2002 02 26 PCPlanning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2001-024
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-003
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on January 22, 2002.
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
P:\CAROLYN\PCAgenda.wpd
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
/0
C.
Item ................. ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
97-337 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 97011055),
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-067, AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
Applicant .......... Stamko Development Company
Location ........... The South Side of Highway 111 between La Quinta
Centre Drive and West of Dune Palms Road
Request ........... Approval of Site Development Permit for a Retail
Shopping Center having 334,117 t square feet, a
Conditional Use Permit for a Plant Nursery/Garden
Center, and Auto Repair/Specialty Shop and an Auto
Service Station in conjunction with Retail Building
"B", and a Tentative Parcel Map to create 18
numbered and two letter lots ranging in size from .47
to 19.44 acres and Addendum to EIRS regarding said
development.
Action .............. Resolution 2002- Resolution 2002-
Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002-
Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440, AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14 - FIRE
STATION
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... West side of Adams Street, North of Miles Avenue
Request ............ Recommendation to the City Council for
Environmental Assessment 2001-440 and Capital
Improvement Project 2001-14, for design of Fire
Station.
Action .............. Resolution 2002- , Resolution 2002-
Item ................. VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-004, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant .......... Chapman Golf Development, LLC
Location ............ Northeast corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive
Request ............. Approve Development Plans to construct a 7,500
square foot Restaurant.
Action ............... Resolution 2002-
P:\CAROLYN\PCAgenda.wpd
VI1. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Item .................
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FOR DSUSD
Applicant ..........
City of La Quinta
Location ............
City-wide
Request .............
Finding of General Plan Conformity for Desert Sands
Unified School District Elementary School Project,
pursuant to California Government Code Section
65401.
Action ...............
Resolution 2002-
B. Item .................
LA QUINTA MUSEUM
Applicant ..........
City of La Quinta and La Quinta Historical Society
Location ............
77-885 Avenida Montezuma
Request .............
Compatibility review of historical architecture plans
for renovation/addition to the La Quinta Historical
Society Museum.
Action ...............
Minute Motion 2002-
C. Item ................. PLAZA TAMPICO SIGN PROGRAM, AMENDMENT #3
Applicant .......... Plaza Tampico
Location ............ 78-150 Calle Tampico
Request ............. Review of sign program for Plaza Tampico.
Action ............... Minute Motion 2002-
D. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2002-597
Applicant .......... Chevron
Location ............ South east corner of Dune Palms Road and Highway
111.
Request ............. Review of sign program.
Action ............... Minute Motion 2002-
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Report on the City Council meeting of February 19, 2002
X. ADJOURNMENT
P:\CAROLYN\PCAgenda.wpd
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
January 22, 2002 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04
p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the flag
salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Consultant Nicole Criste, Principal Planner
Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT:
A. Chairman Abels welcomed Boy Scout Troop #848 who were in
attendance as part of their "Citizens in the Community" badge.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
B. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
January 8, 2002. Commissioner Tyler asked that Pages 17 and 19 be
amended to reflect the Resolutions were approved, "as amended". There
being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to approve the minutes as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
C. Department Report: None
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Environmental Assessment 2001-431, Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report No. 232, General Plan Amendment 2001-080, Zone
Change 2001-103; a request of T. D. Development for 1) Certification of
an Addendum to Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 232;
2) Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for the area bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60
and Madison Street, outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218,
Amendment #1; 3) Change the land use designation from: A. Medium
Residential, Medium High Residential, and Golf Course, Community
Facilities and Commercial as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No.
218, Amendment #1 to Low Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Major Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community
Commercial; B) From Agriculture to Low Density Residential for the area
bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street,
outside of Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1; 4)
Change the zoning from: A) Riverside County designation Specific Plan
as shown in Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1 to
Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Golf Course, Major
Community Facilities, Neighborhood and Community Commercial; B.
From Agriculture to Low Density Residential and Golf Course Bounded by
Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60 and Madison Street, outside of
Riverside County Specific Plan No. 218, Amendment #1, for the property
bounded by Avenue 58, Monroe Street, Avenue 60, and Madison Street.
Also, a portion of the area east of Monroe Street between Avenue 69
and Avenue 61.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked staff where the figure referred to in
Addendum Item II.c) came from. Staff stated the figure was
provided by Riverside County for the Eastern Coachella Valley.
Commissioner Robbins stated that figure would have to apply to
the entire Riverside County. Staff would research the figure and
correct the figure if necessary.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a Williamson Act contract
in this area. Staff noted where one existed within the area.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
4. Commissioner Robbins asked how a zone change in and of itself
can have any environmental impact. Staff stated the zone change
does not, but the buildout of the project under the zoning
designation does and that is what is evaluated in the
Environmental Assessment. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez
stated it is a discretionary project and the Environmental
Assessment looks at the uses that will result from the zone
change.
5. Commissioner Kirk stated the Zone Change does not increase the
intensity it is a conversion of the County designations to City
designation. Staff stated not within the lands outside the Specific
Plan area. There is an intensification of land use there, as they are
currently agricultural.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked why the City was not be listed as one
of the applicants. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated it should be and it would be corrected before going to the
City Council.
7. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. John Gamlin, representing the applicant, gave
a presentation on the project and stated they had no objections to
the conditions as written.
8. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of the
applicant. There being none, Chairman Abels asked if there was
any other public comment on this item.
9. There being no further public participation, the public comment
portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-013, recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2001-431, subject to the findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-014, recommending
Certification of an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report
#232, subject to the findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
12. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-015, recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-080, subject to the
findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
13. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-016, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-103, subject to the findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
B. Environmental Assessment 2001-436, General Plan Amendment 2001-
083. and Zone Change 2001-105 and Specific Plan 2001-055 - "The
Gateway"; a request of the City of La Quinta Redevelopment Agency for
review of a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from High
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and Tourist
Commercial and review of development standards and design guidelines
for Tourist Commercial uses including hotels, and retail -related uses, and
residential development including townhouses and single family
residences for the property located at the southeast corner of Miles
Avenue and Washington Street.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Mr. Frank Spevacek, Rosenow Spevacek Group,
Redevelopment Consultant for the City, presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk stated that given the original purpose and land
use of the site, what is the impact of the City's ability to meet the
regional fair share of housing needs. Staff stated it will both
reduce the City's ability to meet the need in terms of the fair share
housing for the City's General Plan as well as the Redevelopment
Agency (RDA) inclusionary housing requirements. However, staff
found that as noise impacts that would be generated by the
Washington Street and Miles Avenue roadway activities was
studies, to put residential units at this location would provide more
impacts to residence than it would to occupants of
hotel/commercial uses. From an environmental compatibility
standpoint, it makes more sense to have commercial abut those
areas. In addition, the RDA will be looking at revising its housing
strategies to perhaps include purchasing additional properties to
meet both the City's affordable housing needs as well as the
Agency. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City and Agency were
close to meeting its inclusionary housing requirements. In terms
of the Agency's requirements, we are one-third of the way there.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a copy of the visual
simulation available as referred to in the Environmental
Assessment. Also, on Page 13 of the Specific Plan there is an
Energy Efficiency Plan requirement; is this the first time the City
has done this and if so, who will monitor this? Planning Manager
Christine di lorio stated the City is trying to see what a potential
developer could provide in order to encourage these measures.
