water Telephone Sewer OBJECTIVE: Coordinate infrastructure installation in a timely manner. MEASURE: PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY Applicant to coordinate with each Individually affected Prior to project Approved utility utility purveyor prior to grading utility company. completion plans or construction. Engineering/Public Worms Department DATE PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -34 SUNUMARY RESPONSIBLE TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.15 RECREATION OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: None required by the City of La Quint; PP 9S -S55 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE SUNIlW"Y RESPONSIBLE TIMING MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Archaeological resources. OBJECTIVE: To protect and mitigate any archaeological resources or sites. MEASURE: Monitoring of all excavations and Community During all Appendix K of trenching for on -site and off -site Development grading, CEQA improvements. Monitoring to be Department and trenching, and done by a qualified archaeologist Public Works excavation acceptable to the Community Department activities Development Department. PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: t i r PP 95 -555 La Quinta Hotel EA 95 -301 SUMMARY RESPONSIBLE TIl4'IING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE I DATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR MONITORING I CHECKED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 95 -304 Case No.: Plot Plan 95 -555 Date: JUNE 209 1995 SP 121 -E, Revised, Amendment #3 Name of Proponent: K.SL DEVELOPMENT Address: 49 -499 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta Phone: 619 -564 -4111 Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF LA QUINTA Project Name (if applicable): LA QUINTA HOTEL & GOLF BALLROOM CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 3.1. 3:2. 3.3. n; LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? C) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)' Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? C) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? EARTH AND GEOLOGY: Would the project result in or, expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? X X X X Potentially Potentially Significant Les Than Significant Unless Significant No Impart Mitigated Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X X X. X X X X X H. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation /Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect 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, if the effect is a " potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated. " AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature Date Printed Name and Title: LESLIE J. MOURIQUAND, Associate Planner For: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA M1 3.7. M TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? C) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? - C) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak_ forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Lem Than Unless Significant No Midgated Impact Impact X X X X X X X 1� Potentially Potentially Significant Lrm Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water may? X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of X water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge. X capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? X b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X C) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? X d) Create objectional odors? X �I 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X C) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Potentially Potentially Significant Lzss Than . Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? X C) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 3.12. UTILI'T'IES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X 3.13. AESTHETICS, Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X C) Create light or glare? X 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X C) Affect historical resources? X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Potemually Potentially Significant Less Than S'gniflcant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal X pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and X inefficient manner? 3.9. RISK OF UPSET /HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil; pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X C) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X grass, or trees? 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: X a) Fire protection? 3.15. 4. Potentialty Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Midgated Impact impact RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of other recreational facilities? X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short - term, to the disadvantage of long - term, environmental X goals? C) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," describe the mitigation :m.easures which were "imcorporated or refi*ted frc�rn the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. „� s • Resolution 95- WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation of the specific plan amendment: That Revised Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #3, as conditionally approved, 's consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Zoning Code. 2. The proposed amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed Revised Specific Plan 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 95 -304, indicating that the proposed specific plan amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be filed. 3. That it does hereby approve of the above - described amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan 95 -555 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of July, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California RESOCC 157 RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT 93 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #3) KSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION WHEREAS, the La Quinta Hotel was originally built in 1926; and, WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E/EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooi3s, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the master plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) and 1989 (Amendment 2) permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 27th day of June, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider,the request of the Hotel Association of Palm Springs to amend the aforementioned specific plan to allow a new 16,000 square foot ballroom and other associated facilities including a new sub -level parking garage; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 5th day of July, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the Hotel Association of Palm Springs to amend the aforementioned specific plan to allow a new 16,000 square foot ballroom and other associated facilities including a new sub -level parking garage, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION 36, T5S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study, and has determined that the proposed Specifc Plan Amendment v,-! not have a sitgnificant. adverse impact on the environment; and, R.E occ 157 Resolution 95 -_ ATTEST:. SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAIjI N HONEY`NEA -, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RESOCC 157 L11- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SP 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT 3) (LA QUINTA HOTEL'BALLROOM) JULY 5 1995 Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment 3) shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This specific plan approval shall expire and become void an June 27, 1997, unless extended pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Plot Plan 95- 555. } 4. The total number of single family homes/hotel rooms that will be allowed in the Specific Plan area shall be 1,494 (i.e., 775 units, 719 rooms). CONAPRVL.157 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED PLOT PLAN 95.555 (LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM) JUNE 27, 1995 * Modified by the Planning Commission on 6 -27.95 ** Added by the Planning Commission on 6.27.95 GENERAL 1. Plot Plan 95.555 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Ouinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This plot plan approval shall expire and become void on June 27, 1996, unless extended automatically pursuant to the City's Updated Zoning Ordinance. 3. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan 121 -E Revised (Amendment #3). 4. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 5. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be installed shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Department. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83.002 and Plot Plan 95.555, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of The Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83.002 and Plot Plan 95 -555, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigating measures of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83 -002 and Plot Plan 95.555. The Community Development Director may require inspections or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 7. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public. Wars Department for review end approval b`{ the �;;ty Engineer. CONAPRAJ 54 o • Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95.555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a subphasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) C -11 ity Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures an the plans. Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. D, Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 10. Site improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" X 36" media. All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed. If water and sewer plans are included on the site improvement plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal -for the City Engineer's signature. �V T r 11. Prior to issuance of any permit for construction of structures or site improvements approved or required under this plot plan, the applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's required share of future improvements to be constructed by others (deferred improvements). Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 Deferred improvements for this development include: A.* One half of the cost, or $25,000, whichever is less, for design and installation of median landscaping and irrigation improvements in Eisenhower Street for the full length of the La Quinta Hotel frontage, The City will credit the applicant for the previous costs incurred by Landmark Land Company when they prepared landscape plans for the median on Eisenhower Drive a few years ago. The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the deferred improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. sTnEET AND TRAFFIC liu'IPIf'OVI* ENTS 12. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets, access gates and parking lots shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20 -year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction traffic. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential and Parking Areas 3.0 "14.5" Collector 4.0 "15.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0 "16.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "16.00" Major Arterial 5.5 "16.50" If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section which will be subjected to traffic, the partial section shall be designed with the 20 -year design strength. GBADING 13. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 14. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ( "the soils report ") shall be submitted with the grading plan. 15. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 0 0 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 16. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 17. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad in the development, state the pad elevation approved on the grading'plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by development phase and lot number and shall be cumulative. if the data is submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 18. All 100 -year storm water run -off shall be retained on -site unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the developer is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. I!F;Un1iU2 N 20. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer if landscaping is adjacent to a public streetls). The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the Community Development Director or City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. MAINTENALM 21. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual maintenance of private street and drainage facilities, landscaping, and other improvements required by these conditions. FEES AND DEPOSITS 22. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95.555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 FIRE MARSHAL 23.' or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 4000 gpm for a three hour duration, at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 24. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s)(6" X 4" X 2' /Z ") located not less than 25- feet or more than 165 -feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicantldeveloper shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 26. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 27. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group I. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50 -feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 -feet from the building. 28. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a planlinspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 29. Install a manual pull, smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code /Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standards 72. 30. Install Knox Key Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting locationlposition and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 31. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve 112) months. 32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1OBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95.555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 UTILITIES 33. All existing and proposed utilities within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High - voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 34. The applicant shall abandon all unneeded sewer and water service laterals in this development and install new laterals as required. 35. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. OUALITY AaURANCE 36. The applicant shall employ site improvement construction quality - assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. MISCELLANEOUS 37. The developer shall submit an interim parking plan to the Community Development Department for approval if work on the expansion request is to occur between the months' of January to April. The plan will identify the parking areas for employees, guests and workers during on -site construction. The plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the Fire Marshal before work begins. Special consideration shall be made to ensure that the development proposal does not affect the surrounding residents. Parking on Avenida Fernando should be discouraged, if possible. 38. The California Fish and Game Environmental filing fees shall be paid within 24 -hours after review of the case by City Council. The fee is $1,250 plus $78.00 for processing by Riverside County (checks to be made out to Riverside County). 39. The developer shall submit to the Director of Community Development their existing Transportation Demand Management Plan for review to insure compliance with Chapter 9.162 of the Municipal Code. " A plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District will meet this requirement. 40.** Metal gates will be installed on the front of the service dock to screen the facility from view of Avenida Fernando when the recessed bay is not being used for delivery purposes. C DNA PRVL.154 ATTACHMENTS Project Boundary are) � sQ 104 MOUNTAINS �[��[ w. •.. •rrr �� E p4 @MK [[5ff4 n "" SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE r r �►� .�J r k ."4 porn cox&u J.P. OAVIO4ON A640CIATG• .Mow".ulnp.r� aru [- �. r...,... Total Acres= 621.4 acres Density = 1.8 du/ac. (Total Project) Units = 1.133.0 (includes Hotel Rooms) G i > WEIR~ xx Avenida Fernando w [....... v�: .° Jr Y A 5.[4ift : ■ � z RAM - — Ir �aa 1�... x v O f Avenue 50 . _ Seth .. call •1 'i �e r'_ ! � J +� C.v.t alr. Ilww IwCU.T... 4W+�. -1 ,I•r�•� � � MOUNTAIN4 _ -- Project Boundary Calle Tampico CASE MAP CASE No. S"rr-%irIu rLAN -- rna "JiNG 1975 Approval by County of Riverside � 5 r 4&� 1NORT H SCALE: nts d n, U.H. C) t OAV104&cwl Total Acres 638.2 acres f Density = 2.4 du/ac. (Total Project) Units 1,558.0 (includes Hotel Rooms % Project Boundary 2 wr-e) SPECIFIC POLAN OFF LAND USE Jai-JE C. CASE 4b Calle Tampico 11 LVA, ]KA % CASE Na. Revised Specific Plan 121 -E 1982 Approval 76 J( ( La Quinta Country Club NORTH ,9 kCJ. A L t— , n t s DATE: CASE NOS.: REQUESTS: 1. ) Filt. copy PH #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION June 27, 1995 SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, Revised (AMENDMENT 3) AND PLOT PLAN 95 -555 CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; 2.) APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ELIMINATION OF PART OF THE NORTHERN PARKING LOT OF THE LA QUINTA RESORT & CLUB; AND 3.) PLOT PLAN APPROVAL TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 37,000 SQ. FT. BUILDING ADDITION, WHICH INCLUDES A BALLROOM AND SUPPLEMENTAL FACILITIES WITH A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE IN THE R -3 ZONE ON PART OF A 17.8 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: 1000 -FEET WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF AVENIDA FERNANDO WFF,61flalvllEhlf 1) APPLICANT: GREG BURKHART, CHIEF ENGINEER FOR THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB PROPERTY OWNER: KSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION ARCHITECT: GIN WONG AND ASSOCIATES .GENERAL PLAN: TC (TOURIST COMMERCIAL) ZONING: R -3 (GENERAL RESIDENTIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95 -304 FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED UPON THIS n:+�nnw�wT TIJC o 1 f^T COULD 1'1 V \/C AA IMPACT �'T ! 1-IS PROJECT COULD � A v a.. AN ..-,. AC . UPON THE ENVIRONMENT, UNLESS MITIGATION MEASURES ARE IMPLEMENTED WHICH LESSEN THE IMPACTS —10 AN INSIGNIFICANT LEVEL. THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE 'DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR CERTIFICATION. PCGT.117 1. The hotel was designed by Mr. Gordon Kaufman and built in 1926. The design theme of the hotel is early California Mediterranean because the hotel was made from natural materials (i.e., adobe brick and clay tiles handcrafted at the site). The hotel initially consisted of 56 guest Casita units. 2. Specific Plan 121 -E /EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) was processed by the County of Riverside for the Elkee Corporation to enlarge the hotel complex in the early 1970's. The plan authorized construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms (76 rooms existed), 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and service facilities on 619+ acres. The specific plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County in 1975 4Attec�. 3. At the request of Landmark Land Company, the master .plan layout was subsequently amended in 1982 to allow an addition of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms. The revised plan was approved to increase project acreage to 638 + acres and add additional dwelling units and hotel rooms. The revised plan increased the project to 916 condominium units and 642 hotel rooms (i.e., 1,558 units). The City of La Quinta accepted the development., plan in 1982 An environmental assessment was prepared the 1982 revision, which resulted in the adoption of a Negative Deciaratioi .. 4. Tract Map 14496 was processed in 1979 by Landmark Land Company to allow 591 single family condominium units on 122 acres. The subdivided portions excluded the golf course lots created by Parcel Map 14273. This tract included all properties west of Eisenhower Drive and was to be built in seven phases. However, only three phases were built. This area makes up the Santa Rosa condominium project. The other existing residential areas were remapped under separate subdivision map applications (i.e., Tracts 21120, 25237, and 23813). 5. In December 1987, Plot Plan 87 -387 was approved by the City expanding the hotel by 342 rooms to 603 rooms. Also added were 69,192 sq. ft. of ancillary hotel uses (i.e., restaurants, offices, etc.) with 876'off- street parking spaces. Five existing structures were removed. A traffic study was also completed with the project. The Council required the applicant to post funds to insure that traffic signals would be.built on Eisenhower Drive. 6. Plot Plan 88 -393 and Specific Plan 121 -E (Amendment 1) were approved by the City in 1988. The approval permitted construction of a new maintenance facility and overflow employee parking lot west of Avenida Obregon north- ;} Calle Mazatlan. PCGT.117 7 Q 7. In May 1989, Plot Plan 88 -412 was approved expanding the hotel by 38 rooms to 641 rooms. 8: Landmark Land Company processed a- second amendment to the Specific Plan and Plot Plan 89 -421 in 1989,. The approvals eliminated one championship tennis court, a small tennis club building, and several adjacent parking spaces and replaced them with 77 additional hotel rooms within a 2 -story courtyard- style building. This site is located west of Avenida Obregon between Avenida Fernando and Calle Mazatlan. This expansion project was approved but never built. 9. At this time, the resort- oriented community consists of the 640 -room hotel with its convention facilities (i.e., 30,000 sq. ft. of exhibit space), restaurants and office /retail space. The resort also has three 18 -hole Pete Dye golf courses, 25 swimming pools, 38 spas and a tennis club. Private (gated) residential housing complexes that were part of SP 121 -E (Revised) surround the site. The following residential summary is provided based on development in the project for the last ten years: A. Santa Rosa Cove - 334 residential units (6 lots vacant) B. The Enclave /Mountain Estates - 91 residential custom lots (59 currently vacant) C. Los Estados - 40 residential units D. Tennis Complex - The number of units approved was 200, but only 48 were built on part of the site. There is still some vacant property left for expansion of.this use. E. East side of Eisenhower Drive - The number of units approved in concept was 110. This area is vacant at this time. Note: The number of residential units has been reduced from 916 to 775 based on subdivision map approvals. The hotel complex is located approximately 1,000 feet west of Eisenhower Drive south of Avenida Fernando. Avenida Fernando is a two lane (private) street serving the northern portion of the La Quinta Resort & Club and other adjacent residential properties. The existing site is developed with paved parking for the hotel complex. At this time, there are 324 parking spaces in this northern -most parking lot. The main access driveway into the hotel registration is south from Avenida Fernando, off of Eisenhower Drive. PCGT.117 North: R -1, Existing Single Family Homes /Vacant Properties South: R -3, Existing Hotel Facilities East: R -3, Existing Hotel Facilities West: R -3, Existing Hotel Facilities The applicant is proposing to eliminate part of the northern -most parking lot servicing the hotel /restaurants and replace it with a new single level, 37,000 sq. ft. building (i.e., 18,300+ sq. ft. ballroom and additional supplement facilities) attached to the two -story portion of the hotel. The parking is to be replaced below the new building in a subterranean (basement) garage. The sublevel parking lot will accommodate 91 parking spaces. Seventy -six parking spaces will be lost even with the new sublevel parking area as proposed. The new addition will double the size of the hotel's convention /ballroom space. The new expansion will be approximately 50 -feet south of Avenida Fernando. The ballroom entry is on the east side of the building. Access into the sublevel parking area will be on the north side of the new ballroom. Service access is also provided in this area and along the existing service lane to the west of the proposed building,_ The new building is rectangular and measures approximately 185 -feet by 240 -feet. The architectural theme is consistent with the Spanish -style character (1920s Theme Architecture) of the existing hotel. Parking will be provided on all sides except the south side of the building which attaches to the existing hotel.- A new pedestrian arcade will be established replacing the existing stamped concrete walkway. The new single story addition is approximately the same height as the existing two -story facility. The total height of the building varies because different roof heights have been provided. The tallest portions of the building occur at the ballroom (32 -feet) and the theme tower (39- feet). The renderings suggest that the new addition will be similar in height to the existing two -story structures to the south. They are also comparable in overall height to the existing Salon de Fiesta. The Zoning Code allows buildings to be no higher than 50 -feet in height for leasable areas.' This height excludes architectural projections such as towers. This building is consistent with these guidelines. A new landscape design theme has been submitted for this project. The applica= PCGT.117 would like to replace some existing Mexican Fan Palms, in the parking lot, with Southern Live Oak trees. This change is being proposed because the existing palms do not provide adequate shade for customers during the summer months. However; palms will still be used along some portions of the parking lot and next to the new pedestrian arcade. Southern Live Oaks are used locally, and can be seen at the Rancho La Quinta Country Club, in their parking lot, or at the Ralph's Shopping Center, in Palm Desert, on Cook Street. This large tree was depicted in the original Landmark Land logo. The site is designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan as Tourist Commercial. This means: "Primarily businesses specifically oriented to the tourist and resort industry. Destination resort hotels, convention - oriented hotels /motels, eating and drinking establishments, accessory retail and personal service businesses, and recreation uses such as golf, tennis and equestrian facilities." The maximum building height allowed is 3- stories. The property is currently Zoned R -3 (General Residential) which allows hotels, resort hotels, and motel uses in Chapter 9.52 (Item 5) of the Municipal Code. Therefore, the Zoning Code and General Plan are consistent with this project request. According to SP 121 -E (Revised), the function of this document is to serve as an implementation device for the long -range development of the "La Quinta Cove Golf and Tennis Club." The specific plan allowed the transfer of densities to permit clustered condominium housing and associated recreational uses. The case was advertised in the Desert 5un Newspaper on June 5, 1995, and all property owners in the Specific Plan.area plus adjacent landowners were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice, before the public hearing, as required by the City's Municipal Code. No written comments were received from the adjacent property owners. Staff mailed to all public agencies a copy of the applicant's development plan on May 11, 1995. No negative responses have been received. All agency comments are on file with staff. The applicants` have contacted the two property, single family, homeowners to the north of this, development request. On June 7, the applicants told staff that both owners were aware of their expansion plans. Also at that time, the applicants had PCGT.117 stated that they would be meeting with the other existing Homeowners' Associations------- in the Specific Plan area to make them aware of their application. Addition 1 information will be available at the meeting. Based on a survey, taken in 1992, by the Inland Empire Business Journal, the La Quinta Hotel was the second largest hotel in the Valley in terms of hotel rooms. However, in terms of meeting space accommodations, the hotel was ranked 6th. The following information is provided: 1. Marriott (P.D.) 985 rooms /51,000 sq.ft. 2. La Quinta Hotel 640 rooms /30,000 sq.ft. 3. Stouffers O.Wj 560 rooms /33,000 sq.ft. 4. Westin (R.M.) 512 rooms /75,000 sq.ft. 5. Riviera (P.S.) 480 rooms /50,000 sq.ft. 6. Marriott (R.M.) 450 rooms /29,700 sq.ft. 7. Wyndham (P.S.) 410 rooms /26,497 sq.ft. S. Doubletree (C.C.) 368 rooms /14,600 sq.ft. 9. Hyatt (I.W.) 336 rooms /17,000 sq.ft. 10. Marquis (P.S.) 264 rooms /32,000 sq.ft. 11. Hilton (P.S.) 260 rooms /15,000 sq.ft. 12. Ramada (P.S.) 241 rooms/ 7,200 sq.ft. 13. Ritz - Carlton (R.M.) 240 rooms /11,642 sq.ft. Note: This information is provided for general purposes only. KSL did a market survey of this area and other large developments in California and Arizona this year. They examined ratios between number of rooms and interior meeting room space. Based on this survey, their hotel came out fifty percent (50 %) lower than other comparable facilities. This new addition would make their facility in -line with the Scottsdale Princess, Westin La Paloma (Tucson), and other larger facilities in the Valley. In discussions with KSL personnel, convention facilities have a great deal to do with large firms coming to a hotel for extended periods. This marketing edge .would be reduced with the new expansion request by the applicant. The specific plan in 1982 required a supplemental environmental review for all future discretionary permits. Therefore, staff has prepared an environmental assessment to analyze the effects of this proposal under current standards and guidelines. Attached for your review and consideration is the Environmental Check ' accompanied by staff's explanations for "Yes", "Maybe", and "No" answers. ilea_ be advised that all recommended mitigation measures will be included as Conditions PCGT.117 Q13 of Approval. Based on the completed environmental analysis, staff is recommending certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project (Atteehment 4 . The Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the expansion plans by KSL on May 18, 1995. The Commission felt the new addition was compatible with the existing architecture of the hotel although the adjacent portion of the hotel is not a historical structure because it was built in the last ten years. Typically, historic buildings are 50 years or older. The final vote of approval was 4-0 -1 (Mr. Pallette was absent). The current parking requirement for this project would be: 1. Hotel (640 rooms) @ 2 spaces /room = 1,280 spaces 2. Restaurants @ 1/50 sq.ft. (public area) = 123 spaces 3. Retail /Ofc. @ 1/250 sq.ft. (lease area) — 120 spaces Total = 1,523'spaces Note: Conference areas /ballrooms- can be excluded if it is determined that the r facilities are primarily for on -site guests or patrons. Otherwise, the total number of parking spaces needed would be 2,923. The Off- Street Parking Code does provide that applicants can provide "shared parking" plans if certain standards are met. Compact parking spaces have been proposed in this new application request. The existing Off- Street Parking Code permits compact parking up to 20 percent of the required total. Based on the applicant's request, no more than 206 spaces could be compact spaces; provided the spaces are not less than 8Y2 -feet by 16 -feet (e.g., 1,032 X .2 = 206). Generally, the compact spaces will be created by restriping based on the attached exhibits. In 1989, during the review of the hotel addition (38 rooms), the City received various letters of opposition from the Santa Rosa Cove homeowners. One letter summarized the general concern of the residents: "We do not oppose properly controlled growth, and hotels in that total area apparently find it necessary to expand in order to stay competitive. However, the La Quinta Hotel should be forced to provide ample parking for both overnight and special event guests and also its employees. The streets in our subdivision were not approved by the City to accommodate hotel guests." "Our home is on Calle Estrella, close to the south side of the La Quinta Hotel, and even now on weekends there are cars on our street with hotel guest cards on their dashboards. If this becomes a serious problem, I would propose all PCGT.117 'W such cars be towed away by. order of the Santa Rosa Cove Association. The .. hotel would be the loser with irate guests, but if they do not provide prop` ^ j parking, they would deserve it." Staff has included this statement to make the Commission aware of this previous correspondence because we might receive new correspondence from residents in the immediate area. Staff has received a few letters of opposition from some homeowners in the specific plan area. Based on these letters, staff felt that reviewing some transportation statements from the past twenty years was appropriate. They are as follows: "The major loop street in the project area will have a 66 -foot right -of -way. The feeder streets will be 60 feet wide and cul -de -sacs are 50 feet in width. All streets will be privately maintained by the homeowners' association. The streets will be developed according to Riverside County standards." (Page 12 - 1975 Specific Plan document) "The project could generate about 6,000 trips per day; approximately ,50% would be'north on Eisenhower; 25% south on Eisenhower; and 251/16 east on 50th Avenue. Assuming 10% of traffic occurs during peak hour, 300 trips ' be generated on Eisenhower north, 150 trips on Eisenhower south, and trips on 50th Avenue east. In all cases, the ultimate route capacities will not be exceeded due to traffic generated by the project." (Page 111 - 1975 SP document) "The Landmark Company Chief Security Officer has provided an estimate of 600 daily two -way trips on Avenida Fernando (a private internal hotel circulation roadway) and 500 daily trips for the main hotel entrance. During 1986, gate log records indicate that daily volumes through the private gate to the west were approximately 275 trips daily. Records thus far in 1987 indicate a daily volume of approximately 370 trips. In order to be liberal in capacity calculations, the security office's estimate has been increased to 750 trips for this study." Additionally, ". .. the expansion project (342 hotel rooms) is expected to generate an additional 1,400 trips (700 in - 700 out) ". (Pages 5 and 7 - 1987 J.F. Davidson Traffic Report) Based on the above information plus past additions, the following vehicle trip generation figures are presented: PC ;T. 117 1975 Project 637 units @ 6.2 vt /d 496 rooms @ 4.1 vt /d Total 1989 Project 916 units @ 6.2 vt /d 718 rooms @ 4.1 vt /d Total 3,966 trips per day 2,034 trips per day 6,000 trips per day = 5,679 trips per day 2,943 trips per day 8,622 trips per day We can attribute the increase in traffic coming and going from this project to both the residential units and the hotel. The project's access points on Eisenhower Drive were developed so traffic would be evenly distributed from this master planned site. The 1989 traffic figure is an ultimate figure, and it was based on an enlargement of the property by adding 21 acres. These traffic figures will be less if the number of units (or rooms) in the project is reduced as part of this application request. The existing Zoning Code allows developers to submit shared parking programs using the Urban Land Institute (ULI) standards and local adopted data. In 1987, during review of the hotel expansion project, a Shared Parking Study was submitted and approved by the City that allowed the applicant of record, Landmark Land Company, to have 950 (peak -hour) parking spaces for their expansion request. The study was prepared by JF Davidson and Associates of Palm Desert KSL has submitted their parking proposal to the City for their expansion request. (The document can be found in the spiral bond document in your packet.) The document was prepared by International Parking Design, Inc. of Sherman Oaks. Their conclusion is that at 9:00 p.m. the amount of parking needed (peak hour) to hold patrons and visitors will be 1,032 spaces. Therefore, the minimum number of parking spaces allowed for the hotel complex would be 1,032 per Chapter 9.160.035 of the Municipal Code. This plan meets this requirement. The ULI Study identified restaurants and hotels as having peak periods of customers in the evening with midday patronage at 30 to 50 percent. Many factors influence the demand for parking spaces in a particular location: type and intensity of land use, availability and design of. parking space, parking fees, service levels of transportation, other than the automobile, and income level of the population. For planning purposes, it is easier to use the measure of building space units (floor area, for example) rather than employees, because forecasts of employment are usually not accurate or available. The ULI Study recommends that floor area include gross leasable area and exclude space used for lobbies, hallways, elevators, me-chanical equipment, etc. The study states: "in effect, most major, high - quality hotels are self - contained, multi -use developments containing major restaurants /lounges, banquet /meeting rooms, and convention facilities in addition to the guest rooms. PCGT.117 Because of this factor, hotel parking demand is complex and subject to substantial,, day -to -day variation. Room occupancy changes, as does the use of the additionr" 1) facilities. Therefore, the parking demand at a major hotel is best understood in terms of activity levels and corresponding parking demand of each major component." In the past, the City has received a few complaints from surrounding residents concerning outdoor functions at the existing hotel. The complaints seem to have surfaced when private. parties at the Tennis Complex were held. Staff received complaints that amplified music was used and the party went beyond 11:00 p.m.. They lodged the complaints after the private event. Previously, KSL Management have spoken with staff about this problem, and have stated that they would discourage outdoor events that have amplified music. This expansion should help to eliminate any future need to have outdoor events at the Tennis Complex in the evening if we permit this expansion request. If the Commission believes the City should regulate this issue, a specific plan condition should be added that states: "No amplified music or groups larger than 100 people shall be allowed at the Tennis Complex after 10:00 p.m.. A Minor Temporary Outdoor Event permit shall be obtained from City staff if more than 500 people gather outdoors for a public function on the hotel grounds if admission is being charged. All public concerts (i.e., live bands, etc.) shall be held in an enclosed building designed to hold large groups of people." The evolution of the project area to date has been to reduce the number of condominium units that were originally plotted in 1982 while increasing the number of hotel rooms through purchase of additional land inside the project boundaries. The reduction in the number of homes can be attributed to market demands that dictate larger single family homes and other design changes during the tentative tract map process. Staff presently estimates that 141 homes will probably not be built in the project area, thus reducing the general impact of the project on the City and immediate area around the specific plan area. In 1987/88, the City discussed having the hotel contribute toward the installation of a new traffic signal at Avenida Fernando and Eisenhower Drive and possibly the hotel entrance to the south (Plot Plan 87 -387). The signals were to be installed if traffic levels warranted them. The applicant was obligated to contribute 50 percent of the cost of the signal(s). The City is currently designing the signal that will be installed at Avenida Fernando to help traffic movement in this area based on warrant demands. The Conditions of Approval do not address this issue because it is covered in 1988 requirements of Plot Plan 87 -387. Installation of the nom:, traffic signal will help traffic movement in this area, and allow safer exiting fr, ) PCGT.117 s 0 Avenida Fernando onto Eisenhower Drive, a major public street. KSL has been working with the City's Engineering Department to accommodate this past obligation. Ballroom: The project is architecturally compatible with the existing buildings of the hotel complex. The design features match those features used in various areas of the hotel complex. The location was chosen based on the applicant's need to have the ballroom facilities close to the existing restaurant facilities. The existing campus -style design of the hotel does not allow the applicant much flexibility in placing the structure in another area of the property. Initially, staff felt that another site should be explored for the ballroom building because the existing Plaza parking (324 spaces) area is an important parking area for restaurant /convention patrons. However, after additional review of the proposal with the subterranean parking area, we feel the addition is appropriate for the site since the minimum number of on -site parking spaces will be provided based on the developer's shared parking study. 5ubl :vel 'arks ng Qarac .: Staff was initially uncomfortable with the planned access point into the sublevel parking garage. We thought the developer should have the access point on the east side of the building. We felt that one of the proposed four two -way access lanes (possibly the third one) should be ramping down to the lower level since traffic movement to the parking lot usually occurs from the south (from the registration area) or Avenida Fernando. However, after discussion with the developer, they stated that they are planning to restructure many of their underground, utilities during construction and this type of change could affect their needs. They understood that accessing the garage from the west would be difficult, but they believe traffic movement will be from the east and not from the west. This was their reason for placing the access point on the north side of the ballroom. They also pointed out that if the access point for the garage was on the east, it would impact their proposed drop -off lane. They assume the underground garage will be used for the hotel's valet service rather than by the self - parking guest. Parking During, Construction; Parking could be a major problem. during the construction of this expansion request. The loss of parking in this area during construction could be severe if work is done - between the months of January.to April. Staff would request that the developer submit a temporary parking program that can identify how they will help traffic movement in and around the hotel should the expansion request occur in these time frames. However, if work commences and is completed before January, staff feels comfortable that the applicant can adequately provide parking areas for their employees and guests (Plot Plan Condition_ 37). Transanrtation Demand _ anaaeMeal Elan: We have devoted much discussion in this report to parking and related problems during future construction. Accordingly, making sure that the Hotel /Resort has a current Transportation Demand Management Plan (i.e., ride - sharing, etc.) is important to staff. The Municipal Code requires a plan to be prepared unless the Resort has an approved plan ender the Soutl, Coast Air PCGT.117 0 0 Quality Management District (SCAQMD). To insure compliance, we have provided Plot Plan Condition 39. Shared Parkka: A 1992, Urban Land Report indicates that full - service hotels had occupancy averages of 61 to 62 percent (5 -year average). These percentages can vary depending on the location of the resort and its relationship to a major highway or airport, and whether it is in an urban or suburban area. Hotel resorts were higher in percentage figures than full- service hotels (i.e., 66 to 68 percent). With this in mind, staff called the City of Cathedral City to ask if they have allowed shared parking (peak period) for the Doubletree Hotel on Vista Chino Road. Their 1985 study showed that 60 percent occupancy (80% winter occupancy) was an acceptable figure for hotels that charge more than $104.00 /room /night. Using their study, we project that this project would require 1,076 parking spaces if the 100% occupancy figure was used (877 at 80% occupancy /675 at 60% occupancy). The 100% occupancy requirement figure would be consistent with the number of spaces planned by IPD for this project. Nevertheless, for comparison information, if the Commission applied an 80% occupancy figure to the City's parking standards (1,523 parking spaces) the number of parking spaces would be 1,218. Staff is inclined to accept the parking proposal since the same parking information contained in this new study is similar to the one reviewed by the City in 1987, during_ the expansion of the Hotel to 603 rooms. The American Planning Association "0` Street Parking Requirements" Report states that many cities require only one on -s. parking space per hotel room plus additional spaces for other related facilities. The employees of the hotel are also included, but at a discounted rate (1/3 employees during each shift, etc.). The City's Code assumes that one parking space is for the room plus one for the related employee. This parking requirement would probably be acceptable if this were a stand alone complex, but it is a fully contained complex with various facilities accessible to its patrons. Although most people do rely on their automobiles for day -to -day needs, this complex does have many of its employees using public transportation (bus system - Sunline) for their needs. The hotel also encourages its large convention patrons to use shuttle buses to ferry patrons to their resort for multiple day events both for convenience and because vehicles are generally not necessary once they arrive for their stay. Additionally, other forms of transportation are also used and can be provided by hotel personnel. In closing, if the City's parking standards are too restrictive, the City will be-encouraging a dependence on automobile travel. To reaffirm the project, and to insure that we weigh the impacts of the project equally, staff would like the Commission to consider reducing the number of allowable units (including hotel rooms) in the project area from 1,635 to 1,494. (A net loss of 141 units) The applicant, under this provision, could have 719 hotel rooms and 775 residential homes that are consistent with the status of the project at this timer. St. } P03T.117 feels this reduction is appropriate because 141 single family homes would generate 874+ vehicle trips /day. This amount of traffic would help mitigate. some project impacts' identified by the 1987 addition plus future development. The residents in the surrounding area that are part of the project area would be assured that no additional expansion requests could occur unless they subsequently amended the specific plan document. Otherwise, any development request within the adopted plan would have to conform with this amendment and other past provisions of the City Council. Specific Plan Condition #4 addresses this new provision proposed by staff. 1. The proposed changes would be in conformance with Specific Plan 121 -E (Revised) and the past amendments. 2. Environmental impacts resulting from the subject development will not adversely affect the immediate or nearby environment. 3. The proposed development is compatible with the existing hotel complex uses and consistent with the City's R -3 Development Standards. 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 95- , recommending to the City Council concurrence with the approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact according to the findings. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 95- , recommending to City Council approval of Revised Specific Plan 121 -E, (Amendment #3), subject to the attached Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 3. That the Planning Commission adopt Minute Motion 95 -_ approving Plot Plan 95 -555, a request to develop a new north wing to the existing La auinta Resort & Club pursuant to the attached Conditions. Attachments: Location p 2. Specific an (1975) 3. peci " Plan (1982) 4. In Study (with Attachments) 5. 8 Parking Study 6. Draft olution 7. Draft Res ution Draft Condi ns 9. Large Exhibit Maps /Booklet (Planning :vmmission ;;nly) PCGT. 11"7 ,J o s ATTACHMENT #�_ OPPOSITION LETTERS e • DAVID V.A. FAUVRE 21184 Michaels Drive Saratoga, California 95070 June 12 1995 i �' .., �, •.:. I`... i:. =, 'r . Community Development Department J u y La Quints Planning Commission �-•- :�•• - =:: �,,:...�,,, : ;. La Quinta City Hall` 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA -92253 Dear Community Development Representatives: As property owners in the Enclave- Mountain Estates subdivision in Santa Rosa Cove we have serious concerns about the proposed addition to. the La Quinta Resort and Club by the Hotel Association of Palm Springs proposed for the present northern parking lot on Avenida Fernando. Our residence is located at 77 -490 Loma Vista, La Quinta and we are in residence from October - May. �1 �- Our concerns are the following: 1) increased traffic on Fernando which already has narrow access and is the primary traffic route for hotel employees as well as home owners and guests. 2) increased air pollution due to the added traffic. 3) increased noise pollution. We can hear music and noise from the hotel parties now; this addition will add to the invasiveness of this noise for residents of Santa Rosa Cove. 4) destruction of the character and ambience of the La Quinta (Hotel) Resort and Club, the primary historic landmark of the City of La Quinta. Thank you for addressing these concerns. We see no need for such a large addition to the resort: The resort was already expanded extensively just a few years ago and the current convention facilities seem adequate for the size of the resort. The size of the proposed ballroom and the underground parking garage seems out of character and unnecessary. The increased traffic congestion will not enhance living in Santa Rosa Cove and will destroy its charm and attractiveness. Si rely. dAt David and Beverly Fat vre June 15, 1995 Community Development City of La Quinta P.O. Box 1504 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California LUCILLE H. LOEB P.O. BOX 658 LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Department 92253 RE: Specific Plan 121 -E and Plot Plan 95 -555 Ladies and Gentlemen: J U N 1 6 1995 P AN�VlNt3 1XPARTHEhT I live at 77 -500 Avenida Fernando in La Quinta. I have lived here for 40 years. My late husband, Carl, and I started coming to La Quinta in 1946. We so' enjoyed the beauty of the area and tranquil, small -town atmosphere that in 1952 we purchased our home: It saddens me to live through the enormous changes which have taken place on the hotel's property, which increasingly diminishes the reasons we settled here. The last time the hotel expanded I was assured that no two -story hotel rooms would be visible from my home. Today I am distressed that I believed.what I was told. The privacy of my front lawn has.. been destroyed. Hotel guests can peer down on me making my fro," '; lawn virtually unusable. Had I known today the impact, I wou have vehemently protested that expansion. So I now find it offensive that the hotel, in its continued effort to expand, has not shown any concern in trying to blend its project with the surrounding single story homes, but has proposed a tall building very close to the residential area on Avenida Fernando. Why can't the height be lower overall? I am further displeased that with this planned -expansion, a loading dock may be visible from my home. Can't the project be designed to occupy more of the south side of the parking lot, reducing the negative impact to the adjacent resident al area? Although I live in an area designated for.low density residential, it seems that I have lost most of its benefits due to the hotels growth and am now living in a commercial district. During the past winter's heavy rains there was a considerable amount of flooding throughout the valley and at the hotel. I fear that this project may not have an adequate. system to dispose of the water from a subterranean parking garage. Additional pumps are fine, but where is the water to go? I assume that the present pipes do not have the capacity to handle a great amount of additional water. Without a proper drainage system what is to prevent the flooding from crossing Fernando and affecting t' neighboring residental properties? I never wanted a parking lot across the street from me, but 01 accepted this development with the condition of a wall to obscure the lot. shortly after the project was completed a portion of the wall was removed. I object to the removal of any more of the wall, and insist that the wall be re- installed to hide vehicles which blight the adjacent residential environment. on the subject of parking, I grew tired of trucks, vans, RV's and other vehicles associated with the hotel parking on my property, so I authorized the installation of 8 no parking signs for the street. Now the hotel guests, employees and vendors park on my property in front of the tennis courts. How will traffic be directed to the hotel's new parking lots? Who will police Avenida Fernando to keep people from parking on my property? These are my concerns on parking after the proposed project is completed. But what will happen during construction? Where will guests, employees, and construction workers park? Provisions must be made. to accommodate this need, without the benefit, of.my property including providing adequate security for enforcement. The resulting traffic from all the past development has made the formerly quiet, private road of Avenida Fernando more like a freeway. Instead of dying a natural death I am afraid that I will be run over by a speeding vehicle. We desperately need speed bumps to slow the traffic down. Future expansion w i 11 only exacerbate the current problem. How much additional traffic will be generated by the disbursement of the hotel's parking throughout its property? It is distasteful that. after nearly a half century of living in La Quinta it became necessary for me to install gates on my property. Unfortuantely, hotel guests ignore my signs (which only became necessary following the last expansion) and invade my property. What safeguards are being incorporated. in this new project to assure adequate parking on hotel property and supervision of its guests to respect the privacy of the adjacent residential area? As a long time resident of the City of La Quinta, I believe its time for the city to revisit what makes our city so special. Every city grows and changes - but how we grow determines what we become. What will we have when multi -story structures block and obstruct neighbors views,. traffic and conjestion threatening our lives, noise and crime threatening our neighborhoods? La Quinta won't be so special. Since, I am back east visiting family I will be unable t o attend the ,Tune 27 meeting, but I do want my protests of this project to be read into the record and hope we can come to an amenable agreement with the city, and the hotel for an expansion which takes into consideration the neighboring single family homes. Just think how you would feel if this development occurred next to your home. Sincerely, Lucille H. Loeb June 12, 1995 Planning Commission City of La Quinta I would like to register my objection to the proposed building at the La Quinta Hotel. I have a home in Santa Rosa Cove. The hotel on many weekends will hold open air dances and parties with excessively loud music saturating the whole ,area. They send their guests on to our property to access the golf course. Some of these people are inconsiderate and sometimes, obnoxious. The entire area of La Quinta has enlarged without properly planning streets and other facilities. Washington Blvd., which serves as the main artery from the 10 Freeway is still only a two lane street, -one lane in each direction. The corner of Washington and 111 is a constant traffic mess. I do not understand how the planning commissions in these areas allow large developments without proper environmental impact studies and proper road access considerations. My wife and I strongly oppose this new development. Richard L. Kasper, M.D. 77 003 Calle Mazatlan Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Mailing Address: 3 Bordeaux Newport beach Ca 92660 cc: Santa Rosa Cove HOA oa 3 JUN 1 4 1995 - : .t... -� I would like to register my objection to the proposed building at the La Quinta Hotel. I have a home in Santa Rosa Cove. The hotel on many weekends will hold open air dances and parties with excessively loud music saturating the whole ,area. They send their guests on to our property to access the golf course. Some of these people are inconsiderate and sometimes, obnoxious. The entire area of La Quinta has enlarged without properly planning streets and other facilities. Washington Blvd., which serves as the main artery from the 10 Freeway is still only a two lane street, -one lane in each direction. The corner of Washington and 111 is a constant traffic mess. I do not understand how the planning commissions in these areas allow large developments without proper environmental impact studies and proper road access considerations. My wife and I strongly oppose this new development. Richard L. Kasper, M.D. 77 003 Calle Mazatlan Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Mailing Address: 3 Bordeaux Newport beach Ca 92660 cc: Santa Rosa Cove HOA oa s e ATTACHMENT # 5 LETTERS OF RESPONSE 0 0 ia lu t uta � RESORT & CLUB June 27, 1995 Mr. & Mrs. William Puget P.O. Box 975 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Puget, F� I.i 1� - Q7-• �� y fd JUN 2 ? 1995 Thank you again for your time. I appreciate your continued input and dialogue regarding our pending expansion. As a result of our discussions, I would like to summarize the measures we are taking to address your concerns, some of which are already in the existing plans and staff reports to the Planning Commission. The wall' on the north end of our parking lot was reduced in size as you know due to safety. Although it has increased visibility to an extent, we all agree that the speed of traffic from Ave. Obregon and the private community gate west of Ave. Obregon continues to be the main problem. Therefore, we plan to install stop signs and other speed control measures (ie. speed humps, not bumps) to help control this,. The property manager for the Santa Rosa Cove Homeowners Association and every resident I have spoken to are in favor of this. At that time, I am willing to expand the wall to a reasonable location to screen the view from your home towards the parking lot. I am confident we can make this work for everyone. Greg Burkhart, our Chief Engineer, has further researched your comments about kitchen exhaust noise. Southland Industries is consulting us on this issue. Should any recognizable source of excessive noise or problem arise, we will implement reasonable measures in efforts to dampen the noise. It is also our understanding that the new building will absorb some of this as well. With regard to large special events at the hotel, I have had many conversations with our Director of Security, Bill Morrison. It is has. been our practice to utilize our staff as well as hire additional Riverside County Sheriffs to assist in traffic control for such-events. Durinq the construction process our security and engineering departments will be implementing and maintaining security controls with the various contractors. Should you ever need ass i stance beyond their help, I am happy to assist you. 94 n I — ..- page two Mr. & Mrs. Puget June 27, 1995 The Southern Oak shade trees that, are planned to be placed along Ave: Fernando can be viewed at the following locations: 1.) Ralphs Grocery on Country Club Drive, across from the' Marriott Desert Springs_ 2) In the parking lot at Rancho La Quinta Country Club 3) Old Navy Store at Highway 111 and Fred Waring 4) Palm Desert Park (near the -Civic Center, off of Fred Waring) I know that the above mentioned items are very important to you. I hope that you are comfortable seeing that we are attempting to work- w rh you can your pri -marry concerns and that we have taken measures to remedy these issues. Please contact me with any questions you may have. I look forward to seeing you soon. Sincerely, Scott Dalecio President & General Manager cc: City of La Quinta Community Development Department Greg Burkhart Chief Engineer /LQ Resort Bill Morrison - Dir. of Security /LQ Resort A G • June 25, 1995 RESORT & CLUB Mrs. Lucille H. Loeb P.O. Box 658 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear'Mrs. Loeb, C] I am in receipt of your letter to the City of La Quinta Community Development Department letter dated June 15, 1995 regarding our proposed expansion. Although you and I have discussed these items previously, I would like to address and hopefully clarify some of the items you have addressed. Regarding our two story buildings southwest of your residence, I have personally stood at each second story unit ( 6 ) and can not see anything but your roof line. In fact, guests can not see in your yard and from half of the units, you can hardly see any of your residence. Our current meeting space expansion design does take into consideration the residents on Avenue Fernando. The building has been placed as far south and as close as possible to our exi sting structure. We have reduced ceiling heights on the north and south sides of the building. We also have planned extensive landscaping with various trees, palms and shrubs throughout. The loading dock you have addressed has a screen wall with decorative tile 61811 high by 48' long. In addition, the dock itself is an additional 18' south with a roof structure over this portion. Some of our most expensive suites are also in this area, and we believe we have masked the'view well. We are also looking at the possibility of a gate to also help screen the area when it :Ls not in use. With respect to rain water and drainage, all on sight drainage is to be taken through the existing storm drain system which is routed south down Eisenhower to the lake at the Dunes Course. We are not displacing water to Ave. Fernando, nor will any water be pumped to Ave. Fernando. Ave. Fernando is approximately 2 1/2 feet above our existing building's ground floor elevation. We are not proposing to remove any more of the wall ors Ave. Fernando with the exception of small areas in order to provide enough planting space for the proposed Southern Oak trees. It is unsafe, and we are not in favor of replacing any of the wall at the East end'' of the parking lot without traffic: control measures such as stop signs and/or speed bumps. Even .1 resident I have spcDken to is in favor of at least stop signs. 96 49_499 Usenhower Drive. Post 01lice Box 69. La Quinta. California 92253. Tel. 619.564.411 I. /;t.r 619.564.7656 J++ UN Z 7 is95 --� I am in receipt of your letter to the City of La Quinta Community Development Department letter dated June 15, 1995 regarding our proposed expansion. Although you and I have discussed these items previously, I would like to address and hopefully clarify some of the items you have addressed. Regarding our two story buildings southwest of your residence, I have personally stood at each second story unit ( 6 ) and can not see anything but your roof line. In fact, guests can not see in your yard and from half of the units, you can hardly see any of your residence. Our current meeting space expansion design does take into consideration the residents on Avenue Fernando. The building has been placed as far south and as close as possible to our exi sting structure. We have reduced ceiling heights on the north and south sides of the building. We also have planned extensive landscaping with various trees, palms and shrubs throughout. The loading dock you have addressed has a screen wall with decorative tile 61811 high by 48' long. In addition, the dock itself is an additional 18' south with a roof structure over this portion. Some of our most expensive suites are also in this area, and we believe we have masked the'view well. We are also looking at the possibility of a gate to also help screen the area when it :Ls not in use. With respect to rain water and drainage, all on sight drainage is to be taken through the existing storm drain system which is routed south down Eisenhower to the lake at the Dunes Course. We are not displacing water to Ave. Fernando, nor will any water be pumped to Ave. Fernando. Ave. Fernando is approximately 2 1/2 feet above our existing building's ground floor elevation. We are not proposing to remove any more of the wall ors Ave. Fernando with the exception of small areas in order to provide enough planting space for the proposed Southern Oak trees. It is unsafe, and we are not in favor of replacing any of the wall at the East end'' of the parking lot without traffic: control measures such as stop signs and/or speed bumps. Even .1 resident I have spcDken to is in favor of at least stop signs. 96 49_499 Usenhower Drive. Post 01lice Box 69. La Quinta. California 92253. Tel. 619.564.411 I. /;t.r 619.564.7656 page two Mrs. Lucille H. Loeb June 25, 1995 This expansion should not increase any substantial incremental traffic on Ave. Fernando. I We attempt to encourage all guest traffic to enter through the main driveway. Our security department will as always assist in policing the vehicles who attempt to park on Ave. Fernando, as they will certainly do during the construction. I would suggest painting your curb red and placing a post at your tennis court entrance to assist in. this area. I am sorry that you regret placing gates on your property, but I•know that more than just an occasional- hotel guest wanders on to your property (ie. area children, Santa Rosa Cove residents, Mountain Estates construction workers) . Hopefully this will assist in curtailing this. I hope that this helps clarify some or your issues. I am happy to review any additional items with you. It is important that we are viewed as a good neighbor. I have been at La Quinta Resort almost ten years and want to help it grow carefully. Please feel free to contact me or Bill Morrison, Director of Security, if we may ever be of assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, Scott Dalecio President & General Manager cc: City of La Quinta' Community Development Department �: s • NL I/ June 23, 1995 RESORT &CLUB i� :rT;���r• ' JUN 2 f 199 �~ Mr. David V.A. Fauvre,. 21184 Michaels Drive 4Y �iP , 0" 0U r PIANOM Saratoga, California 95070 ...,. Dear Mr. Fauvre, Thank you for time earlier today. I appreciate you allowing me to discuss our pending expansion and some of our common issues_ As we discussed, this expansion is intended to accommodate the needs of our existing business as well as that caused by our growing occupancy. Although there will be some additional local catered functions, most of those type functions occur in periods when we are not as busy with our existing hotel business. This facility should not create any additional noise from parties, as it is self contained with its own indoor pre- function space. With respect to traffic on Avenida Fernando, we do not plan to increase our employee number. In fact, it has actually decreased in the past two years. We continue to work with the South Coast Air Quality Management District on our rideshare programs to encourage carpooling and public transportation. In fact, we have in past years won an award for the best plan for large business in Riverside County. I am pleased to hear that you would not. be opposed to STOP signs on Ave. Fernando. Speed of traffic and safety is, also a concern of ours, and we continue to research our options there. Mr. & Mrs. Puget, who live on Ave. Fernando, are also in favor of STOP signs. Also, we do not have any Hotel signage on the corner of Eisenhower and Ave. Fernando in an effort to deter guests from entering there. We prefer our guest traffic to enter through our main driveway. I would be happy to share our renderings with you. I believe that our design firm has done an excellent job of maintaining the architectural style and feel of our property. The proposed name for the room is "Salon de Flores ", meaning room of flowers . We plan to feature unique floral artwork in the room highlighting some of our indigenous flora. Thank you again. Please.call with any questions you may have. Sincer ly, r Scott M. Dalecio President & General Manager M J�W �J- s�- RESORT & CLUB June 26, 1995 Mr. Dan Barnett Packard & Associates Property Manager, SRC HOA 41 -945 Boardwalk, Suite X -3 Palm Desert, California 92211 Dear Dan, : JUN 2 7 1995 'thank you for returning my call today. As we discussed, we continue to move forward with our meeting space expansion plans. This addition is critical to our future success as a major resort in the Palm Springs area. The room is self contained with it's own indoor reception /pre - function area. This is something we currently do not have which will help control sound issues from groups. I was pleased to hear from you that you are in support of stop signs on Avenue Fernando. Speed of traffic and safety is our main concern. I will keep you updated on our progress. Dan, please call if I may be of any assistance to you or any of the homeowners. Thank you again. Sincerely, Scott Dalecio President & General Manager SD /pw M 0 0 �1 r/ ir. June 26. 1995 RESORT &CLUB Mr. Richard L. Kasper, M.D. 3 Bordeaux Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Dr. Kasper, I am in receipt of your letter dated June 12, 1995, which was sent to the City of La Quinta Planning Commission regarding La Quinta Resort's proposed expansion. I would like to address your concerns with our Resort. The proposed building is completely self contained with its own indoor reception area, restrooms, telephones, storage etc... This is something we currently do not have which should help control sound issues from groups. The functions that will be occurring inside of this building -should not create any noise, music etc.. that our surrounding residents will here. It is our preference, and it is considerably more efficient to hold functions indoors. It costs less and has less impact on our grounds and the surrounding areas. Our beautiful outdoor venues are very appealing to our clients and are the trademark of La Quinta Resort. We do make every effort to have these functions earlier and are very aware of the city's noise ordinance. The one time that you have calied me personally in the past, I addressed the issue immediately. That particular incident as you remember was caused by our guests exercising in the center of our 45 acres hotel property in the early morning. We are here to be a good neighbor and are willing to listen to any concerns you may have. I am unclear about your statement regarding sending guests on your property to access the golf course. I am happy to discuss with you or Mr. Dan Barnett, Property Manager -SRC HOA, further. Thank you for your time. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincer lY Scott Dalecio President & General Manager cc: Mr. Dan Barnett /SRC HOA City of La Quinta /Community Development Department 100 49 -499 Eisenhower Drive, Post Office Box 69, La Ouinra, Calikornia 92253. Td 619.564.411 L Fa 619A64 76F d ../ 0 RESOLUTION 95 -56 L] I IN A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT #3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #3) KSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION WHEREAS, the La Quinta Hotel was originally built in 1926; and, WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E/EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related` service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the master plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) and 1989 (Amendment 2) permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 27th day of June, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the Hotel Association of Palm Springs to amend the aforementioned specific plan to allow a new 16,000 square foot ballroom and other associated facilities including a new sub -level parking garage; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 5th day of July, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the Hotel Association of Palm Springs to amend the aforementioned specific plan to allow a new 16,000 square foot ballroom and other associated facilities including anew sub -level parking garage, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TSS, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study, and i has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, PLEsocc M Resolution 95 -56 WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation of the specific plan amendment: That Revised Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #3, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Zoning Code. 2. The proposed amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed Revised Specific Plan 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: L That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment.95 -304, indicating that the proposed specific plan amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be filed. 3. That it does hereby approve of the above -described amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan 95 -555 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of July, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bangerter, Cathcart, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ( a JOH& ENA, Nlayor City of La Quinta, California PLESOCC.137 t Resolution 95 -56 A T: RA I:, JLL1H0 ,City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ,0.5SCCC. l37 1�2 • W All W CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SP 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT 3) LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM JULY 5, 1995 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 121 -E; Revised (Amendment 3) shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This specific plan approval shall expire and become void on June 27, 1997, unless extended pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Plot Plan 95- 555. 4. The total number of single family homesihotel rooms that will be allowed in the Specific Plan area shall be 1,494 (i.e., 775 units, 719 rooms). CONAPRU.157 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED PLOT PLAN 95.555 (LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM) JUNE 27, 1995 Modified by the Planning Commission on 6.27 -95 "# Added by the Planning Commission on 6.27.95 GENERAL 1. Plot Plan 95.555 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This plot plan approval shall expire and become void on June 27, 1996, unless extended automatically pursuant to the City's Updated Zoning Ordinance. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Specific Plan 121 -E Revised (Amendment #3). 4. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remain- or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 5. All lighting facilities shall comply with Chapter 9.210 (Outdoor Light Control) and be designed to minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. All lighting to be installed shall be subject to review.and approval by the Community Development Department. 6. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83.002 and Plot Plan 95.555, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of The Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83 -002 and Plot Plan 95.555, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigating measures of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Specific Plan 83.002 and Plot Plan 95.555. The Community Development Director may require inspections or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 7. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer;. i CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a subphasing plan is approved by the City Engineer. 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: - Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans. Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 10. Site improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" X 36" media. All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed. If water and sewer plans are included on the site improvement plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. IMPROVEMENTS 11. Prior to issuance of any permit for construction of structures or site improvements approved or required under this plot plan, the applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's required share of future improvements to be constructed by others (deferred improvements). CON APRVL.154 Conditiops of Approval Plot Plan 95.5551La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 Deferred improvements for this development include: A.* One half of the cost, or $25,000, whichever is less, .for design and installation of median landscaping and irrigation improvements in Eisenhower Street for the full length of the La Quinta Hotel frontage. The City will credit the applicant for the previous costs*incurred by Landmark Land Company when they prepared landscape plans for the median on Eisenhower Drive a few years ago. The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the deferred improvements may, at the City's option, be - - satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if this development becomes subject to such a program. - STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPRUVEMENTS 12. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets, access gates and parking lots shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City Engineer. Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20 -year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction traffic. The minimum r" pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential and Parking Areas 3.0 "14.5" Collector 4.0 "15.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0 "16.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "16.00" Major Arterial 5.5 "16.50" If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section which will be subjected to traffic, the partial section shall be designed with the 20 -year design strength. GRADING 13. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 14. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ( "the soils report ") shall be submitted with the grading plan. 15. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. CONAPRVL.154 ;. Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95.555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 16. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. - - 17. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad in the development, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by development phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 18. All 100 -year storm water run-off shall be retained on. -site unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the developer is responsible shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public streets. LANDSCAPING 20. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer if landscaping is adjacent to a public street(s). The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the Community Development Director or City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. MAINTENANCE 21. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual maintenance of private street and drainage facilities, landscaping, and other improvements required by these conditions. FEES AND DEPOSITS 22. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts. shall he those in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks and permits. CONAPRA.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95.555 (La Guinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 [I IMMMMM 23: Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 4000 gpm for a three hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 24. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X V2 ") located not less than 25- - feet or more than 165 -feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. 25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicantldeveloper shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 26. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 27. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group I. The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50 -feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 -feet from the building. 28. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a planlinspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 29. Install a manual pull, smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code /Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standards 72. 30. Install Knox Key Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location /position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this'office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 31. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve (12) months. 32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1OBC in rating. Contact CONAPRVL.154 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 95 -555 (La Quinta Hotel Ballroom) June 27, 1995 certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. UTILITIES 33. All existing and proposed utilities within or immediately adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High. voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 34. The applicant shall abandon all unneeded sewer and water service laterals in this development and install new laterals as required. 35. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSUHA C 36. The applicant shall employ site improvement construction quality- assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. MISCELLANEOUS 37. The developer shall submit an interim parking plan to the Community Development Department for approval if work on the expansion request is to occur between the months' of January to April. The plan will identify the parking areas for employees, guests and workers during on -site construction. The plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, and the Fire Marshal before work begins. Special consideration shall be made to ensure that the development proposal does not affect the surrounding residents. Parking on Avenida Fernando should be discouraged, if possible. 38. The California Fish and Game Environmental filing fees shall be paid within 24 -hours after review of the case by City Council. The fee is $1,250 plus $78.00 for processing by Riverside County (checks to be made out to Riverside County). 39. The developer shall submit to the Director of Community Development their existing Transportation Demand Management Plan for review to insure compliance with Chapter 9.162 of the Municipal Code. A plan approved by the South Coast Air Quality Management District will meet this requirement. 40. ** Metal gates will be installed on the front of the service dock to screen the facility from view of Avenida Fernando when the recessed bay is not being used for delivery purposes. CONAPRVL.154 r !— RESOLUTION 95.55 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95.304 PREPARED FOR PLOT PLAN 95.555 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT a3) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95.304 GREG BURKHARTIKSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of June, 1995, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed Plot Plan 95.555 and Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment #3) for the La Quinta Resort & Club expansion project; and, WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of la Quinta, California, did approve the certification of the Environmental Assessment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 5th day of July, 1995, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the proposed Plot Plan 95.555 and Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment #3) for the La Ouinta Resort & Club expansion project; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did approve the certification of the Environmental Assessment; and, WHEREAS, said Plot Plan and Specific Plan amendment have complied with the requirements of 'The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) (Resolution 83.68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared Initial Study EA 95 -304; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said plot plan and specific plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or indirectly. 2. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendmant 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. RESOCC.158 Resolution 95.55 3. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment do not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. 4. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council for this environmental assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 95 -304 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit "A ", contained in the staff report. PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 5th day of July, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Bangerter, Cathcart, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None FM �(AUNDRA L. .li HOLVA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, Califomia APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California RESOCC.158 o�, a L JO 1'E1VA, or City of La Quinta, California e - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 95 -304 Case No.: Plot Plan 95 -555 Date: JUNE 209 1995 SP 121 -E, Revised, Amendment #3 Name of Proponent: KSL DEVELOPMENT Address: 49 -499 Eisenhower Drive, La Quinta Phone: 619 -564 -4111 Agency Requiring Checklist: CITY OF LA QUINTA Project Name (if applicable): LA QUINTA HOTEL & GOLF BALLROOM CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFE CTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation /Circulation Public, Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance III. DETERMINATION. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect 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, if the effect is a " potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated. " AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature - - -_ Date _ _ Printed Name and Title: LESLIE J. MOURIQUAND, Associate Planner For: THE CITY OF LA QUINTA Potentially Potentially Significam Lms Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X' (source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? X::, c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? R4: d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? X' 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X:. b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? X:.. C) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X'. 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking? X ", C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X:. d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? X. g) Subsidence of the iand? .X h) Expansive soils? X. i) Unique geologic or physical features? X. 3.4. WATER. Would the project result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? C) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? C) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectional odors? W Potentially Potentially Significant Less nan Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact I X X. X X: X. X. X. X. X X;. s 3.6. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? C) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? C) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Potentially Potentially Significant Less nan Significant Unless Significant Impact Mitigated Impact x X. X. No Impact X` X X: X= X: X. Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 1 d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X:` 3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X 3.9. RISK OF UPSET /HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including; but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X C) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? X. d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X. 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? �;. Potentially Potentially Significant Leas nan Significant Unleu Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Police protection? X C) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services ?:; 3.12. UTILITIES. . Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alternations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X 3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X• b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X C) Create light or glare? X 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X C) Affect historical resources? X A., Have die potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X e) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential impact area? X. s r Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated impact Impact 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks* of other recreational facilities? X. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- term; to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? X C) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects). K d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. C) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. A INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95 -304 Prepared for: Plot Plan 95-555 /SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT 3 #) Greg BurkhartlKSL La Quinta Resort & Club La Quinta, California Prepared by: Community Development Department City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 June 20, 1995 4 0 V TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 IN'MODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 1.4 Summary of,Preliminary Environmental Review 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 2.2 Physical Characteristics 2.3 Operational Characteristics 2.4 Objectives 2.5 Discretionary Actions 2.6 Related Projects 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 3.1 Land Use and Planning 3.2 Population and Housing 3.3 Earth Resources 3.4 Water 3.5 Air Quality 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 3.7 Biological Resources 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 3.10 Noise 3.11 Public Services 3.12 Utilities 3.13 Aesthetics 3.14 Cultural Resources 3.15 Recreation 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE R. EARLIER ANALYSIS Page 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 F� 5 7 8 10 13 16 18 19 20 21 22 24 26 27 29 29 30 Ii A • 3 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The La Quinta Resort and Hotel has submitted an application for plot plan review of a proposed 37,000 square foot building addition, which includes, a 16,000 square foot ballroom, and supplemental facilities with a subterranean parking garage. The ballroom is proposed to be constructed in an existing parking lot on the north side of the resort complex. The building will feature parking underneath in order to accommodate required parking needsThe assumed density of the proposed ballroom is 12 square feet per seat, or 1,333 seats. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the proposed development. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the ballroom, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed ballroom. The purposes of the initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for the ballroom construction; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of environmental impact; To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentatinn for the finri;noc ;n a nnvatnkn- r1orr1ara + ;nn +he+ +ho project will not have a significant effect on the environment; » To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and 4 To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the proposed construction of the ballroom. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development IDepartment prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts on some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. Mitigation measures have been recommended in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City is bounded on the west by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed expansion request will consist of a 37,000 square foot building with subterranean parking garage below the proposed building. The project site is located in the Plaza Parking Lot on the north side of the existing hotel and restaurant facilities. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The ballroom will serve large group events such as dances, conventions, private parties, etc. There will be banquet storage space, general storage space, office space, restrooms, and a pre - function area. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objectives of the proposed ballroom are to accommodate larger groups, increase revenue with expended facilities, and provide greater flexibility in available facilities. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the govemment agency is the City of La Quinta ) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission for the following: * Approval of a Plot Plan for the project * Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no current projects related to the proposed ballroom project. The project site is, however, part of Specific Plan 121 -E that was approved prior to the City's incorporation, by the County of Riverside. There have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last ten years. The proposed project for the ballroom addition requires that there be an amendment to the Specific Plan to permit the proposed elimination of a part of the existing parking lot where the new building will be constructed. This amendment is being processed concurrently with the proposed plot plan. SECTION 3; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the new ballroom addition to the La Quinta Resort and Club. CEQA issue areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella VaLey, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site is located west of Eisenhower Drive and Southwest of Ave. Fernando, in the southwestern portion of the City of La Quinta. The project site is part of the La Quinta Resort and Club complex that was first constructed in the 1920's. The hotel N. is designated as a historical structure in the City's General Plan. The exact project site is within an existing parking lot that is adjacent to the hotel and restaurants. )1 A. ' Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within the R-3 zone classification that permits hotels and accessory conference facilities. The General Plan land use designation is that of Tourist Commercial (TC). The land use designation and zoning designation are compatible with each other. Specific Plan 121 -E governs that development of the hotel complex. In order to eliminate a portion of the existing parking lot where the ballroom will be built, it is necessary to amend the Specific Plan. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quetta has jurisdiction over this project approval. The primary environmental plans and policies related to development of the ballroom are identified in the La Quinta General Plan, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and Specific Plan 121 -E. The project site is within Redevelopment Area # 1 which includes the Cove area and most of the southern portion of the City. The redevelopment plan for the area relies upon the General Plan to indicate the location and extent of permitted development. As a result, the development of the convention building is also consistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan. The development proposed will not exceed the development standards contained in the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project, (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey) D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income minority community)? No Impact. The project site will be developed with a 37,000 square foot building and subterranean parking garage as permitted by the proposed amendment to Specific Plan 121 -E and an approved Plot Plan for architectural review. The future ballroom will not affect the physical arrangement of existing neighborhoods or other types of development in the La Quinta Cove area of La Quinta. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 0 q9 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125 %, as reported by the U.S. Census, making it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley: The number of City residents blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7 %, in 1980, to 5.1 %, in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The City's population as of January, 1994, is estimated by the State Department of Finance, to be 16,634 persons. This is an increase of 208% in the last ten years. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.5 persons per unit. The housing stock as of 1993, is listed at 7,755 single family units, 481 multi- family units, and 247 mobile homes, for a total of 8,483 units. Ethnicity information from the 1980 Census, for the area that is now the City_ of La Quinta revealed that 80.0% of the La Quinta resident population as caucasian, 14.7.% as Hispanic, 2.3% as Afro- American, 1.1% as Asian, and .5% as Native American. The results of the 1990 Census show a mix of 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 1.6% Afro- American, 1.5% Asian, and!. 0% Native American. The most current information available on employment of La Quinta residents is from the 1980 Census. At that time, almost 57% of the La Quinta workforce worked at white collar jobs, while 43% were in blue collar occupations. The major employers in the City include the La Quinta Hotel and Resort, PGA West, Von's, Simon Motors, City of La Quinta, WalMart, Albertson's, and Ralph's. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project area is an existing asphalt parking lot. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed convention facility will result in no new residential units. Temporary construction jobs will be created if the project is built. New jobs related to the operation of the future ballroom will also be created. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? No Impact. The proposed building will provide a second ballroom facility that will permit a new large -group meeting facility for the City. This will attract additional convention and conference groups to the hotel which will result in additional bed tax paid to the City. It is not anticipated that additional development will result from the construction of the ballroom, C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. There are no housing units on the project site. The proposed ballroom facilities will be constructed with private funds. (Source: Application Materials, Site Survey) 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Region at En vironmenjai Setting The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillsides, to relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that mare up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. Local Environmental Setting The area where the project is proposed is a developed resort complex. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has had structures on it since the 1920's when the first hotel building was constructed. The elevation of the project site is approximately 50 feet above msl. There has been no recorded seismic activity from the nearby inferred faults, thus, there is a low probability for such activity. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California. Faults in the area include the San Andreas fault located several miles to the north of the City. Faults within the City include two inferred faults transacting the southern section of La Quinta. A. Would the project result in or expose people to. potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred faults in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the project site, while the other lies approximately 1.5 miles south. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist- Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site. ( Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of La Quints General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment) • A 9 B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed ballroom'project will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who will be subject to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone III. The ballroom facilities and subterranean parking garage will be required to meet current seismic standards to reduce the risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events..The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a. very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man -made reservoir located in the southeast area of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and groundshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect the City in the event of a levee failure or seiche. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The immediate project site is within an existing parking lot that is several hundred feet away from the Santa Rosa Mountains. Thus, the project would not be impacted by potential mudslides or landslides. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom facilities, if built, will require extensive excavation for the subterranean parking garage. Hazard barracades shall be placed around the excavation site to warn pedestrians of open constriction activities. 10 G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta MEA_. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. (Source: La Quinta MEA) H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the project site consist of Indio Very Fine Sandy Loam (Is) and Gilman Silt Loam (GeA). Is soil has very slow runoff; slight erosion hazard, and no flood hazards associated with it. The shrink/swell capacity is low. The GeA soil has slow runom slight erosion, and flooding is rare. Shrink/swell is low. (Source: Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area) I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts_ involving unique geologic or physical features? Less than Significant Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located within the project site or near enough to the project to be affected by the proposed ballroom hotel expansion request. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via thirteen wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower thermal subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub- basins near Point Happy Ranch, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. 0 9 The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 000, feet is considered exceilent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quints from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated ground water; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) an increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two -part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project site does not have any standing water on ii or near by. The nearest stands of surface water consist of several small lakes located on the resort golf courses. It has been calculated that the proposed ballroom facilities will consume 8,880 gallons of water per day. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed project will not require additional drainage facilities. There is an existing drainage system for the resort complex that directs runoff to the existing golf course lakes. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding? Less than Significant Impact. The site is within a designated 100 year flood plain zone (Zone A). The hazard factors for this zone have not been determined. However, there are existing flood control facilities 'n the C o area that, will th vas . -- iy� :.. w s...ov�� %sra.a leas protect sS sue pr- JJe°,%t S1ts,. 12 C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less than Significant Impact. Runoff from the project site will be directed to the existing drainage system on the resort complex which ultimately terminates in the golf course lakes. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. No increase in runoff is expected since the project site is an existing paved parking lot. The proposed ballroom will not expand the paved area, but rather incorporate part of the existing paved area into the proposed building site. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man -made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The Whitewater River and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel are stormwater channels that are usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawl, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the ballroom will consist of open meeting area, banquet storage areas, an office area, and restore facilities. Existing kitchen facilities in the hotel restaurants will be utilized for food preparation. Consumption calculation indicates that the ballroom would require 8,880 gals. /day of water. G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells. It is not anticipated that there will be any alteration to the direction or rate of flow of the groundwater supply. No wells are proposed for the project. H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. The proposed ballroom will be constructed in an existing paved parking lot, thus, there will be no additional pavement placed on the hotel site to reduce the absorption 13 ability of the ground. Stormwater runoff will be directed into the existing drainage system at the resort which culminates in the golf course lakes. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD); and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin ( SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quints MEA) The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB. experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent that then SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. Local Environmental Setting The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has a and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQW. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Pahn Springs and one in the City of Indio. The M-LU1 s`�ation iuoIUL Condit10 which are most representatr✓e ofthe La Q"..:: to area. The station has been collecting data for ozone and particulate matter since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate matter and has been in operation since 1985. 14 A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or 1 projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There will be some pollutants as a result of vehicular traffic during the construction phases and from employees and visitor to the ballroom. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table 6 -2, the proposed project best fits with the Restaurant category under the Commercial land use threshold of 20,000 square feet of area. The proposed building area for the ballroom project will be 37;000' square feet, which is more than the. threshold. However, the proposed ballroom facilities are ancillary to the resort hotel complex. Thus, there would be a significant air .quality impact resulting from the proposed project. The Significance Emission Thresholds established by the District consist of the following: 55 pounds per day of ROG 55 pounds per day of Nox 274 pounds per day of CO 150 pounds per day of PM10 150 pounds per day of Sox State 1 -hour or 8 -hour standard for CO Projects that exceed the above thresholds with daily operation - related emissions (averaged over a 7 -day week) are considered to be significant. Calculations were made for the proposed ballroom. A 180 -day construction period was assumed for the following short term construction impact: ROG 39.3 lbs. /day Nox 575.9 lbs. /day CO • 125.2 lbs. /day PM10 40.91bs: /day Long Term Mobile Emissions consist of the following: ROG 225.31bs. /day Nox 97.71bs. /day Co 2037.21bs. /day PM10 20.0 lbs. /day Long Term consist of the following: ROG 225.4 Nox 103.2 CO 2038.2 PM10 20.2 SEDAB Thresholds: 0 0 15 ROG 75 Nox - 100 CO 550 PM10 150 Difference: Project and SEDAB Thresholds: ROG -150.4 Nox -48.2 CO - 1488.2 PM10 129.8 Percent Over Thresholds: ROG 300.5% Nox 103.2% CO 370.6% PM10 13.4% Thus, there is a potential for significant impact from the development of the Ballroom. A detailed air quality analysis shall be required to be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits. The analysis shall include recommended mitigation measures. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive Receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation areas, medical. facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The adjacent land uses consist of residential and golf development to the immediate west and south, with scattered residential to the adjacent north. Directly adjacent to the south is the existing hotel and restaurant complex, to which the proposed ballroom will be attached. The closest schools are Truman Elementary school'and the La Quinta Middle School located at the northwest comer of Avenue 50 and Park Avenue. The closest existing park is the Village park located in the Cove area, south of the project site. The closest known day care center is the YMCA Preschool located adjacent to Truman Elementary School. The closest medical facility is a doctors office located on Calle Tampico, near Washington Street, over a mile from the project site. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, ±emperat'.:re, or cause any change in climate? 16 Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts upon this issue area. The proposed ballroom facilities will be required to meet height and setback requirements, maintaining a compatible architectural style with the existing structures in the resort complex. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impacts. The proposed ballroom is not anticipated to create any objectionable. odors. Food preparation will be done in the existing restaurant kitchens. There could be some noticeable odors from exhaust emissions from vehicles using the subterranean parking garage under the ballroom. These odor, if detectable at all, will not be significant. 3.6 TRANSPORTATIONXIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 16,000+ permanent residents. There is a substantial portion of the City that is undeveloped. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late - winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service for the City is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems are to be completed as new developments come to the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is within the La Quinta Resort and Club complex, in an existing parking lot area. The project, as well as the hotel, are accessed by Avenida Fernando, (a private 2- way road) located immediately north of the parking lot. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. The ballroom facilities are projected to serve as an accessory to the existing hotel and resort facilities. The users of the ballroom will for the • o 17 most part be staying at the hotel. Thus, there should not be any significant increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersection) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? No Impact. There are currently no hazards from design features of the existing roadway or the proposed project. The proposed project does not include any new roadways or the alteration,of any existing roadways. It does eliminate a portion of an existing parking lot, which will alter circulation in the parking lot in order access the underground parking garage. There are no obvious hazardous design feature associated with the project. C. Would the project result-in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom project will not obstruct emergency access to the surrounding area: D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. A total of 91 parking spaces are proposed. in the underground parking garage. The existing parking lot has 324 spaces, of which 76 will be eliminated by the new ballroom. The resort and hotel complex require a total of 1,523 spaces excluding the ballroom since it has been determined that the ballroom is primarily for on -site guests or patrons. Otherwise, the total number of parking spaces needed would be 2,923. A shared parking plan is permitted by the Off - Street Parking Code if certain standards can be met. The shared parking program under Chapter 9.160.035 of the Municipal Code will permit parking spaces based on a parking analysis with the highest usage requirement setting the parking requirement. The study indicated that the highest usage was at 9:00 p.m. with a parking need of 1032 spaces. These standards have been met in this proposed project. (Source: ULI Analysis; Site Plan) E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. Eisenhower Drive, in the vicinity of the resort complex, is a designated bikeway corridor. The proposed project is not anticipated to have any impact upon the corridor. Pedestrians crossing the existing parking lot will be required to go around the ballroom building depending upon the direction in which they are walking. The existing stamped concrete walkway will be replaced with a new pedestrian arcade leading to the existing hotel and restaurant buildings. Thus, there should be minimal impact upon pedestrians or bicyclists. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) F. Would the project nresult � in conflicts with nn'•adopted policies psupporting alternative transportation (L.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks) e 18 No Impact. The proposed ballroom will not interfere with the existing alternative transportation modes and facilities or create new modes and facilities at the resort complex. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem Typically, undeveloped land in this environment is rich in biological resources and habitat. This ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have then ability to economize water use, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences 'in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals and birds. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The black - tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal found in this area is the Peninsular Big Horn sheep which is found at the higher elevation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The project site is developed and has been for approximately 70 years. Thus, any potential biological resources or habitat has been long gone from the site. The La Quinta MEA indicates that the vicinity of the project site is within the traditional habitat of the Black - tailed Onatcatcher bird. There is no existing habitat left on the resort complex. 0 0 19 A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare. species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? No Impact. The proposed project site has been developed for approximately 70 years, thus all habitat has been destroyed. (Source: Site Survey) B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey) C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. Surrounding land uses include golf course, hotel units, single family homes, restaurants, retail shops, and parking lots. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g, marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City. (Source: La Quinta MEA) E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area. (Source: La Quinta MEA) 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (ffi)), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. 7 acal Environmental Setting 20 There are no oil wells, or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. The project site is located within MRZ -3, a designation for areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. The ballroom development will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in its construction. No other mitigation is required or feasible for this project. B. Would the project use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Lnpact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include, air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, metals, and other resources needed for construction. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District for water management. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948 - Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan, The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the recorded past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? 0 0 21 Less than Significant Impact. There is a minimal risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance of the ballroom facilities. No other risks have been identified or are anticipated. B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Then Significant Impact. Construction and excavation activities will be confined to the proposed parking lot area where the building will be sited, except for minimal off - site work as will be necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency responses to the resort complex or the surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the proposed ballroom. Any hazards would be less than significant. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no existing health hazards on the proposed project site. The proposed ballroom is not expected to create any health hazards, as long as OSHA and County Health Department safety regulations are followed by employees. The ballroom will be required to conform to zoning, standards and all applicable health and safety codes of the City. E. Would the proposed involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed project site is an existing paved parking lot within a developed resort complex. There is no flammable vegetation near the project site. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic noise from Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Fernando, the closest paved roads. 22 Residential areas are considered noise - sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. The nearest residential use is located within the resort complex. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Any increase in vehicular noise resulting from the development of the ballroom is anticipated to be insignificant. The existing (1992) noise levels for the project site range between 50 to 60 dBA. Staff has determined that the proposed ballroom is most compatible with the Auditorium/Concert Hall land use category in Table 6.3 of the La Quinta MEA. Table 6.3, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL), indicates that this land use has a normally acceptable noise range of 55 to 60-dBA, and that above this range is unacceptable. In order for ballroom to have a less than significant noise impact, the operational noise levels will not be able to exceed 60 dBA/CNEL. Construction materials and design should take noise containment and reduction into account for the ballroom B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in .the City be establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Auditorium and Concert Hall land uses should have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 60 dBA. If the ambient noise level is higher than this standard, then it will serve as the standard. The proposed project will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. The Municipal Code regulates construction hours to which the developer must comply. (Source: La Quinta General Plan) 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement service are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City at buildout. Based on this standard, the City is currently underserved. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station 432 on Old Avenue 52, at Ae. Bermudas, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Dmartment is also responsible for bufiding and business inspections, plan review, and • s 23 construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved. The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Structural fires and fires from other man -made features are the most significant fire threats in the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There is one elementary school, one middle school, and one high school within the City. These schools are within the Desert Sands Unified School District. The City is also within the College of the. Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and contains 2,065 . square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes. The County unadopted planning standards are 0:5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements. Utilizing these standards, in 1992, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility located in the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center. The Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility is a satellite clinic of the Eisenhower Medical Center, located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the project is Station #32 located approximately one mile southeast. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center and by County, State, and federal agency offices in the desert and region. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. The development of the project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of 37,000 square feet of building area. The development shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimise the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required. Other code requirements (such as fire sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) will be required. B. World the project have an effect .upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? 24 Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department responded with comments on this project. They had no negative comment and stated that the project will not significantly impact the Sheriffs Department's ability to provide services. Ample exterior and address lighting is requested by the Department. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be subject to payment of school impact fees to mitigate potential impacts on local schools. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities including roads. No Impact. The roadways within the resort complex are privately maintained, thus there will be no impact upon maintenance of public roads. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, planning, and inspection services provided by the City will be partially offset by application fees charged to the developer. Business license and code enforcement services will be provided by the City of La Quinta. 3.12 UTYLITIES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial irrigation District (lID) for electrical power supply and the Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. 11D has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and Hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Colony Cablevision services the area for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from 13 wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The o � 25 City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting There is an existing storm drainage system in place at the resort complex. Runoff is directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities exist at the project site. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas services? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, sewer, and gas lines has been brought into the resort complex. The proposed ballroom facilities will require sewer, water, natural gas, and electricity. The projected electrical consumption has been calculated to be 1.039 kd"EI per day. Natural gas consumption is calculated at 2,434 cubic feet per day. (Source: Utiligen) B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Tlian Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will require service from GTE or another purveyor for telephone communication. It is anticipated that an internal communication system will be installed in the ballroom that is an extension of the existing system at the resort complex. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom facility will require water service. It is not anticipated that the development will result in any significant adverse impact. on local water resources. Water consumption is calculated at 8,880 gallons per day for the project. (Source: Utiligen) D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection to the sewer system Sewage generation is calculated at 7,400 gallons per day for the project. (Source: Utiligen) E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? PU Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is current an existing paved parking lot. There will be no additional pavement as a result of the construction of the ballroom. There is an existing storm drainage system within the resort complex. That system will serve this project. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will require solid waste disposal service from Waste Management of the Desert or other purveyor. Solid waste may be transported to the three existing landfills in the Coachella Valley. These landfills are reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Any on -site programs for recycling will be coordinated with Waste Management. Solid waste generation for this project is calculated at 259 per day. (Source: La Quinta General Plan; Utiligen) 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. The project site is located in a developed resort complex ion the west central portion of the City. The proposed ballroom height will not exceed that of the existing buildings in the complex. Architectural style and exterior colors will match or be compatible with that of the existing buildings nearby. A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? No Impact. The project site is located within a resort complex, away from any public roadway. The proposed ballroom will not be seen from Eisenhower Drive, the closest public roadway. The new structure will not adversely impact scenic vistas. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed ballroom will be required to comply with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City. Thus, there should not be a significant adverse impact upon the aesthetic qualities of the surrounding area. C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The anticipated development of the ballroom will include exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the resort complex. All lighting fixtures shall be required to comply with the Dark .Skv Ordinance and otlier current policies of the City concerning lighting issues. 0 0 27 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The history of the La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. Early inhabitants of the Colorado Desert were people who had migrated across the Bering Strait more than 20,000 years ago. As their migration progressed, they passed through the Colorado Desert on their gradual way to Central America. As time past, the Coachella Valley became the home to a band of people that migrated from the Great Basin. Ethnographically these people are known as the Cahuilla. The Cahuilla followed a hunting and gathering life style as they lived along the ancient lakeshore and cove areas in the valley. The archaeological record, as it is known today, extends back almost 6,000 years. The Cahuilla were divided into three geographic areas: the Western or Pass Cahuilla within the Agua Caliente (Palm Springs) area, the Desert Cahuilla (from Palm Springs east to the Salton Sea ), and the mountain Cahuilla (south to San Jacinto Peak in the Santa Rosa Mountains). Traveling across boundaries to exploit seasonal resources was a part of their annual life cycle and life way. Anthropologist Alfred Kroeber estimated that the population prior to white contact (2500 individuals) has been reduced to about 750 by 1923. The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills, however, many sites have been found in the open desert floor area. Camp and village sites are usually located near sources of water, food, and shelter. Temporary camp sites have been found near game trails, springs, mesquite groves, grass stands, bedrock outcrops, marshy areas, or along the ancient lake shore line. isolated milling features, sparse lithic scatters, and isolated pottery scatters have been found almost anywhere in the City. In 1540, the first European explorer, Captain Hernando de Alarcon, 'entered Southern California at the Yuma crossing, which is located to the southeast of La Quinta. Approximately 100 years later, Spanish missionaries visited the area. A trail was established by the Cocomaricopa Indians across the Valley in 1821 as they carried mail through the San Gorgonio Pass between Tucson and Mission San Gabriel. White settlement in the Valley did not occur to any degree until the transcontinental railroads were constructed. The construction of the railroads brought with it the technology to drill water wells deep enough to sustain settlement in the valley. The Bradshaw Trail brought in settlers and freight both before and after the construction of the railroad. The Coachella Valley was the site of the most popular immigration route to the southwest via the Southern Immigrant Trail. The Bradshaw Trail route passed through the Valley until 1,915 when a graded gravel Todd was developed lur automobile t1dVC1. 28 The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta historical Society in several publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. La Quinta experienced rapid growth in the late 1970's which lead to incorporation of the City in 1982. The City has grown from a population of approximately 5,400 in 1982 to over 16,000 in 1994. The incorporated boundaries currently include over 31 square miles of area. Local Environmental Setting he proposed project site is locate within a designated historic resources, the La Quinta Hotel. There are recorded archaeological sites to the west; of the project site that are of a prehistoric. and protohistoric date. There are over a dozen recorded prehistoric archaeological sites within a mile radius of the project site. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. No significant paleontological resources have been found on the hotel property or the near vicinity of the resort. The project site is on ground that is higher than the highest stand of ancient Lake Cahuilla, thus it is not anticipated that paleontological resources will be found in the project site. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Less than Significant Impact. There are several archaeological resources within a one mile radius of the project site. Both insignificant and significant sites have been recorded. Prior to any excavation of the underground parking garage, a qualified, City- approved archaeological monitor shall be enlisted to perform monitoring of all excavation and trenching activities for the project. It is possible that subsurface cultural deposits exist at the project site given the close proximity of known archaeological sites. The requirement for such monitoring shall be made a condition of approval for the proposed project. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta Hotel is a designated local historic site. The hotel has also been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The proposed ballroom addition will not impact the hotel structure or the old grounds around the hotel. The architectural design of the ballroom is in keeping with that of the historic portions of the resort complex. The project was reviewed by the City's historic Preservation Commission, which forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission for approval of the project as proposed. 0 0 29 D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No Impact. The development of the ballroom will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses or sacred uses on the proposed project site or adjacent to it. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks ,,nd Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla Park is not included in this count. There are also bike and ' equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The proposed project does not include the subdivision of land for residential units, therefore, there are no park fees required of the proposed project. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. The anticipated ballroom project will not affect any existing park or recreation facility. (Source: La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan) SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for the proposed ballroom addition could have potentially significant adverse impacts on some of the environmental issues addressed in the checklist. The potential significance can be lessen to levels below significance if the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for this project based upon this environmental assessment. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: 30 * The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. * The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. * The proposed project will not have impact which are individually.limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. * The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECnON 5: EARLIER ANALYSES a. Earlier Analyses Used. Specific Plan 121 -E was approved in 1975 by Riverside County. The project was required to prepare an EIR (EIR 41). This project proposed an expansion to the hotel complex with the construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, and 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse and service facilities on 619+ acres. In 1982, the Specific Plan was amended to allow and addition of 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms. An environmental assessment was prepared for the revision which resulted in the adoption of a Negative Declaration. Five other subsequent amendments for revisions to the specific plan were approved through 1989, each with a Negative Declaration being certified by the City. This project was not part of the previous approvals and thus not assessed in associated environmental assessments. The convention building was not considered prior to this current request, with the exception of a traffic study prepared for the 1988 revision to add 340 units to the hotel. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Not applicable. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum where possible. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MW) has been prepared for the project that will become a part of the conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits. 31 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 95 -022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL'ASSESSMENT 95.304 PREPARED FOR PLOT PLAN 95.555 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #3) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95.304 GREG BURKHARTIKSL LA QUINTA HOTEL CORPORATION WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of June, 1995 hold a duly noticed Public Hearinn to CL'r1S:dor tho .nn �o PI + ICI „ U" 10 a Specific o o y proposed , ,o. , .a„ ,....,55 and Specific � lan .21 Revised (Amendment #3) for the La Quinta Resort & Club expansion project; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did approve the certification of the Environmental Assessment to the City Council; and, WHEREAS, said Plot Plan and Specific Plan amendment have complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) (Resolution 83.68 adopted by the La (?uiata City Cauncill in that the Community Development Department has prepared Initial Study EA 95 -304; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said plot plan and specific plan amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; 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 certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly or indirectly. 2. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment do not have the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. 4. The proposed plot plan and specific plan amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable. Planning Commission Resolution 95.022 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission for this environmental assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 95.304 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit "A" contained in the project file. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Gardner ABSTAIN: None . V14-44 DONALD ADOL , Chair n City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: HERMfm Comunity Development Director La Qu' , California RESOPC.? 65 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 95 -023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, OF AMENDMENT #3 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #3) HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF PALM SPRINGS WHEREAS, the La Quinta Hotel was originally built in 1926; and, WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -EIEIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf CIub) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the master lan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium m unt #s and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the ado ted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) and 1989 (Amendment 2) permitting additional enlar em�ent and modification to the Plan; and, g WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 27th -day of June, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the Hotel Association of Palm Springs to amend the aforementioned specific plan to allow a new 16,000 ballroom and other associated facilities including a new sub -level parking g , square foot described as follows: p g gars e more particularly A PORTION Or THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SECTION 36, T5S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Riles to ImPleme:]t the California Environmental Quality Act of 197011 as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Cvnununity Development Director conducted an Initial Study, and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, RESOPC.149 Planning Commission Resolution 95 -023 WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation of the specific plan amendment: That Revised Specific Plan 121 -E, Amendment #3, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Zoning Code. 2. The proposed amendment is necessary to allow for the orderly development of proposed Revised Specific Plan 121 -E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 95 -304, indicating that the proposed specific plan amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be filed. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above - described amendment request subject to approval of Plot Plan 95 -555 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 27th day of June, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Anderson and Gardner ABSTAIN: None A HE N, Community Development Director La Ouinfa, California ( rW DON ADQ►LPH, Ctlairman City of La Quinta, California CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SP 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT 3) (LA QUINTA HOTEL BALLROOM) JUNE 27, 1995 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment 3) shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws in effect at the time of approval of this project unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Upon acceptance by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. This specific plan approval shall expire and become void on June 27, 1997, unless extended pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3. This approval shall be in compliance with all applicable conditions and applicable provisions of Plot Plan 95- 555. 4. The total number of single family homesihotel rooms that will be allowed in the Specific Plan area shall be 1,494 (i.e., 775 units, 719 rooms). CONAPRVL.157 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION JULY-8, 1997 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97 -608, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this �r project. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other. means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition. Construction, and upon site development/operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition /building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction /demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department Conapppcs#97 -608 Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For _projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 7. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall be met. 8. Exterior lighting shall to be low profile, down shining, and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Top of lights shall not exceed 8 feet in height. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. Light shields may be required by the City within first six months after beginning of operation. 9. Prior to issuance of a building permit for this maintenance facility, the applicant shall enter into a secured agreement ensuring demolition of the existing maintenance facility on Avenida Carranza within six months after issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the new facility. The existing facility shall be razed with the site cleared of all rubble and storage, etc., and the soil stabilized to comply with the City's Fugitive Dust Ordinance. 10. The Traffic Analysis submitted for Sp 121 E , Amendment #4, Page VII, shall have recommendation #7 of the Site access /Circulation Plan revised as follows: A) The existing transit stop adjacent to Planning Area II on the south side of 501h Avenue shall be replaced with a bus turnout and covered shelter meeting the requirements of Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. ConaPPPcs#97 -608 11. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the property to which they apply. PROPERTY RIGHTS 12. All easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be acquired or granted, as appropriate, or the process of said acquisition or granting shall be ensured, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Grants shall include additional right of way widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc., included on approved plans. 13. The applicant shall, by grant deed furnished prior to issuance of a grading permit, relinquish access rights from adjacent lots to Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Access to these streets shall be limited to the two entry locations proposed for Avenue 50. 14. The applicant shall dedicate public street right of way as follows: a. Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive (Primary. Arterials) - 50 -foot half right of way plus additional area as needed for right -turn lanes and other features contained in the approved construction plans. 15. Prior to approval or a grading plan or issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 16. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 17. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. IMPBaVEMENT AGREEMENT 18. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and satisfy obligations required of this site development permit. Security provided shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Conapppcsdp97 -608 �; 00125 19. The applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by. City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. 20. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall reimburse the City for improvements made to the south half of Avenue 50 adjacent to this site. 21. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security for one -half of the raised landscape median in Eisenhower Drive which will be constructed by others. a MOMWIN21 &M 22. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "hough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Plans for site improvements may be combined on a single plan provided excess clutter doesn't affect readability. All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 23. The City may maintain standard plans, details and /or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and /or detail sheets from the City. Conapppcs#97 -50$ A R1 ' L� 24. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 25. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 26. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 27. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 28. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 29. Prior-to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the- building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: 30. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24 -hour period of a 100 -year storm shall be- retained within the development or on adjacent golf course areas unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. Conapppcs#97 -508 ', 001 . 7 31. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common 1 areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 32. The design of the development shall, not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 33. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development (or off of the golf course areas) through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 34. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 35. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater water to off -site locations other than golf course areas, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil /water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention program and for any other obligations and /or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. UTILITIES 36, All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High - voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 37. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. Conapppcs#97 -608 �� U. 0U �ZJ STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 38. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted in parentheses: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Avenue 50 (Primary Arterial) - Completion of primary arterial street improvements on the-, south side, including an eight- foot -wide meandering sidewalk/bike path, from the east project boundary to the existing improvements at Eisenhower Drive. The existing median width and alignment shall be modified to provide left turn pockets for westbound traffic at this project's two access /egress drives. The south curbline shall vary between 33' and 37' south of the improvement centerline to conform with the location of the south median curb. The easterly egress drive and median break shall be designed to block left turn movements out of the drive. No deceleration lane shall be installed. Other improvements shall include full landscaping of the raised median on Avenue 50 in the area adjacent to the site and a bus turnout and covered shelter in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. 2. Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - Completion of primary arterial street improvements on the east side of the centerline from Avenue 50 south approximately 200 feet to the tract line of tentative map 28334, plus a six -foot wide meandering sidewalk. The east curb fine shall be 38' east of the centerline. Provision of cash or security for one -half the cost of the raised landscape median which will be constructed by others. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. 39. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to two Avenue 50 access points as follows: A. Avenue 50 One full -turn access located opposite of the existing La Quinta Country Club entry on the north side of Avenue 50. Construction of this access shall include provision of a left -turn pocket in the Avenue 50 median for Conapppcsdp97 -608 U�!01i9 westbound traffic and modification of the preliminary access plan to provide additional stacking distance and a turnaround for vehicles rejected at the entry gate. One left -in /right -in /right -out drive along the easterly portion of the site located a minimum of 250 feet (curb return to curb return) from the full -turn access to the west.. If the median opening is constructed; it shall include variable median widening from 12' to 16' for approximately 150' west of the opening to accommodate construction of a positive barrier in the opening that restricts left -out turn movements. If the gated entry has an automatic gate, the access area shall be modified to provide additional stacking distance and a turnaround for vehicles rejected at the entry gate. 40. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 41. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 42. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 43. Street right of way geometry for cuts de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 44. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways shall be designed and constructed with vertical curbs and gutters or shall have other approved methods to convey nuisance water without ponding in yard or drive areas and to facilitate street sweeping. 45. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20 -year life and shall consider soil strength and'anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: :. ;:�apppcs#97 -608 Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c. /4.50" a.b. Collector' 4.0 "/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0 "/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5 "/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site - specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. 46. Prior to occupancy of permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. LANDSCAPING 47. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the Avenue 50 perimeter setback areas adjacent to the maintenance facility site and entry drives. 48. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped. landscape setback areas, medians, common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community, Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 49. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. Conapppc8#97 -608 X00131. 50. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or 1� spray irrigation within 5 -feet of curbs along public streets. 51. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 52. The applicant shall 'ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above - ground utility structures. 53. The perimeter wall on 5011 Avenue shall meander between 15 and 25 feet from street right -of -way and be eight feet in height. Wall shall be decorative with design approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of wall permit. 54. 75% of all trees shall be 48" box size and 25% 36" box size, or its equivalent. 55. Planter width along east property line shall be a minimum 30 feet in width. PUBLIC SERVICES 56. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities as required by Sunline Transit and /or the City Engineer. QUALITY ASSURANCE 57. The applicant shall employ construction quality- assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 58. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 59. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 60. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As- Built" or "As- Ccnapppcs#97 =608 �JD_jf Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as- constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 61. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off -site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 62. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 63. Along the east property line, the wall shall be raised to eight feet in height, If agreed by the adjacent owners of the wall. All costs for such construction shall be borne by the applicants. Easterly gate on 5011 Avenue shall be a solid, decorative metal gate. 64. The maintenance building and all related facilities shall be relocated to the west to approximately the middle of the site. The revised preliminary plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. FIRE MARSHAL 65. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 66. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. 67. Blue retro- reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. Conapppcs#97 -608 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 =608 JULY 8, 1997 68. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: 1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department ". 69. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group . . The post indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 70. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan /inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 71. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC /Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. ) 72. Applicant/developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground /aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 73. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 74. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3.200 or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location /position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased'. 75. If the facility requires Hazardous Materials Reporting (Material Safety Data sheets) the Knox Haz Mat Data and Key Storage Cabinet, Model 1220 or 1300 with tamper switches shall be used. Conapppcsdp9 7 -608 �' ��0 ATTACHMENT 2 X00 1A 4 0 R m -,te , r' Q) ,ul ry °� JUN23i97 T 3 ..v C1 r`t `! +ter : AWN FILING INFORMATION: 062197 1132A EST MSGCN: ,4'"UCFT ORIGIN CITY AND STATE: NEW YORK NY SPECIAL DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS: DLV ON MON 6 -23 -97 .LA t3UINTA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER 78 -495 CALLE TAMPICO LA QUINTA CA 92253 REGARDING NOTICE OF I IEE T I NG jUL'r 8 f H . 19977: WE ARE TENNIS CONDO 0WHERS AT 76 -994 CALLE MAZATLAN. WERE NOT TOLD OF REMOVAL OF TEN TENNIS COURTS. STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS. WILL ADVERSLY' AFFECT VALUE OF PROPERTY. PLEASE !VOTE. JACQUELINE AND JOHI%I ROSENTHAL r - �� V vv i..r11= (k: c June 3, 1997 City Council La Quinta City Hall P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Ladies and Gentlemen: Mr. & Mrs. Nick FettisA.'N 9 AI'I 11 53 26116 Mesa Drive Carmel, CA 93923 �- . 'd j;riA 408 - 624 -7040 V, r' t ri `. 1.31.3 1997 My husband and I are the owners of a "Tennis Villa" located at 76936 Calle Mazatlan, La Quinta, California 92253. We understand there is a proposal to construct time share units very close to our home by PGA West / KSL'.corporation. We do not believe this use in our neighborhood is a benefit. We protest the proposed construction. There would be more noise and traffic and the real estate values would be.hurt by.this increased density at such a site. Please consider the rights of the residents and property owners of this quiet community. Sincerely, �. Mary Alice Cerrito Fettis r � • Nick Fettis �; o 0 C C 0 Cynthia Olmstead _ 1648 San Onofre Drives. F! il 1i 49 Pacific Palisades, CA 90271-1-1 1 a K 310-454-8140. 