The Planning Commission will review the site development permit
for energy provisions. Commissioner Kirk asked if there were
other guidelines than those contained in the Zoning Code.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that
depending on how this project develops, staff could create the
guidelines and require them of the developers in the future. Staff
will try to obtain whatever they can for a model in order to
establish these types of guidelines. The Specific Plan is not
specific in order to allow the developer the opportunity to inform
staff of what is possible. Commissioner Kirk asked if the
requirements should be in place before hiring a developer. Staff
stated the City wanted as much latitude as possible to help create
the standards. Discussion followed.
4. Commissioner Tyler stated he was concerned that some of the
City's established standards were being reduced to accommodate
this Specific Plan, such as building setbacks. The minimum livable
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 5
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
floor area is being reduced to 1,200 square feet. The casitas units
location should be specified. He also has several concerns about
the off -site improvements that are mentioned in the Environmental
Assessment. He asked why the City is asking the developer to
install a signal at Seeley Drive and Miles Avenue. It should be
required to be at the first phase of development or when it meets
warrants; it should be defined better. He suggested adding a left
turn pocket to Seeley Drive where it enters Miles Avenue from the
Acacia development.
5. Commissioner Butler questioned why staff was lowering the
square footage for the houses to less than the City's requirement
of 1,400 square feet. He, too, is concerned with the reduction in
setbacks. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated that by
allowing the reduction in setbacks on the corners, it will allow the
building to be pushed up to the corner instead of having a parking
lot. Staff gave examples. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated that as it relates to unit sizes, there are two sizes.
This project is envisioned to have affordable units and market
units. Staff is wanting to give flexibility to the design. These are
minimum sizes, the site development permit will provide more
when it is reviewed in the future. Commissioner Butler asked if
there was a limit to the number of smaller houses that could be
constructed at this time. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated there are only 90 units to be built in this site. Staff
is requesting the flexibility to give a potential developer options at
this time. The intent is to have a variety of housing units sizes.
6. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had a percentage of affordable
units they were proposing to develop. City Consultant Frank
Spevacek stated that at this time, it is the Agency's goal to have
a minimum of 15% to 20% affordable units. It becomes a matter
of economics as to how much the Agency elects to subsidize the
units in order to reach the affordable level. At this point in terms
of housing production goals, it is looking to be 15% to 20%.
When the City tried to make the Miraflores 100% affordable at
moderate rates, we ran into market condition problems, therefore,
we went to 50% affordable and 50% market rate. Commissioner
Kirk asked if staff needed to reduce building area in order to have
the affordable units. Mr. Spevacek stated that not so much in
reducing the building area, but what they found out with the
Miraflores project was that the 1,200 to 1,300 square foot units
were the most popular. What staff is trying to accomplish is to
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -22-02.wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
raise the development standards by allowing the flexibility of the
development by permitting the 1,200 square foot units as well as
the larger units and broker with the developer the unit mix.
Commissioner Kirk asked about the 1,000 square foot attached
units. Mr. Spevacek stated the object was to have a townhome
type project with two stories, two bedrooms to buffer the
residential from Miles Avenue and commercial development.
7. Commissioner Kirk asked if the reduction in size was to meet the
affordable standards. Staff stated that what the City found out in
the Miraflores project was that the market was for the 1,200
square foot house. Staff want to have the flexibility to broker the
size with the developer. Commissioner Kirk asked about the
attached units. Staff indicated that a townhome type project is
proposed that would buffer the single family from both Miles
Avenue and the commercial development. Commissioner Kirk
asked what staff position has been with potential developers in
regard to reducing the livable floor area. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated the project at Jefferson Street and
Fred Waring Drive has the smaller units approved on 5000 square
feet lots. However, the developer will be changing the size, but
at the time pf the approval they wanted flexibility.
8. Commissioner Robbins asked why the Specific Plan does not
contain the objectives as explained by staff. Why is it not a part
of the document. Staff stated it is a City Redevelopment Agency
project and it depends on what the Agency wants to do in regard
to assistance. Commissioner Robbins ask why, on a piece of
property next to the Storm Channel, is the City tying up several
acres of land in retention basin when the channel can be used.
Staff stated it is temporary in nature. Commissioner Robbins
stated it is shown on the plan as retention basin. Planning
Manager Christine di lorio stated it is a phased program where the
hotel is constructed and the retention is in the residential area and
when the residential is built it is removed. Mr. Doug Franklin,
Keith Companies, engineer for the project, stated the park is one
foot deep and permanent and the other is temporary. Staff stated
that on Page 15, Section 3.3.1 it speaks to temporary measures
and temporarily directing surface runoff and explains what is to be
done permanently.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
9. Commissioner Kirk asked what the advantage was to having it
temporary with the storm channel is so close. Mr. Franklin stated
it is to accommodate the runoff on a temporary basis and then
divert to the Channel. The park is part of the permanent system.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the
intention is to build the commercial portion first and then the
residential and connect to the Channel at that time.
10. Commissioner Tyler stated he had a concern on Page 8 of the
Specific Plan where it stated "within the site Seeley Drive will be
lined by entrances to the residential component." Mr. Frank
Spevacek explained that Exhibit "B" of the Specific Plan is just an
illustrative site plan for design to identify how much building mass
the site can be accommodated given the development standards.
He went on to explain the openings and the objective for the area.