'll JUG; - 6 1997 June 3, 1997 CITY OF L`+QUIt City Council PLANNING -- -� La Quints City Hall PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Ladies and Gentlemen, My husband, Peter Olmstead, and I are the owners of a "Tennis Villa" located at 77 -349 Avenida Fernando, La Quinta, CA 92253. The purpose of this letter is to protest the proposed construction of Time. Share units in our immediate area by the PGA West / KSL Corporation and to urge you to deny a permit for such construction. The proposed construction is incompatible with the present character of the neighborhood; it would cause increased congestion, noise, and traffic, as well as depress . the real estate values. We are asking for your help in protecting our environment, Your consideration of the legitimate rights of all the La Quinta residents and property owners will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Cynthia Olmstead Peter Olmstead I r..^. .-1 4 r1 n L;UUlv0 Frederic J. Kakis , Ph.D. 1534 Harding Street Orange , California 92867 [714] 997 -0328 May 30, 1997 City Council La Quinta City Hall P.o. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA.92253 Ladies and Gentlemen: :l Jig': 2 r,*1 12 G4 JUN - 2 1997 �� 7 CITY OF IAOUINTA PLANN NG DEpARTMENT . _5;;�i My wife and I are the owners of a "Tennis Villa" located at 77104 Calle Mazatlan,L.a Quinta,� Ca.92253. The purpose of this letter is to protest the proposed construction of Time Share units in our immediate area by the PGA West / KSL corporation and to urge you 'to deny a permit for such construction. The proposed construction is incompatible with the present character of the neighborhood, it would cause increased congestion noise and traffic and depress the real estate values. We are asking fore your help. in protecting our environment. your consideration of the legitimate rights of all the La Quinta residents and property owners will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Frederic J. Kakis, Ph.D. Mathilda Kakis o0 J V ��.3 RANDOLPH LINEHAN 50028 CALLE OAXACA P.O. BOX 1850 LA QOINTA, CA 92253 19 June 1997 ECENE JUN,3 1997 CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Community Development Department City of La Quinta La Quinta City Hall 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Notice of Public Hearing: Items Concerning Santa Rosa Cove and La Quinta Resort, scheduled for 8 July 1997 at 4:00 PM: Dear Sirs: I am veer concerned that a nearing concerning a construction project which directly effects myself and my neighbors in Santa Rosa Cove is being held during a period of time when the majority of the owners and my neighbors will not be in La Quinta, and that the notice, as. in my case, has probably been shipped to the La Quinta address of their property and not to (or in duplicate) the permanent address of the owner of record of property in Santa Rosa Cove. As is well known at City Hall, Santa Rosa Cove is primarily a weekend, seasonal, or second home development surrounding the La Quinta Hotel. Most owners are not in residence during the summer. and would likely not be able to attend or even receive your notice for a summer session involving their property interests. Presuming they did receive your notice, and had an interest to attend, the scheduling of your meeting on a Tuesday, a mid -week date, would be a hardship requiring a special trip out to La Quinta in the middle of the summer, when few are likely to show -up or attend such a meeting. Assuming you are not "disingenuous" in this matter, I would think that you would want the principal group of citizens to be effected by this construction program to know of plans you have authorized and have their input. As our major function in your community over the last 17 years has been to contribute taxes, and produce weekend or seasonal personal spending, including disproportionately high restaurant, remodelling, furniture, and luxury items purchases, without use of your city's tax supported services (non -use of libraries, parks, clean -ups, street paving, schools, police services within development etc.): I would think that the least you would want to do to conserve our community's good will is to give us better and more detailed information of what you're permitting RSL (a new resident corporation in the city) to construct, what it will look like, when it will construct it (especially if it is to occur during the "season") and how it will effect us, principally in the way of: 1) Esthetics 2) Entry and Egress through our Gates at Avenue 50 and Avenida Fernandez 3' Construction time and disturbances and 4) Effect on present home U '__ t1 ♦ f prices by building a further surplus of new construction which will further lower prices of property in our development 5) Impact on Santa Rosa Cove with hotel and construction workers utilizing our streets to get to construction site and later work on a daily basis. Obviously, the solution to any misunderstandings would have been for the group requesting the permit, KSL, and the city to have sent out to all of the owners in Santa Rosa Cove detailed information concerning these items during the "season," and permitting us all to attend a meeting with their staff and the city during the "season" concerning these vital interests. I understand that the city is principally interested in construction permit fees and possible jobs. However, added daily traffic on Eisenhower, and on Calle Mazatlan, through the security gates on .Avenue 50 and Avenida Fernandez, as well as construction, noise, construction and hotel workers wandering through our "security" development, more surplus properties for sale (competing with and further lowering prices in our, development), and the thought of a large employee parking lot across the street from our development- (with 'employees entering and passing through our development on a daily basis ?), as well as expanded service needs for the resort and new properties using our development-as a pass through: directly does effect our interests in this city. Maybe you would be kind enough to address these important issues effecting our community, and explain why you would schedule such an important hearing and the viewing of documents regarding this construction program at such an insensitive and inconvenient time of the year. Cordially, Ra dolph L neh Owner 50 8 Calle Oaxaca, Santa Rosa Cove La Quinta,,CA 922532 r'11r11 ECEVE ~. + JUN 2 S �, ,_.._�.. CITY OF �AQUINTA " F'L4NNING DEPARTMENT City of La Quinta Planning Commission Re: Specific Plan 121E - Applicant KSL Recreation Corporation June 25, 1997 The Duna La Quinta Homeowners Association strongly opposes the zoning changes and proposed building sought by KSL Recreation in the 17.6 acres at the Southeast corner of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive bordered to the east by our property line. Simply put, the proposal by KSL to erect a golf - course equipment and maintenance garage barely more than 100 feet Lrorn ,a, n»iet qu ue i lty residential neighborhood is - i� -- -� v ludicrous. The attendant noise would commence at early dawn and extend into the night. The proposed parking lot sprawl, a mere 10 feet from our backyards, would further add to the problem. It is an arrogant effront to the many who purchased homes years ago in good faith based on the knowledge that the area west of Duna La Quinta was zoned low - density residential. To change the zoning and allow the building of a garage would have a devastating effect on property values. Also, an increase from low- density to moderate density in the area apart from the garage and round -the -clock parking would further downgrade the region. We contend that there are other locations on KSL property distant from established residential areas that are more suitable for the erection of such a complex. The timing of this proposal is most unfortunate, for so many of our homeowners are out of state on their summer recess. These homeowners, numbering over 100, are prevented from stating their views personally at the Public Hearing, which in all fairness, should be postponed until October - November. They have communicated their objections, however, to the undersigned and other members of the La Quinta Homeowners Association Board of Directors. We .dill speak to the issues involved at the Public Hear-n- g July 8, 1997 at 4 PM in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, Wa, e Connell ayne Nystro Glenn Pfeil Vice President Pfesident President Villa Vista HOA Duna Gardens HOA Dima La Quinta Owners 41 June 24, 1997 Chairman Jacques Abel La Quinta Planning Commission RE: Public Hearing on KSL expansion on 1u,y S, 1997 Della Davis ;lomeowner's Association Mountain Estates La'Quinta Mailing Address: P.O. Box 13315.311 Oakland, CA 94619 We are requesting a continuance of the public hearing scheduled for this date. It is a fact that La Quinta is a seasonal resort, and the majority of homeowners who will be affected by these changes are out of town. We object to a public hearing taking place when the public cannot attend. Secondly, the docurnents outlining their proposed changes (Amendment *4' ) and the environmental assessment is not available for the public to read, since, according to the planning department, it is not ready yet. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter Sinccre!y, Della Davis l� ti JUN 2 6 1997 CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT iJ V 3 aJ * * * * * * *Dr. Stuart L. Farber 350 Monrovia Ave. Long Beach, California 90803* * * * * ** Mr. Jerry Herman Director, Community Development Department City of La Quinta Calif. 92253 Dear Mr. Herman: U JUN 2 6 1997 ' CITY OF LAOUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT This letter is regarding the "notice of Public Hearing" scheduled for July 8, 1997.concerning the KSL Recreation Corp. and their requests numbered one (1) through seven (7) see attached, and environmental assessment #97 -340. As a long time homeowner and tax payer, over sixteen years, in the Santa Rosa Cove Resort community, I am demanding that the KSL request #6 on the indicated document be disapproved. The KSL Corp. request # 6 currently reads as follows: Req. #6. "Approval of site development permit to allow construction of golf course/hotel maintenance complex, including a 19,440 square foot building and parking lot for all hotel and golf course employees on 6.2 acres located on the south side of 50th. avenue, approvixately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive." My demand is based upon the following reasons: 1. Increased security problems resulting from the increased and difficult to control worker foot traffic going through the SRC main gate at Eisenhower and 50th, through the dense residential area of SRC to and from their respective work sites. 2. The heavy increase of maintenance equipment, materials and personnel through the gate of Eisenhower and 50th.street and residential areas to and from various work stations and repair sites. 3. A significant increase of noise, morning, noon and evening , in and around the maintenance and employee parking complex. The noise will be continual and on- going from the maintenance /parking lot areas carrying to residential areas in SRC. 4. Increased safety and accident problems resulting from the maint. equipment traffic through the SRC main gate, onto Matzatlan and through the residential areas of SRC. 5. Increased pollution from cars, trucks, shuttles, equipment and other traffic from the maintenance parking area through the SRC residential areas, especially in and around phases 1 and 2 of SRC. (those residential areas in immediate proximity to the main gate). 1 6. Significant decrease in the "well being" of the homeowners of SRC affected by continuous traffic, congestion, noise, pollution and security and safety risks. 7. Lowering of property values, due to increased and continual noise, pollution, traffic, safety and security problems resulting from the use of the proposed maintenance complex and parking lot for all hotel and golf course employees. KSL Corp. request # 2 & #3 : I am also strongly requesting that the KSL Corp. requests number 2 and 3 be disapproved. Most of the homeowners and professional real estate brokers in the area are of the opinion that the area is already too dense and additional persons and traffic would be excessive and not in the best interest of the homeowners, both current and those to come. I am further strongly requesting that the hearing date currently set for July 8, 1997 on the indicated KSL requests, be postponed for at least ninety (90) days. This will provide the SRC Home Owners Association members some time to study the requests more thoroughly and to provide discussion and opportunities for their input and appropriate action -on the subject. I am further requesting that the environmental assessment 997 -340 be reconsidered to include that C_ impact upon the resident and residential areas immediately effected by the increased foot traffic, noise, pollution,security and safety hazards resulting from the proposed maintenance complex and employees parking lot. In this regard, I am requesting a copy of the Environmental Assessment 497 -340. I look forward to receiving the assessment within 7 working days. Finally, As a former Commissioner (Economic Planning and Development) for the City of Long Beach, may I add that I have great difficulty with the planning of a maintenance and staff parking lot at the front gate of a resort community. Maintenance and parking goes to the least disruptive and conspicuous areas of a complex, usually to the rear and certainly not at the front entrance. Sincerely Dr. Suart L. Farber cc: Mr. Craig Hammill, SRC Home Owners Association, President Mr. Jacque Abels, Chair, La Quinta Planning Commission Mr. Stan Sawa, Planning Department Honorable Mayor Glenda Holt, City of La Quinta KSL Recreation Corp. Larry E. Lichliter, Exec. Mice President Vernon A. —ir - :-2 45 12.201 Meadow C' urnr� Cr Potomac, Marl.1 20854 i J JUN 26 1997 y 57 7 RCITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT C6 a-tE CL (21 (- 2L-.7 61 r- ,ate. e2Fra �- ,,' t �r June 23, 1997 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 r, 4 N U J 2 197 U1 y. 1 CITY Of LAQUINTA i PLANINING DEPARTMENT Re: Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing Dated June 17. 1997 Applicant: KSL Recreational Corporation Gentlemen: We have lived across the street from KSL's present maintenance facility for over two years, and have had to constantly put UP with an extreme amount of noise, dust and safety hazards. While we are pleased to see KSL relocating the maintenance facility, we would like to see included in the overall plan a definite completion date for removal'of. the present facility. Hopefully, this plan would include razing the present maintenance building, removal of unsightly chainlink fencing, regrading the parking facility, and removal of the huge sand and equipment stockpile and accumulated debris and weeds. However, in reading over the above- mentioned notice and viewing the Planning Commission plot plan, there is no mention made of what is planned for the present facility at Avenida Carranza and Calle Tampico (vacated). As you know,, improvement of this area has been delayed for more than nine years, and we would like to see an acceptable,itimely conclusion. We plan to attend the public hearing on July 8 at 4:00- 'p.m., and request that this situation be addressed. Sincerely, Leo K. Miller Louis Miller 51 -040 Avenida Carranza La Quinta, CA 92253 000144 . k ELAINE J. RHOADES LEGAL ASSISTANT JOHN C. FISHER ATTORNEY AT LAW 975 OAK STREET, SUITE 780 EUGENE, OREGON 97401 City of La Quinta Planning Commission La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 TELEPHONE (541) 485 -3153 FACSIMILE (541) 485 -6736 �I In reply: _ - . Refer to JUL C 1 1997 June 25, 1997 CiTY OF LAt UINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: - public Hearing Set for July 8, 1997 Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97 -607, 97 -608, Environmental Assessment 97 -340, Certificate of A progriatehess 97 -003 Dear Sirs: The undersigned represents Nels E. Sandstrom and Myna T. Sandstrom. Mr. and Mrs. Sandstrom reside at 77 -321 Camino Quintana in La Quinta. In response to your Notice of Public Hearing, the Sandstroms register the following protests: 1. The scheduling of this important hearing during summer months when many, even most, of the Santa Rosa Cove homeowners are not in residence is highly unfair. The timing of the application appears intended to frustrate the policy behind the public hearing process, given the a }. ,. ...,�. tO,.,r, VC T. pecreatio`_1 number of rasidents wh&a ar;a o ..... ...,� .. Corp's application in July appears to have been made without consideration of the reasons residents of the Cove purchased homes there -- peace, quiet and without traffic congestion and accompanying smog. 2.' The Sandstroms vehemently protest the proposed development along Camino Quintana in multi -unit dwellings. The strip along Camino Quintana was zoned for condos with the same architectural design as the rest of Santa Rosa Cove. Permitting the change will have a negative impact on the existing development. 3 The Sandstroms request denial of multi -unit development of that area between the tennis villas and Camino Quintana. r 1 Page 2 June 25, 1997 Re: Public Hearing Set for July 8; 1997 97.054 97 -083 97 -607 97 -508 97 -340 and 97 -003 Given the opportunity to testify, my clients can produce evidence that KSL has consistently disregarded adherence to noise pollution abeyance and frequently violated rental control provisions of the CC &R's of Santa Rosa Crave. Very ly yours, John C,.,jXjsher JCF: cc: Mk. ancA Mrs. Nels Sandstrom t� 0 U`aU 1W The Community Development Department La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 GREETINGS: June 30, 1997 JUL 0 2 1997 RE: ALL ITEMS MENTIONED IN APPLICATION OF KSL CITY OF LAQUINTA RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS PLANNING D EPARTMENT (SP 121E, ZONE CHANGE 97-083, SDP 97-608; AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97-003): KSL LAND CORP. & ITS ASSIGNS (GPA 97-054): KSL DESERT RESORTS, INC. (TT 29545 & SDP 97-07) Mrs. Beverly K. Freitas is the record owner of the U QWnta Tennis Villa unit whose address is 77-321 Avenida Fernando, 1A Quinta, CA, 92253. As such owner Mrs. Fmitas does hem-by mgister her omnibus protest against each and tn �-. of the. m.—j —.q=b —pjL csmted by the. Applicant in connection m with the above-crititled proceedings. The NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING mailed to Mrs Fmitas at that La Quinta Tennis Vill= address was forwarded to her at her home at 1002 Rodeo Road in Pebble Beach, California, 93953 and was received there June 30, 1997. Like most other owners of property affected by thew proc=ding; , -Mrs. Freitas does not reside in La Quinta during the oppressive heat of the summer months, which is perhaps why so fi-eqi=t1y developers initiate their applications for unpopuLar zone ebanges, etc., during periods when it is most difficult for their opponents to submit their objections. The following caveat is excerpted from the received NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: "Ifyou ckaffeage the decision of 9W ewe in court, you maybe wed to raising only those usues that yoss or someone dse bas raised cider attire Pubfic Hearing or in wrftm correspondence deftPered go the Conununity Devd0PnwW at, or prior to, the PUbUc Ifearing. " The disclosure of that bit of legal information is appreciated as it is not something commonly known by recipients of such notice. We non-profemonal owners need help m thew Mm of situations. In addition to the foregoing; Mrs. Freitas also protests the lack of time from the date of the sending of the notices (most of which will require forwarding by the 1A Quinta Post Office to other addresses far and wide, many of them outside of the State of California) until the time of the Pubhe Hearing. In this caw that period is few than two weeks, interrupted by the Fourth of July hofiday weekend; and July is the most popular month of the year for vacations by members of the legal profession who are needed now by almost every owner involved in this matter. It is self - evident that there are innumerable complex issues raised by the Applicant's initiating petition. No doubt their attomeys, =gineels, ctc., have -labored 1mg and hard over the ,omaration 1br the on-,ientaton m Pan of II& lide of j, W* =C. 1a Aa '74ir that we ov-qlers QY11 icid o yonm& an d -1Onfer Ws shod w c* hc few elan to oppose nose who come so well fortified by years of preparation with expert repre-sentativm? Is it reasonable to expect C001 5 owners, not sinn7ariy trained and experienced in this intricate field of adnnuustrali law, need no more than two weeks to achieve equal expertise with which to protect their residential p mpertics against commercial adultion'? The City of I.a Quinta is compelled by law to provide due process in these proc =d[ings, hence the NOTICE OF PUBLIC HCARING mailed to all of the owners of any residential units � the Santa Rosa Cove area between the Mazatlan Gate and the Avenida Fernando Gate. The due process Mchules notice which is fair and reasonable under the circumstances of a given situation.. The reason for the notice is not merely to inform. The purpose is to give a reasonable opportunity to do the necessary to respond to the notice with protective action Less dum two weeks of working days does not meet tint crfcria. Mole time must be provided to allow thew owners to learn what it is that the developer wishes to do, and then to de%ne what; if anything, should be done to protect against it, and then to engage som"me with professional expenme to contest with the Applicant's hired experts. In =nmary; this protest is against all that the dmloper requests; it has to be that at this time because this owner has no practical nmeam of ascertafiling what charges in the status quo are being plarmed. In particular it is directed to the .insufficient time allowed within which the owner will be allowed to protect her single family residence; also, against any increase in the density which has so happily prevailed in the neighborhood during all of the years of its existence; and to the corrimcrCi�alir� ion of the residential e�onment by the onverflow of the large hotel operations beyond where they previously were allowed. We bought into a strictly rcmdcntial neighborhood, with a lovely hotel next -door, let us keep it that way! Dated and signed this 3e day of June, 1997. BEVERLY K. �AS U� -L- 1 ,. mood*? C. 04CMFICLO 1t17 W". A. =,.— w t. CirrYnA T+.P+1e4 N CI54_4./ aw�1r 19. CQ41G6 ►F AtiAN K Ot7�tLtAlJ� Vess go -we 1 MWA � K /YRA�O dLotrca L OL"aw rM4eN R *OLD VM"N T, 66LOtLL.N MMM M 0000 rALyY1 A 000L0 [1110 K d=CWN t= .' NU 40900 VI 1X' II. S, I�iAIL Planning Commission City of La Quinta 75 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 r� cz L'7 JUL0 1997 CITY OF IAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: lication RerrearjQn, Co Gentlemen: T am writing to oppose the above application, which will be heard at your July 9 meeting. I own a condominium on Cabe Mazatlan, close tc the La Quinta Tennis Club, but I will not be able to leave Los Angeles to attend the hearing. S have the following comments: 1• I am dismayed that KSL decided to present this Fatter during the summer, without reasonable notice to the affected residents of Santa Rosa Crave. KSL has obviously been preparing this plan for a very long time. Very few homeowners remain in Santa Rosa Cove during the summer, and we have not had any chance to see the details of the plan, If KSL had wanted to treat u9 fairly and honestly, it would have given us the details well in advance ao that we could . understand the ramifications and discuss with KSL ways to improve the proposal. 2. 1 cannot determine: whether item 2 in your notice, which requests a xane change in density for the northeast corner of ealle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana, affects property that is part of Santa Rosa Cove. I do not have the condominium documents with me, but I think the density cannot be increased without homeowner consent. ATTY\wjncoA . oo6 x;0015`' L •W AIRICCS TROY & G}OULD Wav"A JAIM MROFCSSIONAL CORMO11Ar10N rMINA .4 RIM � '�'~ o' � JC/I11tY W M1MMt■ C 1401 ENTUOT PARK EAST. 1eM FLOOR '� �, FAA►w '` \ ALLrN e. �sw JAMIls a LOCN01=0 LOS ANOiLES, CALIFORNIA 000157-2307 OMI.o r, MAMO[L►v I DAh O1 Re"M "" .1 6000AAr w.Iw JAMa A Mdbdg6", .11 - . 4ATwCA A QS" TCLCPHONE I31p) slt2-4441 NKMALO S. NdMtN .. LAMf.MCY" N TELCCOMIEFI 13101 001 -47As "MAlL Q n�1KOoew b JODt/M F. T*Or NATA VM L MAii411 L7uly 3, 1997 nLC Np, VI 1X' II. S, I�iAIL Planning Commission City of La Quinta 75 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 r� cz L'7 JUL0 1997 CITY OF IAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Re: lication RerrearjQn, Co Gentlemen: T am writing to oppose the above application, which will be heard at your July 9 meeting. I own a condominium on Cabe Mazatlan, close tc the La Quinta Tennis Club, but I will not be able to leave Los Angeles to attend the hearing. S have the following comments: 1• I am dismayed that KSL decided to present this Fatter during the summer, without reasonable notice to the affected residents of Santa Rosa Crave. KSL has obviously been preparing this plan for a very long time. Very few homeowners remain in Santa Rosa Cove during the summer, and we have not had any chance to see the details of the plan, If KSL had wanted to treat u9 fairly and honestly, it would have given us the details well in advance ao that we could . understand the ramifications and discuss with KSL ways to improve the proposal. 2. 1 cannot determine: whether item 2 in your notice, which requests a xane change in density for the northeast corner of ealle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana, affects property that is part of Santa Rosa Cove. I do not have the condominium documents with me, but I think the density cannot be increased without homeowner consent. ATTY\wjncoA . oo6 x;0015`' n r. LAW OFFICES TROY & GOULD 4 MO /GC.5IOHAL COrl01OI1AT" Planning Commission July 3, 1997 Page 2 3. It appears -that most of the traffic going to the new residential units will use Calle Mazatlan for. access, rather than Avenida Obregon. This will have a drastic impact on the privacy and serenity of the residents in the cul -de- eacs on the west side ofld!e Mazatlan. 4. A major concern is that the additional units will be used in time -share arrangements, resulting in a great many transient occupants. This will vastly increase the noise, commoCion, traffic,-- and - security problems, and will greatly detract from the comfort of the Santa Rosa Cove owners and %. the value of their properties. The suggestion in your notice, that we are entitled to review the public file at. your offices, is useless. Clearly, we have no opportunity to review the file when we are at our. summer homes. For obvious reasons, I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to postpone any decision to. approve KSL's plans until at least October, so that I and my fellow homeowners can have a fair chance to figure out whether these plans need to be changed. I invite you to. contact me if you would like to discuss this further. Thank you for your consideration, very rul yours, WJF /co CC: La Quinta City Council T iTTY\WJF1C0R.006 r ` William J. eis . a TROY & GOULD PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1801. Century Park East, 16th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone (310) 563 -4441 Fax (310) 201-4746: Facsimile Transmission Company: City of La Quints Contact: Planning Commission Fax Number: 760- 777 -7155 Tel. Number: '80 -777 -7000 Copies to: Date: July 3. 1997 Sender: William J. Faris Message: The infonwaeun contained in this facsimile message is attorney -cNent prlvifeged and conffder�trat irlfarmation fnt'eridatY vnfy for the use Of the indtviduef of ergiry named above, M tfte reader of this + eas is not ft intended recipient, or tha empi0yse Or agent Mwons&* to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are heroby notifsed that any dissc nination, distribution or copying of this carmnanicatiorr is srrrody prohibited: If you Aave recaived this comrnunicnvon itr arrvr, pleasa irrrrtredlerMfy notify Us by tefephane, and return the arig►nal message to us at the above address vie the U.S. Postal SarviCo. Thank you. Alumisor of pages: 3 3eteMrrne wont: File Flo.: 9990 -0 HARD COPY TO FOLLOW 8Y MAIL at -9 IP La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA , Mr. and Mrs. Steve Davis 45.780 ilia Sierra La Quinta, CA 92253 July 2, 1997 Dear Members of the Planning Commission: ....... _ ..r , ... _ ........ . ...vs,••. yr a JUL G 2 1997 (fff PLA'rJMf!r 5EEPAR MENT We appose specific parts of the KSL development plan scheduled for hearing on July 8. We oppose item 1, approval of specific plan amendment #f4 to update plan and to allow new devslopment. The ;planned changes in density and most importantly, the planned changes from residential to tourist - commercial zoning are not acceptable to us. We have investk quite a lot of money to purchase and develep kits in the surrounding areas. At the time of our due diligence the general plan was for the area to be low or medium density residential. Since it has been zoned this way for so bng, and through so many developments we could not imagine the planning commission approving a change of thus. This will negatively impact our investments and we ask you to deny any changes in density and land use. We oppose items 2 & 3 which again change the number of units allowed per acre by virtue of the density change, Our purchase Of exclusive and expensive land and home was based on the general plan which allowed low or medium density residential only. This change will impact the 'mole community of La Quinta, and should not be allowed. It is unfair to change the zoning after so much of the community surroundN La Quinta Resort has completed its development. Individual homeowners have invested huge amounts of money to complete upscale devMpment, complete with open space and ambiance. This type, of density will negatively impact the existing homeowners. We also oppose Item 5, approval of a site development permit, since the density of the area is currently medium density, 4.8 units per acre. The proposed density is 10 units per acre. We definitely want this denied, and the density maintained at 4.8 units per acre, as indicated in the general plan. We do not want the site development permit approved for the heafth spa, since the area would have to be rezoned tourist - commercial for this, and we oppose strongly the rezoning of residential into tourist commercial. We would like to speak In opposition to this proposed development, and request the clerk schedule us on the'agenda for the July 8th meeting, Sincgrely, r lb 6 TO: Mr. Jacques Abel La Quinta Planning Commission FROM: Delia Davis I�—rii f `1 Mountain Estates Homeowners Association JUL 0 2 1997 y Mailing Address: 102 Grand Ave � � Capitola, CA 95010 CITY OF LAQ IJINTA ILANMING DEPARTMENT Re: KSL Expansion We would like the Planning Commission to deny or postpone the planned expansion that KSL is attempting to fast track through the Planning Commission and City Council. The "'Public Notice" that was given was sent out at a time when the majority of the homeowners in the developments surrounding the resort are out of town. This does not constitute effective public notice, and in fact only serves KSL's purposes by making sure that no one has an opportunity to effectively investigate the expansion and oppose it if necessary. It is a fact that La Quinta and the desert communities are seasonal towns, aI only in the season from November until May are most homeowners in town. They are not available to read Ietters mailed to them at their La Quinta addresses, and thusly, are not being adequately notified of this expansion. Secondly, the materials referenced in the Public Notice, i.e., the Environmental Assessment and the Planning Commission Staff report are as of this date, July 2nd, still not available for the public to read. Given that these are lengthy materials, covering many changes, the public is not being given adequate time to oppose or approve the expansion. This is another reason to deny or postpone all actions on their many zoning change requests. We ask specifically, that in addition to postponing or denying the requests 1 through 7, as they relate to Plan 121E, Amendment #4, that all site development permits, 97 -607, 97- 608, and the Environmental Negative Mitigation acceptance be denied, until the public has a genuine chance to study the proposed changes, and until the majority of the homeowners in the surrounding developments are aware of the proposed zoning changes. Lastly, the proposed changes are not in keeping with the general plan. KSL is asking that the general plan be changed from residential, low density, to either residential medium density, or worse, to tourist commercial. Changing residential to tourist commercial is not acceptable to members of our association. Our members have invested millions of dollars in real estate development, based on the city of La Quinta's general plan, which called for the area at issue to be low or medium density residential, not tourist commercial. Please stop the fast -track tactics of KSL, and give the public an opportunity to voice their opinion. Please deny or postpone until November 1997, any and all action on this proposed expansion. y ENVIRONMENTAL 'CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 97 -343 Case No.:GPA 97 -054 Date:August 25, 1997 TTM- 28545, SP 121 -E, Amend. #4 SDP 97 -607, SDP 97 -608, CZ 97 -083 I. Name of Proponent: KSL Desert Resort Inc. Address: 54 -140 PGA Boulevard La Ouinta ..� Phone: 760 -564 -1088 j� MOVE SW G 2 1997 Agency Requiring Checklist: Cily of La Ouinta Project Name (if applicable): La QULrLta Resgrt 5 ecifc ian CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ti II. r ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be'potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality, III. DETERMINATION. Transportation /Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: • Public Services Utilities • Aesthetics • Cultural Resources Recreation 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated ". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature. Printed Na %e and Title ate August 25. 1 292 For: City of La Quinta. ComInunity Development Department P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 -11- �I .31 3.2 3.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:: a)Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low- income or minority community)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly .or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrast ucture)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a)Fault rupture? b)Seismic ground shaking c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e)Landslides or mudflows? f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? h)Expansive soils? i)Unique geologic or physical features? 13-`.Env `: lst 97- 143 -I11- lotentially Potenu:a,y `#i: y Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated M Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X V.4 X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 % D: \Env Geist 97 -343 -Iv- Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact impact 3,4 Water. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or X the rate and amount of surface runoff? b)Exposure of people or property to water related X Hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any X water body? e)chan.ges in currents or the course or direction of X water movements? f)change in the quantity of ground waters, either X through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g)Altered direction or -rate of flow of groundwater? X h)Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an X existing or projected air quality violations? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or X cause any change in climate? d)Create objectionable odors? X 3.6 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? D: \Env Geist 97 -343 -Iv- 3.7 3.8 f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b)Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.9 RISK OF UP SET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? P:1Env ciclst 97-3433 _V_. Less Than Potentially Significant Potentially Significant Impact Significant Unless X Impact Mitigated c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby X uses? d)Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b)Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b)Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? 3.9 RISK OF UP SET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? P:1Env ciclst 97-3433 _V_. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3.10: 3.11 3.12 3.13 d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)Increases in existing noise levels? b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a needfor new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a)Fire protection? b)Police protection? c)Schools? d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e)other governmental services? UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a)Power or natural gas? b)Communications systems? c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? e)Storm water drainage f)Solid waste disposal? AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c)Create light or glare? P: \Env Ckist 97 -343 _v1_ "Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Unless Impact Mitigated FA Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X 91 X X X X X X X A X X X X c)Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 _V11- Ask Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Disturb paleontological resources? X b)Disturb archaeological resources? X c)Affect historical resources? X d)Have the potential to cause a physical change X which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within X the potential impact area? 3.15 RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X parks or other recreational facilities? b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 3.16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the Potential to degrade the X quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve X short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 _V11- EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 150.63(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 -Viii- Amok Aft� INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 La Quinta Resort Project: Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97 -054 Zone Change 97 -083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97 -607 Site Development Permit 97 -608 Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns 56 -140 PGA Blvd. La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 Leslie Pilo iquand Associat6 Planner August 25, 1997 Page 1 N p TABLE OF CONTENTS Section . Page 1 -INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background_ of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics 5 2.4 Objectives 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions 6 2.6 Related Projects 6 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 Land Use and Planning 6 3.2 Population and Housing 10 3.3 Earth Resources 11 3.4 Water 15 3.5 Air Quality 19 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 22' 3.7 Biological Resources 26 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 30 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 31 3.10 Noise 32 3.11 Public Services 34 3.12 Utilities 36 3.13 Aesthetics 39 3.14 Cultural Resources 41 3.15 Recreation 42 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 43 5 EARLIER ANALYSES 44 Page 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1:1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify any potential environmental impacts of the amendment to the Specific Plan which includes development applications, changes in land use designation, Permits and a Tentative Tract map for the construction of new residential units, a spa and fitness center, and an employee parking lot within the La Quinta Resort campus. In order for the Applicant to. construct these new structures, the following applications must be, approved by the City: Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract Map 28545, Site Development Permits 97 -607 and 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97- 003. In addition, this Environmental Assessment prepared for the above applications must be certified by the Citv Council. The Specific Plan area is located in the City of La Quinta, California. This area includes the La Quinta Resort campus which is primarily west of Eisenhower Drive, in Section 36 of Township 6 East, Range 5 South, and Section 1, of Township 6 East, Range 6 South, as depicted on the La Quinta 7.5' USGS Topographic Quad Map. The proposed employee parking lot will be located south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 an area also within the Specific Plan. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the prinicpal responsibility for. carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study , as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the various project applications; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify. for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Page 3 0 To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; - To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project applications were deemed complete Subject to the environmental review requirements ofCEQA in light of the intended development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area: This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared by Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner, for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts for some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist (Land use and planning, air quality, transportation/circulation, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources). Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed project in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (NRAP) which will - reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTIO 2; PR.OJECT DESC _ TION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is 31.18 square miles in area located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the, west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County and the City of Palm Desert, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The project site is located in approximately the west - central portion of the City, mostly west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. The La Quinta Hotel is located within the project site known as the La Quinta Resort. Page 4 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project site is a portion of a 638 acre combined residential and hotel resort complex nestled in a cove setting below the Santa Rosa Mountains. This cove is a gently sloping alluvial fan with steep hillsides surrounding on three sides. The land included in this project has been inhabited and utilized since-prehistoric times: In the early 1920's Walter Morgan purchased the property from the State for the purposes of developing a desert hideaway resort. In 1926, he began construction of the hotel and six cottages called Casitas. Morgan marketed the hotel to the Hollywood celebrities who frequented it for rest and relaxation. Over the years, the resort was expanded with additional casitas, additional golf courses, a landing strip, a stable, swimming pool, and other structures. The 1970's and 80's witnessed considerable expansion with a number of hotel rooms and single family homes constructed in the surrounding area of the Specific Plan. Thus, a majority of the property has been developed. There is no existing development in the hillsides and none is proposed. In 1988 Amendment #2 was approved to construct a maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The third Specific Plan amendment was approved in 1989 for 77 hotel units that were never built. In 1995, another amendment to the Specific Plan was approved to permit the construction of a conferencelballroom facility and rearrange parking facilities. The history of amendments to the Specific Plan includes one approved under Riverside County Jurisdiction, and three approved under City of La Quinta jurisdiction. The proposed amendment subject to this environmental review will be the fourth amendment under City jurisdiction. Today there is a total of 640 guest rooms and suites, with 66,000 square feet of meeting and function space. A retail arcade accommodates visitors and residents and there are three formal restaurants and a bar and grill establishment. There are two 18 -hole golf courses and 25 swimming pools, 3 5 hot spas and a tennis club. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Site Development Permits will consist of a new spa building and future fitness building, 119 new single family clustered 1, 2 & 3 bedroom residential units with hotel guest opportunities totaling 210 rooms or "keys ", and an employee parking lot with 244 spaces. The proposed buildings will operate as new amenities for the resort complex. It is possible that all or part of the proposed new single family units may be purchased by one entity, leased to the La Quinta Hotel and operated as hotel units, or it is also possible that each unit will be purchased by individual owners. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is to not only to create new amenities for the resort visitors and residents,, but also update the distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the plan, and provide implementation measures in the form of regulations and standards on a plan and in a text. Page 5 a M 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed project will require reviews and recommendations of approval by the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of Environmental Assessment 97 -343 Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97 -054 Zone Change 97 -083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97 -607 Site Development 97 -608 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The project does not have any related projects other than those discussed in this addendum. There have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last twelve years. With on -going development activities at the resort it is likely that there will be additional site development permit approvals required in the future. SEC'T'ION 3: ENVIRONDUNTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts, and compatibility with the proposed design of the spa and residences associated with the land use, subdivision design, architectural design, and historic architectural approval of the proposed development. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The topographical relief in the valley ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Page 6 Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan is located mostly west of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A small portion extends to the southeast comer of that intersection. The mountains are steep and rocky, and provide a striking contrast to the relatively flat cove area. Currently there are 640 hotel rooms or suites, two 18 -hole golf courses, a commercial arcade, restaurants, single family homes and custom home lots surrounding the resort campus, a tennis complex, and administrative buildings located on the campus. Only a few small parcels have never been developed within the resort or hillside custom - lots and are still vacant. TH storieally, the resort property has been included agricultural uses, a horse stable, a landing strip, and was the site of a historic lake known as Lake Marshall. The land was also occupied prehistorically, as evidenced by the archaeological sites on the property. The land use and development history for the resort began with the initial approval of Specific Plan 121 -E in 1975 by Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This plan allowed the development of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, a 27 -hole golf course, and service facilities on 619 acres. In 1982, an amendment to the specific plan was approved to allow for 279 additional condominium units, 146 new hotel units, and the annexation of 19.23 acres into the specific plan area for the development of the La Quinta Tennis Club and Tennis Villas (200 condominiums) in the central portion of the resort property. This amendment was processed under Riverside County jurisdiction as the City of La Quinta did not incorporate until May 9, 1982. In 1988, the first amendment under City jurisdiction was approved to add a new maintenance facility with employee and overflow parking lot located at the southeast corner of the Tennis Villas area. These facilities were constructed on two long pieces of land, the north parcel to have the maintenance facility and employee parking, while the southerly parcel was developed with 162 parking spaces for the hotel use. In 1989, Specific Plan Amendment #2 was approved to add 77 new hotel units. These units were never built. In 1995, Amendment 43 was approved by the City in conjunction with Plot Plan 95 -555 for the construction of a ballroom expansion and elimination of designated parking area and replacement with associated parking. On May 14, 1997, the Applicant made application to the City for Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 -E and related development applications as described in this document. Currently, the La Quinta Resort campus consists of 640 hotel rooms, convention facilities including 60,000 + sq. ft. of exhibit space, restaurants, o#fice /retail space, two 18 -hole golf courses, 25 swimmir!g pools, 38 spas and a tennis club. The Specific Plan currently allows for a total number of Page 7 1558 residential units. The gated residential sections of the resort include Santa Rosa Cove - 334 units (6 lots vacant), The Enclave/Mountain Estates - 32 custom units with 59 vacant lots, Los Estados - 40 residential units, Tennis- Villas - 48 units built, 200 units approved, and land east of Eisenhower Drive - 110 units potential. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Adjacent land uses and their designations include: Low Density Residential uses to the east, Medium Density Residential to the south, and Santa Rosa Mountains Open Space with a Hillside Conservation Overlay to the north and west: The Specific Plan area extends to the city boundary on the west. The existing residential, tourist commercial, golf and open space uses of the resort are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The existing General Plan Land Use designations for the residential resort include Low Density Residential (LDR) with a range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and Medium Density Residential (MDR) with 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Commercial designations include Tourist Commercial. Other land uses include Golf Course, Open Space, and Water Course/Flood Control. The existing land uses are depicted in Exhibit 5 (Page 2.5) of the Specific Plan document submitted for this project. The proposed changes to the land use designations are depicted in Exhibit 6 of the above referenced document. Acreage under MDR will change from 22.5 acres to 5.5, while TC will increase from 43.5 acres to 6Q.5 acres in Planning Area 1. The requested change involves an change of 6.3 acres to the TC (Tourist Commercial) designation, a reduction of the LDR (Low Density Residential) designation from 18.9 acres to 12.6 acres, but no change in the 6 acres of GC (Golf Course) and 3.5 acres of W (Water Course/Floodway) designated areas for that area east of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenue 50 - Planning Area II. The proposed changes in land use designations would serve as mitigation for the proposed development by providing for consistent and compatible land use categories. Existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area include RL - Low Density Residential, GC - Golf Course, WC - Water Course, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area II), and RM - Medium Density Residential, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area I), TC- Tourist Commercial, GC - Golf Course, OS - Open Space, FP - Flood plain, and HC _ Hillside Conservation . The Zoning District boundaries are proposed to be modified in that there would be an increase in the acreage of the TC Zone, a portion of the RL area would be redesignated to TC for the proposed parking lot and residential specific plan area located east of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. The proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit 8 of the Specific Plan document. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designations and would serve as mitigation for the proposed development in those specific areas where the zone change is requested, in that there would be consistency with the General Plan land use designations. The current Specific Plan for the resort provides for a maximum of 1558 residential dwelling units on 638 acres ofthe.resort campus that are planned for residential, golf course, and open space uses. There is a mix of densities from 2 to 8 units per acre, with an overall density of 2.4 dwelling units per Page 8 acre. The proposed Specific Plan amendment will reduce the overall allowable dwelling unit production to 1367 dwelling units. This number is calculated as follows: 1367 -152 units (Tennis Villas - 200 approved, 48 built) east of Obregon = 1406. 1406 - 60 units of the allowable 110 on land east of Avenue 50 (assuming 12.6 acres x DU's /ac nets 50 built on the LDR — 1346. 1346 +21 transferred from the Hillside area = 1367 units (Source: Draft Specific Plan Amendment #4).Development standards will determine the actual density for a particular parcel for residential units in the TC -RSP areas. The proposed Specific Plan amendment would create a unique use category specified as Tourist Commercial- Residential Specific Plan (TC -RSP). With the anticipated use of the proposed single family detached residential units as potential hotel rooms that can be rented as "keys ", a review of the Tourist Commercial (TC) Zoning District indicates that the purpose and intent of this zone is to provide for the development and regulation of a narrow range of specialized commercial uses oriented to tourist and resort activity. Representative land uses include retail uses, general commercial uses, office uses and health services, dining, drinking, and entertainment uses, recreation uses, public and semi- public uses, residential and lodging uses, accessory uses, and temporary and interim uses_ Residential uses in the TC- (RSP) zone include townhome, single family, and multi - family residential uses in accordance with the Specific Plan Residential Overlay. Particular uses requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit include resort maintenance plants and facilities, pool/spa and water park uses, theaters, five or motion picture - indoor or outdoor, and parking garages as an accessory use to residential and lodging uses, and timeshare units. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions over the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta has lead agency jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. An EIR was prepared for the original Specific Plan in 1975. Environmental Assessment 95 -304 was prepared for a ballroom expansion at the resort which was a part of Amendment #3 of the Specific Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for that EA. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the project site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey). D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low - income minority community)? Page 9 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve the demolition of six existing condominium buildings, each with 3 units, in order to construct the new residential specific plan units. A total of 10,020 square feet will be demolished. Occupancy of the condominium buildings was at resort market -rates which precluded low- income families or individuals. Impact to the physical arrangement of the existing resort will be minimal as the proposed new buildings will allow for the continuing of the existing spatial organization of open spaces and walkways between buildings (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan).The proposed parking lot will be located south of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue .50, which is physically separated from the main resort campus. However, the parking lot parcel was included in the Specific Plan area several years ago. Traffic from this parcel to the main resort campus will be via public streets separating the two Specific Plan areas. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is made up of nine cities in the eastern portion of Riverside County with a total population of more than 250,000 people. The current population of the County is 1.38 million (Source: Dept. Of Finance, 1996). Local Environmental Setting La Quinta incorporated in 1982 with a population of 5,260. Fourteen years later, the City has grown to 31.18 square miles with more than 18,931 permanent residents within its City limits. La Quinta's population ranks it sixth largest of the cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth has been approximately 10% in recent years (e.g., 1,000 people /year). The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000. The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population. The ethnic composition of the City is 70% White, 26% Hispanic, 2% Black, 2% Asian/Other. The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21% are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). The total number of housing units in the City is 9,923. Single family housing units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 6,845 detached single family units, 2,260 attached single family units, 571 multi - family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.118 (Source: 1997, Dept. of Finance). The number of housing units occupied is 6070, with 38.83% vacant. Median home prices in the City are just below $120,000 (1990 Census) which is consistent with the average for Riverside County but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overviews). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (,Source; Community Development Department, City of La QuintaJ. Paue 10 I E.; I El A Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential specific plan units will generate additional residents and visitors to La Quinta, however, the anticipated vast majority of occupants of these units will be tourists staying at the hotel. It is not anticipated that a significant number of permanent new residents will result from this project that will cumulatively impact regional or local populations. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living at home. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents. The proposed project will provide a unique residential experience geared to tourist and resort uses and not likely to be used as permanent homes. Temporary construction- related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings proposed for this project are built.. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created for administration, management, attendants, and specialist for the spa and fitness center. It is anticipated that the existing staff will utilize the new parking lot. The proposed residential specific plan units may create some jobs for domestics, gardeners, and hotel staff. The number of new jobs created by this project is not anticipated to exceed 30. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive economic impact. New jobs will have an impact upon employee parking and vehicle trips which will be considered in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the resort. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings are within an existing developed resort campus. All infrastructure is existing. Connections to existing main lines will be required. No significant impacts are anticipated for this issue. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. It is proposed that six condominium buildings, each with 3 units, will be demolished in order to make room for the new resort residential units. The condos are a part of the hotel room stock and not individually owned or leased for long term occupancy. Thus, there will be no impact upon the City's stock of permanent occupancy housing stock and housing needs. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the steep, rocky mountains to the south and west. The Cove area of La Quinta is located on an alluvial fan. Elevations reach I,�00 feet above ms', and to below sea level .lA the southeastern portion of the City. Slopes on the valley floor are gently, except in areas of rolling sand dunes and sand shadows. The alluvial soils n___ 11 3"-gr- 1. K` 7. that make up the Cove area are underlain by igneous - metamorphic rock, as seen in, outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The entire valley is underlain by hundreds of feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting The area where the project site is located is in a historical part of the City. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that a part of the site was farmed at one time. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 60 to 40 feet above msl (Source: TT 28545, USGS La Quinta Quad). Approximately 207.5 acres are designated as Open Space and are located in the steep rocky mountains at the western, southwestern, and northern boundaries of the property. There are two inferred earthquake faults, one located approximately 2 miles south of the resort property, and the other, approximately 1.5 miles east. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by ) the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1979, there are seven different types of soils present on the resort property. These include Ip - Indio fine sandy loam, Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, GbA - Gilman fine sandy loam, MaB - Myoma fine sand, CcC - Carrizo stony sand, Ru - Rubble land, and GeA - Gilman silt loam. Each of these soil types has distinctive characteristics and land use suitability. The Is (Indio very fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the relatively flat areas where the propsed spa and fitness buildings and new resort residential units are proposed. This soil type belongs to the coarse - silty, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow, and the risk of wind or water erosion is slight. The best use of this soil type is for agriculture, such as truck crops. For construction purposes the shrink -swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The Ip (Indio fine sandy loam) soil type is found in the vicinity of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. This soil type belong to the same taxonomic class as does the Is soil type. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard from wind or water is slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. This soil type is best suited to agricultural uses. The shrink - swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GbA (Gilmore fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the northern and southern portions of the flatter resort areas on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. This soil type belong to the coarse- loarny., mixed Pave 12 .0_ a, a (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class of soils: This soil type is subject to flooding. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. Runoff is slow, erosion hazards are slight, however, blowing sand is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is agriculture. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The MaB (Myoma fine sand) is found in areas with 0 to 5 % slope in the northwest corner of the resort property. This soil belongs to the mixed, hyperthermic Typic Torripsamment taxonomic class. Runoff is very slow, erosion is slight. The best use for this soil type is agricultureal uses, however it is suitable for homesites and recretion uses. Blowing sand hazards are high. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low. Cut banks will cave in shallow excavations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CcC (Carrizo stony sand) soil type is found on slopes 2 to 9 percent in grade; on alluvial fans where drainage from the mountain enters the valley. This soil type belongs to the snady - skeletal, mixed hyperthermic Typic Torriothent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow except in channels. The best land use for this soil type is for watershed and wildlife habitat. The shrink -swell factor is low. Risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is moderate to high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). Rubble land (Ru) soil type is found on slopes with 2 to 15 % grade, on very old alluvial fans. It is ° - composed of 90% cobbles, stones, and boulders, cut by numerous ill- defined intermittent stream channels in a braided pattern. Riverwash is found alongside the main drainageways among the steep slopes. Desert Varnish is found on the exposed surfaces. Vegetation is an extremely sparse cover of brush, creosote bush, barrel cactus, bush sunflower, ocotillo, and an occasional clump of annual grass in the pockets of fine sand. The best land use for this soil type is watershed, wildlife habitat, and recreation (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GeA (Gilman silt loam) soil type is found on slopes with 0 to 2 % grade and has a slit loam surface layer. This soil type belongs to the same taxonomic class as does GbA soil type. Runoff is slow and erosion hazards are slight. The best land use for this soil type is for growing citrus, dates, cotton, and alfalfa hay. The shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CsA (Coachella fine sandy loam) is found in areas with 0 to 2 % slopes. This soil type belongs to the sandy, mixed hyperthermic, Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. It is found on the parcel where the proposed employee parking lot is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Runoff is medium, and erosion hazards are slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is for truck crops. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risk for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The site of the proposed spa and fitness buildings, and the residential specific plan units has been graded and compacted in past years in anticipation of construction that did not take place. Over time Page i r M this same area has been used for soil borrowing and depositing from adjacent construction projects. It is estimated that the project site soil has been disrupted to a depth of about 10 feet. A. 'Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred earthquake fault lines in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the resort. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new development will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring prople to the site who will be subjected to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking 'Lone III. The new structures will be required to meet current seismic design and construction standards to reduce to risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not anticipated to be subject to ground failure hazards from earthquake or other events. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. There are no active volcanoes in the local area to create a hazard. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? No Impact. The proposed building sites are several hundred feet from the steep mountains to the Page 14 a 0 west, thus there is no possibility of landslides or mudslides. The existing structures within the Specific Plan are on a gently sloping alluvial fan. F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require grading and trenching for the various buildings. Geotechnical reports will be required to be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review prior to issuance of grading permits. The Applicant states that grading will ;include 3.90 acres for the proposed parking lot, 0.8 acre for the proposed Spa building, and 6.5 acres for the residential specific plan units. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA). i' H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the project site Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, and Ip - Indio fine sandy loam. Both soil types are characterized by slow runoff, slight erosion hazards from either wind or water, and no flood hazards associated with them. The shrink -swell capacity is low, indicating that these soil types are stable for construction considerations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Less Than Signif -,-p t Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features 'in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located within the project site or near enough to the project to be affected by the proposed spa and fitness buildings, employee parking lot, or the new residential specific plan units. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of T..._.. 1 C rwgu ; r 0 rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as wellas a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigtion needs: Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via eleven wells in the City operated by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy Ranch, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. (',roundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet is considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future as more demands for water are placed on the supply. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water and /or untreated ground water; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater n!noff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two -part permitting process for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Setting The Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1974 by Harry H. Schmitz & Associates for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club, states that the Lower Coachella Valley receives imported water from the Colorado River and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. This water has little importance to the Upper Valley, with the noted exception of La Quinta, In La Quinta this f1 ow moves Page 16 into the area from the north and northeast, and no groundwater barriers have been identified in this locality. Groundwater recharge comes from these subsurface inflows enhanced by seepage of applied irrigation water from the Coachella Canal. Practically all water used in La Quinta is obtained from wells located within the community. The domestic water system serving the older part of the community was operated by the Santa Carmelita Water Company. The first golf and condominium development was served by the La Quinta Water Company. Now, the entire City is served by the Coachella Valley Water District. There are still a few large private wells used for irrigation and agriculture within the community. The proposed project sites do not have standing water on them. The nearest stands of water consist of several small lakes on the golf courses. Historically, there was a lake at the southern end of the property known as Lake Marshall. The lake dried several decades ago. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed in 1970. Construction of the system was completed in November 1986. The nearest stormwater facility to the project sites is the Oleander Reservoir which is located south of the resort property and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which passes through the southeastern portion of the resort property. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings including the residential units will decrease absorption rates and amounts in that foundations and hardscape will be placed where there was previously none, except for where the condominium buildings that are slated for demolition and the tennis stadium are located. Pavement for the proposed employee parking lot will decrease absorption rates in that area. Drainage patterns are designed to direct runoff to the existing golf course lakes. The new buildings are not anticipated to alter the drainage pattern significantly as they will be located amidst existing buildings with an established drainage pattern. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water- related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project sites are within Zone X on the Federal Flood Insurance rate maps. Zone X includes those areas determined to be outside of the 500 -year flood plain. The area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. Local stormwater drainage requirements for this site are the responsibility of the City (Source: CVWD). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface : s�c flag_ i 7 r , E] M water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the proposed new buildings including the residences will be required to be directed into the existing drainage facilities. Water discharging from the proposed spa building is anticipated to be proximal to swimming pool or jacuzzi water. Spas are regulated by the Public Health Department and will be monitored by resort staff in accordance with Health Department requirements for appropriate chemical maintenance and sanitation (Source: Application materials). D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on the proposed project sites. Existing drainage facilities are located south of the resort property and include the golf course lakes. Runoff water is designed to flow into the lakes and Oleander Reservoir. Flooding occurs rarely so that there is anticipated to be little change in the amount of surface water in the vicinity (Source: Application materials; La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial natural bodies of water or rivers, There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man -made stormwater diversion channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future development of the project sites will not affect to a significant degree any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; Application materials; La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the proposed buildings and units does not include any new wells or cuts into the aquifer (Source: Application materials; La Quinta NMA). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells as there is not proposed alteration to the rate or direction of flow of groundwater supply by any aspect of the construction or operation of the spa and fitness buildings, parking lot, or the residential specific plan units (Source: Application materials). H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Pave 18 Less Than Significant Impact. Several of the proposed buildings will be constructed in an existing resort campus, with six condominium buildings and a tennis stadium, and tennis courts to be demolished in order to make room for the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific plan units. Some vacant land will be part of this development as well. The employee parking lot will be constructed on vacant land. The proposed development does not include any cuts into the groundwater supply, nor does it include any operational activities that would impact the quality of the groundwater (Source: Application materials). 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin ( SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent than SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. The AQMD has defined Criteria Pollutants of concern in SCAB and the Coachella Valley. These pollutants consist of lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM 10, sulfate, and visibility. There are national, state, and regional levels for almost all of the pollutants. There are standards for ozone and PM 10 at the Coachella Valley level. For the other pollutants the high level of governmental standards must be referred to as indicated in Table 3-11 - Criteria Pollutants of Concern in SCAB and Coachella Valley, of the Draft SCA MD QECA Air Ouality�Handbook. Local Environmental Setting The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding A' 1•ty conditions ' 'y tied to +,he prevailing winds of the region mountains. sr zua 1 are caiise tied �... y. T_._ i 9 1 /1 rage a p The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMP, a plan which described measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. In addition, the type of development proposed by the amendment to the Specific Plan would be covered by the La Quinta General Plan EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations in that this type of development is needed to further enhance the quality of life sought as essential and beneficial in attracting new residents, business, and visitors to La Quinta and generally promoting increased investment and return on property values. "The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated .a "severe -17" ozone nonattainment area because of violations of the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. he 1997 Air Quality Maria gement Plan indicates that attainment of the 1 -hour federal ozone standard will be possible by November 15, 2007 (as required by the Federal Clean Air Act) with the proposed control strategy for the South Coast Air Basin and control of locally generated emissions via state and federal regulations. The Coachella Valley was reclassified in February 1993 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "serious" nonattainment area for PM10, which means that he valley had violated federal health -based standards for particulate matter. PM10 monitoring in the Coachella Valley over the last three years indicates that (with the exception of one measured PM10 exceedance due to a high wind natural event) that area has attained the federal PM10 standard and since the EPA recently released a natural events policy which exempts certain high wind events causing PM10 air quality exceedances as being counted as a violation, the Coachella Valley is now eligible for consideration ) by the EPA as having attained the federal PM10 standard. The proposed project is located south of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments "Blowsand Hazard Zone" (Source: Endo Engineering, 1997). A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. An air quality study was prepared for the proposed project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. The report concludes the following: "1. Daily and quarterly construction- related emissions associated with the proposed project are not projected to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold criteria and therefore should be considered insignificant. 