11. Commissioner Butler asked if Seeley Drive would come from Miles
Avenue, go through the project and exit onto Washington Street.
Staff stated it would.
12. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment on
this item. Ms. Margaret Taylor, 78-615 Alden Circle stated her
concern was in regard to the traffic onto Seeley Drive. Her home
faces onto Seeley Drive and kids are always playing on the street.
Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated Seeley
Drive is intended to have a signal and will be a controlled access.
Washington Street will be a right in and right out and maybe a left
in. It is not intended to be a fast moving thoroughfare. It will
have a traffic circle to slow the traffic down. Ms. Taylor asked if
there would be some direction given to keep the tourists from
driving down this street. Staff stated they are trying to mitigate
it and achieve the least amount of traffic.
13. Ms. Helga Paul, 45-395 Coldbrook Lane, stated she was
concerned as this development is right next to her house. She
asked if Seeley Drive would be the only street into this
development from Miles Avenue. Staff stated yes. There may be
an opportunity to have a right in and right out between Seeley
Drive and Washington Street into the hotel. Ms. Paul stated she
was also concerned with the height of the project. Staff noted
that with the grading of the property there will be a one foot
differential between the City's project and the single family
homes.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 8
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
14. There being no further public participation, the public comment
portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
15. Commissioner Tyler stated he has mixed feelings in regard to
Exhibit "B". He would like to see a southbound lane on Seeley
Drive.
16. Commissioner Kirk stated this is a nonspecific specific plan that
allows as much flexibility as possible at this time. He applauded
staff on the energy efficiency plans, but was still concerned with
the setbacks and questioned why the City should give itself a
greater break than it would give a developer. He would not want
every unit to have the ability to be 1,200 square feet; maybe 20%
17. Commissioner Robbins stated there are no parking spaces at the
park and there should be some off street parking for the use. He
agrees with Commissioner Kirk that there should be a limit placed
on the number of smaller units. He also agrees with reducing the
setbacks for the corners, but there also needs to be some limit in
the middle of the block where the changes do not apply. There
should be a limit of 100 feet from an intersection as a suggestion.
He was also concerned with Seeley Drive becoming a through
street. There does not need to be a full turn at Miles Avenue and
Seeley Drive. Right in and out and a left turn in off of Miles
Avenue would be sufficient. The problem is to get a left turn onto
Washington Street. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated the possibility of getting a full turning movement
on Washington Street is slim due to the angle and visibility. The
reason for the full movement on Miles Avenue is for the hotel as
a full turn movement will not be allowed on Washington Street.
Discussion followed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated full turn
movements are a premium. The one at Seeley Drive has a full turn
and will match up. The concern is the cut -through traffic of
northbound traffic leaving this site and going across Miles Avenue
and then through the neighborhood. If this becomes a real
problem, there are things the City can do to control this. The
occasional tourists who travel through the neighborhood can be a
concern and could be handled at a later time.
18. Commissioner Kirk asked about the buildings in the setback area.
City Consultant Frank Spevacek stated there are two factors.
First, the City has a requirement that there can be no building
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 9
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
higher than 22 feet within 150 feet of an Arterial street. This
would limit the building height to one story. Second, looking at
the potential noise impacts and building limits, there will need to
be a combination of berming and setbacks. Third, the entry at
Miles Avenue and Washington Street is difficult to get into and
have good circulation from a physical standpoint and to make it a
major entry statement to the City. To make this happen when you
deal with the setback, height limits, and circulation to get to this
point and add the entry points, staff came up with this design as
it would accommodate with the setback and allowed for rational
circulation to that point, and facilitated the landscape feature at
this intersection. In regard to parking, there will be a landscaped
berm to buffer along the streets; an adequate setback of a
potential three story building from Miles Avenue; and the potential
single family next door. The thought was instead of loading the
parking off Seeley Drive and moving the building back to Miles
Avenue, the parking was placed between the berm that would
hide it and the hotel structure.
19. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-017, recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental
Assessment 2001-436, subject to the findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
20. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-018, recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-083, subject to the
findings.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
21. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-019, recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-105, subject to the findings.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 10
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
9. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Robbins to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-020, recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2001-055, subject to the findings as
submitted/amended:
Condition #1: Page 5. Land Use Area I. Tourist Commercial
Development Standards. Add a Minimum 30 foot building setback
from Miles Avenue and Washington Street.
Condition #2: Page 6. Land Use Area II. Detached Dwelling
Units. The development standards shall be changed in that the
minimum livable floor area for single family detached excluding the
garage shall be 1,400 square feet with 15 % at 1,200 square feet.
Condition #3: Page 7. Land Use Area II. Attached Dwelling
Units/Resort Casitas. The minimum livable floor area shall be
1,400 square feet with 30% allowed to be under 1,400 square
feet.
Condition #4: Page 7. Land Use Area III. B. Permitted Uses. Add
a #5. Parking Lot.
Condition #5: Page 14. Off -Site Improvements. The Public
Works Department shall consider the option to install a left turn
pocket for Seeley Drive southbound.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Site Development Permit 2001-724; a request of Family YMCA of the
Desert for review of architectural plans for a 2,626 square foot addition
to the YMCA La Quinta Preschool, located at 49-955 Park Avenue.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the
Community Development Department.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 11
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner asked if the trees would be replanted. Staff stated
the architect could answer that question.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. John
Walling, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the
project. He stated that in regard to the trees, it depends on
whether or not they could be moved and saved.
4. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-021, approving Site Development Permit 2001-
727, subject to the findings and conditions as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. and reconvened at 8:26 p.m.
D. Site Development Permit 2001-725; a request of Carlos Gomez for Von's
Shopping Center for review of development plans to increase the size of
the Von's Supermarket from 36,827 square feet to 47,198 square feet
for the property located at 78-271 through 78-297 Highway 1 1 1, within
Plaza La Quinta.
1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the old plan shows a wooden trellis
shade structure and it now appears to be a solid archway that is
shorter. Staff stated it is a reduced arcade structure.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 12
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
3. Commissioner Tyler asked the purpose of the flat arcade. Staff
stated there is no purpose, it was a design element.
4. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Carlos Gomez, representing the applicant, stated
he was available to answer any questions.
5. Commissioner Robbins asked if the roofline was extended. Mr.
Gomez stated that as a result of the Architecture and Landscaping
Review Committee's recommendation they balanced the structure
to be more symetrical with the in -line units.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the entrances would be the same.