2. Upon completion in 1999, the proposed project would generate approximately: 305.7 pounds of carbon monoxide, 35.5 pounds of reactive organic compounds, 40.0 pounds of Nox 2.5 pounds of and 3.2 pounds of PM10, primarily due to motor vehicle use associated with the project. 3. The proposed project is not considered to have a significant long -term impact on air quality, since it will not exceed any of the SCAQMD operational threshold criteria. Page 20 4. CALINE 4 modeling indicates that the one -hour and eight =hour state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide will not be exceeded at the largest intersection carrying a significant amount of project - related traffic in 1999, regardless of whether or not the project is constructed. 5. The proposed project appears to be consistent with the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan and the Coachella Valley PM10 SIP." The Endo report lists 10 mitigation measures for air quality issues that will become conditions of project approval. These conditions are found on Pages 1 -2 and 5 -2 of the Endo report. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, residences, long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individual recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. A radius of 1/4 mile for sensitive receptors is the AQMD standard for consideration of this issue. Within this radius, the land uses surrounding the three buildings include residential, hotel, open space, and tourist commercial, and athletic facilities. The residential and athletic facilities constitute sensitive receptors. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "Sensitive receptors." If sensitive receptors are located adjacent to a major intersection, carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" may occur during times of peak use. High levels of carbon monoxide are also associated with traffic congestion, and with idling or slow- moving vehicles, depending on the background CO concentration. Therefore, projects that could negatively impact levels of service at major intersections with nearby sensitive receptors must quantify and, if necessary, mitigate potential impacts (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Endo Engineering, Aug. 1997). The Air Quality report prepared for the project by Endo Engineering, states that the current and future project - related traffic volumes in Planning Areas I and II are quite small. In addition, the ambient carbon monoxide concentrations in the Coachella Valley are very low. As a result, the likelihood of a CO "hot spot" that could affect pedestrians or local residents is extremely remote." S�i ai:Cld the project alter air movements, moisture, temper atur e, or cause any change climate? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the proposed development within the resort. The proposed project areas are located within an existing resort development that is located within a desert cove at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The distal end of the cove is oriented toward the east and is protected from the prevailing winds from the west. The resort does not have any activities or land uses that would alter the climatic factors in any significant or detectable manner (Source: Application materials; site survey). D. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed building areas are not anticipated to result in any detectable odors, such as those from restaurants, chemical products, or stockpiling of waste materials (Source: Application materials). 3.6 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta. is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Eisenhower Drive, Avenues 50 and 52. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late- winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. There is a relatively low incidence of automobile accidents at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The La Quinta MEA states that for the year 1988 to 1989, there were 6 reported accidents at this intersection. For 1995, there were two reported accidents, and in 1996, there were four reported accidents. Thus far, for 1997, there have been three reported accidents for this intersection (Sources: La Quinta MEA; SWITRS; Public Works Department records). Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus lines operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects Eisenhower and Avenue 50 with the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the West. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert (Source: La Quinta MEA). There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project is an update to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area is located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, and at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The resort is accessed at Avenida Fernando, north of Avenue 50, and at the main entrance located at Avenue 50. There are traffic signals at both Avenue 50 and Avenida Fernando, on Eisenhower Drive. Both Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 are designated as Primary Arterial roadways, and has a right -of -way width ranging between 100 and 110 feet. The La Quinta TN EA states that as of June 1991 the average daily traffic flow along Eisenhower Drive, north PaaP 22 w 0 of Avenue 50, was 9,800; and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan fists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as bicycling and pedestrian movement throughout most of the system. The proposed amendment will permit the consolidation of two existing parking areas for the hotel into a single new parking lot. The proposed new lot will have 244 parking spaces which will replace the fragmented 215 spaces in the two existing parking areas. The two existing parking areas are located in sensitive residential surroundings at the rear of the hotel, west of Avenida Obregon and north of Calle Mazatlan. There is also a neighboring lawn maintenance /storage area that can accommodate 17 vehicles. The hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots can only be accessed by driving through the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Fernando and traveling south along Avenida Obregon, passing through the La Quinta Hotel grounds (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). Access for the proposed parking lot would be off of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. Adjacent to the north of the parking lot is a future Residential Specific Plan area and a Low Density Residential area: A detailed discussion of this future residential area is found in the Endo Engineering Traffic Analysis (August 1997) prepared for this project. Vehicular access to the proposed residential specific plan units within the hotel grounds will be via Avenida Obregon, Calle Mazatlan off Eisenhower Drive, or Calle Mazatlan, off of Avenida Fernando. A center portion of Avenida Obregon within the resort area will be vacated to form a cul- de -sac at the residential specific plan units. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. Eight traffic impacts were identified with the proposed project. (1) The proposed project will replace the 177 + /- off-street spaces that currently exist in the hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots associated with the La Quinta Resort with approximately 250 spaces in a new parking lot. As a result, construction- related traffic will be generated in the vicinity of the new parking lot, following project approval and continuing until project completion. (2) The traffic analysis prepared for this project concludes that a total of approximately 410 daily trip - ends are projected to be associated with the proposed consolidated parking lot on a typical weekday, with 31 inbound and 3 outbound trips during the morning peak hour and 8 inbound and 29 outbound trips during the evening peak hour of adjacent street traffic. These trips will be permanently re- routed from existing parking areas, a process that will reduce traffic -volumes along some existing site access Page 23 t routes while increasing traffic on other routes in the study area (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). (3) The trip generation forecast for the proposed changes in residential, hotel and spa uses on -site includes an increase of 2,710 daily trips. Of that total, 284 trips will occur during the evening peak hour (185 inbound and 99 outbound) and 209 trips are projected to occur during the morning peak hour (52 inbound and 157 outbound) (4) The redistribution of project- related traffic will reduce employee traffic volumes on two -lane streets through existing residential neighborhoods and La Quinta Hotel guest accommodation areas but increase employee traffic volumes along Avenue 50 (a master planned four -lane divided primary arterial that is a designated truck route). (5) Construction of additional residential units will increase traffic volumes through the internal streets of the La Quinta Resort including Calle Mazatlan, the La Quinta Hotel main access, Avenida Fernando, and Avenida Obregon. (6) All four of the existing key intersections will provide LOS B or better operation (acceptable levels of service) in 1999 with or without the proposed project. The peak hour levels of service provided at all four existing key intersections will be the same upon project buildout as they are today (LOS A or LOS B).The fifth key intersection (at Eisenhower south of Avenue 50) does not exist today, and will be restricted to right -turn only access. (7) All of the key intersections evaluated currently operate, and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with or without the project. Although the proposed project would create a minor change in the Year 1999 peak hour intersection delay (up to 1.0 second /vehicle), the change would not be sufficient to change the level of service at any of the key intersections. (8) Following implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the proposed Amendment Number 4 to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, the proposed project will have a less - than- significnt impact on all roads and intersections within the study area. The traffic report recommends mitigation measures to reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Nctigation Monitoring Plan for the project Conditions of Approval. Following the implementation of the mitigation measures, as stated in the traffic study the La Quinta Resort Specific-Plan will have a less - than- significant impact on all roads and intersections within the study area, for the proposed project. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. There are no identified safety hazards with the road design or accesses by the proposed project. No off-site improvements are required to achieve adequate levels Page 24 1 � A of service at the key intersections under year 1999+ project conditions (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). C.. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic report prepared for this project does not identify inadequate emergency accesses. A detailed discussion of access issues is provided in the traffic report (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on site or off site? No Impact. The proposed spa and fitness buildings do not have specific parking spaces provided because the patrons of these two buildings will largely be the hotel guests whose parking will be already provided by general guest parking facilities. However, there will be 76 parking spaces available to share with other hotel users within close proximity. The proposed residential specific plan units will have one parking space per bedroom which will provide adequate parking space for these units. These spaces will be located around the perimeter of the clusters of units. Carriage units will have their parking spaces underneath the units. The proposed employee parking facility will have 244 parking spaces on the 3.90 acre facility. The hotel currently has approximately 200 employees. Additional employees will probably be added to the staff as a result of the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific plan units (maids, gardeners, security, management, etc.).The proposed 244 spaces should provide adequate parking for existing and project- related needs. The traffic report concluded that the proposed employee parking lot on Eisenhower and Avenue 50 will replace the 215+ employee parking spaces that currently exist in two separate parking areas associated with the La Quinta Resort (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. Eisenhower Drive is a designated bikeway corridor. The proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the corridor other than to possibly add additional bike riders as a result of the proposed residential specific plan units or employees. The corridor will be improved. The proposed new buildings within the resort campus may result in some additional bicycle riders. There are no anticipated hazards or barriers proposed that would affect bike riders. There are existing pathways within the resort that accommodate bikeriders (Source: Application materials; site survey). Avenue 50 is designated as a Class II Bike Route, however, no bikeway facilities will be constructed until development along Avenue 50 occurs (Source: La Quinta Bike Route Plan). A concern for pedestrian safety along Avenida Fernando, between Avenida Obregon and Eisenhower Drive, has prompted the recommendation to provide a walkway via striping on the pavement and/or instaflation of a sidewalik or. Avenida Fernando. Such a walkway will become age 25 0 i a condition of approval with the design to be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department (Source: Endo Engineering, August, 1997). P. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed employee parking lot will provide 244 parking spaces for the resort employees. The Zoning Ordinance requires entities with 100 or more employees to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TD M) Plan to mitigate impacts from numerous vehicular trips and congestion. The resort has over 200 employees for which the proposed parking lot will service. The new parking lot will consolidate parking into one facility. Employees will park in the facility and be shuttled to and from their work posts within the resort via a single drop -off point. Bicycle racks will be required to be located within the parking facility for employees to secure their bicycles. The proposed spa and fitness buildings will be required to have bicycle racks provided for both employees and guests. Bicycle racks are required for commercial land uses, and the spa and fitness buildings will be in the Tourist Commercial Zoning District.' The proposed residential specific plan units will not be required to have bicycle racks as they will function as a specific plan residential land use within the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The resort has an on -site bicycle rental facility that rents bicycles to guests of the resort. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne, or air trafFic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, no air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six rules north of the project site. The other airport is the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; site survey). 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City: the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Regionally, there are numerous desert animals that have adapted themselves in many ways to cope with the desert environment. Animal species found and known to exist in the Valley are widely Page 26 diversified. in both population and number of species. These animals include about three dozen mammals. Many of which will utilize several or all of the different habitats found in the region. They include bats, rabbits, rodents, coyotes, foxes, skunks, bobcats, and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The bighorn inhabit the Sant Rosa Range and foothills lying to the southwest of the Coachella Valley. Tracks and occasional sighting of these animals occur in the Indian Wells, Palm Desert, and La Quinta areas. There are numerous amphibians and reptiles in all habitats of the Lower Sonoran ecosystem. They include the toads, tortoises, lizards, and snakes. Countless numbers and species of birds have been frequenting the Coachella Valley during seasonal migrations for centuries. In addition, there are numerous species of permanent resident birds in the desert. The more noticeable one include quail, hawks, doves, roadrunners, hummingbirds, wrens, mockingbirds, warblers, finches, and sparrows. Insects and arthropods typically found in the desert include scorpions, crickets, grasshoppers, spiders, beetles, butterflies, bees and a host of others which have adapted to the environment (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 1974). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land in this environment is rich in biological resources and habitat. This ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water use, go dormant during period of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals and birds. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The Black - tailed hare is, a typical mammal. Predator species found in this area include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal found in this area is the Peninsular Big Horn sheep which is found at the higher elevation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians /reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub ecosystem. The resort property is largely developed. Historically, horse stables, a landing strip, or agriculture has been present in areas where there are structures or golf course today. Only small parcels within the resort campus have not been disturbed by some sort of land use activity over the 70 years since the resort was first constructed. The southeastern corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive has been previously disturbed by grading and excavation activities connected with the construction of the golf course in that area. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Page -7 Less Than Significant Impact. The mountains located along the north, west and southwestern �>> portions of the resort property are within the habitat of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep., and the possible habitat of the Magic Geko. The relatively flat areas of the resort property are within the habitats of the Black - tailed Gnatcatcher and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. The California Ditaxis, a rare plant, has also been reported in the general area (Source: La Quinta MEA). Field surveys were conducted during August and September 1973 for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (July 1974). The summary of field notes indicates that flora species observed included Ink Weed (Suaeda Torreyana), Mesquite, creosote, salt cedar, Alkali Goldenbush (Happlopappus acradenius), Coyote Melon (Curcurbita Palmeri), Cattle Spinach, Wild Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Catclaw, Burrobush, Indigo Bush, and Desert Sweet. In addition, the resort property supported a variety of agricultural plants and trees including citrus, dates, and fields of alfalfa. Reptiles obSeived during the surveys Included Balled Collared Lizard, Fringe - footed (sic) Lizard (Uma inomata), Gridiron Lizard (Callissurus d. draconoides), Flat -nosed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos calidarum), Tiger Whip -tail (Cnemidodophorus tigris), Stansbury's Uta (Uta siansburiona), Desert Iguana (Dipsosaurus d. dorsalis), Long - tailed Uta (Uta graciosus), Giant Scaley Lizard (Scalaporus magister). Other lizards not observed, but thought to be present on the property include Meam's Cliff Uta (Pertosaurus meamsi), Henshaw's Spotted Night Lizard (Xantusia henshawi), Tuberculte Gecko (Phyllodactylus tuberculatus), and Banded Gecko. Snakes not observed, but thought to be present include Desert Mountain Speckled Rattler, Van Denburgh's Night Snake (Trimorphodon vandenburghi), Red Diamond Rattler (Crotalus ruber), Red Racer, and Bull Snake. Avian fauna observed were the California Ground Cuckoo (Geococcyx californianus), Gambel or Desert Quail, House Finch or Linnet, White- winged Dove, Mourning Dove, Mexican Dove, Mockers, Starlings, English, Sparrows, White - rumped Shrike, and Grasshopper Falcon. Others known to frequent the area include swallows, Swifts, Warblers, Thrushes, Flycatchers, Hummingbirds, Orioles, and Texas Night Hawk, Western Tanager. These birds all follow the Coachella Valley Flyway northwestwardly out of the Valley for more northern climes. Mammals observed on the site included coyote, Round- tailed Ground Squirrel, Antelope Ground Squirrel, Pocket Gopher (a variety of Thomomys bottae), Jack Rabbits, and skunks. Nocturnal mammals would include Desert Pack Rat (Neotoma lepida) Canyon Mouse, Cactus Mouse, Spiny Pocket Mouse, Long- tailed Pocket Mouse, and many bats of large and small species. A rare Ring - tailed Cat (Bassariscus astutus) or Cacomistle was observed. The possibility exists that the Desert Bighorn Sheep may visit the ridges of the Santa Rosa foothills west of La Quinta and western limits of the project site (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EK July 1974). Insect fauna observed on the property included Wood- borers belonging to the family Buprestidae, genus Hippemelas, Sand Wasp (Epibembix melanoaspis), Coachella Valley Eye Gnats (Hippelates collusor Townsend), Desert Grasshopper (Trimerotropis pallidipennis), Saltbush Grasshopper Page 28 (Ancona integra), Ateloploides elegans a rare grasshopper, Robber or Assassin Fly (Caratotainiops) (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EK July 1974). The Peninsular Bighorn Sheep are listed as rare by the California Fish and Game Commission, s status which corresponded to their federal listing as a threatened species. They are found on the rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains south and west of La Quinta. Some sheep have been observed feeding in the bajada south of the village of La Quinta and sheep tracks have been observed near the Cove Reservoir. Portions of the State Game Refuge 4 -D, established in 1917 by the State Legislature primarily for the protection of native bighorn sheep, lie within La Quinta. Other endangered and threatened wildlife species found in La Quinta is as follows: Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard. Flat- Tailed Horned Lizard Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket Prairie Falcon Golden Eagle Vermillion Flycatcher Black - tailed Gnatcatcher Crissal Thrasher Le Conte's Thrasher Through that past 70 years, the resort property has been impacted by expansion of new buildings and residential units, additional golf courses, and amenities that have resulted in the disappearance of habitat. Of the faunal and flora species discussed in this document, the species of concern are the Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Black - Tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis. There are no other known biological surveys to have been conducted on the resort property since the 1973 survey. Based upon the information contained in the EIR and the La Quinta MEA, it appears that there is a potential impact to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep whose habitat includes the mountainous areas of the resort property. Any proposed recreational intrusion into those mountains would potentially impact the sheep. The Open Space designation prohibits any type of development, including trails, in the mountains without an approved Conditional Use Permit. If the Applicant should decide to include recreational activities or facilities in the mountainous areas of their resort, a complete biological study would be required to be submitted to the City with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Consultations with California Fish and Game, U. S. Fish & Wildlife, and other appropriate entities would be consulted as part of the review process. Mitigation for the Fringe -Toed Lizard consists of the payment of a mitigation fee used toward the purchase and maintenance of preserve lands. The resort property is not within the designated fee payment area. Thus there is no required mitigation for this species. Dagge 29 The Black- tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis do not currently have any required mitigation measures. In the near future there may be a mitigation requirement in connection with the completion of the Coachella Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta MEA). C. Would the project result in impact to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Less Than Significant 'impact. There are eight locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. The La Quinta MEA identifies these habitat types which are described in terms of their decreasing elevation and development. These habitats consists of the Rocky Slope Habitat, Rocky Bajada Habitat, Terraces, Alluvial Plain Habitat, Sandy Wash Habitat, Dunes Habitat, Valley Floor Habitat, and Modified and Agricultural Habitat. The La Quinta MEA lists the La Quinta Hotel as being within the Modified and Agricultural Habitat. There is no perceived impact to flora or fauna from the proposed project, and as such, there is no requirement for mitigation. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City (Source: La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area (Source: La Quinta MEA). 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Area (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IIlID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities on the project site or in the near vicinity. The project site is located within MRZ -3, a designation for areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data. Paae 30 A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section 9.180 of the Zoning Code) in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. The proposed structures will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in their construction. No other mitigation is required for this issue. B. Would the project use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include, air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, metals, and other resources needed for construction. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District for water management. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure of hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigtion and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no sanctioned hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948 - Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site is not known to have been used for any type of manufacturing in the past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance of the proposed buildings. Proper storage and instruction in their use and storage is required. Page 31 B. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and excavation activities will be confined to the proposed building sites, except for minimal off -site work as will be necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency evacuation of the area. Any work to be done in the road right -of ways will require an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. This permit will require particular traffic safety measures to protect both the public and workers. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. The only identifiable health hazards associated with the proposed project consist of workers using chemicals during the course of maintenance of the various structures or functions within the resort, such as pool chemicals, pesticides, fuels, and other similar forms. OSHA and the EPA require instruction and certification for workers using particular chemicals to reduce the incidence of poisonings, etc. Mitigation shall require that all personnel using OSHA and EPA chemicals have the appropriate training and certifications. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. It is assumed that there are a variety of chemicals in use at the resort that may cause health hazards. The proper training and certifications should be obtained for the safety of both workers and resort guests and residents. E. Would the proposed project involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed projects are located within a developed resort property where there is maintained and irrigated landscape and no natural vegetation that would be subject to brush fires. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the Coachella Valley are mostly created by vehicular traffic on roadways. Some noise is made by aircraft. Palle 32 Local Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. The City of La Quinta General Plan requires a commercial project to perform a noise study if the project is within a 1,000 feet of a residential use. Recommendations shall be made that help mitigate excessive or annoying noise from the project and ensure that the ambient noise is less than 60 dB CNEL at surrounding residential parcels. The La Quinta General Plan also requires a noise study to be conducted for proposed development adjacent to a collector street where there is the potential for increased traffic. Two such areas have been identified: that segment of Ave. Fernando from Eisenhower Drive to Ave. Obregon; and Ave. Mazatlan from Eisenhower Drive to the western -most intersection of Madrugada. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains Sections 9.100.210 Noise Control for Nonresidential Land Uses, and 9.60.230 Noise Control for Residential uses which both will apply to the Specific Plan. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. A Noise Study was prepared by J. J. Van Houton, in May 1997, for �. a previous project including a maintenance facility with the employee, parking lot at the southeast comer of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive a4Avenue 50. That report concluded that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards. However, the annoyance potential of the previously proposed maintenance facility /employee parking lot was considered significant. Mitigation measures were recommended to lessen these impacts. The currently proposed employee parking lot is located farther south, away from existing residential uses (La Quinta Country Club) along Avenue 50. The closest residential units (Santa Rosa Cove) are located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive ( a 110 foot wide primary arterial) with six -foot masonry solid walls along the west side of the street separating the residential units from the street and the proposed project, at the parking lot entrance approximately 180 feet away, and approximately 320 feet from the parking lot. The closest residential unit at Duna La Quinta, to the parking lot, is 530 feet away. The portion of the noise study that pertains to the proposed parking lot identified one noise source: car paridng and doer slamming vrth a maximum noise level of 80 dB(A), at 50 feet away. Based upon this noise study, the proposed project will have less of an impact due to its location awayfrom residential units. A letter from Endo Engineering, dated August 25, 1997, responds to continents regarding potential noise generated from the collector streets inside the resort. Noise modeling addressed ultimate peak season traffic projections to evaluate a worst case scenario. The segment of roadway along Ave. Fernando between Eisenhower Drive and Obregon functions as a collector road in terms of traffic, The ADT is projected to be 3,350 vehicles per day. The CNEL at fifty feet from centerline is 53.2. The computerized modeling of the projected ultimate noise levels indicates that a significant noise impact Page 3z will not occur at any sensitive receptors adjacent to Calle Mazatlan. The noise study indicates that the roadway segment of Calle Mazatlan between Eisenhower Drive and the western-most intersection ofMadrugada will have an ultimate peak season traffic volume of 3,680 ADT. The traffic volume decreases at every intersection until the projected ultimate peak season traffic volumes reach 2,160 ADT, immediately east of Ave. Vista Bonita. Alternate access from the project could increase to 2,390 ADT. The closest residential units are approximately 50 feet away from the roadway centerline. The La Quinta General Plan establishes exterior noise standards of 60 CNEL noise. The projected noise level at the nearest residence is 57.4 CNEL, below the adopted noise standard (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). The need for noise control at the future residential areas to the north should be considered at the time these areas are developed. Mitigation measures such as noise barriers and sound rated windows may be used to minimize annoyance to the future homeowners. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Severe noises are only foreseen as short-term construction noises from heavy machinery capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dB(A) at a distance' of 50 feet from the source. To mitigate the impacts of possible severe noises, the Applicant /developer must comply with Municipal Code construction hours regulations (Source: La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta Municipal Code). ) 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental ,Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City of La Quinta through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriffs Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Department utilizes a planning standard of L5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve the City. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101 -301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station 932 on Old Avenue 52, at Ave. Bermudas, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved_ The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Currently, there are two PacrP 34 paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school and high school within the City. The City is within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village of La Quinta. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements are used to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but over served in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital, located in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility, located in the 111 La Quinta Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest City fire station to the project is Station #32, located on Francis Hack Lane, approximately one mile southeast of the resort. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be served by the local schools in Desert Sands School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of residential specific plan units, a spa and fitness center. Development of the these new structures will require plan review, construction inspection, and fire protection services in a cumulative manner. To help mitigate possible fire hazards, the new structures shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc) shall be complied with by Page 35 the Applicant (Source: Fire Department). B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. A comment letter from the Sheriff's Department was received for this project. No significant comments were offered in this letter. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated in relation to police protection (Source: Riverside Sheriffs Department). C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential units are the only component of the project that may generate students. The proposeu J use l iu r the units ►s individual Owrersh u p with the option available to the owner to place one or more bedrooms into the hotel room pool to accommodate overflow guests to the resort. The maximum number of students that might be generated by the units, if all were owner - occupied would be 59.5 students District -wide average, using the factor of 1/2 student per unit. If the majority of the bedrooms were placed into the hotel room rental pool, then student generation would be minimal. It is anticipated that there will be few owner - occupied units as the units are not designed for full -time permanent residents. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued will be required of this project for the residential units. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that there will be minimal adverse impact on public roads and facilities. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered governmental services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for - - - - -- f6 - - — , the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit, and inspection fees charge to the Applicant and contractors. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (III),) for electrical power supply Page 36 and The Gas Company for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. III) has four substations in La Quinta with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone service for the City. Cablevision serves the are for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in La Quinta. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting There is an existing City storm drainage system that is located in the southern portion of the resort property that protects no only the resort, but properties in the general area. Runoff is also directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities (natural gas, electricity, water, cable television, sewer) exist at the resort. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, sewer, and natural gas lines were brought in to the resort many years ago. The proposed new buildings and residential units will need extensions of all utilities from main lines and valves that are located on the resort. All overhead electricity lines are routed around the perimeter of the resort site. Internal distribution lines will be, placed underground. No significant impact are anticipated regarding utilities. No mitigation is required beyond utility plan checking and permit issuances. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communisation systems ?__ Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures and units will require service from GTE or other purveyors for telephone communication wiring and systems. It is anticipated that the telephone serve will be an extension of the existing service at the resort. All overhead public utility transmission lines for telephone are routed around the perimeter of the La Quinta resort. All internal lines will be placed underground. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or iP ga 17 regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water service. It is not anticipated that -the development will result in an significant adverse impact on local water resources or water infrastructure. A comment letter from CVWD states that they will provide the new structures with water and sewer services. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations.to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection to the sewer system. In 1992, the existing demand for sanitary sewage was 252 gallons per dwelling unit per day, with a total existing demand of 1.49 million gallons per day. This standard is based on the sanitary sewer standard divided by 80 percent (Source: La Quinta WEA). The current capacity of the Mid - Valley Water Reclamation Plant is 4.35 million gallons per day (MGD). This facility serves many communities in the Coachella Valley, including La Quinta. CVWD indicates that this facility can be expanded in the future to accommodate growth, including the La Quinta Resort (Source: Draft The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water drainage policy requires that storm water flows generated on -site shall not leave the site. On -site retention and percolation applies to all but the most intense storm generated water. The La Quinta Resort may receive substantial runoff flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains that are transmitted to the Oleander Basin located to the south, and channel located to the east. Stormwater has been discussed in the section on water resources in this document. Drainage plans are required for this project and will be reviewed by the CVWD and the City's Public Works Department prior to issuance of project permits. No other mitigation will be required other than that required by CVWD and the Public Works Department. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential specific plan area will be served by extension of the contract refuse collection services currently in place at the resort. Prior to regularly scheduled pick -up and removal, refuse will be contained in a maintained trash bin area. The Applicant is responsible to coordinate the extension of trash pick -up with the current waste hauler. The additional• trash generated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the local and regional landfill. Only one landfill is currently open in the Coachella Valley. On -site recycling programs will be required and are to be coordinated with Waste Management of the Desert or other recycling hauler. Page 3 8 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located mostly within a desert valley cove. There are steep mountains to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on most days throughout from many vantage points in the City. The La Quinta MEA discusses the visual assessment of major and minor ridgelines within the City. This assessment is based on the topographical features of elevation and steep slopes. Major ridgelines have been identified a three locations in the City and are classified as highly sensitive due to their elevation, which ranges from 300 to more than 1,600 feet above sea level. The high sensitivity of these area is also based on the existing moderate to steep slopes of the ridges, which range between 10 and 30 percent. The existing topographical character of the City which was created by ancient Lake Cahuilla, now exhibits low sloped sedimentary deposits throughout the majority of the City, which abruptly transitions to steep sloped terrain along the western and southern regions of the City. The close proximity of the steep mountains with the flat plains increases the sensitivity of the existing visual features of La Quinta. Minor ridgelines include the ridgelines which link the major ridgelines to the toe of the slope, which protrudes away from the mountain range, thereby increasing their visibility. There are 18 minor ridgelines that are classified as moderately sensitive based upon their low to high elevation, ranging from approximately 200 to 1,400 feet above sea level. The existence of steep slopes which range from 10 to 30 percent is also characteristic of minor ridgelines. The assessments of viewsheds within the City is based on the existence of focal points located within La Quinta or immediately outside its jurisdictional boundaries. Viewsheds are categorized as distinctive, attractive or common and are assessed based upon the provision of major focal points and the proximity of the vantage point. Distinctive viewsheds are identified through their close proximity (within two miles) to elevational high points and exhibit a high visual sensitivity. Attractive viewsheds are determined through their mid- distant proximity (between two and five miles) to elevational high points or close proximity to minor ridgeline formations and exhibit a moderate visual sensitivity. Common viewsheds are identified through their long distance views (over five miles) to primary focal points, major ridgelines and minor ridgelines and produce a low visual sensitivity. A series of five vantage points based on two mile radii were established within La Quinta to classify the viewsheds by type. Details on this methods are contained in the La Quinta MEA. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a largely developed resort complex in the west- central portion of the City. The resort was initiated in 1926 and has a history of continued development since that date. The resort is tucked into an alluvial cove with an east - facing view. The EIR prepared for the resort in 1974 .states j that "Development will change the present open desert and agricultural image which presently, exists i r in much of the community. While this change certainly does not blight the environment, whether or not it is a positive or a negative impact is a personal and aesthetic judgment, not a technical assessment. Also construction and landscaping may impede views of the mountains. These views, west of the project area, are one of the more important assets of the community. The design and low density profile of the development tend to reduce the severity of this impact ". A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing structures at the resort include one, two, and three story buildings. The architectural style of the buildings is mostly Spanish Colonial or similar styles. The existing landscaping includes tall trees of many species including date palms. Thus, the existing viewshed disturbance of the resort includes mostly low profile buildings with dense landscaping. Certain views of the minor ridgelines and toe of slope located to the west and north are blocked by the existing development within the resort campus. The La Quinta MEA designated a Primary and Secondary Viewshed Focal Point near the northeast comer of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive which spans in an eastward direction. The resort is located to the west of this Focal Point. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant impact to the scenic vista in the City from the proposed project. The proposed structures and landscaping will follow similar architectural styles, including height and siting considerations. Architectural guidelines are proposed in the Draft Specific Plan for this project. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed buildings will be required to comply with City architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances under the Site Development Permit. In addition, because of the historic structures within the resort, the Historic Preservation Commission must review the architectural styles of the proposed structures for compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Structures. The proposed design of the new structures can not be radically different than the historic structures nor can it be identical. The new structures incorporate many design elements of the historic buildings, but not identical to them. The historic structures are known as aesthetically pleasing in design, therefore the proposed new buildings, being similar in design, can also be termed as aesthetically pleasing. The relationships of massing and scale between the historic buildings and between the proposed new buildings was determined to be similar by the Historic Preservation Commission. C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact. The anticipated development of the new residential specific plan units, spa and fitness buildings, and parking lot, will include exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the resort complex. The Draft Specific Plan for this project does not address lighting fixture types for the proposed new buildings, therefore, no assessment of the environmental impacts can be made. However, all exterior lighting will Page 40 E be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Dark Sky Ordinance, as well as the Uniform Building Code requirements. Parking lot safety lighting will be required to have low, shielded fixtures that will comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Assessment Much of the history of the Coachella Valley is known and recorded in various publications and exhibited in local museums, etc. La Quinta fits prominently into the history of the Coachella Valley. A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is found in the Draft Historic Context Statement for the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the MEA. Local Environmental Setting The history of La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. The La Quinta Resort would have been near the lake shore and have been utilized for a habitation and resource procurement area as was much of the La Quinta area. The project site is located within the-historic La Quinta Hotel complex. The history of the hotel has been documented in a Historic Resources Report prepared by Mellon & Associates. This report concludes that there may be enough historic integrity remaining in the structures and landscaping to justify the designation of a historic district. For a detailed discussion of the historic buildings at the resort please see the Mellon & Associates Report. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. Paleontological deposits are normally found in association with the ancient lake bed which is below 42 feet above msl. There have been no paleontological surveys or investigations conducted within the immediate vicinity of the resort, however, paleontological finds have been made in other areas of the City where there are ancient lake bed deposits. The proposed parking lot location is just outside of the ancient Lake Cahuilla Lakebed Delineation boundary, and as such there will be no required mitigation for this issue. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The resort campus has never had a complete archaeological survey conducted. The only archaeological survey conducted was in 1975, by S. McWilliams, for a specific expansion project at the resort. No archaeological resources were observed m i5- during that survey. However, it is known, from various publications, that the area including the resort property was actively used during the prehistoric period for habitation and resource procurement. Numerous recorded archaeological sites have been found within a one mile radius of the resort property, and even more within a two mile radius (Source: City of La Quinta Confidential Archaeological Site Map). Thus, the archaeological sensitivity of the project area is high. For the proposed spa and fitness center buildings and the resort residential units, archaeological monitoring shall be required by a qualified archaeologist for all grading and trenching below ten feet in depth. A report of the monitoring activites shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and acceptance. Would the project affect historical resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Mellon & Associates Historic Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel concludes that there are locally significant historic structures and features on the resort caa:.pus. Sorne of these structures may also be eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places. Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 is included in the Specific Plan Amendment . 44 for this project, which required the review of the historically - related architecture proposed for the new structures. On June 19, 1997, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Mellon & Associates report and issues involved for the Certificate of Appropriateness., The Commission forwarded two recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council: 1) Acceptance of the Historic Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel with the condition that the comments listed in the HPC Staff Report be addressed and the report resubmitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review; and 2) That the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 be subject to the condition that only one story structures be constructed next to historic structures, and that a qualified archaeological monitor observe the grading and trenching for the project for those area below ten feet in depth. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses on the proposed project site that would be impacted by the new structures. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental getting The City of La Quinta has a adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the exiting Page 42 resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla park is not included in this count. There are also bike, hiking, and equestrian pathways and trails within the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is within an existing resort campus that contains golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, bicycle rentals, and other recreational amenities. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing tennis stadium and six tennis courts within the Tennis Club. The Spa and Fitness Buildings will be added to the existing recreational amenities for the resort. No new public recreational amenities are being proposed. The project is within a private, gated resort with many recreational amenities. The proposed residential specific plan units will be required to pay the parks fee in lieu of dedication of parkland. The improvements along Eisenhower Drive will include a bike lane to be constructed according to the La Quinta General Plan designation. B. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. Existing public recreational facilities will not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is within a private, gated resort property. SECTION 4; MA.NDATQI Y— +l . NCS QESIGNIFICANCE The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in this checklist. Some of the issue areas could have a potential significant impact if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation measures. • The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned development in the immediate Cvicinity. page — • The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. SECTION 5' EARLIERANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. Other analyses and special studies used for the preparation of this document were: 1. La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 19.74, Harry H. Schmitz & Associates. 2. The La Quinta Resort Draft Specific Plan - amendment #4 3. La Quinta General Plan 1992 - Master Environmental Assessment. 4. La Quinta General Plan 1992. 5, Specific Plan 121 -E. 6. Specific Plan 121 -E Revised. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Application materials for General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003. 9. La Quinta Hotel Historic Resources Report. May 1997. Mellon & Associates. 10. Resort Hotel SP Amendment - Traffic Analysis Data. August 1997, Endo Engineering. 11. Noise Assessment for the La Quinta Resort Maintenance Facility. May 1997. J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc. 12. Environmental Assessment 95 -304 prepared for Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised - Amendment #3: 11 Air Quality Analysis: The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment #4, August 18, 1997 Endo Engineering. 14. Letter regarding response to noise comments. Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997. Page 44 B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential environmental impacts /issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed in this environmental assessment and technical studies submitted for the project. Certification of this EA by the La Quinta City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing these measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. Page 45 t CITY OF LA QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: August 25, 1997 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: CASE NO.: TTM 28545, CZ 97 -083, PROJECT STREET SDP 97 -607, SDP 97 -608, ADDRESS: La Quinta Resort GPA 97 -054, SP 121 -E, Revised Amendment #4 EA /EIR NO: 97 -343 APPROVAL DATE: APPLICANT: KSL Recreation Corp And Assigns THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEf,3P '11 DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE P MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BV' 3.1 LAND USE & PLANNING Potential Impact Unless Mitigated A,B OBJECTIVE: Reduce impact by redesignating l certain areas for consistency. Maintain Open Space in areas with I 20% or greater slopes. MEASURE: 1. Approved Change of Zone from Community Development Prior to recordation of City of La Quinta RM and RL to TC for Planning Areas Department Tentative Tract Map Zoning Ordinance I and II. 28545 2. Dedicate conservation easements on all areas with 20% or greater slopes. P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 - - SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES 3.2 POPULATION & HOUSING Less than Significant Impact: A,B, F, H, I No Impact: D, E, G OBJECTIVE: To reduce the risk of structural collapse from seismic events. MEASURE: A, B, c. All buildings shall be constructed to current Uniform Building Code seismic requirements. P; ILESLIEICEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 a 3 RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING Public Works, Department, Prior to issuance of Community Development grading permit Department -2- CRITERIA COMPLIANCE: CHECKED 13y UBC -� SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCIE MONITORING E CHECKED BY 3.3 EARTH & GEOLOGY Less than Significant Impact: A, B, F, H, I: No Impact: D, E, G OBJECTIVE: rcollapsue redce the risk of structural from seismic events. MEASURE: A, B, C. All buildings shall be Public Works Department, Prior to issuance of UBC constructed to current Uniform Community Development grading permit. Building Code seismic Department. requiresments. P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 _3_ SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES 3.3 EARTH & GEOLOGY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: P:ILESLIDUQA Mon it EM 97 -343 -4- SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR MEASURES I MONITORING 3.4 WATER Less than Significant Impacts: A, B, C, H No Impact: D, E, F, G OBJECTIVE: To protect existing groundwater supplies. To reduce surface water pollution. MEASURE: Comply with all requirements of the CVWD, City of La Quinta Coachella Valley Water District and the City of La Quinta H. Implement best management practices in order to minimize surface water pollution. P:\LESLIEICEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 Applicant TIMING I CRITERIA Plan checking through Approved Drainage on =going operations of Plan. project. Current best management practices. COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY I SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE, MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY' t 3.5 AIR QUALITY E Potential Significant Unless Mitigated: A, B, D Less Than Significant Impact: C OBJECTIVE: Maintain air quality and reduce potential impacts. MEASURE: AQMD; Public Works Construction Phases Air Quality A, B, D: Construction emissions to Department and on -going operations Analysis. be reduced as outlined in of project Aug. 1997. Environmental Assessment Endo Engineering. Addendum. Mitigation Measures contained in Air Quality Analysis, Air Quality Page 5 -1 Analysis: the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment #4. Endo Engineering Aug. 18, 1997. P:\,L9SLIE\CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -6- SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIA.NCI CHECKED BY 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/ CIRCULATION Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: F Less Than Significant Impact: A, B, C, E No Impact: D, G OBJECTIVE: Maintain traffic safety and reduce traffic congestion. MEASURE: A: Comply with all of the conditions Public Works Department Construction and City of La Quinta of approval required by the City's operational phases. General Plan, and Public Works Department. Community Development Public Works Department Department A, F: Prepare TDM Plan for review criteria. and approval by City. City of La Quinta's TDM Ordinance All: Mitigation Measures contained Chapter 9.180 in Traffic Analysis by Endo Traffic Analysis Engineering, Pages VII -1 and -2. May 1997 Endo Engineering P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 `�1 SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIA14CE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: A Less Than Significant Impact: B,C No Impact: D, E OBJECTIVE: Preserve and protect biological resources and habitat in Open Space designated areas. MEASURE: ` Dedicate Open Space Conservation Community Development Prior to recordation of City of La Quinta Easement on all areas with slopes Department. Final Map. General Plan; 20% or greater. Specific Plan 121 - E, Revised Prepare biological study of Fish & Game. Prior to submittal of use Amendment #4 Mountainous areas if any application. recreational activities or facilities are Cal Fish & Game proposed for current or future development, to be prepared by qualified biologist irr consultation with California Fish & Game Commission. P:ILESLMCEQA Monit Eli. 97 -343 -8- SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED Eff 3.8 ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES Less Than Significant Impact: B OBJECTIVE: Preserve and protect energy and mineral resources. MEASURE: Comply with the City's Landscape Community Development Plan check and field City of La Quinta Water Conservation Ordinance. Department. inspections. UBC Building and Safety Comply with Title 24. Department. P:ILESLIEICEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -9- SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY' 3.9 RISK OF UPSET /HUMAN HEALTH Less Than Significant Impact: B, C, D. No Impact: E Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: A OBJECTIVE: Identify, prevent, and reduce risks , of upset and hazards to human health. MEASURE: Comply with Fire Marshal Community Development Prior to issuance of Fire Marshal requirements and as approved by Department, Fire Marshal Certificate of the City Council. Occupancy for any structure. P:\LESI.IE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -10 SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.10 NOISE Less Than Significant Impact: A OBJECTIVE: Maintain ambient noise levels and reduce any significant noise. MEASURE: 1. Buildings constructed to ensure Building and Safety Dept. Plan check, construction Noise Study: J.J. - no more than 45dBA indoor. Community Development phases, on -going Van Houten & 2. Employees utilizing equipment Department operations. Associates (May and parking areas shall minimize the application of power and 1997)1 acceleration, and avoid car door slamming and excessive vehicle City of La Quinta acceleration. 3. Comply with Municipal Code Noise Study construction hours regulation. Aug - 1997 4. Comply with Mitigation Endo Engineering requirements stipulated in project noise studies. P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 _ 1 _ SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Significant Impact: B, C, D, E. Potentially Significant: A OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts to public services. MEASURE: A. Compliance with Fire Marshal Fire Marshal Construction and Fire Marshal requirements operational phases. C. Payment of school impact fees. Building & Safety Dept. Before Building Permit DSUSD Criteria D & E Payment of applicant, permit, City Departments Issuance. and inspection fees. City of La Quinta fee schedules. P:ILESLIE\CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -12- SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANGF MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.12 UTILITIES Less Than Significant Impact: A. B, C, D, E, F. OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts upon electrical resources. To reduce impacts to domestic water and sanitation services. To provide adequate flood control facilities. MEASURE: A. The applicant shall coordinate IID Prior to grading and IID with IID for electrical service for the construction phases. project. E. Compliance with CVWD and City CVWD, City of La Quints CVWD, City of La requirements. Quinta P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -j 3_ SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.13 AESTHETICS Less Than Significant Impact: A Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: C Potentially Significant: B OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts to the aesthetic quality of life from light or glare. Maintain architectural compatibility with historical structures in resort complex. MEASURE: C. All lighting fixtures shall comply Community Development Grading & Construction La Quinta General with the Dark Sky Ordinance. Department phases. Plan and MEA. B. Comply with recommendations .. Community Development Specific Plan 121 - of Certificate of Appropriateness Department, Public Works/ E, Revised 97 -003. Engineering Department Amendment #4. Secretary of the Interior - Standards for Historic Preservation. E:1LMLM\CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -14- CV 4 o 78-495 CALLE TAMPICO — LA QUINTAL CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 777 -7000 FAX (619) 'T77-7101 Date: 2Z 1 6a7 TO: COL4 NOV 05 1997 Gnu Pf Vey,,- r �IT4` Or LAt�UIi••fTA � Z4 31 �11/ i CC Cj�Q PL Z4 ATTENTION: r /� f PROJECT: � 1 Z 1 y ' C-P- Vv � I oovb z For your information and records. V l ork Ce.. -�-)e76 -or m i y) G> v�V�. -� I'' C11 -3 4-3 L")Vk," # L 13L I I Copies as requested. / / Receipt. Other If you have any questions on the above please contact the undersigned. 6i)g� Ste, BJ 'TORM . 0 1.4 MAII..ING ADDRESS - PiO. BOX 1504 - LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 s 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Receipt # 970581 Lead Agency: CITY OIL LA QUINTA - Date: 09126/1997 County Agency of riling: RIVERSIDE Document No: 970581 Project7Ttle: SP121- E_AMDMT 4,QPA. 97 -083;_TTM 28545;SDP 97- 607 &97 - 608; {SEE NOTES) Project Applicant Name: KSL RECREATION CORP. Phone Number:_ Project Applicant Address: 56140 PGA BLVD_ LA QUINTA, CA. 92253 Project Applicant: PRIVATE ENTITY CRECKAPPLTCABLE FEES: ❑ Environmental Impact Report ❑ Negative Declaration ❑ Application Fee Water Diversion (State Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑ Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs ® County Administration Fee ® Project that is exempt from fees (DeMinimis Exemption) ❑ Project that is exempt from fees Notice of Exemption) Total Received _$_78_D0__— Signature and title of person receiving payment:'. ,ee 611 — I. C I-Notice of Determina n TO: Ofr" of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 --a County Cleric County of Riyersi.de f� P. 0. Box 431 Riverside, CA 92502 Appendix N From: (Public Agency) CITY OF LA QUINTA P. O. Box 1. La Quints CA 92253, RIVERSIDE COIJUTY j By C. Seager Subject. � Deputy Filing of Notice of Determination In compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 the Public Resources Code. SP121 -E Amendment #4, GPA 97 -083, TTM 28545, SDP 97 -607 & 97 -608, CZ 97 -083, COA 97 -003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation Project Title None Stan Sawa 760 - 777 -7125 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area CodefTelephone/Extension Qf submiaed to Clem inghouse) Contact Person La Quinta, Riverside Count Project Location (include county) - °roject Description: Update and add new uses to existing Specific Plan for La Quinta Resort., New uses include resort residential units, spa and fitness building, and employee parking lot. MLis It to advise that the City of La Quinta has approved the above desert-bed project on 5A-W Asue ORC"Ilk Ajacy _September 16. 1997 and has made the following determinadons regarding the above described project (Dam) 1. The Project (Qwill 13*"U ttrx2 have a signi: runt C&C On the ertvuortmenL CC►U 2. [] An Environmental impact Report was ,pmWtd for this project purs.t to the provisions u irc LLeE on A Negative DDecLvwkn was prepared for this project pur -siunt tO the POr p'R.c. 21152 provisions of CEQA. pos�o 3. I�riitigation measures nwene Owere not) made a condition of the approval of the ptoje�ct 4. A statement of Overriding Considerations (l]was 93was uotl adopted for this prrmject. SEP 2 6 1997 5. Findings Owere []were rAx) made pmsuartt to the provisions of CEQA. RGM°�' 0— ay: cuab of FiiZGj 5 This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the Getz City of La Quinta, 78 -495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California . "rwe (Public t�i......:...,1 ! . mot:....... nen. 5w essye ssu evs __e ee�o ae •ls ^. IMIA September 16, 1997 1 Associate planner Date Title t 7 v 4 EA No. EA 97 -343 CASE No. SP 121 -E, Amen.,. # NEGATIVE DECLAMATION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: SECTION /TOWNSHIP /RANGE: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: MITIGATION MEASURES: LEAD AGENCY: DATE OF ISSUE: 7 rnrrieiyt_ Revi ns rltr .• s_- KSL Recreation. Corporation GPA 97 -083, TTM 28545, SDP 97 -607 97 -608, COA 97 -003 CZ 97 -083 Update and add new uses to Resort Specific Plan; new residential units, spa and parking lot. East side of Eisenhower Drive, South of Fernando and the southeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue A portion of Sections 36 and 1, Township 5 South and 6 South, Range 6 East S.B.B.M. The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant ad- verse impact upon the environ- ment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. This decision was made after review by the Lead Agency of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public on request. (XX were) ( were not) made a condition of approval of the project. CITY OF LA QUINTA September 16, 1997 i y 4 o RNia P� ON, FZ� M can ART' CAT E OF FEE EMEMYMN De Kinixia Impact Finding Project Titl* /Location (include county) : Specific Plan 121 -E, Amend #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545. Site Development Permits 97 -607 and 97 -608, Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003, La Quinta Resort,' La Quinta, Riverside County KSL-Recreation Corporation, Applicant Project Description: Update and allow new development and uses to-an existing resort campus, that include resort residential units, a spa and fitness center, and employee parking lot on undeveloped land within the resort complex. Findings of Exemption (attach as necessarp)s 1. Environmental Assessment 97 -343 was prepared by the City of La Quinta to . evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impact. 2. The-La Quinta City. Council certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration, EA 97 -343, in which there was no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for adverse effect on wildlife resources. Certification: I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. ief P,13anning of'`icialj %itle: Community Development Director Lead Agency City of La Quinta Date September 16, 1997 0 n PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97 -042 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENQMENT#4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #4) KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new maintenance facility, whose location is more particularly described as follows: Portions of Sections 1 and 36, T6S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E/EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the Hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the Master Plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) , in 1989 (Amendment 2), and in 1995 (Amendment 4), permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -340) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation of the specific plan amendment: Planning Commission Resolution 97- 042 The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club maintenance facilities located next to residential uses). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. The proposed development will be reviewed under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97 -340, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be certified. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above- described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of July, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS BUTLER, KIRK, SEATON, TYLER, WOODARD, AND CHAIRMAN ABELS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONER GORDNER. um OPCTA1K1: NONE. o 0 l \� Planning Commission Resolution 97- 042 ATTES JERRY/HERI ItV of La Qu Community Development Director California JES ABELS, Chairman La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.97= 042 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- ADOPTED SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS JULY 8, 1997 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The Specific Plan text shall be revised to all required revisions, with a minimum of five final texts submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. The total number of single family residential units shall be revised to 1436 (1558- 143 +21). 4. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. 5. The applicant /developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97 -340. 6. Check made out to County of Riverside in the amount of $1328. For the project Environmental assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24 hours after approval. by the City Council. 7. Clubhouses and tennis courts or complexes shall be deleted from the permitted uses in Planning Area V in the Specific Plan text. 8. The applicant shall provide an easement for all hillside areas to remain undeveloped open space, except for the areas presently developed. 9. Submit to Public Works Department a revised hydrology study to account for the proposed increase in impermeable surfaces within the specific plan area prior to issuance of a building permit for any construction authorized by this Specific Plan for The Applicant. Conapppcsp 121 e.a4 PLANNING CONMSSION RESOLUTION NO. 97- 042' SP 121E, AMENDMENT #4 July 8, 1997 0 e. i 10. Make changes to specific items in the draft specific plan as follows. Page Item Comment 3.5 Garage /Carport Setback 20 -foot minimum from street curb or p e d e s t r i a n path /walk. 3.6 Garage /Carport Setback 20 -foot - minimum from street curb or p e d e s t r i a n path /walk. 3.11 Garage /Carport Setback 20 -foot minimum from street curb ¢° pedestrian path /w� } 3.13 Ancillary Building Setback 2 0- f 'o o f minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if a driveway or if perimeter street is public. 3.20 Paragraph 3.3.16 Add "roads" to items for which plans are required. Add the requirement that plans be approved by the City Engineer. Conapppcsp 121 e.a4 s s PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 97-042 SP 121E, AMENDMENT #4 July 8, 1997 3.21 Paragraphs C -2 and C -3 Plans for and revisions to on -site parking and circulation facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. Conapppcsp 121e,a4 PIV RESOLUTION 97 -058 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT #4, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -054, ZONE CHANGE 97 -083, TENTATIVE TRACT 28545, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -607, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPA AND FITNESS CENTER, EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT, AND 119 RESIDENTIAL Snrni�rl%^ PLAN % UNITS YYI T n IM T f�7L LA QUIIY T H RCSVR I SPEC CAMPUS LOCATED WEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND 50TH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 15th day of September, and 8' day of July, 1997, hold duly- noticed Public Hearings as requested by the KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTION 36 AND 1, TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No. 83 -63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, ..,L::Li \pu Yes 7a-% 9­341 :� -a�; Planning Commission Resolution 97 -053 Environmental Assessment 97 -343 September 15, 1997 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make findings to justify the recommendation to the City Council for certification of Environmental Assessment 97 -343; 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA "), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the Planning Commission considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the' Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97 -343 for Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054; Zone Change 97- 083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval, which are on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September 1997, by the following vote, to wit: 1 ,d .\T i::L.'�- 'i-.�+rc ::ems ,.., 97-1-:111 : j. Planning Commission Resolution 97 -058 Environmental Assessment 97 -343 September 15, 1997 AYES: - Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Woodard and Chairman Butler. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner, Seaton, and Tyler. ABSTAIN: None RIC BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: FMY HERM�AN, Community Development uirector City Of La Quinta, California ''T "A ..E9Lin!vc Res EA 97 -3 43.tvDd a A J 4' xA RESOLUTION 97 -065 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO, WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE. CASE NO.: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th riay of Cepternber� and Rth day of JUly� 1007, {hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club located south of Avenida Fernando, West of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission did on the 19th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and did recommend approval, as requested by KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to allow the construction of 119 new Residential Specific Plan units within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Villa and Tennis Club, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 36, T6S, R6E, SBB &M WHEREAS, on the 19th day of June, 1997, the Historic Preservation Commission did adopt Minute Motions 97 -011 and 97 -012 recommending to the Planning Commission and the City Council, approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003. 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 Vie following findings to justify the approval of said Certificate of Appropriateness; and, 1. The proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club is consistent with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for new construction. p:lpc Pies COApp 97 -003 f£ Planning Commission Resolution No.97 -065 2. The Certificate of Appropriateness has been deemed acceptable by the Historic Preservation Commission in that they have determined the proposed 119 Residential Specific Plan units are architecturally compatible with the historic } La Quinta Structures, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. 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 finds of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above described Certificate of Appropriateness for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular, meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on ,this 15" day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Woodard and Chairman Butler. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner, Seaton, and Tyler. ABSTAIN: None RIC BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: VRY HEV AN, Community Development Director y of Lai Uinta, California i7:'Mc Res C%Hpp 97-003 RESOLUTION 97 -065 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003 KSL RECREATION CORP. SEPTEMBER 15, 1997 1 . A current site plan is needed in the report that identifies all structures within the resort campus; as well as their dates of construction. In addition a historic site plan is needed showing the original buildings and those demolished. Was there an original Master -Plan for the hotel property? 2. Page 9: (Paragraph 3) The 100's series should be noted on a location map. 3. Page 1:; The term "Eclectic" is not a commonly used classification for the style of the buildings. Perhaps the term "Spanish Revival" should be used as it would be the traditional classification nomenclature for this style. 4. Huntsman Trout may have been the landscape architect for the La Quinta Hotel which lends additional support that there may have been a Master Plan for the Hotel development. A clearer discussion of the landscape plans is needed, especially the Quad concept. 5. Page 5: A discussion on how the La Quinta Hotel compares with other resort properties of the time and region is needed. Sanitariums? College campuses? Are there any similarities with other places of time and region, or is the La Quinta Hotel unique? 6. Page 10: (Last paragraph) The original function and location for La Casa needs to be discussed. 7. Page 14: a discussion regarding which criteria (National Register or local) is being used to assess the property needs to be clearly stated in the beginning of the report. 8. In addition, the comments by staff contained in the June 17, 1997, memorandum to Pam O'Connor (on file in the Community Development Department) need to be addressed in the report. p: \stan \pccoa ksl coapp97- 003.wpd '4 Resolution 97 -095 Conditions of Approval - Adopted Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 K'SL. Recreation Corp. September 15, 1997 -9. A qualified archaeologist shall be required to monitor the project if the grading and trenching goes below ten feet in depth. 10. A, final Archaeological Report shall Development Department for approval, be submitted to the Community 11. Only one story structures shall be constructed next to historic structures to provide a transition between old and new. 12. That the building complex known as "San Vicente ", located on the east side of Avenida Obregon, be documented. This house may have been a caretaker's house and is located on the Hotel grounds. p: \stars \pccca ksl coapp97- 003.wpd a' FIL E Copy PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 97 -061 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #4) KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 15"' day of September, and 8h day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed public hearings to consider the rermest of KSL Recreation Corporation anti its Assigns to amend the afore mentirngri Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new employee parking lot facility, whose location is more particularly described as follows: Portions of Sections 1 and 36, T6S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E /EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the Hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the Master Plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) , in 1989 (Amendment 2), and in 1995 (Amendment 4), permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be recommended for certification; and, P: \STAN \peressp 121 e #4. wpd 0 e Planning Commission Resolution 97 -061 Specific Plan 121 -E. Revised (Amendment #4) September 15. 1997 WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of the specific plan amendment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial which permits the uses proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club parking lots located near residential uses). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. The proposed development will be reviewed under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts. 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 in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97 -343, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be certified. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above- described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. Planning Commission Resolution 97 -061 Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised (Amendment #4) September 15, 1997 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 15th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Woodard and Chairman Butler. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Gardner, Seaton, and Tyler. ABSTAIN. None. RIC BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California A EST: j JERRY HERPAN, Community Development Director City' of La Q inta, California 0- * ---rA .11n —rp -en 1 {eaj$ ,nlnxl RESOLUTION 97 -061 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SP 121E, AMENDMENT #4 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 V14 1. Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2, The Specific Plan text shall be revised pursuant to all required revisions, with a minimum of five final texts submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. The total number of single family residential units allowed in the specific plan area shall be revised to 1367 subject to approval of a Site Development Permit and /or Tentative Tract Map. 4. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 5. The applicant /developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97= 343. 6. Check made out to County of Riverside in the amount of $ 1328. For the project Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24 hours after approval by the City Council. 7. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall provide an easement to be recorded for all hillside areas to remain undeveloped open space, except for the areas presently developed. Easement to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 8. Submit to -Public Works Department a revised hydrology study to account for the proposed increase in impermeable surfaces within the specific plan area prior to issuance of a building permit for any construction authorized by this Specific Plan for the applicant. P : /stan'Conappccsp i / i e,A RESOLUTION. 97 -061 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SP 121E, AMENDMENT #4 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 9. Make changes to specific items in the specific plan as follows. Page Item 3.5 Garage /Carport Setback 3.6 Garage /Carport Setback 3.11 Garage /Carport Setback 3.20 Paragraph 3.3.16 3.21 Paragraphs C -2 and C -3 P: /stan\Conappccsp 121 c,a4 Comment 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /waik if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path/walk. if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. Add "roads" to items for which plans are required. Add the requirement that plans be approved by the City Engineer. Plans for and revisions to on -site parking and circulation facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. F,, RESOLUTION 97 -74 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT #4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #4) KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed continued Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow residential Specific Plan, ancillary hotel uses, and a new employee parking lot; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new employee parking lot; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the C_ 15th day of July, and 5th day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential Specific Plan use, ancillary hotel uses, and a new maintenance facility /employee parking lot for property comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts and hillsides, and the southeast corner of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new maintenance facility /employee parking lot, whose location is more particularly described as follows: Portions of Sections 1 and 36, T6S, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E /EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the Hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, F: \CITYCLRK \COLj- NCIL\PLAIi Nii1G\9 -i6 Res SP 121 -E r AOL Resolution 97 -74 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing `the Master Plan to be amended to permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) , in 1989 (Amendment 2), and in 1995 (Amendment 4), permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and a Mitig°cited :4egative Declaration s iouid be reco�T7Rlended for CeRITICatIOn; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the specific plan amendment: The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club employee parking facilities located next to residential or specific plan residential adjacent to residential). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. Any development related to the Specific Plan will be reviewed under a Site Development Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment *4, by adoption of Resolution 97 -042; '�_'. .. Resolution 97 -74 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,. by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97 -343, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be certified. 3. That it does hereby approve the above - described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 16th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Holt NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None GLE DA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California n SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California Lj Resolution 97 -74 APPROVED AS TO FORM: E:\ CI'TYCLRK \COUNCIL\PLANNING \9 -16 hies SP 121 -E RESOLUTION 97 -74 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -FINAL SP 121E, AMENDMENT #4 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 GENERAL 1 . Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The Specific Plan text shall be revised to include the exhibit Revision "C" dated September 15, 1997, with a minimum of five final texts submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. The total number of single family residential units allowed in the specific plan area shall be revised to 1367 subject to approval of a Site Development Permit and /or Tentative Tract Map. 4. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of I this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 5. The applicant /developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97 -343. 6. Check made out to County of Riverside in the amount of $1328. For the project Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24 hours after approval by the City Council. 7. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall provide an easement to be recorded for all hillside areas to remain undeveloped open space, except for the areas presently developed. Easement to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. ENGINEERIN DEPARTMENT 8. Delete 110 units from the LDR district at the corner of Eisenhower and 50th. 9. Submit to Public Works Department a revised hydrology study to account for the proposed increase in impermeable surfaces within the specific plan area prior to issuance of a building permit for any construction authorized by this Specific Plan for the applicant. 10. Make changes to specific items in the specific plan as follows. P• stan"Conappcesp 1 2 a c.u4 a } RESOLUTION. 97 -74 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 Paae Item 3.5 Garage /Carport Setback 3.6 Garage /Carport Setback 3.11 Garage /Carport Setback 3.20 Paragraph 3.3.16 3.21 Paragraphs C -2 and C -3 ?:,'Stan \Conannccsn 121 e,a4 Comment 5 ft., or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum. from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. Add "roads" to items for which plans are required. Add the requirement that plans be approved by the City Engineer. Plans for and revisions to on -site parking and circulation facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 97 -72 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT #4, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -054, ZONE CHANGE 97 -083, TENTATIVE TRACT 28545, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -607, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPA AND FUTURE FITNESS CENTER, EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT, AND 114 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CAMPUS LOCATED NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND -50TH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ASSIGNS WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held September 16, 1997, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA "), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the City Council for the City of La Quinta has considered all potential significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to a point of insignificance based on the September 15, 1997 Site Plan "Revision C" retaining Avenida Obregon as access for the residential Specific Plan units. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 8th day of July, and 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing as requested by the KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 4 ' Resolution 97 -72 .97 -003 generally, located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, more particularly described as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15 "' day of July, Stn day of August; and 16`h day of September, 1997, held duly noticed. Public Hearings for KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue; and, A PORTION OF SECTION 36 AND 1, TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No. 83 -63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does hereby certify Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97 -343 for Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, . General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 16th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: F: \CiTYCLRK \COUNCiL\PLANNING\RES 97 -72 J Resolution 97 -72 AYES: Council Members Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Holt NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: — SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: (21 _ DAWN C. HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California F :\CITYCLRK %COUNCILIPLANNiNG\RES 97 -72 : FILE COPY AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: September 16, 1997 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Approval of Environmental Assessment 97 -343, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97- PUBLIC HEARING: 083, Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97 -607 and 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns (and various subsidiaries) RECOMMENDATION- 1 . Adopt City Council Resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 97 -343; 2. Adopt City Council Resolution approving General Plan Amendment 97 -054; 3. Move to take up Ordinance No._ by title and number only and waive further reading for Change of Zone 97 -083. Move to introduce Ordinance No. _ on first reading for Zone Change 97 -083; 4. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, subject to conditions; 5. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Tentative Tract 28545, subject to conditions; 6. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97 -607, allowing construction of 119 residential specific plan units and a health spa, subject to conditions; 7. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97 -608, allowing construction of an employee parking lot, subject to conditions; 8. Adopt City Council Resolution approving Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003, which assures that the proposed lonstruct►.on is appropriate for the existing historic structures, subject to conditions; p:'1ks17 . 5947. wpd Y101, 3JII 0 0 FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: 111567 M BACKGROUND Aillf] QVERVIEW: PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL REVIEWS: The City Council reviewed this request at its meetings of July 15, and August 5, 1997. The City Council continued the request to this meeting and instructed the applicant to restudy the proposal to address the concerns raised by the surrounding neighbors. REVISED PLAN: For the D. ir,� ��+ 1 one City C erg.. .,, If ii - , Ciouncil meeting, the applicant revised the proposal for Site Development Permit 97 -608 pertaining to the golf course /hotel maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The maintenance facility was deleted from the proposal. A smaller employee parking lot reduced from 292 to 244 spaces was proposed on the south side of 50" Avenue, east of Eisenhower Drive. At the meeting the applicant presented a further revision by moving the parking lot to the west and south, in the center of the golf course, with access only to Eisenhower Drive. The site of the prior parking lot is now shown as low density residential (2 -4 dwellings per acre), along with the adjacent areas. Minor changes have been-made to the spa and 119 unit residential specific plan units as follows: 1. The spa has been reversed in a north -south direction and moved slightly further to the north. 2. The Avenida Obregon cul -de -sac turnaround that has access from Avenida Fernando, in front of the spa has been modified to provide a drop off area for the spa and better access to the southernmost residential specific plan unit parking lot. 3. One residential specific plan unit cluster and half cluster have been reversed in a east -west direction. 0 p: \ks171597.wpd r _ 1 � t S NEW INFORMATION: As a result of the August 5, 1997, meeting, the applicant has submitted the following: 1. A revised traffic study adding an analysis of vehicle stacking at the Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando entry gates, with mitigation measures including recommended changes in gate operating procedures. The traffic engineer has submitted a clarification to the study stating that for the 119 unit residential specific plan project, no vehicular traffic is proposed to utilize the south leg of Avenida Obregon, which is gated for "emergency- only" and pedestrian use (Attachment 1). 2. An air quality analysis for the proposed construction with mitigation measures. 3. Supplemental noise assessments for 1) Calle Mazatlan, immediately west of the entry gate at Eisenhower Drive and, 2) Avenida Fernando, between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Obregon that analyzes, projected peak season daily_ traffic volumes on those street sections. 4. An updated Specific Plan text to reflect the currently proposed project, including the reduction of Tourist Commercial (Residential Specific Plan) uses along 50" Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the revised plans (employee parking lot, revised General Plan and Zone Change) at a special meeting scheduled for September 15, 1997. Staff will provide to the City Council, a verbal presentation of the Planning Commissions action. PROJECT REQUEST: The specific request of the applicant is as follows: 1. Approval of Environmental Assessment 97 -343, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see EA Resolution for Environmental information). 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential p:1ks171597.wpd 0 0 rill r 4 -8 du. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south-of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from LDR (Low Density - Residential 24 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 501h Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4 -8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club, and from RL ( Low' Density Residential 2 -4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan overlay for 6.3 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50' Avenue and 240 feet south of Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 E, to update the plan and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts, and the southeast corner of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5, Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 134 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97 -607 to allow removal of seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "residential specific plan" units and a health spa of approximately 14,600 square feet in the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tennis courts. 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97 -608 to allow construction of a 244 space employee parking lot on approximately 2.4 acres, located approximately 220 feet south of 501h Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 8. approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction, pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. PUBLIC NOTICE: This case was readvertised in the Desert Sun on August 24, 1997. All property owners within the project area and within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice for this meeting. A number of letters p:\ks171597.wpd ZJ 1 J have been received regarding this request since the August 5, 1997, meeting. All correspondence received has previously been given to the City Council and is on file in the City Clerk and Community Development Departments. ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed a new Environmental Assessment 97 -343 for this request pursuant to the guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon this assessment, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and is recommended for certification. DISCUSSION OF 15S_UES lBY APPLICATIQN): Specific Plan 121 E. Amendment 4 Planning Area V, the hillside areas to the north and west, is conditioned to be preserved as undevelopable open space. As allowed in the Hillside Regulations of the Zoning Code, the applicant will be allowed to transfer 21 dwelling units (1 unit per 10 acres) for construction elsewhere. The Planning Commission is recommending the applicant provide an easement for all the existing hillside areas to remain undevelopable 'open space. With the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Low and Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial (RSP), an accompanying decrease in the allowable residential units should occur. Rather than 1,558 units, a maximum of 1,367 dwelling units will be allowed as noted in the Specific Plan text. The existing Specific Plan allows a maximum of 200 Tennis Villas, of which 48 were constructed within the hotel compound. Within the vacant Villas area for the remaining 152 units, 85 of the proposed 119 "residential specific plan" units are planned. Therefore, the current proposal will create a less dense environment than the original Tennis Villas would if constructed. Intensity of the residential specific plan unit development is determined by compliance with development standards, including lot size, setbacks, and parking requirements (one space per bedroom). Site Development Permit 97 -607: The submitted Traffic Impact Analysis contained in the Specific Plan Amendment Appendices states a portion of traffic (for residents of one "cluster" out of six p: \ks171597.wpd 005 "clusters ") to this- 119 unit residential specific plan project will take vehicular access from the south leg of Avenida Obregon which is being terminated or cut off from the i north leg which connects to Avenida Fernando. Presently, there is an "emergency -only and pedestrian gate across Avenida Obregon, approximately 1,900 feet south of the southern project boundary. The applicant does not have access control of this gate, and since it is for emergency and pedestrians only, vehicles will need to access this area through Calle Mazatlan. Access to the parking areas on Calle Mazatlan will require vehicles to enter through secured guard gates at either Avenida Fernando or Calle Mazatlan (501{1 Avenue). The Traffic Impact Analysis documents how hotel guests currently use the secured guard gates at Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando. With a pass from the hotel, they enter the left entry lane and give the guard their name, hotel reservation number, and vehicle license number. According to the analysis, the majority of the hotel guests who use the gates enter at Calle Mazatlan, with Avenida Fernando gate users being approximately 90% residents, according to the report. The majority of the Call- Mazatlan gate users are hotel or golf course patrons. According to the report, the current and future entry stacking backup can be eliminated by initiating the following operational change: 1. The hotel should always- include a reservation number on the guest passes to allow the hotel guests to utilize the right entry lane (members /residents gate) at the guard gates. This mitigation would in and of itself effectively eliminate all project - related traffic at the guard gates. Other mitigation strategies that would reduce current and future vehicular queuing impacts include the following: 1. A second guard should always be available during peak traffic hours to process vehicles in the left entry lane. 2. Hotel guests that arrive before their room is ready and visit the golf clubhouse should be given gate passes and instructed to use the right entry lane to minimize delays at the guard gate. 3. A map should be provided with each hotel guest pass, and gate instructions should be printed on the back of the guest pass that direct hotel guests to use the right entry lane at the gated entries and prominently display guest passes in vehicles. 4. Signs should be provided at the gated entries indicating that residents and hotel guests with passes should use the right entry lane. 006 p:1ks171597.wpd i 5. If the procedural chahges ,identified above are implemented but the queue of vehicles in the left entry lane continues to extend longer than three vehicles, the guard gate at Calle Mazatlan should be relocated. westerly to provide as much stacking distance for vehicles as possible and minimize the potential for queues of vehicles extending out onto Eisenhower Drive. These mitigation measures are recommended as conditions of approval. Site Development Pe 97-6 08 The new employee parking lot with access to Eisenhower Drive will eliminate the negative aspects of the existing facilities in the resort. On -site noise and traffic impacts from employees private vehicles west of Eisenhower Drive will be reduced, while possibly increasing peak resort related employee traffic on 50tf' Avenue. Except for some key hotel personnel, maintenance employees who work out of and park at the Avenida Carranza maintenance facility, and the Dunes Clubhouse employees (who will park at the adjacent clubhouse parking lot), hotel employees and maintenance personnel will utilize the new parking lot. The parking lot in the middle of the golf course area is proposed to be surrounded by a six foot high living chain link fence (chain link fence with vines or other vertical plants on it). Parking lot landscaping will be provided per City requirements. There is more than adequate sight distance for north bound traffic cresting the hill on the bridge south of the parking lot entrance and vehicles exiting the lot, to see each other, and respectively, operate their vehicles in a safe manner. The sight distance in this segment of Eisenhower Drive is suitable for vehicle speeds up to 70 miles per hour (mph). However, vehicle speeds that high are rarely encountered because the speed limit is 45 mph. The access driveway to the parking lot will accommodate right -in /right -out turning movements at Eisenhower drive. If adequate space permits within the right -of -way, a left turn lane may be constructed to accommodate left turns into the parking. lot access driveway provided the median island and south bound travel way are widened enough to construct a positive barrier to prohibit left turn -out movements. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Findings necessary to approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached resolutions. p:1ks171597.wpd U Alternatives available to the City Council are: 1. Approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission and amended by the applicant, by adoption of the attached resolutions; or 2. Continue the request to allow further review and study; 3. Deny the request. JE7 ERMA , Community Development Director Atments: 1. Letter from Endo Engineering, dated September 8; 1997 2. Revised Specific Plan text and Technical Appendices (large document for City Council only) 00 p:lksl7 i 597.wpd RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT #4, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -054, ZONE CHANGE 97 -083, TENTATIVE TRACT 28545, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -607, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPA AND FUTURE FITNESS CENTER, EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT, AND 119 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CAMPUS LOCATED NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND 50TH AVENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ASSIGNS { WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing held September 16, 1997, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make findings to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA "), as amended (Public ResoUrces Code Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3. Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the City Council for the City of La Quinta considered all significant adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures, and has found that all potentially significant adverse environmental impacts which may be caused by the Project and implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. vv� Resolution 97- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on. the 8th day of July, and 15' day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing as requested by the KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97, 054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Perm.it 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, more particularly described as follows: WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15"' day of July, 5"' 'day of August, and 16' day of September, 1997, held duly noticed Public Hearings for KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue; and, A PORTION OF SECTION 36 AND 1, TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No. 83 -63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, .NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the City Council in this case; PACC Res KSL EA 97 -343 0IV y , Resolution 97- 2. That it does hereby certify Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97 -343 for Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 =608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003: subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 16th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: i ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California PACC Res KSL EA 97 -343 �J GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California Oil i I INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -343 La Quints Resort Project, Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97 -054 Zone Change 97 -083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97 -607 Site Development Permit 97 -608 Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns 56 -140 PGA Blvd. La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 Leslie Mouriquand Associate Planner August 25, 1997 Page 1 01 4w r+s TABLE OF CONTENTS r Section i INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Overview 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 2.2 Physical. Characteristics 2.3 Operational Characteristics 2.4 Objectives 2.5 Discretionary Actions 2.6 Related Projects 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 3.1 Land Use and Planning 3.2 Population and Housing 3.3 Earth Resources 3.4 Water 3.5 Air Quality 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 3.7 Biological Resources 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 3.10 Noise 3.11 Public Services 3.12 Utilities 3.13 Aesthetics 3.14 Cultural Resources 3.15 Recreation 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 5 EARLIER ANALYSES Page 2 Page 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 10 11 15 19 22 26 30 31 32 34 36 39 41 42 43 44 013 0 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify any potential environmental impacts of the amendment to the Specific Plan which includes development applications, changes in land use designation, Permits and a Tentative Tract map for the construction, of new residential units, a spa and fitness center, and an employee parking lot within the La Quinta Resort campus. In order for the Applicant to construct these new structures, the following applications must be approved by the City: Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract Map 28545, Site Development Permits 97 -607 and 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97- 003. In addition, this Environmental Assessment prepared for the above applications must be certified by the City Council. The Specific Plan area is located in the City of La Quinta, California. This area includes the La Quinta Resort campus which is primarily west of Eisenhower Drive, in Section 36 of Township 6 East, Range 5 South, and Section 1, of Township 6 East, Range 6 South, as depicted on the La Quinta 7.5' USGS Topographic Quad Map. The proposed employee parking lot will be located south of the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 an area also within the Specific Plan. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the prinicpal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INI'T'IAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (E1R) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the various project applications; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Page 3 014 To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project applications were deemed complete subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended development and potential impacts upon the property and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and AddendLiril was prepared by L2siie Mouriquand, Associate Planner, for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY. OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts for some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist (Land use and planning, air quality, transportation/circulation, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources). Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed project in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is 31.18 square miles in area located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County and the City of Palm Desert, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The project site is located in approximately the west - central portion of the City, mostly west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. The La Quinta Hotel is located within the project site known as the La Quinta Resort. Page 4 () 1 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project site is a portion of a 638 acre combined residential and hotel resort complex nestled in a cove setting below the Santa Rosa Mountains. This cove is a gently sloping alluvial fan with steep hillsides surrounding on three sides. The land included in this project has been inhabited and utilized since prehistoric times. In the early 1920's Walter Morgan purchased the property from the State for the purposes of developing a desert hideaway resort. In 1926, he began construction of the hotel and six cottages called- Casitas. Morgan marketed the hotel to the Hollywood celebrities who frequented it for rest and relaxation. Over the years, the resort was expanded with additional casitas, additional golf courses, a landing strip, a stable, swimming pool, and other structures. The 1970's and 80's witnessed considerable expansion with a number of hotel rooms and single family homes constructed in the surrounding area of the Specific Plan. Thus, a majority of the property has been developed. There is no existing development in the hillsides and none is proposed. In 1988 Amendment #2 was approved to construct a maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The third Specific Plan amendment was approved in 1989 for 77 hotel units that were never built. in 1995, another amendment to the Specific Plan was approved to permit the construction of a conference/ballroom facility and rearrange parking facilities. The history of amendments to the Specific Plan includes one approved under Riverside County Jurisdiction, and three approved under City of La Quinta jurisdiction. The proposed amendment subject to this environmental review will be the fourth amendment under City jurisdiction. Today there is a total of 640 guest rooms and suites, with 66,000 square feet of meeting and function space. A retail arcade accommodates visitors and residents and there are three restaurants. There are two 18 -hole golf courses and 25 swimming pools, 35 hot spas and a tennis club. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Site Development Permits will consist of a new spa building and future fitness building, 119 new single family clustered 1, 2 & 3 bedroom residential units with hotel guest opportunities totaling 210 rooms or "keys ", and an employee parking lot with 244 spaces. The proposed buildings will operate as new amenities for the resort complex. It is possible that all or part of the proposed new single family units may be purchased by one entity, leased to the La Quinta Hotel and operated as hotel units, or it is also possible.:at each a ^.it �rrll be purchased by individual owners. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is to not only to create new amenities for the resort visitors and residents„ but also update the distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the plan, and provide implementation measures in the form of regulations and standards on a plan and in a text. Page 5 016 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed project will require reviews and recommendations of approval by the Historic Preservation. Commission and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of Environmental Assessment. 97-343 Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4' General Plan Amendment 97 -054 Zone Change 97 -083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97 -607 Site Development 97 -608 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS The project does not have any related projects other than those discussed in this addendum. There have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last twelve years. With on -going development activities at the resort it is likely that there will be additional site development permit approvals required in the future. . This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts, and compatibility with the proposed design of the spa and residences associated with the land use, subdivision design, architectural design, and historic architectural approval of the proposed development. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The topographical relief in the valley ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Page 6 Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan is located mostly west of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A small portion extends to the southeast corner of that intersection. The mountains are steep and rocky, and provide a striking contrast to the relatively flat cove area. Currently there are 640 hotel rooms or suites, two 18 -hole golf courses, a commercial arcade, four restaurants, single family homes and custom home lots surrounding the resort campus, a tennis complex, and administrative buildings located on the campus. Only a few small parcels have never been developed within the resort or hillside custom lots and are still vacant. Historically, the resort property has been included agricultural uses, a horse stable, a landing strip, and was the site of a historic lake known as Lake Marshall. The land was also occupied prehistorically, as evidenced by the archaeological sites on the property. The land use and development history for the resort began with the initial approval of Specific Plan 121 -E in 1975 by Riverside County Board of Supervisors. This plan allowed the development of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, a 27 -hole golf course, and service facilities on 619 acres. In 1982, an amendment to the specific plan was approved to allow for 279 additional condominium units, 146 new hotel units, and the annexation of 19.23 acres into the specific plan area for the development of the La Quinta Tennis Club and Tennis Villas (200 condominiums) in the central portion of the resort property. This amendment was processed under Riverside County jurisdiction as the City of La Quinta did not incorporate until May 9, 1982. In 1988, the first amendment under City jurisdiction was approved to add a new maintenance facility with employee and overflow parking lot located at the southeast corner of the Tennis Villas area. These facilities were constructed on two long pieces of land, the north parcel to have the maintenance facility and employee parking, .while the southerly parcel was developed with 162 parking spaces for the hotel use. In 1989, Specific Plan Amendment #2 was approved to add 77 new hotel units. These units were never built. In 1995, Amendment #3 was approved by the City in conjunction with Plot Plan 95 -555 for the construction of a ballroom expansion and elimination of designated parking area and replacement with associated parking. On May 14, 1997, the Applicant made application to the City for Amendment #4 to Specific Plan 121 -E and related development applications as described in this document. Currently, the La Quinta Resort campus consists of 640 hotel rooms, convention facilities including 60,000 + sq. ft. of exhibit space, restaurants, office /retail space, two 18 -hole golf courses, 25 swimming pools, 38 spas and a tennis club. The Specific Plan currently allows for a total number of Page 7 018 1558 residential units. The gated residential sections of the resort include Santa Rosa Cove - 334 units (6 lots vacant), The Enclave/Mountain Estates - 32 custom units with 59 vacant lots, Los Estados - 40 residential units, Tennis Villas - 48 units built, 200 units approved, and land east of Eisenhower Drive - 110 units potential. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Adjacent land uses and their designations include: Low Density Residential uses to the east, Medium Density Residential to the south, and Santa Rosa Mountains Open Space with a Hillside Conservation Overlay to the north and west. The Specific Plan area extends to the city boundary on the west. The existing residential, tourist commercial, golf and open space uses of the resort are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The existing General Plan Land Use designations for the residential resort include Low Density Residential (LDR) with a range of 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and Medium Density Residential (MDR) with 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Commercial designations include Tourist Commercial. Other land uses include (3- 3l f C Gir s2 , ripvi Space, and Water Cour se/Plood Control. The existing land uses are depicted in Exhibit 5 (Page 2.5) of the' Specific Plan document submitted for this project. The proposed changes to the land use designations are depicted in Exhibit 6 of the above referenced document. Acreage under MDR will change from 22.5 acres to 5.5, while TC will increase from 43.5 acres to 60.5 acres in Planning Area 1. The requested change involves an change of 6.3 acres to the TC (Tourist Commercial) designation, a reduction of the LDR (Low Density Residential) designation from 18.9 acres to 12.6 acres, but no change in the 6 acres of GC (Golf Course) and 3.5 acres of W (Water Course/Floodway) designated areas for that area east of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenue 50 - Planning Area IL The proposed changes in land use designations would. serve as mitigation for the proposed development by providing for consistent and compatible land use categories. Existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area include RL - Low Density Residential, GC - Golf Course, WC - Water Course, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area II), and RM - Medium Density Residential, and TC - Tourist Commercial (Planning Area 1), TC- Tourist Commercial, GC - Golf Course, OS - Open Space, FP - Flood plain, and HC - Hillside Conservation . The Zoning District boundaries are proposed to be modified in that there would be an increase in the acreage of the TC Zone, a portion of the RL area would be redesignated to TC for the proposed parking lot and residential specific plan area located east of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. The proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit 8 of the Specific Plan document. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designations and would serve as mitigation for the proposed development in those specific areas where the zone change is requested, in that there would be consistency with the General Plan land use designations. The current Specific Plan for the resort provides for a maximum of 1558 residential dwelling units on 638 acres of the resort campus that are planned for residential, golf �iourse, and open space uses. There is a mix of densities from 2 to 8 units per acre, with an overall density of 2.4 dwelling units per Page g rl -19 acre. The proposed Specific Plan amendment will reduce the overall allowable dwelling unit production to 1367 dwelling units. This number is calculated as follows: 1367 -152 units east of Obregon = 1406. 1406 - 60 units of the allowable 110 on land east of Avenue 50 (assuming 12.6 acres x DU's/ac nets 50 built on the LDR =1346. 1346 +21 transferred from the Hillside area = 1367 units (Source: Draft Specific Plan Amendment #4).Development standards will determine the actual density for a particular parcel for residential units in the TC -RSP areas. The proposed Specific Plan amendment would create a unique use category specified as Tourist Commercial- .Residential Specific Plan (TC -RSP). With the anticipated use of the proposed single family detached residential units as potential hotel rooms that can be rented as "keys ", a review of the Tourist Commercial (TC) Zoning District indicates that the purpose and intent of this zone is to provide for the development and regulation of a narrow range of specialized commercial uses oriented to tourist and resort activity. Representative land uses include retail uses, general commercial uses, office uses and health services, dining, drinking, and entertainment uses, recreation uses, public and semi - public uses, residential and lodging uses, accessory uses, and temporary and interim uses. Residential uses in the TC- (RSP) zone include townhome, single family, and multi - family residential uses in accordance with the Specific Plan Residential Overlay. Particular uses requiring approval of a Conditional Use Permit include resort maintenance plants and facilities, pool/spa and water park uses, theaters, live or motion picture- indoor or outdoor, and parking garages as an accessory use to residential and lodging uses, and timeshare units. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions over the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinia has lead agency jurisdiction over this project. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, and the City's CEQA Guidelines. An EIR was prepared for the original Specific Plan in 1975. Environmental Assessment 95 -304 was prepared for a ballroom expansion at the resort which was a part of Amendment #3 of the Specific Plan. A Mitigated'Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for that EA. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the project site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey). D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low - income minority community)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve the demolition of six existing Page 9 n9n condominium buildings, each with 3 units, in order to construct the new resort residential units. A total of 10,020 square feet will be demolished. Occupancy of the condominium buildings was at resort market -rates which precluded low- income families or individuals. Impact to the physical arrangement of the existing resort will be minimal as the proposed new buildings will allow for the continuing of the existing spatial organization of open spaces and walkways between buildings (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan).The proposed parking lot will be located south of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50, which is physically separated from the main resort campus_ However, the parking lot parcel was included in the Specific Plan area several years ago. Traffic from this parcel to the main resort campus will be via public streets separating the two Specific Plan areas. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is made up of nine cities in the eastern portion of Riverside County with a total population of more than 250,000 people. The current population of the County is 1.38 million (Source: Dept. Of Finance, 1996). Local Environmental Setting La Quinta incorporated in 1982 with a population of 5,260. Fourteen years later, the City has grown to 31.18 square miles with more than 18,931 permanent residents within its City limits. La Quinta's population ranks it sixth largest of the cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth has been approximately 10% in recent years (e.g., 1,000 people/year). The projected population of La Quinta 1 by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000. The average'age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population.. The ethnic composition of the City is 70% White, 26% Hispanic, 2% Black, 2% Asian/Other. The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21% are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). The total number of housing units in the City is 9,923. Single family housing units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 6,845 detached single family units, 2,260 attached single family units, 571 multi - family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.118 (Source: 1997, Dept. of Finance). The number of housing units occupied is 6070, with 38.83% vacant. Median home prices in the City are just below $120,000 (1990 Census) which is consistent with the average for Riverside County but less than other :outhem California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overviews). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source; Community Development Department, City of La Quinta). A Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Page 10 Less Than Significant Impact. 'The proposed residential specific plan units will generate additional residents and visitors to La Quinta, however, the anticipated vast majority of occupants of these units will be tourists staying at the hotel. It is not anticipated that a significant number of permanent new residents will result from this project that will cumulatively impact regional or local populations. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living at home. Often they will be seasonal residents, as opposed to permanent residents. The proposed project will provide a unique residential experience geared to tourist and resort uses and not likely to be used as permanent homes. Temporary construction- related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings proposed for this project are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created for administration, management, attendants, and specialist for the spa and fitness center. It is anticipated that the existing staff will utilize the new parking lot. The proposed residential specific plan units may create some jobs for domestics, gardeners, and hotel staff. The number of new jobs created by this project is not anticipated to exceed 30. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive economic impact. New jobs will have an impact upon employee parking and vehicle trips which will be considered in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the resort. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings are within an existing developed resort campus. All infrastructure is existing.. Connections to existing main lines will be required. No significant impacts are anticipated for this issue. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. It is proposed that six condominium buildings, each with 3 units, will be demolished in order to make room for the new resort residential units. The condos are a part of the hotel room stock and not individually owned or leased for long term occupancy. Thus, there will be no impact upon the City's stock of permanent occupancy housing stock and housing needs. 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Jetting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the steep, rocky mountains to the south and west. The Cove area of La Quinta is located on an alluvial fan. Elevations reach 1,400 feet above msl. and to below sea level in the southeastern portion of the City. Slopes on the valley floor are gently, except in areas of rolling sand dunes and sand shadows. The alluvial soils that make up the Cove area are underlain by igneous- metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very Page 11 fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The entire valley is underlain by hundreds of feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting The area. ;,where the project site is located is in a historical part of the City. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that a part of the site was farmed at one time. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 60 to 40 feet above msl (Source: TT 28545, USGS La Quinta Quad). Approximately 207.5 acres are designated as Open Space and are located in the steep rocky mountains at the western, southwestern, and northern boundaries of the property. There are two inferred earthquake faults, one located approximately 2 miles south of the resort property, and the other, approximately 1.5 miles east. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is a low probability for such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by -the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1979, there are seven different types of soils present on the resort property. These include Ip - Indio fine sandy loam, Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, GbA - Gilman fine sandy loam, MaB - Myoma fine sand, CcC - Carrizo stony sand, Ru - Rubble land, and GeA - Gilman silt loam. Each of these soil types has distinctive characteristics and land use suitability. The Is (Indio very fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the relatively flat areas where the propsed spa and fitness buildings and new resort residential units are proposed. This soil type belongs to the coarse - silty, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow, and the risk of wind or water erosion is slight. The best use of this soil type is for agriculture, such as truck crops. For construction purposes the shrink -swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The Ip (Indio fine sandy loam) soil type is found in the vicinity of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. This soil type belong to the same taxonomic class as does the Is soil type. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard from wind or water is slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. This soil type is-best suited to agricultural uses. The shrink- swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GbA (Gilmore fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the northern and southern portions of the flatter resort areas on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. This soil type belong to the coarse - loamy, mixed ' Ti liveflt taxonomic class of soils. T Il$ soil type is subject tU iaicareoiS ), hyeiieill% pT oll llyc J flooding. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. Runoff is slow, erosion hazards are slight, Page 12 however, blowing sand is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is agriculture. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The MaB (Myoma fine sand) is found in areas with 0 to 5 % slope in the northwest corner of the resort property. This soil belongs to the mixed, hyperthermic Typic Torripsamment taxonomic class. Runoff is very slow, erosion is slight. The best use for this soil type is agricultureal uses, however it is suitable for homesites and recretion uses. Blowing sand hazards are high. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low. Cut banks will cave in shallow excavations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CcC (Carrizo stony sand) soil type is found on slopes 2 to 9 percent in grade, on alluvial fans where drainage from the mountain enters the valley. This soil type belongs to the snady - skeletal, mixed hyperthermic Typic Torriothent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow except in channels. The best land use for this soil type is for watershed and wildlife habitat. The shrink - swell - factor is low. Risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is' moderate to high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). Rubble land (Ru) soil type is found on slopes with 2 to 15 % grade, on very old alluvial fans. It is composed of 90% cobbles, stones, and boulders, cut by numerous ill- defined intermittent stream channels in a braided pattern. Riverwash is found alongside the main di ainageways among the steep slopes. Desert Varnish is found on the exposed surfaces. Vegetation is an extremely sparse cover of brush, creosote bush, barrel cactus, bush sunflower, ocotillo, and an occasional clump of annual grass in the pockets of fine sand. The best land use for this soil type is watershed, wildlife habitat, and recreation (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GeA (Gilman silt loam) soil type is found on slopes with 0 to 2 % grade and has a slit loam surface layer. This soil type belongs to the same taxonomic class as does GbA soil type. Runoff is slow and erosion hazards are slight. The best land use for this soil type is for growing citrus, dates, cotton, and alfalfa hay. The shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CsA (Coachella fine sandy loam) is found in areas with 0 to 2 % slopes. This soil type belongs to the sandy, mixed hyperthermic, Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. It is found on the parcel where the proposed employee parking lot is proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Runoff is medium, and erosion hazards are slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is for truck crops. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risk for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The site of the proposed spa and fitness buildings, and the residential specific plan units has been graded and compacted in past years in anticipation of construction that did not take place. Over time this same area has been used for soil borrowing and depositing from adjacent construction projects. It is estimated that the project site soil has been disrupted to a depth of about 10 feet. Page 13 024 A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant impact. There are two inferred earthquake fault lines in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the resort. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in•the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new development will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who will be subjected to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone III. The new structures will be required to meet current seismic design and• construction standards to reduce to risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is. not anticipated to be subject to grounG failure hazards from earthquake or other events. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. D. 'Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunama. There are no active volcanoes in the local area to create a hazard. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? No Impact. The proposed building sites are several hundred feet from the steep mountains to the west, thus there is no possibility oflandslides or mudslides. The existing structures within the Specific Plan are on a gently sloping alluvial fan. Page 14 ```.J O #35 s • F. Would the project 'result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require grading and trenching for the various buildings. Geotechnical reports will be required to be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review prior to issuance of grading permits. The Applicant states that grading will include 3.90 acres for the proposed parking lot, 0.8 acre for the proposed Spa building, and 6.5 acres for the residential specific plan units. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils on the project site Is - Indio very fine sandy loam, and Ip - Indio fine sandy loam. Both soil types are characterized by slow runoff, slight erosion hazards from either wind or water,, and no flood hazards associated with them. The shrink -swell capacity is low, indicating that these soil types are stable for construction considerations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Less Than Significant Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features are not located within the project site or near, enough to the project to be affected by the proposed spa and fitness buildings, employee parking lot, or the new residential specific plan units. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater' Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as wellas a significant supply for the City's Page 15 0LO nonpotable irrigtion needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via eleven wells in the City operated by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower f- Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin: The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub - basins near Point Happy Ranch, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented 'with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet is considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future as more demands lur water are placed on the supply. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated ground water; and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two -part permitting process for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Setting The Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1974 by Harry H. Schmitz & Associates for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club, states that the Lower Coachella Valley receives imported water from the Colorado River and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. This water has little importance to the [Upper Valley, with the noted exception of La Quinta. In La Quinta this flow moves into the area from the north and northeast, and no groundwater barriers have been identified in this locality. Groundwater recharge cones from these subsurface inflows enhanced by seepage of applied irrigation water from the Coachella Canal. Page 16 �G! Practically all water used in La,,Quinta is obtained from wells located within the community. The domestic water system serving the older part of the community was operated by the Santa Carmelita Water Company. The first golf and condominium development was served by the La Quinta Water Company. Now, the entire City is served by the Coachella Valley Water District. There are still a few large private wells used for irrigation and agriculture within the community. The proposed project sites do not have standing water on them. The nearest stands of water consist of several small lakes on the gotf courses. Historically, there was a lake at the southern End of the property known as Lake Marshall. The lake dried several decades ago. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project, was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed in 1970. Construction of the system was completed in November 1986. The nearest stormwater facility to the project sites is the Oleander Reservoir which is located south of the resort property and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which passes through the southeastern portion of the resort property. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings including the residential units will 1 decrease absorption rates and amounts in that foundations and hardscape will be placed where there C� J was previously none, except for where the condominium buildings that are slated for demolition and the tennis stadium are located. Pavement for the proposed employee parking lot will decrease absorption rates in that area. Drainage patterns are designed to direct runoff to the existing golf course lakes. The new buildings are not anticipated to alter the drainage pattern significantly as they will be located amidst existing buildings with an established drainage pattern. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project sites are within Zone X on the Federal Flood Insurance rate maps. Zone X includes those areas determined to be outside of the 500 -year flood plain. The area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. Local stormwater drainage requirements for this site are the responsibility of the City (Source: CVWD). C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the proposed new buildings including the residences will be required to be directed into the existing drainage facilities. Water discharging from the Page 17 1 0 0 proposed spa building is anticipated to be proximal to swimming pool or jacuzza water. Spas are regulated by the Public Health Department and will be monitored by resort staff in accordance with Health Department requirements for appropriate chemical maintenance and sanitation (Source: Application materials). D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. There are no bodies of surface water on the proposed project sites. Existing drainage facilities are located south of the resort property and include the golf course lakes. Runoff water is designed to flow into the lakes and Oleander Reservoir. Flooding occurs rarely so that there is anticipated to be little change in the amount of surface water in the vicinity (Source: Application materials; La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man -made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man -made stormwater diversion channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. The future development of the projectsites will not affect io a significant degree any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; Application materials; La Quinta MEA). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct' } additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or b� excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived frorn groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the proposed buildings and units does not include any new wells or cuts into the aquifer (Source: Application materials; La Quinta MEA). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on groundwater wells as there is not proposed alteration to the rate or direction of flow of groundwater supply by any aspect of the construction or operation of the spa and fitness buildings, parking lot, or the residential specific plan units (Source: Application materials). H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Several of the proposed buildings will be constructed in an existing resort campus, with six condorninlium buildings and a tennis stadium, and tennis courts I. be demolished in order to make room for the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific Page 18 0 � plan units. Some vacant land will be part of this development as well. The employee parking lot will be constructed on vacant land. The proposed development does not include any cuts into the groundwater supply, nor does it include any operational activities that would impact the quality of the groundwater (Source: Application materials). 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD), and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin ( SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB experiences poor air quality; but to a lesser extent than SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. The AQMD has defined Criteria Pollutants of concern in SCAB and the Coachella Valley. These pollutants consist of lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM 10, sulfate, and visibility. There are national, state, and regional levels for almost all of the pollutants. There are standards for ozone and PM 10 at the Coachella Valley level. For the other pollutants the high level of governmental standards must be referred to as indicated in Table 3 -1 - Criteria Pollutants of Concern in SCAB and Coachella Valley, of the Draft SCAQMD CFQA Air Quality andbook. Local Environmental Setting The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rain-fall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMP, a plan which described measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and.state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. In addition, the type of development Page 19 6301 0 0 proposed by the amendment to the Specific Plan would be covered by the La Quinta General Plan EIR Statement of Overriding Considerations in that this type of development is needed to further enhance the quality of life sought as essential and beneficial in attracting new residents, business, and visitors to La Quinta and generally promoting increased investment and return on property values. "The project site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin, which has been designated a "severe -1', ozone nonattamment area because of violations of the federal ambient air quality standards for ozone primarily due to pollutant transport from the South Coast Air Basin. he 1997 Air Quality Management Plan indicates that attainment of the 1 =hour federal ozone standard will be possible by November -15, 2007 (as required by the Federal Clean Air Act) with the proposed control strategy for the South Coast Air Basin and control of locally generated emissions via state and federal regulations. The Coachella Valley was reclassified in February 1993 by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "serious" nonattainment area for PM 10, which means that he valley had violated federal health -based standards for particulate matter. PM 10 monitoring in the Coachella Valley over the last three years indicates that (with the exception of one measured PM 10 exceedance due to a high wind natural event) that area has attained the federal PM 10 standard and since the EPA recently released a natural events policy which exempts certain high wind events causing PM 10 air quality exceedances as being counted as a violation, the Coachella Valley is now eligible for consideration by the EPA as having attained the federal PM10 standard. The proposed project is located south of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments "Blowsand Hazard Zone" (Source: Endo Engineering, 1997). A: Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. An air quality study was prepared for the proposed project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. The report concludes the following: "1. Daily and quarterly construction- related emissions associated with the proposed project are not projected to exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold criteria and therefore should be considered insignificant. 2. Upon completion in 1999, the proposed project would generate approximately: 305.7 pounds of carbon monoxide, 3 5.5 pounds of reactive organic compounds, 40.0 pounds of Nox 2.5 pounds of and 3.2 pounds of PM10, primarily due to motor vehicle use associated with the project. 3.- The pro_ posed project is not considered to have a significant long -term impact on air quality, since it will not exceed any of the SCAQMD operational threshold criteria. 4. CALINE 4 modeling indicates that the one -hour and eight -hour state and federal ambient air quality standards for carbon monoxide will not be exceeded at the largest intersection carrying a significant amount of. project- related traffic in 1999, regardless of whether or not the project is cV'net „4cted. Page 20 M. 5. The proposed project appears to be consistent with the 1997 Air Quality Management Plan and the Coachella Valley PM10 SIP." The Endo report lists 10 mitigation measures for air quality issues that will become conditions of project approval. These conditions are found on Pages 1 -2 and 5 -2 of the Endo report. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, athletic facilities, playgrounds, residences, long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individual recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. A radius of 1/4 mile for sensitive receptors is the AQMD standard for consideration of this issue. Within this radius, the land uses surrounding the three buildings include residential, hotel, open space, and tourist commercial, and athletic facilities. The residential and athletic facilities constitute sensitive receptors. Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "Sensitive receptors." If sensitive receptors are located adjacent to a major intersection, carbon monoxide (CO) "hot spots" may occur during times of peak use. High levels of carbon monoxide are also associated with traffic congestion, and with.idling or slow- moving vehicles, depending on the background CO concentration. Therefore, projects that could negatively impact levels of service at major intersections with nearby sensitive receptors must quantify and, if necessary, mitigate potential impacts (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Endo'Engineering, Aug. 1997).. C The Air Quality report prepared for the project b Endo En ineerin , states that the current and P P P J Y 8 g future project - related traffic volumes in Planning Areas I and II are quite small. In addition, the ambient carbon monoxide concentrations in the Coachella Valley are very low. As a result, the likelihood of a CO "hot spot" that could affect pedestrians or local residents is extremely remote." C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant climatic changes anticipated with the proposed development within the resort. The three proposed building areas are located within an existing resort development that is located within a desert cove at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The distal end of the cove is oriented toward the east and is protected from the prevailing winds from the west. The resort does not have any activities or land uses that would alter the climatic factors in any significant or detectable manner (Source: Application materials; site survey). D. ' Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed building areas are not anticipated to result in any detectable odors, such as those from restaurants, chemical products, or stockpiling of waste materials (Source: Application materials). Page 21 032 3.6 TRANSPORTATIONM RCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Eisenhower Drive, Avenues 50 and 52. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late - winter, early spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. There is a relatively low incidence of automobile accidents at the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The La Quinta MEA states that for the year 1988 to 1989, there were 6 reported accidents at this intersection. For 1995, there were two reported accidents, and in 1996, there were four reported accidents. Thus far, for 1997, there have been three reported accidents for this intersection (Sources: La Quinta MEA; SWITRS; Public Works Department records). Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus lines operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects Eisenhower and Avenue 50 with the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the West. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert (Source: La Quinta MEA). There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These- facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental Setting The proposed project is an update to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan. The Specific Plan area is located on the west side of Eisenhower Drive, and at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. The resort is accessed at Avenida Fernando, north of Avenue 50, and at the main entrance located at Avenue 50. There are traffic signals at both Avenue 50 and Avenida Fernando, on Eisenhower Drive. Both Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 are designated as Primary Arterial roadways, and has a right -of -way width ranging between 100 and 110 feet. The La Quinta MEA states that as of June 1991 the average daily traffic flow along Eisenhower Drive, north of Avenue 50, was 9,800; and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan lists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as Page 22 033 0 a of Avenue 50, was 9,800; and south of Avenue 50, it was 7,900. Along Avenue 50 the average daily traffic count was 3,500. The La Quinta General Plan lists roadway deficiencies within the City. The area in the vicinity of the project site has a lack of road shoulders and sidewalk facilities to support alternative modes such as bicycling and pedestrian movement throughout most of the system. The proposed amendment will permit the consolidation of two existing parking areas for the hotel into a single new parking lot. The proposed new lot will have 244 parking spaces which will replace the fragmented 215 spaces in the two existing parking areas. The two existing parking areas are located in sensitive residential surroundings at the rear of the hotel, west of Avenida Obregon and north of Calle Mazatlan. There is also a neighboring lawn maintenance/storage area that can accommodate 17 vehicles. The hotel employee and Iandscape maintenance parking lots can only be accessed by driving through the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Fernando and traveling south along Avenida Obregon,. passing through the La Quinta Hotel grounds (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). Access for the proposed parking lot would be off. of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. Adjacent to the north of the parking lot is a future Residential Specific Plan area and a Low Density Residential area. A detailed discussion of this future residential area is found in the Endo Engineering Traffic Analysis (August 1997) prepared for this project. { Vehicular access to the proposed residential specific plan units within the hotel grounds will be via '+ Avenida Obregon, Calle Mazatlan off. Eisenhower Drive, or Calle Mazatlan, off of Avenida Fernando. A center portion of Avenida Obregon within the resort area will be vacated to form a cul- de -sac at the residential specific plan units. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. A traffic analysis was prepared for this project by Endo Engineering, in August 1997. Eight traffic impacts were identified with the proposed project. (1) The proposed project will replace the 177 + /- off - street spaces that currently exist in the hotel employee and landscape maintenance parking lots associated with the La Quinta Resort with approximately 250 spaces in a new parking lot. As a result, construction- related traffic will be generated in the vicinity of the new parking lot, following project approval and continuing until project completion. (2) The tragic analysis prepared for this project concludes that a total of approximately 410 daily trip - ends are projected to be associated with the proposed consolidated parking lot on a typical weekday, with 31 inbound and 3 outbound trips during the morning peak hour and 8 inbound and 29 outbound trips during the evening peak hour of adjacent street traffic. These trips will be permanently re- routed from existing parking_ areas, a process that will reduce traffic volumes along some existing site access Page 23 0 14 0 0 hour (185 inbound and 99 outbound) and 209 trips are projected to occur during the morning peak hour (52 inbound and 157 outbound) (4) The redistribution of project- related traffic will reduce employee traffic volumes on two -lane streets through existing residential neighborhoods and La Quinta Hotel guest accommodation areas but increase employee traffic volumes along Avenue 50 (a master planned four -lane divided primary arterial that is a designated truck route). (5): Construction of additional residential units will increase traffic volumes through the internal streets of the La Quinta Resort including Calle Mazatlan, the La Quinta Hotel main access, Avenida Fernando, and Avenida Obregon. (6) All four of the existing key intersections will provide LOS B or better operation (acceptable levels of service) in 1999 with or without the proposed project. The peak hour levels of service provided at all four existing key intersections will be the same upon project buildout as they are today (LOS A or LOS B).The fifth key intersection (at Eisenhower south of Avenue 50) does not exist today, and will be restricted to right -turn only access. (7) All of the key intersections evaluated currently operate, and will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with or without the project. Although the proposed project would create a minor change in the Year 1999 peak hour intersection delay (up to 1.0 second/vehicle), the change would not be sufficient to change the level of service at any of the key intersections. (8) Following implementation of the mitigation measures associated with the proposed Amendment Number 4 to the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan, the proposed project will have a less - than- significnt impact on all roads and intersections within the study area. The traffic 'report recommends mitigation measures to reduce potential circulation impacts associated with the proposed project. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the project Conditions of Approval. Following the implementation of the mitigation measures, as stated in the traffic study the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan will have a less - than- significant impact on all roads and intersections within the study area, for the proposed project. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. There are no identified safety hazards with the road design or accesses by the proposed project. No off -site improvements are required to achieve adequate levels of service at the key intersections under year 1999+ project conditions (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? Page 24 035 Less Than Significant Impact. The traffic report prepared for this project does not identify inadequate emergency accesses. A detailed discussion of access issues is provided in the traffic report (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on site or off site7 No Impact. The proposed spa and fitness buildings do not have specific. parking spaces provided because the patrons of these two buildings will largely be the hotel guests whose parking will be already provided by general guest parking facilities. However, there will be 76 parking spaces available to share with other hotel users within close proximity. The proposed residential specific plan units will have one parking space per bedroom which will provide adequate parking space for these units. These spaces will be located around the perimeter of the clusters of units. Carriage units will have their parking spaces underneath the units. The proposed employee parking facility will have 244 parking spaces on the 3.90 acre facility. The hotel currently has approximately 200 employees. Additional employees will probably be added to the staff as a result of the spa and fitness buildings and the new residential specific plan units (maids, gardeners, security, management, etc.).The proposed 244 spaces should provide adequate parking for existing and project - related needs. The traffic report concluded that the proposed employee parking lot on Eisenhower and Avenue 50 will replace the 215+ employee parking spaces that currently exist in two separate parking areas associated with the La Quinta Resort (Source: Endo Engineering, August 1997). E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. Eisenhower Drive is a designated bikeway corridor. The proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact upon the corridor other than to possibly add additional bike riders as a result of the proposed residential specific plan units or employees. The corridor will be improved. The proposed new buildings within the resort campus may result in some additional bicycle riders. There are no anticipated hazards or barriers proposed that would affect bike riders: There are existing pathways within the resort that accommodate bikeriders (Source: Application materials; site survey). Avenue 50 is designated as a Class H Bike Route, however, no bikeway facilities will be constructed until development along Avenue 50 occurs (Source: La Quinta Bike Route Plan). A concern for pedestrian safety along Avenida Fernando, between Avenida Obregon and Eisenhower Drive, has prompted the recommendation to provide a walkway via striping on the pavement and/or installation of a sidewalk on Avenida Fernando. Such a walkway will become a condition of approval with the design to be approved by the City Engineer and the Community Development Department (Source: Endo Engineering, August, 1997). F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 25 036 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed employee parking lot will provide 244 parking spaces for the resort. employees. The Zoning Ordinance requires entities with 100 or more 1? employees to prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to mitigate impacts from numerous vehicular trips and congestion. The resort has over 200 employees for which the proposed parking lot will service. The new parking lot will consolidate parking into one facility. Employees will park in the facility and be shuttled to and from their work posts within the resort via a single drop -off point. Bicycle racks will be required to be located within the parking facility for employees to secure their bicycles. The proposed spa and fitness buildings will be required to have bicycle racks provided for both :employees and guests. Bicycle racks are required for commercial land uses, and the spa and fitness buildings will be in the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The proposed residential specific plan units will not be required to have bicycle racks as they will function as a specific plan residential land use within the Tourist Commercial Zoning District. The resort has an on -site bicycle rental facility that rents bicycles to guests of the resort. G. Would -the project result in rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, no air travel lanes within the City limits. Thus, there will be no impacts upon these issues. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately six miles north of the project site. The other airport is the Thermal Airport, located approximately six miles southeast of the project, on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: La Quinta MEA; USGS La Quinta 7.5' Quad Map; site survey). 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City: the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Regionally, there are numerous desert animals that have adapted themselves in many ways to cope with the desert environment. Animal species found and known to exist in the Valley are widely diversified in both population and number of species. These animals include about three dozen mammals. Many of which will utilize several or all of the. different habitats found in the region. They include bats, rabbits, rodents, coyotes, foxes, skunks, bobcats, and the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The bighorn inhabit the Sant Rosa Range and foothills lying to the southwest of the Coachella Valley. Tracks and occasional sighting of these animals occur in the Indian Wells, Palm Desert, and La Quinta Page 25 ll �} ��i areas. There are numerous amphibians and reptiles in all habitats of the Lower Sonoran ecosystem. They include the toads, tortoises, lizards, and snakes. Countless numbers and species of birds have been frequenting the Coachella Valley during seasonal migrations for centuries. In addition, there are numerous species of permanent resident birds in the desert. The more noticeable one include quail, hawks, doves, roadrunners, hummingbirds, wrens, mockingbirds, warblers, finches, and sparrows. Insects and arthropods typically found in the desert include scorpions, crickets, grasshoppers, spiders, beetles, butterflies, bees and a host of others which have adapted to the environment (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report, July 1974). Local Environmental Setting The project site is located within the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically, undeveloped land in this environment is rich in biological resources and habitat. This ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water use, go dormant during period of drought, or both. Cacti are very. common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals and birds. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in this environment. The Black - tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species found in this area include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal found in this area is the Peninsular Big Horn sheep which is found at the higher elevation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians /reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub ecosystem. The resort property is largely developed. Historically, horse stables, a landing strip, or agriculture has been present in areas where there are structures or golf course today. Only small parcels within the resort campus have not been disturbed by some sort of land use activity over the 70 years since the resort was first constructed. The southeastern corner of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive has been previously disturbed by grading and excavation activities connected with the construction of the golf course in that area. A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Less Than Significant Impact. The mountains located along the north, west and southwestern portions of the resort property are within the habitat of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep., and the possible habitat of the Magic Geko. The relatively flat areas of the resort property are within the habitats of the Black - tailed Gnatcatcher and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. The California Ditaxis, a rare plant, has also been reported in the general area (Source: La Quinta MEA). Page 27 Field surveys were conducted during August and September 1973 for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (July 1974). The summary of field notes indicates that flora species observed included Ink Weed (Suaeda Torreyana), Mesquite, creosote, salt cedar, Alkali Goldenbush (Happlopappus acradenius), Coyote Melon (Curcurbita Palmeri), Cattle Spinach, Wild Tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), Catclaw, Burrobush, Indigo Bush-, and Desert Sweet. In addition, the resort property supported a variety of agricultural plants and trees including citrus, dates, and fields of alfalfa. Reptiles observed during the surveys included Barred Collared Lizard, Fringe- footed (sic) Lizard (Uma inomata), Gridiron Lizard (Callissurus d. draconoides), Flat -nosed Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos calidarum), Tiger Whip -tail (Cnemidodophorus tigris), Stansbury's Uta (Uta stansburiona), Desert Iguana (Dipsosaurus d. dorsalis), Long - tailed Uta (Uta graciosus), Giant Scaley Lizard (Scalaporus magister). Other lizards not observed, but thought to be present on the property include Meam's Cliff Uta (Pertosaurus meamsi), Henshaw's Spotted Night Lizard (Xantusia henshawi), Tuberculte Gecko (Phyllodactylus tuberculatus), and Banded Gecko. Snakes not observed, but thought to be present include Desert Mountain Speckled Rattler, Van Denburgh's Night Snake (T rimorphodon vandenburghi), Red Diamond Rattler (Crotalus ruber), Red Racer, and Bull Snake. Avian fauna observed were the California Ground Cuckoo (Geococcyx californianus), Gambel or Desert Quail, House Finch or Linnet, White- winged Dove, Mourning Dove, Mexican Dove, Mockers, Starlings, English, Sparrows, White - rumped Shrike, and Grasshopper Falcon. Others known to frequent the area include swallows, Swifts, Warblers, Thrushes, Flycatchers, Hummingbirds, Orioles, and Texas Night Hawk, Western Tanager. These birds all follow the Coachella Valley Flyway northwestwardly out of the Valley for more northern climes. Mammals observed on the site included coyote, Round = tailed Ground Squirrel, Antelope Ground Squirrel, Pocket Gopher (a variety of Thomomys bottae), Jack Rabbits, and skunks. Nocturnal mammals would include Desert Pack Rat (Neotoma lepida) Canyon Mouse, Cactus Mouse, Spiny Pocket Mouse, Long - tailed Pocket Mouse, and many bats of large and small species. A rare Ring - tailed Cat (Bassariscus astutus) or Cacomistle was observed. The possibility exists that the Desert Bighorn Sheep may visit the ridges of the Santa Rosa foothills west of La Quinta and western limits of the project site (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EIR, July 1974), Insect fauna observed on the property included Wood- borers belonging to the family Buprestidae, genus Hippemelas, Sand Wasp (Epibembix melanoaspis), Coachella Valley Eye Gnats (Hippelates collusor Townsend), Desert Grasshopper (Trimerotropis pallidipennis), Saltbush Grasshopper (Ancona integra), Ateloploides elegans a rare grasshopper, Robber or Assassin Fly (Caratotainiops) (Source: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club EIR, July 1974). The Peninsular Bighorn Sheep are listed as rare by the California Fish and Game Commission, s status which corresponded to their federal listing as a threatened species. They are found on the rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains south and west of La Quinta. Some sheep have been observed Page 28 feeding in the bajada south of the village of La Quinta and sheep tracks have been observed near the Cove Reservoir. Portions of the State Game refuge 4 -D, established in 1'917 by the State Legislature primarily for the protection of native bighorn sheep, lie within La Quinta. Other endangered and threatened wildlife species found in La Quinta is as follows: Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard Flat - Tailed Horned Lizard Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Coachella Giant Sand Treader Cricket Prairie Falcon Golden Eagle Vermillion Flycatcher Black - tailed Gnatcatcher Crissal Thrasher Le Conte's Thrasher Through that past 70 years, the resort property has been impacted by expansion of new buildings and residential units, additional golf courses, and amenities that have resulted in the disappearance of habitat. Of the faunal and flora species discussed in this document, the species of concern are the Coachella Fringe -Toed Lizard, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, Black - Tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis. There are no other known biological surveys to have been conducted on the resort property since the 1973 survey. Based upon the information contained in the EIR -and the La Quinta MEA, it appears that there is a;potential impact to the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep whose habitat includes the mountainous areas of the resort property. Any proposed recreational intrusion into those mountains would potentially impact the sheep. The Open Space designation prohibits any type of development, including trails, in the mountains without an approved Conditional Use Permit. If the Applicant should decide to include recreational activities or facilities in the mountainous areas of their resort, a complete biological study would be required to be submitted to the City with an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Consultations with California Fish and Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, and other appropriate entities would be consulted as part of the review process. Mitigation for the Fringe -Toed Lizard consists of the payment of a mitigation fee used toward the purchase and maintenance of preserve lands. The resort property is not within the designated fee payment area. Thus there is no required mitigation for this species. The Black - tailed Gnatcatcher, Magic Gecko, and California Ditaxis do not currently have any required mitigation measures. In the near future there may be a mitigation requirement in connection with the completion of the Coachella Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? Page 29 040 No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources- within the City of La Quinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish & Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Source: La Quinta IVIEA). C. Would the project result in impact to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? Less Than Significant Impact. There are eight locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. The La Quinta MEA identifies these habitat types which are described in terms of their decreasing elevation and development'. These habitats consists of the Rocky Slope Habitat, Rocky Bajada Habitat; Terraces, Alluvial Plain Habitat, Sandy Wash Habitat, Dunes Habitat, Valley Floor Habitat, and Modified and Agricultural Habitat. The La Quinta MEA lists the La Quinta Hotel as being within the Modified and Agricultural Habitat. There is no perceived impact to flora or fauna from the proposed project, and as such, there is no requirement for mitigation. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools within the City (Source: La Quinta MEA). E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. There are no known wildlife corridors within the project area (Source: La Quinta MEA). )'} 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Area (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies. There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities on the project site or in the near vicinity. The project site is located within MRZ -3, a designation for areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which can-not be evaluated from available data. A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Section 9.180 of the Zoning Code) in place that focuses on the conservation of Buel. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction and materials, thus reducing energy consumption. The proposed structures Page 30 s � will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in their construction. No other mitigation is required for this issue. B. Would the project use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include, air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, metals, and other resources needed for construction. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District for water management. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Setting Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure of hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning: operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigtion and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no sanctioned hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County, although transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948 - Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site is not known to have been used for any type of manufacturing in the past. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Less Than Significant Impact. There is risk from cleaning chemicals and compounds used in the maintenance of the proposed buildings. Proper storage and instruction in their use and storage is required. B. Would the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction and excavation activities will be confined to the proposed building sites, except for minimal ofd site work as will be necessary for the project. These activities will not interfere with emergency evacuation of the area. Any work to be done in the road Page 31 042 right -of ways will require an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. This permit will require particular traffic safety measures to protect both the public and workers. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. The only identifiable health hazards associated with the proposed project consist of workers using chemicals during the course of maintenance of the various structures or functions within the resort, such as pool chemicals, pesticides, fuels, and other similar forms. OSHA and the EPA require instruction and certification for workers using particular chemicals to reduce the incidence of poisonings, etc. Mitigation shall require that all personnel using OSHA and EPA chemicals have the appropriate training and certifications. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. it is assumed that there are a variety of chemicals in use at the resort that may cause health hazards. The proper training and certifications should be obtained for the safety of both workers and resort guests and residents. E. Would the proposed project involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? No Impact. The proposed projects are located within a developed resort property where there is maintained and irrigated landscape and no natural vegetation that would be subject to brush fires. 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the Coachella Valley are mostly created by vehicular traffic on roadways. Some noise is made by aircraft. Local Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials. The City of La Quinta General Plan requires a commercial project to perform a noise study if the project is within a 1,000 feet of a residential use, recommendations shall be made that help mitigate excessive or annoying noise from the project and ensure that the ambient noise is less than 60 dB CNEL at surrounding residential parcels. Page 32 I AM The La Quinta General Plan also requires a noise study to be conducted for proposed development adjacent to a collector street where there is the potential for increased traffic. Two such areas have been identified: that segment of Ave. Fernando from Eisenhower Drive to Ave. Obregon; and Ave. Mazatlan from Eisenhower Drive to the western -most intersection of Madrugada. The City's Zoning Ordinance contains Sections 9:100.210 Noise Control for Nonresidential Land Uses, and 9.60.230 Noise Control for Residential uses which both will apply to the Specific Plan. The project site is currently exposed to noise generated by traffic on Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive. A noise study was prepared for this project specifically for the employee parking lot, and collector portion of Aves. Mazatlan and Fernando as required by the La Quinta General Plan. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The focused noise studies indicate that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards that can not be mitigated to a level less than significant. A Noise Study prepared by J. J. Van Houton, in May 1997, for a previously proposed project including a maintenance facility with the employee parking lot at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. That report concluded that there are no significant impacts associated with the proposed project relative to the City's standards. However, the annoyance potential of the previously proposed maintenance facility is considered significant. Mitigation measures were recommended to lessen these impacts. The currently proposed project does not include the maintenance facility, and the employee parking lot was moved to a more southern location, farther away from existing residential uses along Avenue 50. The portion of the noise study that pertains to the proposed parking lot identified one noise source: car parking and door slamming with a maximum noise level of 80 dB(A) at 50 feet away. The average maximum noise level to the existing homes would be at 78 dB(A }, and to future homes 76 dB(A). Traffic along Avenue 50 would generate noise at 65 dB and 58 dB from along Eisenhower Drive based on LOS C traffic volumes. The existing ambient noise level at the project site are between 43 and 56 dB(A), and at the existing homes from 50 to 59 dB(A). The proposed project includes only an employee parking lot which has been proposed farther south than the previously proposed parking lot. The proposed new site is farther away from existing residential uses, with proposed residential uses to be developed to the north of the parking lot. It has been determined that the potential adverse impacts associated with the current proposed parking lot location and use will be less than that identified for the previously proposed site. The number of parking spaces has been reduced to 244 with access off of Eisenhower Drive. The segment of roadway along Ave. Fernando between Eisenhower Drive and Obregon functions as a collector road in terms of traffic. The ADT is projected to be 3,350 vehicles per day. The CNEL at fifty feet from centerline is 53.2. Computerized modeling of the projected ultimate noise levels indicates that a significant noise impact will not occur at any sensitive receptors adjacent to Calle Mazatlan (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). Page 33 n ,4 i v � The noise study indicates that the roadway segment of Calle Mazatlan between Eisenhower Drive and the western-most intersection of Madrugada will have an ultimate peak season traffic volume of 3,680 ADT. The traffic volume decreases at every intersection until the projected ultimate peak season traffic alumes reach 2,160 ADT, immediately east of Ave. Vista Bonita. Alternate access from the project could increase to 21390 ADT. The closest residential units are approximately 50 feet away from the roadway centerline. The La. Quinta General Plan establishes exterior noise standards of 60 CNEL noise. The projected noise level at the nearest residence is 57.4 CNEL, below the adopted noise standard (Source: Letter from Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997). The need for noise control at the future residential areas to the north should be considered at the time these areas are developed. Mitigation measures such as noise barriers and sound rated windows may be used to minimize annoyance to the future homeowners. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Severe noises are only foreseen as short-term construction noises from heavy machinery capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet from the source. To mitigate the impacts of possible severe noises, the Applicant/developer must comply with Municipal Code construction hours regulations (Source: La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta Municipal Code). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City of La Quinta through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently underserved. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve the City. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: 101 -301 Police Services Supporting Information). Fire protection ser -rice is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; nnation #32 on Old Avenue 52, at Ave. Bermudas, and Station #70, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently underserved. The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Currently, -there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid Page 34 s o staff (Source: La Quinta Building & Safety Department). Structural fires and fires from other man -made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and .brush fires are. minimal as the hillside areas are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse: to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school and high school within the City. The City is within the College of the' Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village of La Quinta. The existing facility opened in 1988 and unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements are used to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was underserved in space but over served in terms of volumes (Source: La Quinta MEA). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital, located in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility, located in the 111 La Quinta Center. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located "in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents "and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance' Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest City fire station to the project is Station #32, located on Francis Hack Lane, approximately one mile southeast of the resort. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. The project site will be served by the local schools in Desert Sands School District. A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of residential specific plan units, a spa and fitness center. Development of the these new structures will require plan review, construction inspection, and fire protection services in a cumulative manner. To help mitigate possible fire hazards, the new structures shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access will be required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc) shall be complied with by the Applicant (Source: Fire Department). Page 3 5 046 B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less. Than Significant Impact. A comment letter from the Sheriffs Department was received for this project. No significant comments were offered in this letter. Thus, no significant impacts are anticipated in relation to police protection (Source: Riverside Sheriff's Department). G. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services ?, Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential units are the only component of the project that may generate students. The proposed use for the units is individual ownership with the option available to the owner to place one or more bedrooms into the hotel room pool to accommodate overflow guests to the resort. The maximum number of students that might be generated by the units, if all were owner- occupied would be 59.5 students District -wide average, using the factor of 1/2 student per unit. If the majority of the bedrooms were placed into the hotel room rental pool, then student generation would be minimal. It is anticipated that there will be few owner- occupied units as the units are not designed for full -time permanent residents. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at .the time building permits are issued will be required of this project for the residential units. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered , government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? } Less Than Significant Impact. It is anticipated that there will be minimal adverse impact on public roads and facilities. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in, a need for new or altered governmental services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for the proposed project will be partially offset by application, permit, and inspection fees charged to the Applicant and contractors. 3.12 I.T'; ILIMS Regional Environmental Services The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (1113) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. III) has four substations in La Quinta with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone ?age 36 R Exchange (GTE) provides telephone service for the City. Cablevision serves the are for cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in La Quinta. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting There is an existing City storm drainage system that is located in the southern portion of the resort property that protects no only the resort, but properties in the general area. Runoff is also directed to the golf course lakes for retention and absorption. All utilities (natural gas, electricity, water, cable television, sewer) exist at the resort. A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, sewer, and natural gas lines were brought in to the resort many years ago. The proposed new buildings and residential units will need extensions of all utilities from main lines and valves that are located on the resort. All overhead electricity lines are routed around the perimeter of the resort site. Internal distribution lines will be placed underground. No significant impact are anticipated regarding utilities. No mitigation is required beyond utility plan checking and permit issuances. B. Would the project resuli in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures and units will require service from GTE or other purveyors for telephone coinniunication wiring and systems. It is anticipated that the telephone serve will be an extension of the existing service at the resort. All overhead public utility transmission lines for telephone are routed around the perimeter of the La Quinta resort. All internal lines will be placed underground. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Page 3? n-48 Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water service. It is not anticipated that the development will , result in an significant adverse impact on local water resources or water infrastructure. A comment letter from CVWD states that they will provide the new structures with water and sewer services. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to : sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed structures will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. The developer will be responsible for the cost of connection to the sewer system. In 1992, the existing demand for sanitary sewage was 252 gallons per dwelling unit per day, with a total existing demand of 1.49 million gallons per day. This standard is based on the sanitary sewer standard divided by 80 percent (Source: La Quinta MEA). The current capacity of the Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant is 4.35 million gallons per day (MGD). This facility serves many communities in the Coachella Valley, including La Quinta. CVWD indicates that this facility can be expanded in the future to accommodate growth, including the La Quinta Resort (Source: Draft The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan). E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Less Than Significant Impact. Storm water drainage policy requires that storm water flows generated on -site shall not leave the site. On -site retention and percolation applies to all but the most intense 'stonm generated water. The La Quinta Resort may receive substantial runoff flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains that are transmitted to the Oleander Basin located to the south, and channel located to the east. Stormwater has been discussed in the section on water resources in this document. Drainage plans are required for this project and will be reviewed by the CVWD and the City's Public Works Department prior to issuance of project permits. No other mitigation will be required other than that required by CVWD and the Public Works Department. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed residential specific plan area will be served by extension of the contract refuse collection services currently in place at the resort. Prior to regularly scheduled pick -up and removal, refuse will be contained in a maintained trash bin area. The Applicant is responsible -to coordinate the extension of trash pick -up with the current waste hauler. The additional trash generated by the proposed project will cumulatively impact the local and regional landfill. Only one landfill is currently open in the Coachella Valley. On -site recycling programs will be required and are to be coordinated with Waste Management of the Desert or other recycling hauler. Page 38 v4 E-11 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located mostly within a desert valley cove. There are steep mountains to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on most days throughout from many vantage points in the City. The La Quinta MEA discusses the visual assessment of major and minor ridgelines within the City. This assessment is based on the topographical features of elevation and steep slopes. Major ridgelines have been identified a three locations in the City and are classified as highly sensitive due to their elevation, which ranges from 300 to more than 1,600 feet above sea level. The high sensitivity of these area is also based on the existing moderate to steep slopes of the ridges, which range between 10 and 30 percent. The existing topographical character of the City which was created by ancient Lake Cahuilla, now exhibits low sloped sedimentary deposits throughout the majority of the City, which abruptly transitions to steep sloped terrain along the western and southern regions of the City. The close proximity of the steep mountains with the flat plains increases the sensitivity of the existing visual features of La Quinta. Minor ridgelines include the ridgelines which link the major ridgelines to the toe of the slope, which protrudes away from the mountain range, thereby increasing their visibility. There are 18 minor ridgelines that are classified as moderately sensitive based upon their low to high elevation, ranging from approximately 200 to 1,400 feet above sea level. The existence of steep slopes which range from 10 to 30 percent is also characteristic of minor ridgelines. The assessments of viewsheds within the City is based on the existence of focal points located within La Quinta or immediately outside its- jurisdictional boundaries. Viewsheds are categorized as distinctive, attractive or common and are assessed.based upon the provision of major focal points and the proximity of the vantage point. Distinctive viewsheds are identified through their close proximity (within two miles) to elevational high points and exhibit a high visual sensitivity. Attractive viewsheds are determined through their mid- distant proximity (between two and five miles) to elevational high points or close proximity to minor ridgeline formations and exhibit a moderate visual sensitivity. Common view' sheds are identified through their long distance views (over five miles) to primary focal points, major ridgelines and minor ridgelines and produce a low visual sensitivity. A series of five vantage points based on two mile radii were established within La Quinta to classify the viewsheds by type. Details on this methods are contained in the La Quinta MEA. Local Environmental. Setting The project site is located in a largely developed resort complex in the west - central portion of the City. The resort was initiated in 1926 and has a history of continued development since that date. The resort is tucked into an alluvial cove with an east - facing view. The E1R prepared for the resort in 1974 states that "Development will change the present open desert and agricultural image which presently exists in much of the community. While this change certainly does not blight the environment, whether or not it is a positive or a negative impact is a personal and aesthetic judgment, Page 39 050 AM not a technical assessment. Also construction and landscaping may impede views of the mountains. These views, west of the project area, are one of the more important assets of the community. The design and low density profile of the development tend to reduce the severity of this impact ". A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing structures at the resort include one, two, and three story buildings. The architectural style of the buildings is mostly Spanish Colonial or similar styles. The existing landscaping includes tall trees of many species including date palms. Thus, the existing viewshed disturbance of the resort includes mostly low profile buildings with dense landscaping. Certain views of the minor ridgelines and toe of slope located to the west and north are blocked by the existing development within the resort campus. The La Quinta MEA designated a Primary and Secondary Viewshed Focal Point near the northeast corner of the intersection of Avenue 50 and Eisenhower Drive which spans in an eastward direction. The resort is located to the west of this Focal Point. Thus, it is concluded that there is no significant impact to the scenic vista in the City from the proposed project. The proposed structures and landscaping will follow similar architectural styles, including height and siting considerations. Architectural guidelines are proposed in the Draft Specific Plan for. this project. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed buildings will be required to comply City with architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances under the Site Development Permit. In addition, because of the historic structures within the resort, the Historic Preservation Commission must review the architectural styles of the proposed structures for compatibility with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Structures. The proposed design of the new structures can not be radically different than the historic structures nor can it be identical. The new structures incorporate many design elements of the historic buildings, but not identical to them. The historic structures are known as aesthetically pleasing in design, therefore the proposed new buildings, being similar in design, can also be termed as aesthetically pleasing. The relationships of massing and scale between the historic buildings and between the proposed new buildings was determined to be similar by the Historic Preservation Commission. C. Would the project create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact. The anticipated development of the new residential specific plan units, spa and fitness buildings, and parking lot, will include exterior security lighting which will cumulatively contribute to the existing light and glare emanating from the resort complex. The Draft Specific Plan for this project does not address lighting fixture types for the proposed new buildings, therefore, no assessment of the environmental impacts can be made. However, all exterior lighting will be required to comply with the requirements of the City's Dark Sky Ordinance, as well as the Uniform Building Code requirements. Pave 40 Parking lot safety lighting will be required to have low, shielded fixtures that will comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance. 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Assessment Much of the history of the Coachella Valley is known and recorded in various publications and exhibited in local museums, etc. La Quinta. fits prominently into the history of the Coachella Valley. A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record gained from various investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quints is found in the Draft Historic Context Statement for the City of La Quinta. Other discussions are found in the La Quinta General Plan and the MEA. Local Environmental Setting The history of La Quinta area extends back to an era when much of the lower Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. The La Quinta Resort would have been near the lake shore and have been utilized for a habitation and resource procurement area as was much of the La Quinta area. The project site is located within the historic La Quinta Hotel complex. The history of the hotel has been documented in a Historic Resources Report prepared by Mellon & Associates. This report concludes that there may be enough historic integrity remaining in the structures and landscaping to justify the designation of a historic district. For a detailed discussion of the historic buildings at the resort please see the Mellon & Associates Report. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. Paleontological deposits are normally found in association with the ancient lake bed which is below 42 feet above msl. There have been no paleontological surveys or investigations conducted within the immediate vicinity of the resort, however, paleontological finds have been made in other areas of the City where there are ancient lake bed deposits. The proposed parking lot location is just outside of the ancient Lake Cahuilla Lakebed Delineation boundary, and as such there will be no required mitigation for this issue. B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The resort campus has never had a complete archaeological survey conducted. The only archaeological survey conducted was in 1975, by S. McWilliams, for a specific expansion project at the resort. No archaeological resources were observed during that survey. However, it is known, from various publications, that the area including the resort Page 411 J ti Ank property was actively used during the prehistoric period for habitation and resource procurement. Numerous recorded archaeological sites have been found within a one mile radius of the resort property, and even more within a two mile radius (Source; City of La Quinta Confidential Archaeological Site Map). Thus, the archaeological sensitivity of the project area is high. For the proposed spa and fitness center buildings and the resort residential units, archaeological monitoring shall be required by a qualified archaeologist for all grading and trenching below ten feet in depth. A report of the monitoring activates shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review and acceptance. C. Would the project affect historical resources? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The Mellon & Associates Historic Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel concludes that there are locally significant historic structures and features on the resort. campus. Some of these structures may also be eligible for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places. Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 is included in the Specific Plan Amendment #4 for this project, which required the review of the historically- related architecture proposed for the new structures. On June 19, 1997, the City's Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the Mellon & Associates report and issues involved for the Certificate of Appropriateness. The Commission forwarded two recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Council: 1) Acceptance of the YEstoric Resources Report for the La Quinta Hotel with the condition that the comments listed in the HPC Staff;' Report be addressed and the report resubmitted to the Historic Preservation Commission for review; and 2) That the approval of Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 be subject to the condition that only one story structures be constructed next to historic structures, and that a qualified archaeological monitor observe the grading and trenching for the project for those area ' below ten feet in depth. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect any known ethnic cultural values. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no known religious functions or uses on the proposed project site that would be -impacted by the new structures. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the exiting resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres Page 42 X51 of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla park is not included in this count. There are also bike, hiking, and equestrian pathways and trails within the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is within an existing resort campus that contains golf courses, tennis courts, swinurung pools, bicycle rentals, and other recreational amenities. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the demolition of an existing tennis stadium and six tennis courts within the Tennis Club. The Spa and Fitness Buildings will be added to the existing recreational amenities for the resort. No new public recreational amenities are being proposed. The proiect is within a private, gated resort with many recreational amenities. The proposed residential specific plan units will be required to pay the parks fee in lieu of dedication of parkland. The improvements along Eisenhower Drive will include a bike lane to be constructed according to the La Quinta General Plan designation. B. Would the proposal affect existing recreational opportunities? f' Less Than Significant Impact. Existing public recreational facilities will not be affected by the proposed project. The project site is within a private, gated resort property. The proposed project will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in this checklist. Some of the issue areas could have a potential significant impact if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed project will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned development in the immediate vicinity. T 43 rage 1+J 054 The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation measures. SECTION 5; EARLIER ANALYSES A. ' Earlier Analyses Used. Other analyses and special studies used for the preparation of this document were: La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis. Club Environmental Impact Report, July. 1974, Harry H. Schmitz & Associates. 2. The La Quinta Resort Draft Specific Plan - amendment #4 3. La Quinta General Plan 1992 - Master Environmental Assessment. 4. La Quinta General Plan 1992. 5. Specific Plan 121 -E. 6, Specific Plan 121 -E Revised. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District Draft CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 8. Application materials for General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003. 9. La Quinta Hotel Historic Resources Report, May 1997. Mellon & Associates. 10. Resort Hotel SP Amendment - Traffic Analysis Data. August 1997, Endo Engineering. 11. Noise Assessment for the La Quinta Resort Maintenance Facility. May 1997. J. J. Van Houten & Associates, Inc. 12. Environmental Assessment 95 -304 prepared for Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised - Amendment #3. 13. Air Quality Analysis: The La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment #4. August 18, 1997. Endo Engineering. Page 44 14. Letter regarding response to noise comments. Endo Engineering, August 25, 1997, B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential environmental impacts /issue areas are considered to be adequately addressed in this environmental assessment and.technical studies submitted for the project. Certification of this EA by the La Quinta City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed project. A Mitigation Monitoring Plan containing these measures will be included as part of the Environmental Assessment and project conditions of approval. Page 45 n� CITY OFD► QUINTA MONITORING PROGRAM FOR CEQA COMPLIANCE DATE: August 25, 1997 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: CASE NO.: TTM 28545, CZ 97 -083, PROJECT STREET SDI' 97 -607, SDP 97 608, ADDRESS: La Quinta Resort GPA 97 -054, SP 121 -E, Revised Amendment #4 EA /EIR NO: 97 -343 APPROVAL DATE: APPLICANT: KSL Recreation Corp And Assigns THE FOLLOWING REPRESENTS THE CITY'S MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION WITH THE MITIGATED NEGA_ TIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ABOVE CASE NUMBER SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DWTE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.1 LAND USE & PLANNING Potential Impact Unless Mitigated A,B OBJECTIVE: Reduce impact by redesignating certain areas for consistency. Maintain Open Space in areas with 20% or greater slopes. MEASURE: 1. Approved Change of Zone from Community Development Prior to recordation of City of La Quinta RM and RL to TC for Planninga Department Tentative Tract Map Zoning Ordinance Areas I and II. 28545 2. Dedicate conservation easements on all areas with 20% or greater slopes. P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 CA SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.2 POPULATION & HOUSING Less than Significant Impact: A,B, F, H, 1. No Impact: D, E, G OBJECTIVE: To reduce the risk of structural collapse from seismic events. 1WEASUI %E: Public Works, Department, Prior to issuance of UBC A, B, c. All buildings shall be Community Development grading permit constructed to current Uniform Department Building Code seismic requirements. 3LIE\CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE' MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.3 (EARTH & GEOLOGY Less than Significant Impact: A, B, P, H, I. No Impact: D, E, G OBJECTIVE: To reduce the risk of structural collapse from seismic events. MEASURE: A, B, C. All buildings shall be Public Works Department, Prior to issuance of UBC constructed to current Uniform Community Development grading permit. Building Code seismic' Department. requiresments. Cz U1 PALESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 '3' w SUMMARY MITIGATION MEASURES 3.3 EARTH & GEOLOGY (Continued) OBJECTIVE: MEASURE: RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE CHECKED BY 7SL[E\CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 " DATE • /11 1 SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.4 WATER Less than Significant Impacts: A, B, C, H No Impact: D, E, F, G OBJECTIVE: To protect existing groundwater supplies. To reduce surface water pollution. MEASURE: Comply with all requirements of the CVWD; City of La Quinta Plan checking through Approved Drainage Coachella Valley Water District and on -going operations of Plan. the City of La Quinta project. H. Implement best management Applicant Current best practices in order to minimize management practices. 0. surface water pollution. C) P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -5- Q') u SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.5 AIR QUALITY Potential Significant: Unless Mitigated: A, B, D Less Than Significant Impact: C a OBJECTIVE: Maintain air quality and reduce potential impacts. MEASURE: AQMD; Public Works Construction Phases and Air Quality A, B, D: Construction emissions to Department , on -going operations of Analysis. be reduced as outlined in project Aug. 1997. Environmental Assessment Endo Engineering. Addendum. Mitigation Measures contained in Air Quality Analysis, Air Quality Page 5 -1 Analysis: the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment #4. Endo Engineering 9A I Aug. 18, 1997. C7 :SLiE10EQA Monit EIR 97 -343 Id- SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.6 TRANSPORTATION! CIRCULATION Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: F Less Than Significant Impact: A, B, C, E No Impact: D, G OBJECTIVE: -- Maintain traffic safety and reduce traffic congestion. MEASURE: A: Comply with all of the conditions Public Works Department Construction and City of La Quinta of approval required by the City's operational phases. General Plan, and Public Works Department. Community Development Public Works Department Department A, F: Prepare TDM Plan for review criteria. and approval by City. City of La Quinta's TDM Ordinance All: Mitigation Measures contained Chapter 9..180 in Traffic Analysis by Endo Traffic Analysis Engineering, Pages VII -1 and -2. May 1997 Endo Engineering P:1L.ESLLEICEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 _7_ C� SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: A Less Than Significant Impact: B,C No Impact: D, E OBJECTIVE: Preserve and protect biological resources and habitat in Open Space designated areas. MEASURE: Dedicate Open Space Conservation Community Development Prior to recordation of City of La Quinta Easement on all areas with slopes Department. Final Map. General Plan; 20 % or, greater. Specific Plan 121 - E, Revised Prepare biological study of Fish & Game. Prior to submittal of use Amendment #4 Mountainous areas if any recreational activities or facilities are application. Cal Fish & Game proposed for current: or future development, to be prepared by qualified biologist in consultation with California Fish & Game Commission. ® :.SLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -313" — SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY �. 3.8 ENERGY & MINERAL RESOURCES` Less Than Significant Impact: B OBJECTIVE: Preserve and protect energy and mineral resources. MEASURE: Comply with the City's Landscape Community Development Plan check and field City of La Quinta Water Conservation Ordinance. Department. inspections. UBC Building and Safety Comply with Title 24. Department. P:ILESL[E10EQA Monit EIR 97 -343 "9- CTi SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN - HEALTH Less Than Significant Impact: B, C, D. No Impact: E Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: A OBJECTIVE: Identify, prevent, and reduce risks of upset and hazards to human health. MEASURE: Comply with Fire Marshal Community Development Prior to issuance of Fire Marshal requirements and as approved by Department, Fire Marshal Certificate of the City Council. Occupancy for any structure. C-1 SL)F'10EQA Monit EIR 97 -343 �" SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE - DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY �A NOISE Less Than Significant Impact: A OBJECTIVE: Maintain ambient noise levels and reduce any significant noise. MEASURE: 1. Buildings constructed to ensure Building and Safety Dept. Plan check, construction Noise Study: J.J. no more than 45dBA indoor. Community Development phases; on -going Van Houten & 2. Employees utilizing equipment. Department operations. Associates (May and parking areas shall minimize 1997) the application of power and acceleration, and avoid car door City of La Quinta slamming and excessive vehicle. acceleration. Noise Study 3. Comply with Municipal Code Aug - 1997 construction hours regulation. Endo Engineering 4. Comply with Mitigation requirements stipulated in project noise studies. (� P:\LESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -313 -11- CM SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA MEASURES MONITORING 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Less Than Significant Impact: B, C, D, E. Potentially Significant: A OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts to public services. MEASURE: A. Compliance with Fire Marshal Fire Marshal Construction and Fire Marshal requirements operational phases. C. Payment of school impact fees. Building & Safety Dept. Before Building Permit DSUSD Criteria Issuance. D & E Payment of applicant, permit, City Departments City of La Quinta and inspection fees. fee schedules. �'a rpwpoA Mnnil FiR 97 -343 COMPLIANCE I DATE CHECKED BY • • ('�N. SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.12 UTILITIES Less Than Significant Impact: A, B, C, D, E, F. OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts upon electrical resources. To reduce impacts to domestic water and sanitation services. To provide adequate flood control facilities. MEASURE: A. The 'applicant shall coordinate IID Prior to grading and IID with IID for electrical service for the construction phases. project. E. Compliance with CVWD and City CVWD, City of La Quinta CVWD, City of La requirements. Quinta P:ILESLIEICEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -13- SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.13 AESTHETICS Less Than Significant Impact: A Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated: C Potentially Significant: B OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts to the aesthetic quality of life from light or glare. Maintain architectural compatibility with historical structures in resort complex. MEASURE: C. All lighting fixtures shall comply Community Development Grading & Construction La O.uinta General with the Dark Sky Ordinance. Department phases. Plan and MEA. B. Comply with recommendations Community Development Specific Plan 121 - S P of Certificate of Appropriateness 97- Department, Public Works/ E, Revised 003. Engineering Department Amendment #4. Secretary of the Interior - Standards for Historic Preservation. C=3 31.IE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -313 - SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 5.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Less Than Significant Impact: A, D Potential Impact Unless Mitigated:B,C No Impact: E OBJECTIVE: To reduce impacts to important historic resources. To reduce impacts to prehistoric resources. MEASURE: A. Monitor all on -;site and off -site Community Development During' grading and CEQA - Appendix grading (below 10 feet in Department excavation activities. K; City policies depth) by qualified regarding archaeologist archaeologicial, and B. Revise and resubmit Historic Community Development Due by September 1, paleontological Resources Report by Mellon & Associates, to HPC according Department 1997 monitoring. to the recommendations of the HPC. C. Only on -story structures to be Community Development Plan -check review. HPC constructed next to historic Department recommendations. structures. P:U ESLIE \CEQA Monit EIR 97 -343 -15- F� SUMMARY MITIGATION RESPONSIBLE FOR TIMING CRITERIA COMPLIANCE DATE MEASURES MONITORING CHECKED BY 3.15 RECREATION Less Than Significant Impact: A, B OBJECTIVE: Reduce impacts to local public parks and recreation facilities. MEASURE: A 8L B: the applicant shall pay the Community Development Prior to issuance of Quimby Act. parkland fee as per the Quimby Act Department; Parks & Building Permits. for residential unit development. Recreation Department. C'SLIEICEQA Monit EIR 97- 343 '�- RESOLUTION 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -054 CASE NO: GPA 97 -054 KSL LAND CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 161h day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed continued Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Land Corporation and its Assigns for a General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential, 4 -8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from LDR (Low Density Residential, 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 501' Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15'' day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Land Corporation and its Assigns for a General Plan Amendment from_ MDR (Medium Density Residential, 4 -8 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from LDR (Low Density Residential, 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 50"' Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 151h day of July, and 51 day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Land Corporation and' its Assigns for a General Plan Amendment from LDR to MDR for approximately .6 acres at the vacant northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana and at the southeast corner of 501' Avenue and Eisenhower Drive or other amendments as necessary to accommodate resort uses; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Land Corporation and its Assigns for a General Plan Amendment from LDR (Low Density Residential 2-4 Dwellings per acre) to MDR (Medium Density Residential 4 -8 Dwellings per acre), for approximately .6 acres, at the vacant northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana and at the southeast corner of 5011 Avenue and Eisenhower Drive or other amendments as necessary to accommodate resort uses , more particularly described as: APN: 631- 700 -076 through 81, 773- 020 -021, 026, 029, and 031 �73f p : \STANWS0CCGPA97 -054. wpd Resolution 97- WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83 -68 by the City Council, in that the Community "Development Director has conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343 ) and determined that the General Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse - impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said General plan Amendment: 1. This Amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Amendment only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. 2. This Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require Planning Commission or Planning Commission and City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate conditions of approval. ) 3. The new land use designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the Planning Commission and /or City Council review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The new land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing land use designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of a modified General Plan Amendment by adoption of Resolution No. 97 -040; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: } V(4 P:1.STAN\RBSUCCC.il'A97 -OS4. wod Resolution 97- That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Council in this case; 2. That a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been certified; 3. That it does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 97 -054 from MDR (Medium Density Residential, 4 -8 d.u. per acre)-to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from LDR (Low Density Residential, 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres generally located 220 feet south of 50th Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit °A ". attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 16th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GLENDA HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California p:resocc9 /l6/97gpa97 -054 ll J ��' ��i�l 111!1 } rr:�_ !e'!s•�: %iii ��1�' ■• RESOLUTI "EXHIBIT A" CASE MAP CASE No. PA 97-054 sheet 2 of 2 TG (Rsf�, Plan x Resort 6— is. m" N ®R�ii SCALE: NTS 07 iJ ±: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ZONE CHANGE 97 -083 (RM to TC( RSP) AND RL to TC (RSP)) CASE NO.: ZC 97 -083 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RM (Medium Density Residential) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from RL to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres located generally 220 feet south of 50' Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RM (Medium Density Residential) to TC (RSP) (Tourist Commercial with a Residential Specific Plan Overlay) for property located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, generally south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and from RL to TC (RSP) for 2.4 acres located generally 220 feet south of 501 Avenue and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of July, and 5' day of August, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RL (Low Density Residential, 2 -4 Dwellings per acre) to RM (Medium Density Residential, 4 -8 Dwelling per acre), or other appropriate zone(s) at the vacant northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and Camino Quintana and at the southeast corner of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corp. and its Assigns for a Zone Change from RL (Low Density Residential 2 -4 Dwellings per acre) to RM (Medium Density Residential), or other appropriate zone(s) at the vacant northeast corner of Calle Mazatlan and 078 P:\9TAMccreszc97083. wpd 0'. 0 A Ordinance No. Camino Quintana and at the, southeast corner of 50" Avenue and Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described 'as: APN: 631 - 700 -076 through 81, 773- 020 -021, 026, 029, and 031 WHEREAS, at, . said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Zone Change: 1. This Zone Change is inteIrnally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan not being amended in that the Zone Change only affects land uses which already exist as a part of the Plan. 2. This Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare in that the resulting land uses will require City Council review and approval of future development plans, which will ensure that adequate Conditions of Approval. 3. The new and zone designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties because the City Council review and approval will ensure compatibility and in some areas, the adjacent use is similar due to its resort nature. 4. The new zone designation is suitable and appropriate for the properties involved because it is an .extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing uses. 5. The situation and general conditions have substantially changed since the existing zone designations were imposed in that the resort market has created a market for additional rental units and rooms; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of a revised Zone Change; The City Council of the City of La Quinta does ordain as follows: SECTION! 1: The property shown and depicted for such rezoning on the map which is attached to and made a part of this Ordinance, and which attached map is labeled Exhibit "A'`, Zone Change 97 -083. P :ISTAN\ccreszc97083. wpd Ordinance No. SECTION 2: Said Zone Change request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental.Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), pursuant to the adoption of Resolution 83 -68 by the City Council, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an initial study and determined. that the Change of Zone will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified. SECTION 4: POSTING. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on this day of , 1997, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California �UISWWIU6= A6111117n 11161111; t, , IF, —IN, I I I i F—p—m—am7w; r or illijim 7w 1 cs ORDINANCE NO. CASE No. "EXHIBIT A" CASE MAP ZC 9%-083 sheet 2 of 2 .0 C. (P-sp) Plan i Resort w. 1. kl ' ' . l'A $— as can iV O R 7 H SCALE: NTS El RESOLUTION 97- L. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT #4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E, REVISED (AMENDMENT #4) KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS . WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed continued Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to. amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow residential Specific Plan, ancillary hotel uses, and a new employee parking lot; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new.employee parking lot; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of July, and 5h day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation' Corporation and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential Specific Plan use, ancillary hotel uses, and a new maintenance facility /employee parking lot for property comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course, abutting tracts and hillsides, and the southeast corner of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation.and its Assigns to amend the aforementioned Specific Plan to allow new residential uses, ancillary hotel uses, and a new maintenance facility /employee parking lot, whose location is more particularly described as follows: Portions of Sections 1 and 36, T6S, R6E, S.E.E.M. WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Specific Plan 121 -E /EIR 41 (La Quinta Cove_ Golf Club) in 1975, that allowed the expansion of the Hotel to include construction of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, 27 -hole golf course with clubhouse, and related service facilities on +619 acres; and, PASTAMccressp 121 e #4.wpd 083 Resolution 97- WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did adopt Specific Plan 121 -E, Revised, as set forth in City Council Resolution 85 -24 on October 5, 1982, allowing the Master Plan to be amended; to :permit an additional 279 condominium units and 146 hotel rooms; and, WHEREAS, the City - Council of the City of La Quinta did amend the adopted Specific Plan in 1988 (Amendment 1) , in 1989 (Amendment 2), and in 1995 (Amendment 4), permitting additional enlargement and modification to the Plan; and, WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -68), in that the Community Development Director conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be recommended for certification; 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 City Council did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of the specific plan amendment: 1. The proposed Specific Plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the applicant has applied for a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Tourist Commercial proposed to be developed, provided conditions are met. 2. The Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety; and general welfare in that development proposed under the Specific Plan has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding properties and provide for necessary public improvements and infrastructure. 3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties in that the changes proposed are primarily adjacent to existing resort type uses (e.g. hotel facilities and tennis club) or will result in development similar to other country clubs (e.g. country club employee. parking facilities located next to residential or specific plan residential adjacent to residential). 4. The Specific Plan is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the proposed development is an extension of the existing resort or a use commonly associated with the existing use. Any development related to the Specific Plan will be reviewed under a Site Development - Permit review process at which time project related conditions will be required to mitigate impacts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, by adoption of Resolution 97 -042; 0a4 P:\STAMccressp 121 e #4.wpd Adkh Resolution 97- WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, by adoption of Resolution 97 -042; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of -the City Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 97 -343, indicating that the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not result in any significant environmental impacts, and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be certified. 