Mr. Gomez stated they would be moved only five or ten feet.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the building would move any further
out into the parking lot area. Mr. Gomez stated no.
7. Commissioner Robbins asked if the blowers over the entrance
doors would be made more attractive to not appear to be add-ons.
Mr. Gomez stated they are designed according to health
standards. Commissioner Robbins stated his objection is to the
aesthetics and whether or not they could not be treated
aesthetically. Mr. Gomez stated they would see if there were any
other designs available.
8. Commissioner Kirk asked about the parking analysis. Mr. Gomez
stated they based their parking plan on the aerial photograph that
had been taken. Commissioner Kirk stated if they are showing
147,000 square feet of tenant space and if the parking
requirement is one parking space for every 250 feet, he comes up
with 588 parking spaces. Mr. Gomez stated each particular tenant
is allocated a number of parking spaces, and they are within at
least one stall of meeting the requirements. Discussion followed
as to how they were calculated.
9. Commissioner Butler asked staff what they were asking of the
applicant in regard to employees parking in the rear. Staff
explained they were trying to make sure all parking was utilized.
Additional lighting and patrol was needed to ensure the employees
would use this area for parking. However, Vons does not have a
rear entrance for accessibility and staff has made this a condition
of approval (#8.D).
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC 1 -22-02.wpd 13
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
10. Commissioner Tyler asked if they are going to enclose the arcade
and will the carts be moved inside. Mr. Gomez stated yes.
Commissioner Tyler asked for clarification on the pavilion. Mr.
Gomez stated this area was the Manager's office. Commissioner
Tyler asked if a bank was proposed to be located inside. Mr.
Gomez stated none at this time.
11. Chairman Abels asked if the entrance could be a double vestibule
for energy conservation. Mr. Gomez stated two vestibules are
proposed. Also in regard to proposed Condition #8.D., they are
willing to provide employee accessibility, but believe a rear door
access is a security problem. Could this be done through the side
driveway aisle? They will provide extensive lighting and security
to encourage employee parking. Mr. Thomas Acevedo, Director
of Real Estate for Vons, stated there are security issues to be
considered in regard to internal theft and nighttime security, such
as packages leaving, bodily injury, etc. They can accommodate
stripped access and lighting to direct employees to the parking in
the rear. The nighttime employees would be given the ability to
park out front due to the decreased amount of usage of the store.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked about the bus stop on Washington
Street. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the
bus stop on Washington Street will be moved across the street in
front of the Point Happy development. The bus stop on Highway
1 1 1 will be upgraded to meet the City's new standards.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if the mezzanine as shown on the plans,
will be kept? Mr. Gomez stated yes.
14. Commissioner Kirk asked why Von's security is any different that
the other in -line stores. Mr. Acevedo stated the issues of the
products being removed is primary as there is no one in the rear of
the store on a constant basis and second the bodily harm as there
is no way to secure the area.
15. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff did a parking analysis. Planning
Manager Christine di lorio stated yes and they came up with 614
spaces which meets the requirement. Commissioner Kirk asked if
staff was concerned if they did not use the parking in the rear.
Staff stated yes, as they would not meet the requirements. To
limit them to day use in the rear and nighttime in front would be
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 14
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
sufficient. Mr. Keith Charles, Architect for the project, stated
there is 147,618 square feet of building area and 575 parking
stalls are required. With the proposed building area they are
showing it at 3.8 per thousand; 4 per thousand would be 590
stalls. They are providing 589, so they are within one stall.
Discussion followed regarding parking and security issues with a
rear entrance.
16. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further discussion, the public participation of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
17. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any way for the City to
enforce the employee parking plan. Assistant City Attorney John
Ramirez stated he was not sure. This is different from the
prototypical situation where you would involve Code Compliance,
and he would be skeptical of it being a viable tool. Planning
Manager Christine di lorio there could be a stipulation put on Vons
to meet the requirement and require them to submit the plan to
staff prior to issuance of building permit. Discussion followed as
to possible alternatives regarding the parking plan.
18. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-022, approving Site Development Permit 2001-
725, subject to the findings and conditions as amended:
A. Condition #B.D: Amend to read, "The Plaza La Quinta
Employee Parking Plan shall be modified to include an
enforcement program for the employee parking area south
of the Vons building. This enforcement plan shall include a
provision that the spaces shall be used, in the daylight
hours, from October 1 through May 31. The enforcement
plan shall be submitted and approved by the Community
Development Department prior to issuance of a building
permit."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 15
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
VII. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2001-723; a request of Rancho Capistrano
Development Corporation for review of architectural and landscaping
plans for three new casas prototype residential plans located north of
Avenue 54 and east of Jefferson Street, within County Club of the
Desert.
1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner None.
3. Chairman Abels asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Robert Wilkinson, representing the applicant,
stated he was available for any questions.
4. Commissioner Butler asked the height of the front door. Mr.
Wilkinson stated it was eight feet tall.
5. Commissioner Tyler asked how the curved glass would work with
the Title 24 calcs in regard to Plan 1. Mr. Wilkinson stated it is a
tempered glass and meets the requirements.
6. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment.
There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion was closed and open for Commission discussion.
7. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Minute Motion 2002-001
approving Site Development Permit 2001-723, as submitted.
Unanimously approved.
B. Site Development Permit 2001-726; a request of Mike Mendoza, Project
Designer for compatibility review of architectural and landscaping plans
for a single family residence located at 4-550 Via Montana, north of Via
Florence, within Lake La Quinta.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 16
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Planning Manager
Christine di lorio presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, or the applicant, Chairman
Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being
no further public comment, the public participation portion was
closed and open for Commission discussion
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2002-023 approving Site Development 2001-726, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler and
Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN:
None.
C. Site Development Permit 2001-727; a request of La Quinta Jefferson
Fifty, LLC for review of architectural plans of three new prototype
residential plans located north of Avenue 50 and west of Jefferson
Street.
1. Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Robbins stated the exterior elevations look out of
proportion with the garage doors.
3. Commissioner Tyler suggested a condition be added to Plan 1,
Type A. to rectify the problem
4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr.
Michael Kaufman, stated in regard to the garage door, the doors
are 7 feet in height and are in line with the front plate elevation.