3. That it does hereby approve the above - described amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 16th day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GLENDA HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California P:NSTAMccressp 121 e #4.1. vpd 1' s RESOLUTION 97- '. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SP 121E, AMENDMENT #4 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 GENERAL 1. Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, shall comply with the requirements and standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code and all other applicable laws, unless modified by the following conditions. 2. The Specific Plan text shall be revised pursuant to all required revisions, with a minimum of five final texts submitted to the Community Development Department. 3. The total number of single family residential units allowed in the specific plan area shall be revised to 1367 subject to approval of a Site Development Permit and /or Tentative Tract Map. 4. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta it in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 5. The applicant /developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97 -343. 6. Check made out to County of Riverside in the amount of $1328. For the project Environmental Assessment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within 24 hours after approval by the City Council. 7. Prior to issuance of first building permit, the applicant shall provide an easement to be recorded for all hillside areas to remain undeveloped open space, except for the areas presently developed. Easement to be approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT S. Submit to Public Work 0- Department a revised hydrology study to account for P: /star \Conappccsp121 e,a4 • RESOLUTION. 97- SP 121 E, AMENDMENT #4 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 the proposed increase in impermeable surfaces within the specific.plan area prior to issuance of a building permit for any construction authorized by this Specific Plan for the applicant. 9. Make changes to specific items in the specific plan as follows. Paae Item 3.5 Garage /Carport Setback 3.6 Garage /Carport Setback 3.11 Garage /Carport Setback 3.20 Paragraph 3.3.16 3.21 Paragraphs C -2 and C -3 P: /star \Conappccsp 121 e,a4 Comment 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. 5 ft. or 20 -foot minimum from street curb or pedestrian path /walk if garage /carport is provided as individual structure for specific unit on private or public street. Add "roads" to items for which plans are required. Add the requirement that plans be approved by the City Engineer. Plans for and revisions to . on -site parking and circulation facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer. RESOLUTION 97= A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28545 ALLOWING A 132 - LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 62.5 ACRES CASE NO.: TTM 28545 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16"' day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed continued Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Desert Resort, Inc. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 132 lots on 62.5 acres, in the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, generally located west of Eisenhower Drive, and south of Avenida Fernando; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15' day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 132 lots on 62.2 acres, in the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of July, and 50' day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Desert Resort, Inc. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 132 lots on 62.5 acres, in the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, generally located west of Eisenhower Drive, and south of Avenida Fernando; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8"' day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL DESERT RESORT, INC. for approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 134 lots on 62.2 acres, in the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, generally located west of Eisenhower Drive, and south of Avenida Fernando, more particularly described as: A portion of Section 36, T6E, R6E, S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83 -63), in that the Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 97 -343 for this project which states the project will not have a significant impact on the environment based on conditions and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environment is recommended; and, ` .✓ P \ss \CCRES9 /16/97 -M8545 1 . � *'I. Resolution 97- WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify approval of said Tentative Tract Map 28545: 1. The Tentative Map and'its design are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan 121 E in that its lots are in conformance with applicable goals, policies, and development standards; such as lot size and will provide adequate infrastructure and public utilities. 2. The design of the subdivision or its proposed improvements are not likely to create environmental damage. or substantially and avoidably injure wildlife or their habitat because the area covered by the Map is mostly developed and mitigation measures and conditions will be imposed. 3. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems because urban improvements are existing or will be installed based on applicable Local, State, and Federal requirements. 4. The design of the subdivision and the proposed types of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the Public at large, for access through or use ) of the property within the subdivision in that none presently exist and access to.the resort residential area will be provided to surrounding property owners. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval by adoption of Resolution No. 97 -043; and, WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, the City Council has considered, the effect of the contemplated action on housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That it does approve Tentative Tract Map 28545 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. P \ss \CCRE59/ 16/97- TT28545 I Resolution 97- 3. That the Environmental impacts identified under EA 97 -343 are binding for this project; PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 16'' day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California P \ss \CCRES9/ 16/97- TT28545 GLENDA HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California � o RESOLUTION 97- 'L CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28545 KSL RESORTS, INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 GENERAL 1. Upon their approval by the City Council, 'the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to which they apply. 2. Tentative Tract Map 28545 shall comply with the requirements and standards of § § 66410- 66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. This map shall expire two years after approval by the City Council unless extended pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies: • Fire Marshal (requirements to be determined during plan check) • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June. 16,1997, on file in Community Development Department) • Imperial Irrigation District • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit. For subdivisions requiring project - specific NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. c:conapprevcctt28545 091 I RESOLUTION 97= TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 L11 —1, 4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or parcels. b. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary or permanent easements or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to occur. 7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way or access easements to those properties unless the owners specifically agree to the proposed diminishment of access rights. 8. The applicant shall dedicate private street, parking and utility easements or rights of way in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and as required by the City Engineer except as approved in a revised specific plan for the project area. 9. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas. 10. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are approved by the City Engineer. 09^ c:conapprevcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- i TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 FINAL MAPS) AND PARCEL MAP(S) 1 1 . As part of the filing package for final map approval, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files . of the complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they maybe fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as- constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 12. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." II plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 13. The City may maintain standard plans, details and /or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and /or detail sheets from the City. 14. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final 093 c: conapprevc=20'545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. ' At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as- constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans. If the -map is not produced in AutoCad or another format which can be converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster image files in place of AutoCad files. 15. The applicant shall construct improvements and /or satisfy obligations, or furnish an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and /or satisfy obligations required by the City prior to agendization of a final map or parcel map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 16. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of the City Engineer. Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development. 17. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public IVIVorks Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required c:conapprevcctt28545 094 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer. 18. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (plot plans, site development permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide improvements (ie: retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates, etc.) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. GRADING 19. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blbwsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 20. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in Caccordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter; the Applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 21. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 22. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 23. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or.an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 24. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different 095 c: conapprevc=28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 times. W-. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: 25. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24 -hour period of a 100 -year storm shall be retained within the development or in adjacent golf course areas unless otherwise approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 26. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches. per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 27. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 28. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 29. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 30. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater to off -site locations other than impounded areas on the adjacent golf course, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil /water separation devices, or other screening or pretreatment method(s) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off -site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the applicant and the applicant's successors and assigns shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention programs and for any other obligations and /or expenses which may arise from such discharge of the development's c: conapprevcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & Rs shall reflect the existence of this potential obligation. UTILITIES 31. In areas where hardscape. surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMEhITS 32. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance. If this development is -not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement I program, the applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein. 33. The applicant shall be responsible for any off -site traffic improvements shown warranted by the revised traffic study to be submitted with the revised specific plan. Traffic mitigation measures shall include, but are not necessarily limited to: A. Reconstruction of the Santa Rosa Cove entry gate at Eisenhower Drive and Ave 50 to provide additional stacking room for the vehicles of hotel guests or housing unit owners /residents who must sign in with the gate guard. The additional stacking room required shall be determined through an adjunct to the Traffic Study prepared for the underlying specific plan. B. The applicant may proposed alternative measures for mitigation of the increased traffic at this gate such as arrangements allowing hotel guests and members to enter this gate on the "member" side without checking in at the gate. C. Construct a standard six -foot sidewalk on the north side of Ave Fernando from Eisenhower Drive to a point opposite the west side of the LQ Hotel Ballroom driveway. Install striped pedestrian paths from the Ballroom driveway to Ave. Obregon with crosswalks at the Ballroom Driveway and Ave. Obregon. Striping shall be with approved thermoplastic pavement 097 c:conapprevc=28545 RESOLUTION 97 -_ TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 marking material. El 34. All private street, parking and pedestrian improvements shall comply with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and current policies except as may be approved in the revised specific plan or by the City Engineer. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California. Improvements shall be designed and' constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20 -year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c. /4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0 "/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0 "/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5 "/6.50" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site - specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the Submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved. c:conapprevcctt28545 1 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 38. Prior to occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the development, the applicant shall install all street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street name signs along access routes to those buildings. If on -site streets are initially constructed with only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement when directed by the City but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten percent of homes within the tract. QUALITY ASSURANCE 39. The applicant shall employ construction quality- assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 40. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurem6nt, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized. 41. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to- be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 42. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As- Built" or "As- Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as- constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 43. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 44. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan c: con apprevcctt28545 RESOLUTION 97- TENTATIVE TRACT 28545 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. MISCELLANEOUS 4.5. The applicant /developer shall comply with the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan attached to Environmental Assessment 97 -343. 46. This map shall be subject to all requirements of SP 121 E, Amendment #4, and SDP 97 -607 and shall be revised as necessary prior to recordation. 47. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold: harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. c: conapprevcctt2 8545 e 140 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW 119 RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN UNITS AND A HEALTH SPA IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -607 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed continued Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of 119 residential specific plan units and a 14,600 square foot health spa in the TC and RM Zone (zone change to TC (RSP) for RM zoned land proposed), located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Club; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15'h day of September, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of 119 residential specific plan units and a 14,600 square foot health spa in the TC and RM Zone (zone change to TC (RSP) proposed); WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of July, and 5' day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of 119 resort residential units and a 20,200 square foot health spa in the TC and RM Zone (zone change to TC (RSP) for RM zoned land proposed), located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Club; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8"' day of July, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Desert Resorts, Incorporated, for approval of 119 resort residential units and a 14,600 square foot health spa in the RM Zone (zone change to TC (RSP) proposed), located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Club, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970° as amended by Resolution 83 -68, in that the Community Development Department conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental impact should be recommended for certification; and, 101 Resolution 97- WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of Site Development Permit 97 -607: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that units of this type are permitted in the Tourist Commercial designation that exist on part of this property and is proposed for the balance of this property. 2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of. the California Environmental Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. 4. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding development in that it is of architectural design, colors, and materials, and has been recommended for approval by the Historic Preservation Commission. 5. The site design of the project is attractive and well designed and appropriate for the area. Parking has been kept around the perimeter of the site to increase the pedestrian aspect of the project. 6. The landscape design of the project with utilize plants compatible with the existing development. An emphasis on landscaping will reinforce the resort community image and character of the area. 7. The project will not require excessive new signs since it will be a part of the La Quinta Resort and Club; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did recommend approval of this Site Development Permit (119 units and health spa at 14,600 sq. Ft.) on the 15`h of July, 1997, by adoption of Resolution No. 97 -044; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: P: 9TAN&esoccsdp607.wpd 102 Resolution 97- '4 1. That the above recitations; are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Site Development Permit 97 -607 because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #4, subject to the attached conditions; 3. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 97 -343 are binding for this project; PASSED, ' APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting .of the La Quinta City Council, held on this ,161 day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California P:1sslresocc9/ 16/97sdp607 GLENDA HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 103 h C RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS Of APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -607 KSL DESERT RESORTS, INCORPORATED SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 GENERAL E� The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97 -607, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition. Construction, and upon site development /operation. A) prior to issuance of a demolition /building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established, for the recycling of construction /demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. c: /conappccsdp97 -607 104 Resolution 97- .Site Development 97 -607 September 16, 1997 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: - Fire Marshal - Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) - Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department - Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District -- California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy- of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. b. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 7. The project may be phased if a phasing plan is submitted to the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 8. A six foot high, solid grouted decorative block wall shall be constructed, if not already existing, adjacent to or across the street from all non -hotel related uses (Tennis Villas, Santa Rosa Cove residences, and any private residences). Wall to be constructed prior to any demolition, grading, site disturbance, or construction on subject property. c: /conappccsdp97 -607 P2 105 ` 5 Resolution 97- Site Development 97 -607 September 16, 1997 9. All new head -in parking spaces shown on east side of Avenida Obregon shall be provided at the time of demolition of the adjacent 82 space parking lot. 10. The windows on the Spa building shall be revised to provide variety in shape and orientation. 11. Existing trees shall be retained or relocated whenever possible. Final landscaping plans, in compliance with all applicable City requirements shall be approved prior to issuance of first building permit authorized by this approval. 12. Site and other applicable plans shall be revised pursuant to requirements of the Historic Preservation Commission prior to issuance of first building permit for "residential specific plan" units. 13. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E, Amendment #4, and Tentative Tract 28545 shall be met. 14. Exterior walkway Lighting shall be provided. Lighting to be low profile and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to - surrounding properties. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior. to issuance of building permit. FIRE MARSHAL 15. Fire apparatus roads shall be provided for every building when any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. This requirement shall be complied with prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Other requirements of the, Fire Marshal shall be determined during the plan check process. Conappccsdp97 -607 t Resolution 97- Site Development 97 -607 September 16, 1997 M15CELLANEOUS E- 17. Prior to issuance of any building permit for structures approved by Site Development Permit 97 -607, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96 -024, or ,any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. Coinappwsdp97 -607 10 ' 0 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A . SITE DEVELOPMENT ; PERMIT ALLOWING AN EMPLOYEE PARKING FACILITY IN THE LA QUINTA RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 APPLICANT: KSL DESERT RECREATION CORPORATION AND ITS ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 16th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of an employee parking lot on 2.4 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50th Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta; California; did on the 15th day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised request of- KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval,of an employee parking lot on 2.4 acres located approximately 220 feet south of 50th Avenue, and 240 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of July, and 5th day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of a golf course /hotel maintenance facility with employee parking in the RL Zone (zone change to TC proposed), located on the south side of 50th Avenue, approximately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of a golf course /hotel maintenance facility with employee parking in the RL Zone (zone change to TC pending), located on the south side of 50th Avenue, approximately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive, more particularly described as: Portion of Section 1, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by Resolution 83 -68, in that the Community Development Department conducted an initial study (Environmental Assessment 97 -343) and has X.1. Resolution 97- determined that. the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said, City Council did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify approval of Site Development Permit ;97 -608: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan because the use is supporting the operation of the permitted golf courses and resort within the Specific Plan area. 2. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan, subject to the recommended conditions. 3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements of the California Quality Act in that an Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended. 4. Provided the conditions of approval are complied with, the site design for the ) parking lot will be acceptable. The revision approved will eliminate any negative impacts to the surrounding residences by having moved it to the west and south. 5. The project landscaping will be compatible with the resort. The recommended conditions will increase the quantity of landscaping and tree sizes. Landscaping will provide visual screening of the on site facilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the .City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case; 2. That the City Council does hereby approve Site Development Permit 97 -608 for an employee parking facility because it is in compliance with the provisions of Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #4, subject to conditions; 3. That the Environmental Impacts identified under EA 97 -343 are binding for this project; 109 P:\,STAN\CC Reso SI)I' 97- 608.wpd i 1 y �t e Resolution 97- PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 161. day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: SAUNDRA JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 1I STAMCC Reso SDI' 97- 608.wpd GLENDA HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California 110 RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 GENERAL 1. The use of this site for an employee parking lot shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 97 -608, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years of the date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect rr hatsoever. "Used" means the issuance of a building permit. A time extension may be requested as permitted in Municipal Code Section 9.200.080D. 3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. 4. The project shall incorporate the latest technology in recycling and other means of reducing the amount of waste requiring disposal (land filing), during demolition, construction, and upon site development /operation. A) Prior to issuance of a demolition /building permit, the applicant shall provide proof to the Community Development Department that a recycling company and program has been established for the recycling of construction /demolition debris. B) If the applicant can successfully demonstrate that current provisions exist to meet the requirements of the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, the Community Development Director may waive, modify, or delete the requirements of this condition. 5. The applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the following public agencies; as needed: CAMydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd ill RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 - Fire Marshal Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) Community Development Department - Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department Desert Sands Unified School District - Coachella Valley Water District (per letter of June 25,1997, on file in Community Development Department) - Imperial Irrigation District California Regional Water Quality Control Board ( NPDES Permit) The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approval's prior to obtaining City approval of the plans. For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for review by the Public Works Department. 6. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 7. All applicable conditions of Specific Plan 121 E. Amendment #4, shall be met. S. Exterior lighting shall to be low profile, down shining, and comply with Municipal Code and not cause annoyance to surrounding properties. Top of lights shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Plan to be approved by Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permit. Light shields may be required by the City within first six months after beginning of operation. 9. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the property to which they apply. C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 12 f RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 RQPERTY RIGHTS 10. All easements, rights of way and other property rights necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of improvements shall be acquired or granted, as appropriate, or the process of said acquisition or granting shall be ensured, prior to issuance of a grading permit. Grants shall include additional right of way widths as necessary for dedicated right turn lanes, bus turnouts, etc.; included on approved plans. 11. The applicant shall grant public street right of way along Eisenhower Drive (Primary Arterial) - sufficient for a 50 -foot half right of way plus additional area as needed for right- or left -turn lanes or other features contained in the approved construction plans. 12. Where public sidewalks are required on privately -owned setback lots, the applicant shall dedicate blanket sidewalk easements over the setback lots. 13. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common _areas. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT 14. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall enter into a secured agreement to construct improvements and satisfy obligations required of this site development permit. Security provided shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC. 15. The applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall` meet the approval of the City Engineer. IMPROVEMENT PLANS 16. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Plans for site improvements may be combined on a single plan provided excess clutter doesn't affect readability. 113 C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 648.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal for the City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer. 17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and /or construction notes for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan and /or detail sheets from the City. GRADING_ 18. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist. 19. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report (the "soils report") with the grading plan. 20. The applicant shall comply with the City's flood protection ordinance. 21. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the Applicant shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish security, ii a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the provisions of the permit. 22. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 114 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 other wind and water erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments. 23. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a .separate document, bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively if submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 24. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 96.03 and the following: Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24 -hour period of a 100 -year storm shall be retained within the. development or in impounded areas on the adjacent i golf course unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public or private streets. 25. The applicant shall construct facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which intercept and percolate nuisance water and prevent flow onto golf courses, common areas or off -site locations. The facilities shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area. For design purposes, the maximum percolation rate of native soils shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate shall be considered zero unless the applicant provides site - specific data which demonstrates otherwise. 26. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 27. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development (or off of the golf course areas) through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. 28. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. 115 CAMydata \WPDOCS \CC COA PES SDP 97- 608.wpd 1. I. r RESOLUTION 97- 1. ' SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 29. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater water to off -site locations other than impounded areas on the adjacent golf course, the applicant may be required to design and install first -flush storage, oil /water separation devices, or other screening or: pretreatment methods) to minimize conveyance of contaminants to off =site locations. If the drainage will directly or indirectly enter public waterways, the applicant shall be responsible for any sampling and testing of effluent which may required under the City's NPDES Permit or other city- or are pollution prevention program and for any other obligations and /or expenses which may arise from the such discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. UTILITIES 30. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be installed underground. High - voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept underground are exempt from this requirement. 31. In areas where hardscape surface 'improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. STREET-AN. TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 32. The applicant shall complete primary arterial street improvements on the east side of Eisenhower Drive from the La Quinta Evacuation Channel bridge to the existing improvements at Eisenhower Drive including a full -width landscape median in the northerly half. The City will allow a left -in pocket at the project entry if the applicant provides sufficient right of way width for a median configuration which blocks right turns out. The applicant shall construct a bus turnout and install a bus shelter in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineer. Features contained in the approved construction plans may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined by the City Engineer. 33. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to a left- & right -in /right -out driveway on Eisenhower Drive centered in this parcel's frontage. if the entry is gated, the applicant shall provide sufficient stacking C:\Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 116 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 room for entering vehicles and a turn - around for rejected vehicles. 34. Improvements shall include -all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 35. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other incidental- work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices. 36. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by professional engineer(s) registered to. practice in the: State of California. Improvements shall be designed and consructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted Standards and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City Engineer. 37. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for -a 20 7year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction traffic). The minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c. /4.50" a.b. Collector 4.0 "/5.00" Secondary Arterial 4.0 "/6.00" Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00" Major Arterial 5.5 " /6'.5O" The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site - specific data for soil strength and traffic volumes. The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete -mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for construction) aggregate gradation test 117 C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 87- 608.wpd RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 results to confirm that the mix design production of the base or paving material. scheduled until mix designs are approved. El gradations can be reproduced in Construction operations shall not be 38. Prior to opening the parking lot for use .by employees, the applicant shall install all on- and offsite street and sidewalk improvements and traffic control devices on Eisenhower Drive. LANDS APING 39. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the Eisenhower Drive perimeter setback. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. 40. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 41. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the right of way. 42. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the. City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5 -feet of curbs along public streets. 43. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins shall be designed with a turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor - mounted equipment. 44. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility' plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of. above - ground utility structures. 45. 75% of all trees shall be a minimum of 48" box (3 3/4 "+ caliper) size and 25% a minimum of 36" box size (2 3/4 " -3 3/4" caliper), or its equivalent along Eisenhower drive. 46. Parking lot shade trees shall be provided every four parking spaces with trees a minimum 24" box size (2 " -2 3/4" caliper)-. C: \Mvdata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 118 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 QUALITY ASSURANCE 47. The applicant shall employ. construction quality- assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not included in the City's permit inspection program but which are required by the City to provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications. 49. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings. 50. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all off -site plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings shall have the words" Record. Drawings," "As- Built" or "As- Constructed" clearly marked on each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as- constructed condition. MAINTENANCE 51. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous maintenance of drainage, landscaping. and on -site street improvements. The applicant shall maintain off - site public improvements until final acceptance of improvements by the .City Council. FEES AND DEPOSITS 52. The applicant shall pay all deposits and. fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan checking and permits. FIRE MARSHAL 53. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 2000 gpm for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC CCA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 11.9 RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 54. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2-1/2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required .fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in the system. 55. Blue retro - reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County Fire Department. 56. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, applicant /developer shall furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department ". 57. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy, Group The post indicator valve and-Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building. 58. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan /inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 59. Install a supervised water flow fire alarm system as required by the UBC /Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 72. 60. Applicant /developer shall be responsible for obtaining underground /aboveground tank permits from both the County Health and Fire Departments. 61. Install portable fire extinguishers in structures; if any, per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 62. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 1 rp r0 4 Ct RESOLUTION 97- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608 SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting location /position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this office- for the correctly coded system to be purchased. i MISCELLANEOUS 63. Prior to issuance of any building permits for structures or fences approved by Site Development Permit 97 -608, the developer shall complete the golf maintenance facilities on Avenida Carranza in accordance with CUP 96 -024, or any Planning Commission approved amendment thereto. C: \Mydata \WPDOCS \CC COA RES SDP 97- 608.wpd 12 RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION AT THE LA QUINTA RESORT AND CLUB LOCATED SOUTH OF AVENIDA FERNANDO, WEST OF EISENHOWER DRIVE: CASE NO.: CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003 KSL RECREATION CORP. AND ITS ASSIGNS. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 1611' day of September, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the I equest of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club located south of Avenida Fernando; West of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 8th day of July, 1997, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club located south of Avenida Fernando, West of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15th day of July, 1997 and the 5th day of August, 1997, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns for approval of proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club located south of Avenida Fernando, West of Eisenhower Drive; and, WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission did on the 19th day of June, 1997, hold a duly noticed. Public Hearing and did recommend approval, as requested by KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns to allow the construction of 119 new Residential Specific Plan units within the La Quinta Resort and Club grounds between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Villa and Tennis Club, more particularly described as follows: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 1 AND 36, T6S, R6E, SBB &M WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing . and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following findings to justify the approval ^f Said �ertifiratr? of Appropriateness; and, 122 Resolution 97- Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 1 . The proposed construction at the La Quinta Resort and Club is consistent with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for new construction. 2. The Certificate of Appropriateness has been deemed acceptable by the Historic Preservation Commission in that they have determined the proposed 119 Residential Specific Plan units are architecturally compatible with the historic La Quinta Structures, pursuant to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the finds of the City Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Certificate of Appropriateness for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meet of the La Quinta City Council, held on the this 16`h day of September, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTAIN: GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta, California pAcc Res CCApp 97 -003 Resolution 97- Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California pAcc Res COApp 97-003 1?q A RESOLUTION 97- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003 KSL RECREATION CORP. SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1. A current site plan is needed in the report that identifies all structures within the resort campus; as well as their dates of construction. In addition a historic site plan is needed showing the original buildings and those demolished. Was there an original Master Plan for the hotel property? IN T-31 MITOTRUFAM 2. Page 9: (Paragraph 3) The -100's series should be noted on a location map. 3. Page 1:; The term "Eclectic" is not a commonly used classification for the style of the buildings. Perhaps the term "Spanish Revival" should be used as it would be the traditional classification nomenclature for this style. 4. Huntsman Trout may have been the landscape architect for the La Quinta Hotel which lends additional support that there may have been a Master Plan for the Hotel development. A clearer discussion of the landscape plans is needed, especially the Quad concept. 5. Page 5: A discussion on how the La Quinta Hotel compares with other resort properties of the time and region is needed. Sanitariums? College campuses? Are there any similarities with other places of time and region, or is the La Quinta Hotel unique? 6. Page 10: (Last paragraph) The original function and location for La Casa needs to be discussed. 7. Page 14: a discussion regarding which criteria (National Register or local) is being used to assess the property needs to be .clearly stated in the beginning of the report. 8. In addition; the comments by staff contained in the June 17, 1997, memorandum to Pam O'Connor (on file in the Community Development Department) need to be addressed in the report. 9. A qualified archaeologist shall- be required to monitor the project if the grading PASTAMCOA KSL CoApp97- 003.wpd Resolution 97- Conditions of Approval - Recommended Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 KSL Recreation Corp. September 16, 1997 and trenching goes below' ten feet in depth. 10: A final Archaeological Report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval. 11. Only one story structures, shall be constructed next to historic structures to provide a transition between old and new. 12. That the building complex known as "San Vicente ", located on the east side of Avenida Obregon, be documented. This house may have been a caretaker's house and is located on the Hotel grounds. P: \STAN\COA KSL CoApp97- 003.wpd r r: ATTACHMENTS C> 127 r r 4 Endo Engineering September 8, 1997 Mr. Steve Speer Senior Engineer City of La Quinta 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 ATTACHMENT 1 Traffic Engineering - Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments SUBJECT. La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Response. to Traffic Study Comments Dear Mr. , Speer: Endo Engineering has reviewed the City of La Quinta comments on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Traffic Study dated August 25, 1997. Based upon our understanding of the project and our recent discussions with you, we are modifying the traffic study as described below. Comment 1: On page 'IV -3 of the traffic study the access to. the residential area in Planning -Area I includes a discussion of access to -the south along Avenida Obregon. Did the traffic study assume access in: this direction? Response 1: The analysis in the traffic study assumed that the southern extension of Avenida Obregon was closed to project traffic, and assumed that the traffic was assigned to Calle Mazatlan. The text in the traffic study (attached) will be revised to state that 'The other five clusters will have access to Calle Mazatlan." We hope that the responses above and the revisions to the traffic study will meet your approval. If you have any concerns regarding our approach in responding to the comments. or-have concerns other than those addressed above, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Sincerely, ENw E.'vGL'timmuNG Grego d Principal Attachment 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 -2330 !714) 362 -0020 FAX: (714) 362 -0015 0. 0 Parking Area Traffic Distribution `rhe project - related traffic distribution associated with the hotel employees destined to and froth the existing parking areas was determined by interviewing the workers on April 29, 1997 as they entered the parking area. The primary routes currently utilized to access the employee parking area are Avenue 52 and Avenue 50. Secondary access routes include Highway 111 to Washington Strut and Eisenhower Drive. The directional distribution of cumnt trips to the existing hotel employee parking lot is shown in Figure IV -1. After the proposed employee parking lot is constructed, access_ on Eisenhower Drive will be restricted to right -turns. The employees will approach the parking lot from the south along Eisenhower Drive, as shown in Figure IV -2. The shuttle buses (included in Figure IV -2) that will transport the workers from the parking lot to their work areas will need to make a U -turn at Calle Tampico to approach the parking lot along Eisenhower Drive. Residential/Spa Traffw' Distribution The traffic distribution for the residential area (including the spa relocation) is shown in Figure IV -3. The access for two residential clusters in Site #1 will be to the north along Avenida Obrevon. The other five clusters will have access to the west onto Calle M--- ailan. The five clusters with access to Calle Mazatlan will ingress through the Avenida Fernando gate, but will egress through both the Avenida Fernando gate and the Calle Mazatlan gate. The existing 18 hotel units as well as the future spa relocation have access to the north along Avenida Ubregon. Figure IV -4 presents project - related morning and evening peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area with the hotel employee parking area at its existing location. Figure IV-5 depicts the project - related peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area and incorporates the proposed residential uses, parking lot relocation and expansion, spa relocation, and adjustments for the removal of the existing hotel units. IV. B THROUGH TRAFFIC The estimated through traffic or non -site traffic for the year 1999 is shown in Figure. IV -fa. These traffic volumes were developed by applying a 10 percent annual growth rate for two years to adjust existing volumes to the project build -out year. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the end of 1999. IV. C TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure IV -7 shows the total traffic volumes within the study area upon project completion. The total peak hour volumes shown in Figure IV -7 were developed 'by first subtracting the existing on -site parking traffic (shown in Figure IVA) from the 1999 Non -Site traffic volumes (depicted in Figure IV -6) and then adding the project - related traffic (shown in Figure IV-5). The regional growth factor applied to daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity were not applied to the streets west of Eisenhower Drive. Since the potential for future development in the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan is limited, the total daily traffic volume shown for Avenida Fernando, the main La Quinta Hotel entry, Avenida Obregon. and Calle Ma2atlan reflect the existing traffic volumes shown in Figtirn 1-II -4 ra.lher than F'igim- W -6 which includes a growth rate. The daily traffic volumes associated with complete development of The Enclave is,discussed in Section V1. IV -3 1 I 1 \ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 97-343 Case No.:GPA 97 -054 Date:August 25, 1997 TTM- 28545, SP 121 -E, Amend. #4 SDP 97 -607, SDP 97 -608, CZ 97 -083 I. Name of Proponent: KSL Desert Re ort, 111c. Address: 54-140 PGA 13oulevard. L u' t Phone: 760 -564 -1088 Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Ouinta Project Name (if applicable): La Quinta Resort Specific Plan CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78 -495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Califomia 92253 130 1 Y 0 0 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X Land Use and Planning Population and Housing Earth Resources Water Air Quality III. DETERMINA'T`ION. Transportation /Circulation Biological Resources Energy and Mineral Resources Risk of Upset and Human Health Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance On the basis of this initial evaluation: X Public Services Utilities X Aesthetics X Cultural Resources Recreation 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A 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 significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least, 1) one effect 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potential significant unless mitigated ". AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Signature For: Cily of La Quinta. Community Dgvelopment Department P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 -ii- August 25, 1997 M 131 3.1 3.2 3.3 PO Potentially 1L ' Significant Less Than Significant No Sig t Impact Unless Mitigated Impact Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or X policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c)Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. X _ impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d)Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low- income or minority community)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local X population projections? b)Induce substantial growth in an area either directly X or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? c)Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a)Fault rupture? X b)Seismic ground shaking X c)Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d)Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e)Landslides or mudflows? X f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil X conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g)Subsidence of the land? X h)Expansive soils? X i)Unique geologic or physical features? X 1 `= P:\Env Cklsf 97 -343 M w WJ ` Potentially Potentially +' Significant t Significant Less Than Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.4- Water. Would the project result in: a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or X the rate and amount of surface runoff7 b)Exposure of people or. property to water related X hazards such as flooding? c)Discharge into sufface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? d)changes in the amount of surface water in any X water body? ' e)changes in currents or the course or direction of X water movements? f)change in the quantity of ground waters, either X through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g)Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h)Impacts to groundwater quality? X 3.5 AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an X existing or projected air quality violations? b)Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or X cause any change in climate? d)Create objectionable odors? X 3.6 TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the project result in: a)Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp X curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 -iv- ' ,� 3.7 3.8 3.9 c)Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d)Insufficient parking capacity on site or offsite? e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f)conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g)Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in impacts to: a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? b)Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d)Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e)Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Conflict with adopted -energy conservation plans? b)Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH. Would the proposal involve: a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b)Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? O " -J c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 SA Potentially Pote �11v Significant Less Than • Significant Unless Significant No Impact. Mitigated Impact Impact , X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9' a)Power or natural gas? X b)Communications systems? X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X 3.13 AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c)Create light or glare? X PAEnv Cklst 97 -343 -vi- No Impact X 13; Potentially Less Than Put<> -'III Significant Significant Significant Unless Impact f Impact Mitigated d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 3.10 NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a)lncreases in existing noise levels? X b)Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a)Fire protection? X b)Police protection? X c)Schools? X d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e)other governmental services? X 4 3.12 UTILITIES. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a)Power or natural gas? X b)Communications systems? X c)Local or regional water treatment or distribution X facilities? d)Sewer or septic tanks? X e)Storm water drainage X f)Solid waste disposal? X 3.13 AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a)Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X b)Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c)Create light or glare? X PAEnv Cklst 97 -343 -vi- No Impact X 13; a)Does the project have the Potential to degrade the X quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve X short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 -vii- Jo r Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a)Disturb paleontological resources? X b)Disturb archaeological resources? X c)Affect historical resources? X d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e)Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within X the potential impact area? 3.15 RECREATION. Would the proposal: a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional X parks or other recreational facilities? b)Affect existing recreational opportunities? X 3.16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a)Does the project have the Potential to degrade the X quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have the potential to achieve X short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, environmental goals? c)Does the project have impacts that are individually X limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable further projects). d)Does the project have environmental effects which X will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P: \Env Cklst 97 -343 -vii- Jo � '" y W. r EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a)Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b)Impacts adequately address. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document. c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless mitigated," 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. p;\Env C! !st 97 -343 -viii- 1 � r7 1 t9 � 5tw eU • yY IY:1i� Endo Engineering September 8, 1997 Mr. Steve- Speer Senior Engineer City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 ENUU ENUINEERING 095 P02 Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments SUBJECT. La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Response to Traffic Study Comments Dear Mr.—Speer: Endo Engineering has reviewed the City of La Quinta comments on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Traffic Study dated August 25, 1997. Based upon our understanding of the project and our recent discussions with you, we are modifying the traffic study as described below. Comment 1: On page IV -3 of the traffic study the access to the residential area in Planning Area I includes a discussion of access to the south along Avenida Obregon. Did the traffic study assume access in this direction? Response 1: The analysis in the traffic study assumed that the southern extension of Avenida Obregon was closed to project traffic, and assumed that the traffic was assigned to Calle Mazatlan. The text in the traffic study (attached) will be revised to state that "The other five clusters will have access to Calle Mazatlan." We hope that the responses above and the revisions to the traffic study will meet your approval. If you have any concerns regarding our approach in responding to the comments.. or have concerns other than those addressed above, please do not hesitate to contact our offices. Sincerely, ENDO ENGLNEERNG 4 Grego d Principal Attachment 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Miguel, CA 92677 -1330 !714) 362 -0020 FAX: (714) 362 -0015 AOL Parking Area Traffic Distribution The project- related traffic distribution associated with the hotel employees destined to and from the existing parking areas was determined by interviewing the workers on April 29, 1997 as they entered the parking area. The primary routes currently utilized, to access the employee parking area are Avenue 52 and Avenue 50. Secondary access routes include Highway I I1 to Washington Street and Eisenhower Drive. The directional distribution of current trips to the existing hotel employee parking lot is shown in Figure IV -1. After the proposed employee parking lot is constructed, access on Eisenhower Drive will be restricted to right - turns. The employees will approach the parking lot from the south along Eisenhower Drive, as shown in Figure IV -2. The shuttle buses (included in Figure IV -2) that will transport the workers from the parking lot to their work areas will need to make a U -turn at Calle Tampico to approach the parking lot along Eisenhower Drive, ResidentiaUSpa Traffic Distribution The traffic distribution for the residential area (including the spa relocation) is shown in Figure IV -3. The access for two residential clusters in Site #1 will be to the north along Avenida Obregon. The other five clusters will have access to the west onto Calle Mazatlan. The five clusters with access to Calle Mazatlan will ingress through the Avenida Fernando gate, but will egress through both the Avenida Fernando gate and the Calle Mazatlan gate. The existing 18 hotel units as well as the fixture spa relocation have access to the north along Avenida Obregon. Figure IV -4 presents project- related morning and evening peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area with the hotel employee parking area at its existing location. Figure IV -5 depicts the project - related peak hour and daily traffic volumes in the study area and incorporates the proposed residential uses, parking lot relocation and expansion, spa relocation, and adjustments for the removal of the existing hotel units. IV. B THROUGH TRAFFIC The estimated through traffic or non -site traffic for the year 1999 is shown in Figure IV -6. These traffic volumes were developed by applying a 10 percent annual growth rate for two years to adjust existing volumes to the project build -out year. Construction is anticipated to be completed by the end of 1999. IV. C TOTAL TRAFFIC Figure IV -7 shows the total traffic volumes within the study area upon project completion. The total peak hour volumes shown in Figure IV -7 were developed by first subtracting the existing on -site parking traffic (shown in Figure IV -4) from the 1999 Non -Site traffic volumes (depicted in Figure IV -6) and then adding the project- related traffic (shown in Figure IV -5). The regional growth factor applied to daily traffic volumes in the project vicinity were not applied to the streets west of Eisenhower Drive. Since the potential for future development in the La QWnta Resort Specific Plan is limited, the total daily traffic volume shown for Avenida Fernando, the main La Quinta Hotel entry, Avenida Obregon, and Calle Mazatlan reflect the existing traffic volumes shown in Figure III -4 rather than Figure IV -6 which includes a growth rate. The daily traffic volumes associated with complete development of The Enclave is discussed in Section VI. IV -3 SEP 08 197 17:11 ENDO ENGINEERING 095 POI r 1 'Ti's,, "f U - ��yy}x��' .4n r - 5��� sr�1 tteerxn g T`rd c Eni S iveerin . Air ugli ° Studies Noise >Assessments Project: La Quinta Resort SPA #4 Please deliver the following pages to: Name: Mr. Steve Speer Company: city of La Quinta Telefax: (760) 777 -7155 Date: September 8, 1997 Time: 5:00 PM Telephone: (760) 777 -7000 Total number of pages (including this cover letter) If you do not receive all of the pages, please call (714) 768 -4333. Comments: Per your request, we have responded to the comment on the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Traffic Study dated August 25, 1997. Prom:• Gregory Endo 20813 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 -1330 (714) 362 -0020 FAX: (724) 362 -0015 i FROM :` ForrestktK4HaagttA3LA PHONE N-3. : 714 +251 7574 Am Aug. 25 1997 19: 33AM P1 Endo Engineering August 25, 1997 Mr. Steve Speer Senior Engineer City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Traffic Engineering Air Quality Studies Noise Assessments SUBJECT: la Quints Resort Specific Plan Amendment Number 4 Response to Noise Comments Dear Mr, Speer; Based upon our evaluation of the streets within the Ls Quinta Resort. Specific Plan area in a traffic study dated August 25, 1997, we determined that Calle Mazatlan (west of Eisenhower Drive) and Avenida Fernando (between Avenida Obregon and Eisenhower Drive) are currently functioning as "collector" streets. Although local streets arc not subject to noise studies, there is concern regarding potential noise impacts along the links of Calle Mazatlan and Avcnida Fernando that are functioning as "collector" streets with the potential for peak season daily volumes that exceed 3,000 ADT upon buildout of the La Quinttr Resort Specific flan. To address the potential for noise impacts, the Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (developed by the Federal Highway Administration, RD•77 -109, and currently favored by most state and local agencies including C:altrans) was utilized to evaluate motor vehicle noise levels adjacent to Calle Mazatlan and Avenida Fernando. The noise modeling addressed ultimate peak season traffic projections to ensure a "worst case" evaluation. Calle Mazatlan (West of Eisenhower Drive) Along Calle. Mazatlan (immediately wrest. of Eisenhower Drive) the projected ultimate peak season traffic voluincs are projected to be 3,690 ADT. With [lie alternate access discussed in the traffic study, this volume could reach 3,910 ADT, Further to the west, the traffic volume on Calle Mazatlan decreases at every intersection till tiI the projected ultimate peals: season traffic volumes are projected to be 2,160 ADT (inunediately cast of Avenida Vista Bonita). With the alternate access this volume could increase to 2.390 ADT. Calle Mazatlan is a quiet, residential street Willi a posted speed limit of 25 mph. Immediately west of the ,guts, Calle Mazatlan is approximidely 75 feet. wide. The closest residential units are located approximately 50 feet from the mudway centerline. 28811 Woodcock Drive, Laguna Niguel, CA 92577 -1330 (714) 362 -0020 FAX: (714) 362 -001.5 r70M ForrestGKPHaag4ASLA PHONE NO. : 714 +251 7674 Aug. 25 1997 10:34AM °2 IEW The City of La Quinta has established exterior noise standards of 60 CNEL for residential areas itl the Noise Element of the General Plan. As shown in Table 1, the 60 CNEL noise. contour will remain within the Calle Mazatlan right-of-way. The projwed noise level at the nearest residend&I units is 57.4 CNEL (amuming full occupancy to the peak season and the maximum daily volume). The ultimate noise levels at the closest residential units are projected to remain below the adopted noise standard. Table 1 Ultimate Exterior Noise Exposure Adjacent to Area Roadways Roadway A.D.T.a (Veh./Day) Calle Mazatlan - West of Eisenhower Drive 3,910 Avenida Fernando - West of Eisenhower Drive 3,350 CNELb @ Distance to Contours (FOG 50 Feet 70 dBA 65 dBA 60 dBA 57.4 R/W R/W R/W 53.2 lt/W R/W 29 a. A.D.T = Average Daily Traffic Volume. h. CNEL =Corritnunity Noise Equivalent Level, The noise modeling input parameters and assumptions are summarized in an attdchinent. e. The diFtances to the noise contours are mensured from the roadway centerline. RfW indicates that the noise contour falls within the roadway right -of- -way. Avenida Fernando (Between F,isenhower Drive and Avenida Ohregon) Avenida. Fernando (between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Obregon) functions primarily as a collector road with 36 feet of pavement. Avenida Fernando serves as all access route for the residential portion of the La Quinta Resort Specific Plan area located west of Eisenhower Drive and the La Quinta Hotel. North of Avenida Fernando, there are two large residential lots setback approxi,tuately 80 to 100 feet from the roadway centerline that take access from Avenida Fernando. South of Avenida Fernando, the La Quinta Hotel has hotel rooms located within approximately 45 feet of the roadway centerline. The hotel has a 6 -foot perimeter wall that. effectively reduces noise levels behind it by approximately 9 dBA.1 Immediately west of Eisenhower Drive, the projected peak season total traffic volumes arc ptxi*ted to ultimately reach 3,350 ADT (ttsgtaning fall occupancy in the peals season). Although not posted, travel speeds tan Avenida Fcrnundo arc limited to approximately 25 tnph by the presence of three speed bumps. As showti in Table 1, the unattenuuted 60 CNEL noise contour will extend approximately 29 feet troth the Avenida Fernando centerline. The projected noise level at the nearest residential unit is 49.2 CNEL (including an g dBA attenuation t s%ociatcd with a. 6 -foot block wail). This projected ultimate noise level is well below the adopted noise standard. 1. Althutigh as d general role- 0- -timmh tins decibel of anise reduction can be cXI)ected for each 1'00t of barrier height, the ralativcly short dismwc between the noi%o source and the noise barrier mnkes the noise harrier more effective than normal in illis cgs. e. Even without the noise attenuRlton of the bsarrior, the noise levels projculed adjacent to the roadway would ineet. the City standards. 2 _� =ROM :I Forrestk4r4Haa.94q'=Lq AvhL PHONE HO. . 714 +251 7574 Auq. 25 19'-D 13:34P41 P North of Averiidta Fernando, the unaattonuated noise contour at 80 feet is 53.2 CNEL. With additional noise attenuation froin she perimeter fence, the noise level at the two residences north of Avenida Fernando will be well below the adopted noise standard. Summary of findings and Conclusions Computerized modeling of the projectcd ultimate noise levels adjacent to Calle Mazatlan (west of Eisenhower Drive) and Avenida Fernando (between Eisenhower I3rive and Avenida Obregon) was undertaken. Site specific information was incorporated in the model regarding the closest noise sensitive fund uses. It was determined from the modeling that a significant Boise impuct will not occur at any sensitive receptors adjacent to Calle Mazatlan (west of Eisenhower Drive) or Avenida Fernando (between Eisenhower Drive and Avenida Obregon). We.liopa that the information provided herein will adequately respond to concerns raised rewding potential noise impacts associated with the proposed project. If additional concerns arise, please do not hesitate to contact our offices, Sincerely, ENDo ENIC INET?R1NG Grego d Principal Attachment = :�rrestf;KttH�agaASLA PHONE N0. 714 +261 7S74 Ar& Aug. 25 1997 13:35AM P4 MEW RD -77 -108 Noise Assumptions d. Temporal_ Traffic „Distribution Assumed (Percent) .Type of Vehicle Day Evening Night Automobile 75.51 12.57 9.31 :Medium Truck 1.56 0.09 0.19 Heavy Truck 0.64 0.02 0.08 Oruugt County 13MA representing 31 arterial intersections throughout the County and assumed to be typical ol'southern California arterials. The distribution of vehicular classes for roadways smaller than secondaq highways Were based upon llic Riverside County Department of Health guideline. of 2.58 percent trucks found in the OCEMA vehicular classification study. 11. Road Grade Assumptions -- level terrain and roadway. III. Roadway Widths assumed -- were based upon the traffic study and Endo Engineering field observations, I V. Speeds Assumed -- for a "worst case" analysis, the posted speed limits were assumed for the noise modeling as shown on the following page. V . RD- 77.108 Input Parameters -- see the tables on the following pages. Assumptions for FHWA RD -77 -108 Noise Model Roadway Speedo Half- Widthl' Percent Trucks (mph) (feet) (% Medium) Calle Mazatlan - West of Eisenhower 25 20 2.58 71.31 Avenida Fernando . West of Eisenhower 25 6 2.58 71.31 A. .y'1SW !s UkltiCCt Upon p(lxled SIM0 limits 01. C<DURIC"S Ouscryou ulrl Hig m:ju iwvmial.IbCU mac. b. The half - width is the distance from the 1'oadway centerline to tile. cenler of the outermost travel lane. c, Truck tnix fix locnl streets are bused upon the OCEMA study, KSL DEVELOPMENT 'CORPORATION DATE: . � - TO:--- Memorandum [,c `i ',�„! is r =,• July 15, 1997 "; F= LtiQUNNITIk .. Christine di Iorio, Stan Sawa; Jerry Herman & City Council Members: Glenda Holt; Ronald Perkins, Donald Adolph, Terry Henderson, Stanley Sniff FROM: Chevis Hosea RE: See Attached- VIA FACSIMILE The attached will be made available, at tonight's City Council meeting. Ank Las Casitas de La Qointa Resort & Club Frequently Asked Questions and Answers What do the proposed projects consist of? • 119 fee simple single family detached homes designed in it courtyard environment. A typical courtyard would contain eight units around a central swiminiug pool. however, there am also several smaller courtyards or "half - courts" which would feature 3.4 units in a woro tranquil environment without it swimming pool. o also planned is the construction of Tho Sra vriLh over ?o,000 yrluflrn feet of tionr apAcn. Tho Sera features a central eoutyard and includes many treatment roorns, inhalation rooms, a salon, men's and women's locker rooms, speolalty showers and Matta areas, and many other amenities. The Spa and new residentiai conun=ity no all integrated iuty the resort campus with a aeries of enhanced landscaped pedest'r'ian esplanades. These boautifuliy crafted walkways are recreated in the Historical oval design that is retnirriscent of the hotel grounds and provides a wondorfrl pedestrian attachment between the new community and the hotel lobby area. s The 12 acre parcel at the comer of Avenue 50th and Eisenhower is planned for hotel employee parking and a maintenance facility for the hotel grounds as well as the Dunes and Mourmiin golf courses. How will !our community benefit from the proposed project? All cog2jjuunities ast_d Resider.. • The development of this new community should improve property values in general for rvsidmts of the City. With a proposed selling price of $340 per square foot, comparable properties should improve in value as well. • Consolidation of two maintemuice facilities Wto one new facility adjacent to two rxt*r averiai streets of the City provides the best possible sce=t o for thesc 11eCCS r}' facilities. Access to and from the site does not require access through any residential neighborhood, Two aaintenance fltcilitics which require access through residaiatial neighborhoods will be removed upon successful development of the new site. • This approval requires the cotsumitramt of KSL to surrender over 250 acres of land to conservation easement for dedicated open space. This will preserve tha ptu•o Mountain views for all to enjoy. • This revolutionary new housing product and comratsuity is peerless in design and has the potential to become an award - winning neighborhood bringing mucb awareness to the City of La Qrinta. • The development of The Spa will provide a valuable atraenity to Ln Quirta Resort providing, a more comprehensive guest and member experience and allowing the City's signature asset to murrain competitive in the intemotional marketplace. Las Casitas has the potential to generate an additional $50,000 per 'year in Tramicat t"]ccupau�cy Taxes (TO1l) paid to the City of La Quiuta which, when combined with the current TOT paid by KSL, will total over S; million ntttlua[ly. l"ltese funds are then ampioyed by flte City for the general benefit of all residents. a Las Casitas will also generate approximately $500,000 in antlual 1=0mental property taxes, tiro rnajoriLy of which will flow to ire RcdeveioVme a rj. moo+ =y for d4;1310Y1"u-,,1r, in uses to 1,_000 e t1in cconomic development of the City as well as provide affordable lionsin& opportunidss for residents. Las Casitas will also generate approximately 51.3 million in building permit fees, school ee3, plan check fees, impact tees, infrastructure fees, etc. is the first yew of development. The majority �..if'these funds are for the general beaefrt of all residents of the City, Las Casitas de La Quanta Resort & Club Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Page 2 6 : KSL has gone o great lengths to insure the historical and cultural integrity of La Quinta Resort & Club is maintained with the aidditiasna1 development. The Historic a ric preservation Commission has reviewed the deveioptnetrt plane and acknowledges the historical and cultural quality of the resort has been maintained. Sairta ve €aW Rosa Eeta Tennis lllas La stmrlos. no WE untaain ter Du La C3uinta, i aeo La Q1 in prier Neia in Caen unities e The project replaces unimproved open lots with tslgla value /high quality housing, enhanced landscaping and pathway systems, and parking and support fiacilitles within well - designed and londseaped'bufi'er zones w assure no negative impact to the adjaCtrA u,a tulitics. o lire development brings enhanced security to the area with the increased activity oa the site as well as the construction of walls, gates and landscaping. Traffic to and from all sites is izt3proved by parking existing traffic sooner in their traffic pattcm and consolidating the employees of the Resort into it mass transit vehicle for final trarnportatiort to and from the !resort. This earl; termination of traffic into the Averme 50th facility will also relieve presme on the Avenue 50th and 1✓isenhower traffic signal. flow is this residential community different from the neighboring communities or a typical.La Quinta subdivision? a+ This new and exciting community concept is best described as a resort residential neighborhood, The community is designed for owners whc have interest in own tig a vacntion home with a fall sen°ice resort lifestyle for their living environment. 'This desired lifestyle would incivde close pedestrian access to'.kte nmenities of rite Rcaort, ilir availability of room servica and maid service to their Dame, furl service tuaintemnee of the home and grounds, business services, etc. • The desires of the lifestyle then create the nuances of the community and housing product For instance, the home sizes are relatively small since the owner generally desires only the space of typical hotel room and suiu enviroaunents. • Allogianoe is to the pedestrian in parking design. Parking is accomplished in motor court environments and around the perimeter to preserve the pedestrian integrity of the cotrumimity. • The typical owner requires only 'brief periods of stay, gencraily not to exceed 60 days per year. Therefore, the community rind %tomes are designed to provide rental opportunities for the owner if so desired. Since the community is des:gnmd much lake the resort campus atael Baas access to the foil raugv of services of the Rosort, rental stays may be as short as overnight or as long as several weeks or months. • All units are designed to provide private patios for outside da'aaing and other activities These prrtios .rill open completely to provide direct integration witli the internal courtyard during the day or close to provide personal ipace for the owners or guests. Most units are designed with outdoor fireplaces as well which cotupleraarnts the wonderful desert nights. W'hy is ax giAnn re of zone required? This type of community is nnv to rbe City and therefore there is rte precedent for zoning for the !rousing type within the City. Due to the ability for daily' rental activity for the units as well as the hitegration of the comtnLul..:y with tho Resort, the City officials have reriucsted a mating ciesi�tttaztion such are Tourist ti.�,sn r Las Casitas de La Quints Resort & Club Frequently Asked Questions and Answers Page 3 Commercial which would accommodate hospitality uses as well as provide the proper assumce for supporting infrestructure such as parkitrg. • Howevor, Since this is simply a single family detached residential neighborhood, we have created a residential district within the Tourist Commercial zone which restricts to unb, resiclantial uses within this district, All residential areas of the property adjacent to the Resort and the residential areas of Avenue 50dt and Eisenhmver are designated for tliese uses only. Therefore, once You closely axriminc the restrictions of use within the tesidmmiai district of the Tourist Commercial zone, you will flmd the governing criteria to be very similar to typical residwtial zones. How will the density of the proposed resort residential community differ firom what was previously approved for this land? • The new residet;tisl community of 119 homes will provide substantially less deusiry than what was previously apptowd and planned for this laud. m The residential zoned dcvoloament property adjacent to the Resort was previously approved and platuted for over 300 dwelling units. The currout development platys provide for 85 dwelling units on this property. The balance cf 34 units is pinntled for property that is currently tourist commercisi in use. Thcreforc, the Current developrent satisfies less dial one.ihird of the approved density fbr the site. Why is the maintenance facility tieing relocated? • The facility is relocated to remove these facilities front eoinxaunities tivbare the only access is through residential streets. The relocation would provide access from aerial strecta designed to handle tl :e o uses. What will be the impact of the parking and maintenance facility on the adjacent communities? vs • There should be no negative impact of this facility on the neighboring cotrltrtunitics in that gencraI landscape bufffs, berms and walls have been provided towards ali existing conunuuities to protect *,cse neighbors from any obnoxious visuril, noise or other adverse effects. • although )=&cape buffers are provided to diminWl Arty opportunity for view of tilt facility from any neighbor's perspective, the builcilrtg 'sa designed to be architecturally compatible with existing neighbothoods, Thereforc, should anyone visit the facility, Choy would find it confouning to the architectural standards of the cotamunity. • As mentioned previously, the development of this faoility will bring activity, security, lmdsca 9, and architecture to the site. This wlll positively affect all adistmt, communities. Why is KSL bringing these projects forward for approval at this time? Timely Approvals at this time are csient.ial to Mixi ire the construction impact of this devc1opmont on the n- ighborhood. if the project is approved it, a timely rawuler, the majority of construction will be completed urior to high season. -Nny delays could pus,- the cnns��,��aarl p�iod •,yell into tite Hei l :t of the season and negatively impact the adjacent neighbora. Developers who operate in seasonal cnvixorments such as the Coachella Valley try to boils i11 then off soa9on and sell in the high season. 11iis should provide the least irnpnct to adjacent nciaJiborhoods. Q ' f »..�.,► FILE COP y y COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: July 15, 1997 lum TITI Approval of Environmental Assessment 97 -340, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change.97- 083, Specific Plan 121E, Amendment #4, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permits 97 -607 and 97- 608, 'and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Applicant: KSL Recreation`Corporation and its Assigns (and various subsidiaries) R�CC3�[ME�N13q,T1t�N: AGENDA CATEGORY: . BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: T Open the Public Hearing, receive. testimony regarding the project entitlements, and the environmental determination and continue the Public Hearing to August 5, 1997. The following are recommended actions to be taken at the City Council meeting 5, 1997. g of August 1 Adopt City Council Resolution certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2 Adopt City Council Resolution approving•Ge6eral Plan Amendment 97 -054; 3• Move to take up Ordinance No. reading, by title and number only and waive further Move to introduce Ordinance No: on first:reading for a Change of Zone 9. 97 -083; 4 Adopt City. Council Resolution approving Specific Plan 1218 , Amendment subject to conditions; t #4, 5• Adopt. City Council Resolution approving Tentative Tract 28545, subject to conditions; 6 Adopt City Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97 -607, allowing construction of 119 resort residential units and a health spa, subject to conditions 7• Adopt city Council Resolution approving Site Development Permit 97 -608, allowing construction of a maintenance facility /eimployee parking lot, subject to conditions; P:1p 12 1 eccrpt Ity. Council Resolution approving Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003, 96opt Ci which ensures that the proposed construction is appropriate for the existing historic structures, subject to conditions FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. EAC SOUND AND OVERVIEW: PROJECT .,REQU T: The specific request of 'the applicant is as follows: Approval of Environmental Assessment 97 -340, certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (see EA Resolution for 'Environmental information). 2. Approval of General Plan Amendment from MDR (Medium Density Residential 4 -8 du. per acre) to TC (Tourist Commercial) for approximately 14.8 acres generally located on the west side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando, and from LDR (Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (Tourist Commercial) for approximately 17.6 acres at the. southeast corner of 501' Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 3. Approval of a Change of Zone from RM (Medium Density Residential 4 -8 d.u. per acre) to TC (Tourist Commercial) for approximately 14.8 acres generally located on the west side of Avenida Obregon, south of Avenida Fernando, and from RL ( Low Density Residential 2-4 d.u. per acre) to TC (Tourist Commercial) for approximately. 17.6 acres at the southeast corner of 50th Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 4. Approval of Amendment #4 to specific Plan 121 E to update the plan.and allow new development and uses for the area comprising the La Quinta Resort, Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Resort Golf Course,` abutffng tracts, and the southeast corner of 50`h Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. 5. Approval of Tentative Tract Map to divide approximately 62.5 acres into 132 lots for the area encompassing the La Quinta Resort and Club, located generally west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. -a 6. Approval of Site Development Permit 97 -607 to allow removal of seven tennis courts, 18 hotel units, employee parking, and maintenance facilities and replace with 119 "resort residential" units and a health spa of approximately 19,400 square feet in the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the La Quinta Tennis Club and on the east side of Avenida Obregon, across from the two existing sunken tennis courts. l PAsp 121 eccrpt n ( ; n U 1641 7. Approval of Site Development Permit 97 -608 to allow construction of a golf course /hotel maintenance facility including a 14,600 square foot building and parking lot for hotel and golf course employees on approximately 6.2 acres, Located on the south side of 50' Avenue, approximately 210 feet east of Eisenhower Drive. 8. Approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to assure architectural compatibility between historic structures and proposed construction, pursuant to Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation. SITE DESCRIPTION The site consists of 638+ acres in the area generally: north of the westerly extension of Calle Tampico and west of Eisenhower Drive along with the southeast corner of 50' Avenue and Eisenhower Drive. A small, privately owned property which is not a part of this project is also contained within this area. Within the Specific Plan is the La Quinta Resort and Club with 640 rooms and related convention and commercial uses. Four housing developments are also contained within this area for a total of 454 residences. These developments consist of Santa Rosa Cove (334 residential units),: The Enclave/Mountain Estates (32 custom homes with 59 vacant lots), Los Estados (40 residential units); and Tennis Villas (48 units constructed with 200 residential units. approved). Recreational uses consist of a 18 hole golf course and part of a second course, 25 swimming pools, 38 spas, and a tennis club. The west and north boundaries are mountainous areas within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. The southeast corner of 501 Avenue and Eisenhower Drive is vacant with the exception of two golf holes. PROJECT I TORY Specific Plan 121E and Environmental Impact Report (EIR 41) were approved by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors prior to the City's incorporation. The plan authorized 637 condominium units, 420 hotel units (76 rooms existed), a 27 hole golf course: with clubhouse and service facilities on 619+ acres.. Subsequent amendments were approved in: 1982;:: 1989, and 1995. The current approval allows 642 hotel units and 1,558 ,residential units. This: total number of units appears to be based on units allowed per acre times the number of acres under the different residential densities. The Specific Plan document provides a detailed description of the above information and other pertinent facts. e i is Plan Amendment The. Specific Plan Amendment, in summary' sets the proposed distribution, location, and extent of uses of 'and, utilities and infrastructure covered by the plan, and provides implementation measures in the form of regulations and standards on a plan and in a text. Prior to this Amendment request, this Specific Plan consisted of a map exhibit without a text. The applicants have prepared this text to provide a complete document. PAsp121ecupt L 0 06 U 3 The Specific Plan area shows five different planning areas. There are two major areas shown as future development which are under the ownership of the applicant or in escrow. The first (Planning Area I) is the area generally located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Club and on the east side of Obregon, east of the two sunken tennis courts. A description of proposed development follows in this report. The second area (Planning Area 10 slated for development, is at the southeast corner of 50'h Avenue and Eisenhower prive, where a golf courselmaintenance facility and additional "resort residential" units are proposed. Planning Area Ill consists of Santa Rosa Cove, Los Estados, The Enclave, and several golf holes. Planning Area IV consists of the majority of the golf holes. Planning Area V consists of hillsides above 20% slope to the. north and west. This area is vacant except for one existing golf hole and one residence. neral Plan Amend The General Plan, Amendment proposed would redesignate all properties under the applicant's ownership within the Specific Plan area, or a part of the hotel operations, to TC (RSP) or T ourist Commercial with a residential specific plan overlay. Generally, this change affects the southeast corner of 501 Avenue and Eisenhower Drive (presently designated Low Density Residential) and the land between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan south of Avenida Fernando, (presently designated Medium Density Residential) with the exception of the existing Tennis Villas. This includes the northeast corner of Camino Quintana And Calle Mazatlan which contains six vacant "postage stamp" lots that were originally intended to be developed with the remaining six Tennis Villa units. This redesignation of Medium and Low Density Residential to Tourist Commercial will require reducing the maximum residential density allowed within the Specific Plan area from 1558 to 1436 dwelling units. Also; changing the land use designation to TC will allow the proposed residence to be used as hotel rooms. The Zone Change request follows the General Plan Amendment request, rezoning the redesignated sites to TC (RSP) or Tourist Commercial with a resort residential specific plan overlay. This would consolidate all the'land utilized by the hotel into the Tourist Commercial Zone. Tentative Tract The Tentative Tract Map proposes to subdivide the 62.5 acre hotel. property west of Eisenhower Drive into 132 lots. 119 of the lots would be "postage" sized lots for the "resort - residential" single family units proposed to be constructed: The remaining lots consist of the various hotel and tennis facilities and common areas. The property presently consists of 17 parcels of varying shapes and sizes. PAspl2leccrpt C00U4 C� The "resort residential" lots will provide fee simple ownership lots for future resort - residential owners. These lots will vary in size from 1,321 to 1,791 square feet and include common open space, patios, and balconies. Site Development Permit 97 -607 This Site Development Permit will allow the development of a new 20,200 square foot spa and 119 "resort_ residential" single family detached units. In order to construct this project, seven tennis courts, a maintenance building, 18 casitas units in six buildings (constructed in the 1960's) and employee parking areas will be removed. The area for this construction consists of approximately 11.3 acres located between Avenida Obregon and Calle Mazatlan, south of the Tennis Club and north of the three tennis villas which front on Camino Quintana and the privately owned residence which fronts on Avenida Obregon and the east side of Avenida Obregon, east of the two sunken tennis courts. Proposed are 50 one bedroom units (ground floor or over - parking units 840 or 815 sq. ft.), 52 two bedroom units (1,535 sq. ft.), and 17 three bedroom units (1,900 sq. ft.). Units can be rented in sizes varying from a one sleeping room to a full three bedroom with kitchen. If all bedrooms were used for rentals, 205 rentals would be available based on the proposed unit mix. One unassigned open, or carport parking space per bedroom is proposed for a: total of 205 spaces. A portion of the existing Avenida Obregon, a private street, will be removed in order to eliminate vehicular traffic through the site and provide a pedestrian connection between the existing hotel and new construction. The street will be cul -da -saced at the north end and the south end rerouted to the west where it will connect to Calle Mazatlan. Vehicular access to this project will be provided from the north end of the street for the units on the east side of Avenida Obregon. An access to this project is shown on Calle Mazatlan, approximately 350 feet north of Camino Quintana for the remaining units, including those adjacent to the southeast corner of the site. The new housesore designed.in an architectural style compatible with the original hotel buildings. The one bedroom ground floor plan is one story in height (17 feet) with the two .;and three bedroom units and over - parking one bedroom plan, two stories in height (22 feet).The exterior materials and colors-Will match those used. in the hotel area. Building walls will be a smooth finish stucco, cream in color. The roof material will be a mixed red color barrel tile, mudded and multi - stacked. Wood and metal trim will be "La Quints True Blue ". Exterior flooring materials will be saltillo tile and stamped pavement in terra cotta blends and earth tones. The proposed landscaping of this area will be a continuation of the existing hotel grounds. The residential clusters will be connected by wide walkways, also. serving as emergency fire access roads. At terminus points and intersections, plazas of varying size will be provided. The major "oval" walkways and plazas will be in the area between the resort spa and "resort residential" units near the northeast corner of the site. PAsp 12 1 eccrpt r The La Quinta Resort Spa (Health Club) will contain approximately 20,200 sq. ft. of floor space with a landscaped central courtyard and replace the existing 6,000 sq. ft. spa facility. The Spa will be located at the north end of the "resort residential" replacing the sunken tennis court in the parking lot. Parking for any patrons who drive to the Spa will be handled by Spa valets. Seventy -six parking spaces are shown adjacent to the east side of Avenida Obregon for use by the Spa and Tennis Club. The Spa is designed in an architectural style similar to the hotel. Exterior materials and colors will be the same as those used for the resort residential houses. A tower is shown on the east elevation of the building to provide a backdrop for the adjacent large plaza (Plaza Grande): The height of this building is approximately 19 feet for the one story area, 23 feet for the two story area, and 43 feet for the tower. Site Development Permit 97 -5Q8 The revised plan, recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, allows construction of a golf course /hotel consisting of approximately 16,000 square feet, and a maintenance facility on the south side of 501 Avenue east of Eisenhower Drive consisting of approximately 210 feet east. This facility would consolidate their current facilities into one location, including the one located on Avenida Carranza in the Cove residential neighborhood. The majority of the.current employee parking within the hotel area would be moved to this site. The current lots would be replaced by the "resort residential" houses described above. The employees who presently park at the La Quinta Resort Golf Course Clubhouse will continue to do so. The site is a triangular shaped parcel containing approximately 4.1 acres. A six foot high block wall exists along the east property line. An east bound bus stop exists on 50'n Avenue, near Eisenhower Drive. Land uses surrounding the site are as follows: North: La Quinta Country Club Clubhouse and Residences South: Vacant Residential land.- and golf course (KSL Property) East: Duna La Quinta Residences West: Vacant land and Santa Rosa Cove Residences -An "L" shaped building is shown near the east end of the site. Approximately 292 employee parking spaces are provided. The doors to the building will open to the north and west. Employee shuttle service, using the hotels .busses, will be provided between the parking lot and new resort ballroom area. A shuttle staging location will be near the west -end of the parking lot, These shuttles will only travel north on Eisenhower Drive, turn west on Avenida Fernando, and enter the hotel parking lot and unload next to the ballroom. The only major exception proposed is for the employees who work at the Resort Golf Clubhouse who will continue to park in the lot next to the building. P: \sp 121 eccrpt i,, 0 1 l j V iJ The proposed maintenance building will have a gable tile roof and stucco walls. The building. will be approximately 21 feet in height. All man and equipment doors will face north or west. Colors will be similar to those used in the resort residential area. A conceptual landscaping plan for the maintenance facility has been submitted, showing the same plant pallette as that used in the resort residential areas. A six foot high meandering, decorative block or stucco coated .wall with pilasters is shown along 50th Avenue. A six foot wide sidewalk which matches the meander of the wall is proposed. Certificate-, of Ap�ropriatengss 97_Q03 The City Historic Preservation Commission on June 19, 1997, accepted the La Quinta Hotel Historic Resource Evaluation report, subject to conditions. One of those conditions requires that adjacent to structures designated as historic by the evaluation,, the new resort residential. units . shall be one story in height. The plans submitted do not reflect this requirement. Once a plan showing the specific locations of the .historic buildings is submitted, the site plan will need to be revised to reflect this requirement. PUBLIC NOTICE .This case was advertised in the Desert Sun on June 22, 1997. All property owners within the project area and within 500 feet of the boundaries of the project were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice. A number of letters have been received regarding this request (Attachment 1). All correspondence received after this writing will be given to the City Council at the meeting. r *01 a WMIZI =1111 . + 0 Spor,ific Plao 121.E. m ndme 4 Planning Area V, the hillside areas to the north and west, is conditioned to be preserved as undevelopable open space. As allowed in the Hillside Regulations of the Zoning Code, the. applicant will be allowed to transfer 21. dwelling units (1 unit per 10 acres) for _construction elsewhere. The Planning Commission is recommending the applicant provide an easement for all,,,the existing hillside areas to remain undevelopable open space. `JVith the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change of 27.1 acres from Low and Medium Density Residential to Tourist Commercial (RSP), an accompanying decrease in the allowable residential units should occur. This amounts to 74 units based on 18.5 acres of Low Density Residential land, and 69 units based on 8.6 acres of Medium Density Residential land, for a total of 143 dwelling units. Therefore, rather than 1,558 units, a maximum of 1,415 dwelling units (1,558 -143) plus the 21 units transferred from the hillside totalling 1,436 units, should be changed to reflect this new number in the Specific Plan text. The existing Specific Plan allows a maximum of 200 Tennis Villas, of which 48 were constructed within the hotel compound. The Villas' area contains 85 of the proposed 119 "resort residential" units creating a less dense environment. t,UU i P: \sp 12 1 eccrpt The submitted Traffic Analysis contained in the Specific Plan Amendment Appendices states traffic to this resort residential project will have vehicular access from the south leg of Avenida Obregon which is being terminated in the project area. Presently, there is an "emergency only" and pedestrian gate across Avenida Obregon, approximately 1,900 feet south of the southern project boundary. The applicant does not have access control of this gate, and since it is for emergency and pedestrians only, vehicles will need to access this area from Calle Mazatlan. Access to the parking lot on Calle Mazatlan will require vehicles to enter through secured gates at either Avenida Fernando or Calle Mazatlan (50th Avenue). Easements for their use will need to be secured by the applicant, if not existing. Situ Development Permit 97 -69$ The new maintenance /employee parking lot will eliminate many of the negative aspects of the existing facilities in the resort and on Avenida Carranza. On site noise and traffic impacts from employees private vehicles will be reduced, while possibly increasing peak resort related traffic on 501 Avenue. As required by the General Plan, a noise assessment for this facility has been prepared by the applicant addressing the noise impacts expected on the adjacent existing residences to the east and future residences to the south (see Specific Plan Appendices). The report concludes the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level or average noise) standards of the City's General Plan will be complied with. However, the annoyance potential of the facility from single events such as door slamming, starting Land moving of the noisier equipment, is considered significant. This type of noise impact is most often the source of complaints from surrounding owners. The facility has been located with new residences to be constructed by the applicant between the east property line and facility which will help mitigate these types of impacts. To comply with General Plan guidelines, the meandering wall along 501 Avenue should be placed so that its average setback from the street right -of way is 20 feet. Furthermore, this wall should be eight feet in height to be consistent with the development standard in the Specific Plan. The traffic impact study, s as well as the Public Works- Department, recommend the westerly access on 501 Avenue be redesigned. to 'provide a`-safe turnaround for rejected vehicles. The easterly gated -entry on 501 Avenua will be for facility use only and should have a decorative, solid metal gate to minimize noise and provide view restriction. Q I?Asp 121 eccrpt FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Findings necessary to appFOve this request can be made and are contained in the attached resolutions. Alternatives available to the City Council are: 1. Continue the request to allow further review and study; 2. Approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission by adoption of the attached resolutions; or 3.. Deny the request. unity Development Director Attachments: 1. Correspondence received 0 'D PAsp121eccrpt RESOLUTION 97- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -340 FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 121 -E AMENDMENT' #4, GENERAL - PLAN AMENDMENT 97 -054, ZONE CHANGE 97 -083, TENTATIVE TRACT 28545, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -607; SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 97 -608, AND CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 97 -003, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SPA AND FUTURE FITNESS CENTERF MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND EMPLOYEE PARKING LOT, AND 119 RESORT RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE LA QUINTA RESORT CAMPUS LOCATED NORTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EISENHOWER DRIVE AND 50th r "% V L- VENUE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -340 KSL RECREATION CORPORATION AND ASSIGNS WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 15``' day of July, 1997, hold` a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Recreation t Corporation and Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis `for proposed Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 501h Avenue;. and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,. did, on the 8"H day of July, 1.997; hold a duly - noticed Public Hearing as. requested by `tihe KSL Recreation Corporation and its Assigns, on the Environmental Analysis for proposed Specific-Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendnie'nt 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 -608; and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 generally located northwest and southeast of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and 50th Avenue, more particularly described; as follows: A PORTION OF SECTIONS 36-AND 1, TOWNSHIPS 5 SOUTH AND 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, S.B.B.M. P: \ccres -ea 97 -340 ,no, -0 UU Resolution 97- WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules. to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended, Resolution No. 83 -63, in that the Community Development Director has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 97 -340) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case, because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the Conditions of Approval, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be filed; and, WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing- held July 8, 1997, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning. Commission did make, findings to justify the recommendation for certification of- said Environmental Assessment; And, WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, "did on July 15, 1997, find the following facts to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. An Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared pursuant to the - requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA "), as amended (eublic ResQurces Codp Section 21000, et. Seq.). 2. The. City shall balance the benefits of a. proposed project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts prior to project approval; which means that the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. 3: Prior to action on the Project and the Entitlement Approvals, the City Council for the: City, of; La:.Quinta considered. all significant adverse environmental impacts and:mitigation measures., and has found that all potentially significant adVerse., environmental. impacts which may be caused by the Project and :implementation of the Entitlement Approvals have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible. . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1, That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the City Council in this case; PAccres-ea 97 -340 T. Resolution 97- 2. That it does hereby certify Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Assessment 97 -340 for Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 =054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract 28545, Site Development Permit 97 -607, Site Development Permit 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 subject to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan and the project entitlement Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 15' day of July, 1997, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: l., ATTEST: SAUNDRA L. JUHOLA, City Clerk City of La Quinta,: California APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAWN HONEYWELL, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California °:1cc:es-ea 97 -340 GLENDA L. HOLT, Mayor City of La Quinta; California %rl 0. INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 -340 La Quinta Resort Project: Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97 -054 Zone Change 97 -083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97 -607 Site Development Permit 97 -608 Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Applicant: KSL Recreation Corporation and Assigns 56 -1Y0 PGA Dlvd. La Quinta, CA 92253 City of La Quinta Community Development Department t 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 C3�4Lesfie Mou 'quand Associate Planner July 3, 1997 Revised July 11, 1997* *Project revised during the July 8, 1997, Planning Commission Meeting; revisions in bold. Page 1 0000 113 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Project Overview 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics 5 2.3 Operational Characteristics, 5 2.4 Objectives 6 2.5 Discretionary Actions 6 2:6 Related Projects - 6 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 Land Use and Planning 7 3.2 Population and Housing 10 3.3 Earth Resources 11 3.4 Water 16 3:5 Air Quality 19 3.6 Transportation/Circulation 25 3.7 Biological Resources 29 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources 33 3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health 34 3.10 Noise 35 3.11 Public Services 37 3.12 Utilities 39 3.13 Aesthetics 41 3.14 Cultural Resources 43 3.15 Recreation 45 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 46 5 EARLIER ANALYSES 47 Page 2 U-00, IA SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify any potential environmental impacts of the amendment to the Specific Plan which includes Site Development Permits and a Tentative Tract map for the construction of new residential units, .a spa and fitness center, and a maintenance yard with employee parking lot within the La Quinta Resort campus. In order for the Applicant to construct these new structures, the following applications must be approved by the City: Specific Plan 121 -E Amendment #4, General Plan Amendment 97 -054, Zone Change 97 -083, Tentative Tract Map 28545, Site Development Permits 97 -607 and 97 -608, and Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003. In addition, this Environmental Assessment prepared for the above applications must be certified by the City Council. The Specific Plan area located in the City of La Quinta, California, this'area includes the La Quinta Resort campus which is primarily west of Eisenhower Drive, in Section 36 of Township 6 East, Range 5 South, and Section 1, of Township 6 East, Range 6 South, as depicted on the La Quinta 7.5' USGS Topographic Quad Map. The proposed maintenance yard and employee parking lot will be located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50 also within the Specific Plan. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the prinicpal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant erect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to approve the land use designations. 1.2 PURPOSE OF IINITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed project. The purposes of the Initial Study , as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following. To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis -or deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the various project applications; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; Page 3 U U U-1-5 To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project; To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project; To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project applications were deemed complete subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in light of the intended development and potential impacts upon the property. and surrounding area. This Initial Study Checklist and Addendum was prepared by Leslie Mouriquand, Associate Planner, for review by the City of La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts for some of the issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist (Land use and planning, air quality, transportation/circulation, noise, aesthetics, cultural resources). Mitigation measures have been recommended for the proposed project in a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (NIl1ZP) which will reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As 'a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SET'T'ING The City of La 'Quinta is 31.18 square miles in area located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County and the City of Palm Desert, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The project site is located in approximately the west - central portion of the City, mostly west of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenida Fernando. The La Quinta Motel is located within the project site known as the La Quinta Resort. Page 4 V ll�iJsU 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project site is a portion of a 638 acre combined residential and hotel resort complex nestled in a cove setting below the Santa Rosa Mountains. This cove is a gently sloping alluvial fan with steep hillsides surrounding on three sides. The land included in this project has been inhabited and utilized since prehistoric times. In the early 1920's Walter Morgan purchased the property from the State for the purposes of developing a desert hideaway resort. In 1926, he began construction of the hotel and six cottages called Casitas. Morgan marketed the hotel to the Hollywood celebrities who frequented it for rest and relaxation. Over the years, the resort was expanded with additional casitas, additional golf courses, a landing strip, a stable, swimming pool, and other, structures. The 1970's and 80's witnessed considerable expansion with a number of hotel rooms and single family homes constructed in the surrounding area of the Specific Plan. Thus,, a.. majority of the property has been developed. There is no existing development in the hillsides and none is proposed. In 1988 Amendment #2 was approved to construct a maintenance facility and employee parking lot. The third Specific Plan amendment was approved in 1989 for 77 hotel units that were never built. In 1995, another amendment to the Specific Plan was approved to permit the construction of a conference/ballroom facility and rearrange parking facilities. The history of amendments to the Specific Plan includes one approved under Riverside County Jurisdiction, and three approved under City of La Quinta jurisdiction. The proposed amendment subject to this environmental review will be the fourth amendment under City jurisdiction. Today there is a total of 640 guest rooms and suites, with 66,000 square feet of meeting and function space. A retail arcade accommodates visitors and residents and there are three restaurants. There are two 18 -hole golf courses and 25 swimming pools, 35 hot spas and a tennis club. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The. proposed Site Development Permits will consist of a new spa building and future fitness building, 119 new single family clustered 1, 2 & 3 bedroom residential. units with. hotel guest opportunities -totaling 205 rooms.or "keys''; and a new maintenance;facility.with employee parking lot with, 362 spaces. The proposed buildings will operate as new amenities for the resort complex, and in the case of the maintenance facility and employee parking lot, as a consolidated corporation yard and parking facility. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed amendment to the Specific Plan is to not only to create new amenities for the resort.visitors and residents, and resort- oriented residential units for:sale,'but also update the distribution, location, and extent of uses covered by the plan, and provides implementation measures in the form of regulations and standards on a plan and in a text.. Page 5 UU J � i 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. For this project, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed project will require reviews and recommendations of approval by the Historic Preservation Commission: and the Planning Commission, and approval by the City Council. The following discretionary approvals will be required for this project: Certification of Environmental Assessment 97 -340 Certificate of Appropriateness 97 -003 Specific Plan 121 =E Amendment #4 General Plan Amendment 97 -054 Zone Change 97 -083 Tentative Tract 28545 Site Development Permit 97 -607 Site Development 97 -608 2.06 RELATED PROjEC T S The project does not have any related projects other than those discussed in this addendum. There have been several plot plan approvals for new buildings and amendments to the Specific Plan over the last twelve years. With on -going development activities at the resort it is likely that there will be additional site development permit approvals required in the future. This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts, and compatibility with the proposed design of the spa and residences associated with the land use, subdivision design; architectural design, and historic architectural approval of the proposed development. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each checklist item; the environmental setting is discussed; including. a; description of the existing conditions within:the City and the areas affected'by the. proposed project. .Thresholds of significance +are defined ei her,by:standards•adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley; in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The topographical relief in the valley ranges from'- 237Yfeet below mean: sea level (msl) to about: 2,000 feet above msl. The:valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region: Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa. Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Page 6 ll �J Local Environmental Setting The Specific Plan is located mostly west of the intersection of Avenue .50 and Eisenhower. Drive. A small portion extends to the southeast corner of that intersection. The mountains are steep and rocky, and provide a striking contrast to, the relatively flat cove area. Currently there are 640 hotel rooms or suites, two 18 -hole golf courses, a commercial arcade, four restaurants, single family homes and --custom home lots surrounding the resort campus, a tennis complex, and administrative buildings located on the campus. Only a few small parcels have never been developed within the resort or ,:hillside custom lots and are still vacant. Historically, the resort property has been included agricultural uses, a horse stable, a landing strip, and was the site of a historic lake known as Lake Marshall. The land was: also occupied prehistorically, as evidenced by the archaeological sites on the property. The land use and development history for the resort began with the initial approval of Specific Plan 121 -E in.1975 by Riverside County Board 'ofSupervisors.. This.plan allowed the development of 637 condominium units, 420 hotel rooms, a 27 -hole golf course, and service facilities on 619 acres, In 1982, an amendment to the specific plan was approved to allow for 279 additional condominium units, 146 new hotel units, and the annexation of 19.23 acres into the specific plan area for the development of the La Quints Tennis Club and Tennis Villas (200 condominiums) in. the central portion of the. resort property. This amendment was processed under Riverside County jurisdiction as the City of La Quints did not incorporate until May 9, 1982. In 1988, the first amendment under City jurisdiction was approved to add a new maintenance facility with employee and overflow parking lot located at the southeast corner of the Tennis Villas area. These facilities were constructed on two long pieces of land, the north parcel to have the maintenance facility and employee parking, while the southerly parcel was developed with 162 parking spaces for the hotel use. In 1989, Specific Plan Amendment #2 was approved to add 77 new hotel units, These units were never, built. In..1995, Amendment #3 was approved by the City in conjunction with Plot Plan 95 -555 for the Construction of a ballroom expansion and elimination of designated parking area and replacement with associated parking. .On May. 14, 1997, the Applicant made application to the City for Amendment #4 to. Specific Plan jJ21 -E ad related development applications as described in.this document. Currently, the La Quinta Resort campus consists of 640 hotel rooms, convention facilities including 60,000 +' sq. Ft. of exhibit space, restaurants, office/retail space, two '18 -hole golf courses, 25 im swming pools, 38 spas and a tennis club. The Specifi c Plan currently allows for a total number of Page 7 1558 residential units. The gated residential sections of the resort include Santa Rosa Cove - 334 units (6 lots vacant), The Enclave/Mountain Estates - 32 custom units with 59 vacant lots, Los Estados - 40 residential units, Tennis Villas - 48 units built, 200 units approved, and land east of Eisenhower Drive - 110 units potential. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Adjacent land uses and their designations include: Low Density Residential uses to the east, Medium Density Residential to the south, and Santa Rosa Mountains Open Space with a Hillside Conservation Overlay to the north and. west. The Specific Plan area extends to the city boundary on the west. The existing residential, tourist commercial, golf and open space uses of the resort are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The existing. General Plan Land Use designations for the residential resort land uses include Low Density Residential (LDR) with a range of '2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, and Medium Density Residential (MDR) with 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Commercial designations include Tourist Commercial. Other land uses include Golf Course, Open Space, and Water Course/Flood. Control. The existing land uses are depicted in Exhibit 5 (Page 2.5) of the Specific Plan document submitted for this project. The proposed General Plan Land Use designations consist of redistributions of the locations, densities, and corresponding acreage. The proposed changes to the land use designations are depicted in Exhibit 6 of the above referenced document. Acreage under MDR will change from 22.5 acres to 5.5 while TC will increase from 43.5 acres to 61.15 acres in Planning Area I. The requested change involves an increase of acreage in the TC (Tourist Commercial) designation with a change from LDR to TC for that area east of Eisenhower Drive and south of Avenue 50 - Planning Area II. The proposed land use designation change would serve as mitigation for the proposed development by providing for consistent and compatible land use categories. Existing zoning for the Specific Plan area include RL - Low Density Residential (Planning Area II), and RM - Medium Density Residential (Planning Area 1), TC- Tourist Commercial, GC - Golf Course, OS - Open Space, FP - Flood plain and HC - Hillside Conservation. The Zoning District boundaries are proposed to be modified in that there would be an increase in the acreage of the TC Zone, RL would be redesignated to TC for the portion of the project site located east of Eisenhower Drive, south of Avenue 50. The proposed changes are depicted in Exhibit 8 of the Specific Plan document. The proposed zone change is consistent with the proposed land use designations and would serve as mitigation for the proposed development in those specific areas where the zone change is requested, in that there would be consistency with the General Plan land use designations. The current Specific Plan for the resort provides for a maximum of 1558 residential dwelling units on 638 acres ofthe resort- campus that are planned for residential golf course, and open space uses. There is a mix of densities from 2 to 8 units per acre, with an overall density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre. Page 8 The proposed Specific Plan amendment would create a unique use category specified as Resort Residential. With the anticipated use of the proposed single family detached residential units as potential hotel rooms that can be rented as "keys ", a review of the Tourist Commercial (TC) Zoning District indicates that the purpose and intent of this zone is to provide for the development and regulation of a narrow range of specialized commercial uses oriented to: tourist and resort activity. Representative land uses include destination resort hotels, conference- oriented hotels and motels, eating and drinking establishments, accessory retail and personal service shops, and recreational uses. ;:.Residential uses in the TC zone include residential as an' accessory use, hotels and motels, and .,.::timeshare facilities. These uses require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. An interpretation may be made that the potential use of the bedrooms within each residential unit will be as hotel rooms would classify the units as hotel rooms with residential if the unit owner decided to reside in all or part of a unit. :.The proposed change from MDR & LDR Zoning Designations to TC will reduce the total density -permitted from 1558 to 1415, however, density transfers from the Hillside Conservation areas will increase total density by allowing the number of units that could be developed in the hillsides to be developed in the residential or TE Resort Residential at ens. During the July 8, 1997, Planning Commission meeting, the proposed Maintenance Facility was modified to provide for a residential buffer along the eastern boundary, neat to Duna La Quinta, in order to mitigate concerns regarding noise and land use compatibility. The residential buffer will provide an area for future resort residential units. The proposed Maintenance building will be reduced to approximately 16,000 square feet, from approximately 20,000 square feet. The proposed employee parking lot will be reduced from 362 parking spaces to 290 spaces. The proposed residential buffer will have the Resort Residential Tourist Commercial underlying zone designation. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans to policies adopted by agencies with jurisdictions over the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over this project. The primary _environmental plans, and policies pertinent to. this project are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, :,Oo General Plan EIR, the La Quirita Master Environmental Assessments and the City's CEQA ,.yGuidelines. An EIR was prepared for the original Specific Plan in 1975. Environmental Assessment .,.95 -304 was prepared for a ballroom expansion at the-resort which was a part of Amendment #3 of the Specific Plan. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was certified for that EA. No other responsible- agency plans have been identified - that -would have j urisdiction over-this- project. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Page 9 L0L -U 1 No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on the project site. No impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey). ' D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. (including a low- income minority community)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will involve the demolition of six existing condominium buildings, each with 3 units, in order to construct the new resort residential units. A total of 10,020 square feet will be demolished. Occupancy of the condominium buildings was at resort market -rates which precluded low- income families or individuals. Impact to the physical arrangement of the existing resort will be minimal as the proposed new buildings will allow for the continuing of the existing spatial organization of open spaces and walkways between buildings (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan). 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is made up of nine cities in the eastern portion of Riverside County with a total population of more than 250,000 people. The current population of the County is 1.38 million (Source: Dept. Of Finance, 1996). Local Environmental Setting La Quinta incorporated in 1982 with a population of 5,260. Fourteen years later, the City has grown to 31.18 square miles with more than 18,931 permanent residents within its City limits. La Quinta's population ranks it sixth largest of the cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth has been approximately 10% in recent years (e.g., 1,000 people/year). The projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000. The average age of City resident is 32 years. Persons over the;age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population.: The ethnic composition of the City is. 70% White, 26% Hispanic, 2% Black, 21/6 Asian/Other.: The 1990 Census indicates that 81% of the La'. Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21% are college graduates (Source: Census/Estimates). The total number of housing units in the City is 9,923. Single family housing units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 6,845 detached 'single family units, 2;260 attached- single family units; 571 multi - family - units and -247 mobile - homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.118 (Source: 1997, Dept. of Finance), The number of housing units occupied is 6070, with 38.83% vacant. Median home prices in the City are just below $120,000 (1990 Census) which is consistent with the average for Riverside County but less than other Southern California counties (Source: La Quinta Economic Overviews). Page 10 L.! J �.. �.. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source; Community Development Department, City of La Quinta). A Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed resort residential units will generate additional residents to La Quinta, however, the anticipated vast majority of occupants of these units will be tourists staying at the hotel. It is not anticipated that a significant number of permanent new residents will result from this project that will cumulatively impact regional. or local populations.. Typically, people buying into this type of project are among the high income individuals, usually older, with grown children no longer living at home. Often they will. be seasonal residents,: as opposed to permanent residents. Temporary construction- related jobs will be created as the new units and other buildings proposed for this project are built. New permanent or temporary jobs will be created as a result of the project. There may be new jobs created for administration, management; attendants, and specialist for the spa and fitness center. For the new maintenance facility and employee parking lot, there may be some new positions created, however it is anticipated that the existing staff will move to the new facility. The proposed resort residential units :may create some jobs for domestics, gardeners, -and hotel staff. The number of new jobs created by this project is not known. New jobs will benefit the community, and result in a positive impact. New jobs will have an impact upon employee parking and vehicle trips which will be considered in the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the resort. B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact The proposed new buildings are within an existing developed resort campus. All infrastructure is existing. Connections to existing main lines will be required. No significant impacts are anticipated for this issue. The proposed Maintenance Building, employee parking lot, and residential areas around.. the proposed Maintenance Facility are outside, of ;the existing;: resort campus. However, the ::s'urrounding area:has been developed; thus all major infrastructure has been constructed: No .new major infrastructure will-.be required for the Maintenance Facility area. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less Than Significant Impact. It is proposed that six condominium buildings'. each with 3 units, will- be-demoliished-in order-to make-room for- the-new -resort residential -units The condos -are apart - -- of the hotel room stock and not individually ownedhor leased for long term occupancy: Thus, there is no impact upon the City's stock of permanent occupancy housing stock and housing needs. Page 11 1000' 2 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the steep, rocky mountains to the south and west. The Cove area of La Quinta is located on an alluvial fan. Elevations reach 1,400 feet above msl. and to below sea level in the southeastern portion of the City. Slopes on the valley floor are gently, except in areas of rolling sand dunes and sand shadows. The alluvial soils that make up the Cove area are underlain by igneous- metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The entire valley is underlain by hundreds of feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits (Source: Southland Geotechnical 1996:6). Local Environmental Setting : The area where'the project site is located is in a historical part of the City. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that a part of the site was farmed at one time. Elevations on the project site range from approximately 60 to 40 feet above msl (Source: TT 28545, USGS La Quinta Quad). Approximately 207.5 acres are designated as Open Space and are located in the steep rocky mountains at the western, southwestern, and northern boundaries of the property. There are two inferred earthquake faults, one located approximately 2 miles south of the resort property, and the other, approximately 1.5 miles east. There has been no recorded activity along these fault lines, thus there is' a low probability for:such activity to occur. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region include the San Andreas and Mission Creek faults located several miles to the north and west. The project lies within Groundshaking Zone III with Zone 12 being the most hazardous (Sources: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; La Quinta General Plan; La Quinta MEA). 'According to the Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area, prepared by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1979, there are seven different types".of soils present on the I resorrproperty: These = include -Ip - Indio fine sandy loam; Is:= Indio very fine sandy loam, GbA - "Gilman fine sandy loam Mag - Myotna fine sand; CcC - Carrizo stony sand., Ru - Rubble land, and GeA - Gilman silt loam: Each of these soil types has distinctive characteristics and land use suitability. The Is (Indio very fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the relatively flat areas where the propsed spa and fitness buildings and new resort residential units are proposed. This soil type belongs to the coarse -silty, mixed (calcareous), hypertherrnic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow, and the risk of wind or water erosion is slight. The best use of this soil type is for agriculture, such as truck crops. For construction purposes the shrink -swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is high, but-for concrete it is low (Source: USDAI Soil Survey). Page 12 I- I (,U us--x The Ip (Indio fine sandy loam) soil type is found in the vicinity. of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. This soil type belong to the same taxonomic class as does the Is soil type. Runoff is slow, erosion hazard from wind or water is slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth. This soil type is best suited to agricultural uses. The shrink - swell factor is low. The risk of corrosion for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey)., The GbA (Gilmore fine sandy loam) soil type is found on the northern and southern portions of the flatter resort areas on slopes of 0 to 2 percent. This soil type belong to the coarse - loamy, mixed (calcareous), hyperthermic Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class of soils. This soil type is subject to flooding. The water table is 6 feet or below in depth., Runoff is slow, erosion. hazards are slight, however, blowing sand is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is agriculture. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The MaB (Myoma fine sand) is found in areas with 0 to 5 % slope in the northwest corner of the resort property. This soil belongs to the mixed, hyperthermic Typic Torripsamrrient taxonomic class. Runoff is very slow, erosion is slight. The best use for this soil type is agricultureal uses, however it is suitable for homesites and secretion uses. Blowing sand hazards are high. Shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low. Cut banks will cave in shallow excavations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The CcC (Carrizo stony sand) soil type is found on slopes. 2 to 9 percent in grade, on alluvial fans where drainage from the mountain enters the valley. This soil type belongs to the snady - skeletal, mixed hyperthermic Typic Torriothent taxonomic class. Runoff is slow except in channels. The best land use for this soil type is for watershed and wildlife habitat. The shrink -swell factor is low. Risk of corrosion of uncoated steel is moderate to high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). Rubble land (Ru) soil type is found on slopes with 2 to 15.% grade, on very old alluvial fans. It is composed of 90 %. cobbles, stones, and boulders, cut by numerous ill- defined intermittent stream channels in a braided pattern. Riverwash is found alongside the main drainageways among the steep slopes. Desert Varnish is found on the exposed surfaces. Vegetation is an extremely sparse cover of brush, creosote bush, barrel cactus, bush sunflower, ocotillo, and an occasional clump of annual grass in the pockets of fine sand. The best land use for this soil type is watershed,. wildlife habitat, and recreation (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The GeA (Gilman silt loam) soil type is found on slopes with 0 to 2 % grade and has a slit loam surface layer. This soil_ type belongs to same taxonomic class as does -GbA soil types Runoff is- slow and erosion hazards are slight. The best land use for this soil type is for growing citrus, dates, cotton, and alfalfa hay. The shrink -swell factor is low. Corrosion risks for uncoated steel are high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). Page 13 ki 0 0tj 3 The CsA (Coachella fine sandy loam) is found in areas with 0 to 2 % slopes. This soil type belongs to the sandy, mixed hyperthermic, Typic Torrifluvent taxonomic class. It is found on the parcel where the proposed maintenance building and employee parking lot are proposed at the southeast corner of the intersection of Eisenhower Drive and Avenue 50. Runoff is medium, and erosion hazards are slight. Blowing sand hazard is moderate. The best land use for this soil type is for truck crops. Shrink- swell factor is low. Corrosion risk for uncoated steel is high, but for concrete it is low (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The site of the proposed spa and fitness buildings, and the resort residential units has been graded and compacted in past years in anticipation for construction that did not take place. Over time this same area has been used for soil borrowing and depositing from adjacent construction projects. It is estimated that the soil has been disrupted to a depth of about 10 feet. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are two inferred earthquake fault lines in the southern area of the City. One fault is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the resort. These faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along the fault would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is anticipated for the project site (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan, City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment). B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new development will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring prople to the site who will be subjected to these hazards. The project site is within Groundshaking Zone III. The new structures will be required to meet current seismic design and construction standards to reduce to risk of structural collapse. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is not anticipated to be subject to ground failure - 'hazards from earthquake or other events: The La Quinta General-Plan indicates that the project site is not within a recognized liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. Page 14 0 GG D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami or volcanic hazard? No impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subject to a tsunami. There are no active volcanoes in the local area to create a hazard. E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? .,::-No Impact. The proposed building sites are several hundred feet from the steep mountains to the .,-west .thus there is no possibility of landslides or mudslides. The existing structures within the Specific Plan are on a gently sloping alluvial fan. ,F. Would the project result in or expose people. to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Croject yEr.11, require aradinaa an trenching for the various buildings. Geotechnical reports will be required to be submitted to the City Engineering Department for review prior to issuance of grading permits. The Applicant states that grading will total 14.9 acres which is divided into 7.6 acres- for the Maintenance facility, .8 acre for the proposed Spa building, and 6.5 acres for the resort residential units. G. Would the project result in or expose poeple to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? No Impact. The project site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (MEA). Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground (Source: La Quinta MEA). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The underlying soils pn the project site Is - Indio very fine sandy 0,10arn, and Ip - Indio fine sandy loam. Both `soil types are characterized by. slow runoff, slight erosion hazards from either wind or water, and no flood hazards associated with them. The shrink -swell capacity is low, indicating that these soil types are stable for construction considerations (Source: USDA Soil Survey). The City requires compliance with the Uniform -Building Code arid the recommendations, of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? Page 15 000Q0,2.7 Less Than Significant Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. These unique geologic features. are not located within the project site or near enough to the project to be affected by the proposed spa and fitness buildings, �) maintenance building or employee parking lot, or the new resort residential units. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers, of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as wellas a si0ficant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigtion needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via eleven wells in the City operated by the Coachella Valley Water. District (CVWD). La Quints is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub- basins near Point Happy Ranch; located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 1 11. CVWD estimates that approximately 19:4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the City is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater duality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet is considered excellent. Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a requirement in the near future as more demands for water -are placed on the supply. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private development which are comprised of canal water andlor untreated ground water, and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which results in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing i rni n the intermittent streas that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and . operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (IDS) increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water. Act requires all communities. to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwter Page 16 0000' 3 runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two -part permitting process for which the City of La Quinta is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Setting The Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1974 by Harry H: Schmitz & Associates for the La Quinta Cove Golf & Tennis Club, states that the Lower. Coachella Valley receives imported water from the Colorado River and is primarily used for agricultural purposes. This Water has little importance to the Upper Valley, with the noted exception of La Quinta. In La Quinta this flow moves into the area from the north and northeast, and no groundwater barriers have been identified in this locality. Groundwater recharge comes from these subsurface inflows enhanced by seepage of applied irrigation water from the Coachella Canal. Practically all water'used. in La Quinta is obtained from wells located within the community. The domestic water system serving the older part of the community was operated by the Santa Carmelita Water Company. The first golf and condominium development was served by the La Quinta Water Company. Now, the entire City is served by the Coachella Valley Water District. There are still a few large private wells used for irrigation and agriculture within the community. The proposed project sites do not have standing water on them. The nearest stands of water consist of several small lakes on the golf courses. Historically, there was a lake at the southern end of the property known as Lake Marshall. The lake dried several decades ago. La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed -by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed in 1970. Construction of the system was completed in November 1986. The nearest stormwater facility to the project sites is the {Meander Reservoir which is located south of the resort property and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel which passes through the southeastern portion of the resort property. A: Would the project result in changes in-'absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and• amounVof surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed new buildings including the residential units will decrease absorption rates and amounts in that foundations and hardscape will be placed where there was previously none, except for where the condominium buildings that are slated for demolition and the tennis stadium are located. Pavement for the proposed maintenance yard and employee parking lot will decrease absorption rates in that area. Drainage patterns are designed to direct runoff to the existing golf course lakes. The new buildings are not anticipated to alter the drainage pattern significantly as they -will be located amidst existing buildings with an established drainage pattern. Page 17 V'COv .0 B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water - related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. The project sites are within Zone X on the Federal Flood Insurance rate maps. Zone X includes those areas determined to be outside of the 500 -year flood plain. The area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes, and may be considered safe rom stormwater flows except in rare instances. Local stormwater drainage requirements for this site are the responsibility of the City (Source:.CVWD). C. Would the:project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? . Less Than Significant Impact. Runoff from the proposed new buildings including the residences will be required to be directed into the existing drainage facilities: Water discharging from the proposed spa building is anticipated to be proximal to swimming pool or jacuzzi water. Spas are regulated by the Public Health Department and will be monitored by resort staff in accordance with Health. Department; requirements for appropriate chemical maintenance and sanitation (Source: Application materi als). D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact.. There are no bodies of surface water on the proposed project sites. Existing drainage facilities are located south of the resort property and include the golf course lakes. Runoff water is designed to flow into the lakes and Oleander Reservoir. Flooding occurs rarely so that there is anticipated to be little change in the amount of surface water in the vicinity (Source: Application materials). E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact, The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial. natural bodies of water or rivers. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. A few agricultural reservoirs are still in use. The La,Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater diversion channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms: The future: development of the project sites will not affect to a significant degree any existing drainage corridor (Source: Site Survey; Application materials). F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions -or withdrawals, or through interception of an 'aquifer by cuts. or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater- and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Development of the proposed buildings and units does not include any Page 18 CCOv "3v new wells or cuts into the aquifer (Source: Application materials). G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The proposed project will'not have a significant effect on groundwater wells as there is not proposed alteration to the rate or direction of flow of groundwater supply by any aspect of the construction or operation of the spa and fitness buildings, maintenance yard, or the resort residential units (Source: Application materials). H: Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Several of the proposed buildings will be constructed in an existing resort campus, with six condominium buildings and a tennis stadium, tennis courts, maintenance facility and parking area to be demolished in order to make room for the spa and fitness buildings and the new resort residential units. Some vacant land will be part of this development as well. The maintenance yard and employee parking lot will be constructed on vacant land. The proposed development. does not include any cuts into the groundwater supply, nor does it include any operational activities that would impact the quality of the groundwater (Source: Application materials). 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD), and in particular the Southeast Desert Air Basin ( SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem that the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the in of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samples air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, SEDAB .experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent than SCAB. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads, among other causes. The AQMD has defined Criteria Pollutants of concern in SCAB and the Coachella Valley. These pollutants consist of lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, PM 10, sulfate, and visibui y.'here are-national, state, and regional levels for almost all of the pollutants. There are Page 19 0 3 1. standards for ozone and PM 10 at the Coachella Valley level. For the other pollutants the high level of governmental standards must be referred to as indicated in Table 3 -1 - Criteria Pollutants of Concern in SCAB and Coachella Valley, of the Draft SCr M_ D CEQ, Air Quality FI n lC. Primary pollutant sources and primary health effects of lead; sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide; ozone, and'PM 10 are as follows: Pollutants Lead (Pb) Priin.trYy Sources Contaminated Soil Sulfur Dioxide Combustion of sulfur- containing Fossil fuels. Smelting of sulfur- Bearing metal ores. Industrial Processes. Primary Effects* Impairment of blood function and Nerve construction. Behavioral And hearing problems in children. Aggravation of respiratory diseases Reduced lung function Irritation of eyes Reduced visibility Plant lnjur Deterioration of metals, textiles, Leather, finishes, coatings, etc: Carbon Monoxide Incomplete combustion of fuels and - Reduced tolerance for exercise Other carbon - containing substances, Impairment of mental function Sch as motor vehicle exhaust, natural Impairment of fetal development Events such as decomposition of . Death of high levels of exposure Organic matter Aggravation of some heart diseases Nitrogen Dioxide Motor vehicle exhaust Aggravation of respiratory illness High temperature stationary com- Reduced visibility bustion, atmospheric reactions Reduced plant growth Formation of acid rain Ozone Atmospheric reaction of organic Aggravation of respiratory and Gases with nitrogen oxides in cardiovascular diseases Sunlight Irritation of eyes Impairment ofcardiopulmonary function Plant leaf injury Fine Particulate Matter (PM 10) Stationary combustion of solid fuels Reduced lung function Construction activities Aggravation of the effects of gaseous Industrial processes pollutants Atmospheric chemical reactions Avation of respiratory and cardio- Page 20 , f 4 f..'