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 17
Planning Commission Minutes
January 22, 2002
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if the architect had an explanation for
the blank elevation. Mr. Kaufman stated Plan A will change to
have a gable end and could be articulated.
6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the
public participation portion of the meeting and opened for
Commission discussion.
7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Minute Motion 2002-002 approving Site Development
Permit 2002-727, as amended:
A. Condition #2.C: Add, "On Plans 1, 2, & 3 for Type A & B,
additional articulation shall be provided on the facade
between the garage door and roof eaves."
Unanimously approved.
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of January
15, 2002.
X. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Robbins to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held February 12, 2002, at 7:00
p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. on
January 22, 2002.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\PC1-22-02.wpd 18
■ i
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2001
CASE NO: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 97-
337 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 97011055), SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2002-067, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN LA QUINTA
CENTRE DRIVE AND 300 ±FEET WEST OF DUNE PALMS
DRIVE
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A
RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER HAVING 334,117± SQUARE
FEET, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANT
NURSERY/GARDEN CENTER, AND AUTO
REPAIR/SPECIALTY SHOP AND AN AUTO SERVICE
STATION IN CONJUNCTION WITH RETAIL BUILDING "B",
AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE 18
NUMBERED AND TWO LETTER LOTS RANGING IN SIZE
FROM .47 TO 19.44 ACRES AND ADDENDUM TO EIRS
REGARDING SAID DEVELOPMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN, AS
AMENDED, HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIRS, AN EIR CERTIFIED IN 1997
AND A SUPPLEMENTAL EIR CERTIFIED IN 1998. THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS RETAINED
AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT (IMPACT SCIENCES)
TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM TO THE TWO PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED EIRS. BASED UPON THE ADDENDUM, AND
THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE
DETERMINATIONS IN THE ADDENDUM, THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS DETERMINED THAT
NONE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES SET FORTH IN PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE §21166, REQUIRING PREPARATION
OF A NEW SUPPLEMENTAL EIR OR SUBSEQUENT EIR,
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\stamko-stff.wpd
ARE PRESENT AND THAT, ACCORDINGLY, AN
ADDENDUM TO THE TWO PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIRS
IS APPROPRIATE PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINE
SECTION 15164.
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: MIXED / REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES: NORTH:
SOUTH:
EAST:
WEST:
BACKGROUND:
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR); VACANT -
WORLD GYM
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR); VACANT
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RU; SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR); VACANT
The 87-acre Specific Plan area is located immediately south of State Highway 1 1 1 and
immediately east of Adams Street, in the northern part of La Quinta. Dune Palms Road
lies approximately 300 feet east of the eastern site boundary and Avenue 48 lies
approximately 1,850 feet south of the southern site boundary.
On July 15, 1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta unanimously adopted a
Specific Plan to permit and control development of an auto/sales services mall and a
large mixed -use retail commercial 'power center' on the Project site.
The originally approved Specific Plan allowed the development of up to 275,000
square feet of auto sales/service facilities, and approximately 400,000 square feet or
.25 Floor -Area -Ratio (FAR) of retail/commercial space. The potential environmental
impacts associated with the development of the Previous Project were assessed in an
EIR (State Clearinghouse no. 9701 1055) which was also certified by the City Council.
The certified Final EIR, assessed the Previous Project's potential impacts on the
following environmental areas:
1. Potential Secondary Land Use Effects;
2. Geotechnical Considerations;
3. Hydrology/Water Quality;
4. Biological Resources;
C AMydata\W PDOCS\stamko-stff. wpd
5. Transportation/Circulation
6. Air Quality;
7. Noise;
8. Water Distribution and Storage;
9. Solid Waste Disposal;
10. Public Services;
11. Aesthetics; and
12. Cultural Resources.
This Final EIR also assessed the Previous Project's potential growth inducing impacts
and evaluated five alternatives to the Previous Project.
In 1998, the project applicant proposed an amendment to the approved Specific Plan
to reflect modifications in the internal layout of the Previous Project and the further
refinement of the development concepts. As approved, this amendment allowed
development of four different mixes of auto sales/service and retail commercial land
uses, including the development of large retail stores, commonly know as "big box"
stores or commercial power centers. A SEIR was prepared that analyzed each of the
proposed four development scenarios in equal detail and was certified in December
1998. This SEIR analyzed the same impact topics addressed in the original EIR
completed in 1997. The development scenario now proposed for implementation by
the applicant's current, more specific entitlement package, was previously subject to
CEQA compliance review in the Previous EIRs.
Project Request:
The current proposed Project requests three discretionary actions. Specifically, a Site
Development Permit, a Conditional Use permit for the auto serving uses and garden
center as well as approval of a Tentative Tract Map (the Project).
The Project proposes development of 334,117 square feet on approximately 29 acres
within the 39 ± acre Planning Area III. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land uses.
The Project site is located on the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan area, south
of Highway 111 and to the east of La Quinta Drive. Development is currently
proposed on parcels 1, 5, 6 and 11. As shown, 19,200 square feet of specialty stores
and associated parking stalls would be located on the northeast portion of the site on
parcel 6. The retail uses would be setback from Highway 111 by a 50 foot
landscaped buffer to the north and located approximately 60 feet from the eastern
property boundary, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer setback. Immediately
south on parcel 5, a 86,584 square foot Retail A Building is proposed, with parking
provided to the west. The Retail A Building is also positioned 60 feet away from the
eastern Project boundary, 10 feet of which also includes a landscaped setback. To the
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\stamko-stfi:wpd �� `
southwest of this parking area is parcel 11, which includes the 115 square foot gas
station, associated with the potential occupation of Retail B Building by a Wal-Mart
Supercenter. The gas station is on the southeast corner of the Auto Centre Drive and
La Quinta Drive intersection. However, access is only provided to the station from
within the Project site. The gas station is approximately 50 feet from La Quinta Drive,
which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer. To the south of the gas station is parcel
1, which includes parking and the proposed 228,218 square foot Retail B Building.
This building would include a garden center and a tire installation and express lube
facility on the western side of the 'building. Retail B Building is located 60 feet from
the southern boundary and 30 feet from the eastern boundary. The southern boundary
also includes a 10 foot landscaped setback.
Table 1
Land Use Summary
Parcel
Proposed Use
Acreage
Square Feet
Parking Provided
1
Retail B/Parking
19.44
228,218
1,124
5
Retail A/Parking
7.35
86,584
484
6
13 Specialty
1.82
19,200
135
Stores/Parking
11
Gas Station
0.47
115 and 8
0
pumps
TOTALS:
29.081
334,117
1,743
' 29.08 acres represents total land area of the proposed Project within the 38.35 acre Planning Area III
ACCESS:
Access to the Project site is provided from Highway 1 1 1, La Quinta Drive and Auto
Centre Drive. As proposed, two access points would be provided off of Highway 1 1 1,
just west of parcel 6. This access extends south, through the Project site down to the
Retail B Building. This is the only major internal north and south drive aisle. Three
access points would be provided along La Quinta Drive. One would be north of Auto
Centre Drive, the second would be the entrance at the intersection of La Quinta Drive and
Auto Center Drive, while the third is located to the south of this intersection. The
northern access extends east, into the site, up to the 19,200 square feet of shops. at the
eastern extent of the site, while the southern access extends east into the site, along the
frontage of the Retail B Building. As proposed, 1,743 parking stalls would be provided,
of which only 1,336 is required by applicable City Ordinances.
I i f M d
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\stamko-stff.wpd
Lighting•
The proposed project is requesting 24 foot light standards in front of the "shop building"
and by the gas station, with the rest of the light standards at a proposed height of 34
feet. The Zoning Code Section 9.150.080 K. 8., limits the light standards to a height
that do not exceed the maximum permitted building height of the zone in which it is
situated or 18 feet (measured from finish grade at the base of the standard), whichever
is greater. The zoning code and specific plan identify a 40 foot height limit on building
A and B. Historically, the only light standards that exceed 25 feet along the Highway
111 are located in the existing 1 1 1 La Quinta Center.
Landscaping•
The Architecture and Landscape Review Committee reviewed the building and
landscaping plans for this project on February 13, 2002. The Committee recommended
approval of the building elevations. The Committee, however, did suggest that the gas
station design should contain the same architectural elements as shown on the front of
the other buildings. Further, the Committee recommended that the project be
conditioned to; (1. include an enhanced landscape entry statement at the intersection
of auto centre drive and the access lane east of La Quinta Drive; and (2. that final
landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the Community Development
Department prior to the issuance of any grading permit.
Blight:
A condition of approval has been added to the Site Development and Conditional Use
permits that will assure that if the existing wal-mart vacates their current building and
relocates into building "B", that the existing building will be reoccupied.
Signs:
The approved Specific Plan under Section 2.80.1.2 states, the appropriate signage for
the ultimate users will be determined upon development of a detailed site plan. The
signage concept shall include a single -sign allowance per main building entrance.
Alternative locations may be considered based on the most effective use of graphic
identification.
Multi -tenant buildings shall integrate a concept for graphics into the architectural scheme
which shall become the basis for the comprehensive sign plan for the complex.
Freestanding signs may identify the building only and not the individual tenants. Single,
freestanding user buildings may use freestanding monument signage."
Building "A" proposes four - 5 foot by 39 foot (195 sq. ft.), on store sign per building
elevation. Building "B" is proposing twenty five signs rainging in size of 5.3 to 190 sq.
feet. The Shop building will be permitted one tenant sign per storefront at a 1 '/2 square
feet per lineral foot of building frontage to a maximum of 100 square feet. In addition
each tenant can have a non -illuminated hanging walkway sign of 3 square feet maximum.
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\stamko-stff.wpd , r
The sign sizes for the service station tenant have not been provided. However, the
pricing monument sign is included and is 97 square feet (each) with one proposed to be
located on Highway 1 1 1 frontage and the other in front of the station.
The approved Specific Plan permits two monument signs on the Highway 1 1 1 frontage
which can be used to identify major tenants having 50,000 square feet or more. In
addition one mounment sign is permitted south of Highway 1 1 1 within the project east
of La Quinta Drive.
The applicant is proposing six ground mounted tenant identity signs not exceeding 62
square feet each along La Quinta Drive. Shop tenants are not permitted ground mounted
tenant identity signs.
Public Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 9,
2002, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to recommend approval of Site Development Permit per Zoning Code
Section 9.210.010.F., can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving the addendum to The Centre
at La Quinta Specific Plan Final EIR (1997) and Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report (1998),
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Conditional Use Permit 2002-
067, subject to conditions
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Site Development Permit
2001-728, subject to conditions,
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_, approving Tentative Parcel Map 30420,
subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Large maps (Planning Commission only)
CAMydata\WPDOCS\stamko-stff.wpd t ,
Prepared and Submitted by,
Jerry Herman
Community Development Director
C:\Mydata\WPDOCS\stamko-stff.wpd , 11)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN # 97- 029
(1997) AND SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (1998), STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 97011055
PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002- 067, AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 30420
CASE: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26th of February 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an
Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for approval of a site development permit for
a retail shopping center having 334,117± square feet, a conditional use permit for a plant
nursery/garden center, and auto repair/specialty shop and an auto service station in
conjunction with retail building "B", and a tentative parcel map to create 18 numbered and
two letter lots ranging in size from .47 to 19.44 acres for the 87-acre Specific Plan area
located immediately south of State Highway 1 1 1, east of Adams Street, approximately
300 feet west of Dune Palms Road and approximately 1,850 feet north of Avenue 48
and more particularly described as follows:
APNS 649-030-057 thru 063
WHEREAS, said Addendum complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the
La Quinta City Council); and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Addendum:
1. The current applications for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit
and Tentative Tract Map Permit (the "Application" or "Proposed Project"), with
respect to a portion of The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, constitute further
discretionary approvals needed to implement the previously approved Project
("Prior Project"). The Application reflects necessary entitlements to proceed
with development of approximately 334,117 square feet of retail commercial
space, on approximately 29 acres within Planning Area III of The Centre at La
Quinta.
PAJ ERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd ` 5
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development Company
Adopted: February 26, 2002
2. On July 15, 1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta (the "City")
certified the adequacy and completeness of a Final Environmental Impact Report
[SCN 970110551 (the "Final EIR") and adopted Findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, in connection with its approval of the Prior Project.
In December 1998, the City certified a Supplemental EIR in connection with its
consideration and approval of an amendment to the Specific Plan to reflect
modifications in the internal layout of the Prior Project and further refinements
of the development concepts. The Proposed Project is consistent with the
amended Specific Plan analyzed in the 1998 Supplemental EIR.
3. The Proposed Project does not constitute a substantial change to the previously
approved Prior Project, which will require major revisions to the Final EIR as
augmented by the 1998 Supplemental EIR (collectively "Prior EIR"), due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects. In fact, the Proposed
Project reflects a reduction in intensity of development within Planning Area III,
in that the Proposed Project develops only 334,117 square feet of retail
commercial space, substantially less than the maximum square footage
previously approved for the Prior Project (i.e., 400,000 square feet or .25 FAR).
4. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under
which the Proposed Project will be undertaken, which will require major
modifications or revisions to the Prior EIR, due to the involvement of new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects.
5. No new information of substantial importance which was not known, and could
not have been known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, at the time the
Final EIR and Supplemental EIR were adopted, has become available which
shows any of the bases described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3), for
requiring a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR.
6. Based upon these findings and the Addendum/Initial Study, the City has
determined that no Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR is required or
appropriate under Public Resources Code § 21166, and that an Addendum is
sufficient to make the Prior EIR apply to the Proposed Project.
7. The Addendum/Initial Study, which was prepared to evaluate whether the
Proposed Project could cause any new or potentially more severe significant
adverse effects on the environment, specifically analyzed potential secondary
land use impacts based upon an updated Market Impact Analysis prepared by
the Natelson Company. Based upon the facts and analysis contained in the
Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds that the Proposed Project will not have
PAJERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd ` ti
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development Company
Adopted: February 26, 2002
any new or more severe adverse secondary land use impacts, in the defined
Study Area, including no significant adverse blight -related impacts due to
Wal*Mart relocating from its existing site in La Quinta to the Retail B Building
in Planning Area III of The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan.
This finding is based upon the Natelson Company's updated analysis and the
conditions imposed by the City, with respect to the continued maintenance of
and future occupancy of the existing Wal*Mart store in the City of La Quinta.
8. The Addendum/Initial Study also specifically analyzed the Proposed Project's
potential effects on traffic and circulation, both with respect to the public roads
in the vicinity of the Project and the internal circulation of the Project site, based
upon an updated traffic analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads. Based upon the
facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds that
the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe significant traffic or
circulation impacts, either on public roads or the internal circulation system at
the Project site.
9. The Addendum/Initial Study also specifically analyzed the Proposed Project's
potentially new or more severe significant noise related impacts. Based upon
the facts and analysis contained in the Addendum/Initial Study, the City finds
that the Proposed Project will not have any new or more severe significant
adverse noise -related effects. In addition, noise monitoring conducted after the
retail "B" building is fully operational must demonstrate compliance with the
City's noise ordinance at the property line.
10. The prior EIR estimated that the Project would consume roughly 522 feet of
water per year. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that this
demand would not exceed their current or projected water supplies. No
substantial water system improvements were needed to serve the Prior Project
and no wasteful water use or practices were anticipated. The Proposed Project
would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses, in Planning Area
III, which is less than the previously approved square footage of 400,000
square feet, or 429,000 square feet, under the .25 FAR specified in the Centre
at La Quinta Specific Plan. Since there is a direct relationship between the size
and scale of a development and its overall water demand, the reduction in total
building area under the Proposed Project would result in an overall decrease in
the amount of water required for the project site. Therefore, as the total
amount of water required for the Proposed Project is less than that necessary
for the Prior Project, no new or more severe impacts with respect to water
demand would occur.
PAJERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd f
it
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-_
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development Company
Adopted: February 26, 2002
1 1. The Proposed Project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants
or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
12. The Proposed Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term
environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as
no new or more severe significant adverse effects on environmental factors
have been identified by the Addendum/Initial Study.
13. The Proposed Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with planned or proposed
development in the immediate vicinity.
14. The Proposed Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, in that no significant
impacts have been identified which would affect human health or public
services.
15. These factual findings are based upon the previously certified Final EIR and
Supplemental EIR, the Addendum/Initial Study, the submissions of the applicant,
the updated Market Impact Analysis report prepared by the Natelson Company,
the updated traffic report prepared by Urban Crossroads, the noise impact
analysis conducted by Impact Sciences, and the records and files of the City's
Planning Department related to the Project.
16. The Planning Commission has considered the Addendum to Environmental
Impact Report and the Addendum reflects the independent judgement of the
City.
17. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
18. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
PAJ ERRY\stare ko-pc-reso-env.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 97011055, Addendum
Stamko Development Company
Adopted: February 26, 2002
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Addendum.
2. That it does hereby certify the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report for
the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Addendum text on
file in the Community Development Department.
3. That the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent
judgement of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of February 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN
Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAJERRY\stamko-pc-reso-env.wpd -�
ii
DRAFT
Addendum to
The Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Final EIR (1997) and
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (1998)
State Clearinghouse No. 97011055
Prepared for:
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
Prepared by:
Impact Sciences, Inc.
30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210
Agoura Hills, California 91301
February 2002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This document is an Addendum with an incorporated Initial Study (Addendum/Initial Study) to the
Final EIR and Supplemental EIR ("Previous EIRs") for The Centre at La Quinta (Specific Plan) (State
Clearinghouse no. 97011055). The Final EIR assessed the potential impacts associated with development
of the Specific Plan, while the Supplemental EIR (SEIR) evaluated an amendment to the Specific Plan.
Specifically, the SEIR analyzed four potential development scenarios, including the development of two
large big box commercial centers for the undeveloped portion of the Specific Plan site ("the Previous
Projects"). The SEIR was certified in September 1998.
Purpose of an Addendum
When a Final EIR has been certified for a project, CEQA provides for the update of the information in the
certified EIR to address changes to a project or changes to the circumstances under which a project will
occur. Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines provides that where
the Lead Agency determines that neither project changes, changed circumstances, nor new information
requires the preparation and circulation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, the Lead Agency may
prepare an Addendum to an EIR. An Addendum to a previously certified EIR may be prepared if
changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions requiring a Supplemental or
Subsequent EIR have occurred. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that the purpose of an Addendum
is to provide a way of making minor changes or additions to an EIR. Circulation of an Addendum for
public review is not required.
This Addendum to the Previous EIRs has been prepared because: (1) no substantial changes are proposed
in the Previous Project which will require major revisions of the Previous EIRs due to the involvement of
new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts;
(2) no substantial changes in circumstances under which the Previous Project is undertaken will occur
which will require major revisions of the Previous EIRs due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects; and (3) no
new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with
the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the Previous EIRs were certified as complete, shows any of
the following: (A) the Previous Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
Previous EIRs; (B) significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the Previous EIRs; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in
1 ddendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Previous Project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative(s); or, (D) mitigation
measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the Previous EIRs
would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. These determinations are supported by the Initial
Study incorporated into this Addendum, in Section 2.0, and additional updated studies/reports
appended to this Addendum in the appendices.
Regional and Local Setting
The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles of land area located in the
southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in eastern Riverside County. The Coachella Valley is
located between the San Bernardino Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains (see Figure 1). La Quinta
is located approximately 18 miles southeast of the resort community of Palm Springs. It is surrounded by
the Cities of Indian Wells and Palm Desert to the northwest, Indio, Coachella, the Augustine Indian
Reservation and Thermal to the east, and the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south and west. The Interstate
10 Freeway (I-10) provides regional east -west access to the Coachella Valley communities. Washington
Street provides vehicular access from I-10 south to State Highway 111, which leads to the Project site.
The 87-acre Specific Plan area is located immediately south of State Highway 111 and immediately east of
Adams Street, in the northern part of La Quinta (see Figure 2). Dune Palms Road lies approximately 300
feet east of the eastern site boundary and Avenue 48 lies approximately 1,850 feet south of the southern
site boundary.
Description of Previous Environmental Review
On July 15,1997, the City Council of the City of La Quinta unanimously adopted a Specific Plan to permit
and control development of an auto/sales services mall and a large mixed -use retail commercial 'power
center' on the Project site. A specific plan is a planning tool authorized by state law that allows a local
government to recognize the unique characteristics of a particular planning area and to establish
customized land use regulations that will achieve the objectives of the General Plan for that area. The
City Council approved the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan, which addresses the requirements of state
law, including a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan. The Specific Plan
established specific performance, design and development standards to guide the
2 ddendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
5 mi. 2.5 mi. 0 mi. 5 mi.
Ln�r
FIGUREI
Regional Location
Country Club Dr.
Bermuda Du ies
Airport
Bermuda Dune
"D y, £Country Club
............... . ....
4"1
Indian Wells
Country Club
6000' 3000' 0. 6000'
Fred Waring Dr...e-
Indian Springs
Country Club
FIGURE2
Project Site Vicini,
development of the subject property in a manner that is intended to implement the City's General Plan,
and also provided flexibility to respond to phased development and changing conditions. The Specific
Plan also augmented the City's Zoning Ordinance by providing design guidelines, a tailored list of
allowable, conditionally allowable and prohibited uses for the site, and, in some cases, unique
development standards.
The originally approved Specific Plan allowed the development of up to 275,000 square feet of auto
sales/service facilities, and approximately 400,000 square feet or .25 Floor -Area -Ratio (FAR) of
retail/commercial space. The potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the
Previous Project were assessed in an EIR (State Clearinghouse no. 97011055) which was also certified by
the City Council. The specific actions approved by the City Council on July 15,1997 were as follows:
• Resolution 97-62: Certification of Environmental Impact Report
• Resolution 97-63: Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 28525
• Resolution 97-64: Adoption of Specific Plan 97-029
• Resolution 97-65: Approval of Site Development Permit 97-603
• Resolution 97-66: Approval of Conditional Use Permit
• Ordinance No. 306: Approval of Development Agreement
The certified Final EIR, assessed the Previous Projects potential impacts on the following environmental
areas:
• Potential Secondary Land Use Effects;
• Geotechnical Considerations;
• Hydrology/Water Quality;
• Biological Resources;
• Transportation/Circulation
• Air Quality;
• Noise;
• Water Distribution and Storage;
• Solid Waste Disposal;
• Public Services;
• Aesthetics; and
• Cultural Resources.
5 ddendum to the Centre at to Quinta
Februanj 2002
This Final EIR also assessed the Previous Project's potential growth inducing impacts and evaluated five
alternatives to the Previous Project.
In 1998, the project applicant proposed an amendment to the approved Specific Plan to reflect
modifications in the internal layout of the Previous Project and the further refinement of the development
concepts. As approved, this amendment allowed development of four different mixes of auto
sales/service and retail commercial land uses, including the development of large retail stores, commonly
know as "big box" stores or commercial power centers. A SEIR was prepared that analyzed each of the
proposed four development scenarios in equal detail and was certified in December 1998. This SEIR
analyzed the same impact topics addressed in the original EIR completed in 1997. The development
scenario now proposed for implementation by the applicant's current, more specific entitlement package,
was previously subject to CEQA compliance review in the Previous EIRs.
Description of Proposed Project
The current proposed Project requests three discretionary actions. Specifically, a Site Development
Permit, a Conditional Use permit for the auto serving uses and garden center as well as approval of a
Tentative Tract Map (the Project).
The Project site is located within Planning Area III, as defined in the Specific Plan, and maintains the
general layout and configuration analyzed in the Previous EIRs. The Specific Plan allows the
development of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III, under all four scenarios, of up to 400,000
square feet or a FAR of .25. A .25 FAR applied to the Project site, which is approximately 39 acres, results
in a developable square footage of 429,000 square feet ("the Previously Approved Square Footage").
Prospective tenants for the proposed commercial center include Wal-Mart and Kohl's. For purposes of
this analysis, the operational characteristics of these tenants (Wal-Mart and Kohl's) have been assumed.
The Project proposes development of 334,117 square feet on approximately 29 acres within the 39± acre
Planning Area III. This proposed development is substantially below the Previously Approved Square
Footage analyzed in the Previous EIRs. Table 1 summarizes the proposed land uses, while Figure 3
presents the proposed Site Plan. The Project site is located on the southeastern portion of the Specific Plan
area, south of Highway 111 and to the east of La Quinta Drive. Development is currently proposed on
parcels 1, 5, 6 and 11. As shown,19,200 square feet of specialty stores and associated parking stalls would
be located on the northeast portion of the site on parcel 6. The retail uses would be setback from
Highway 111 by a 50 foot landscaped buffer to the north and located approximately 60
6 Addendum to the Centre at to Quinta
February 2002
PARCE
.................
AUTO CEN
SOUTH
LOT .
t99 A
o lv ev mtovnv tao' wv
SOURCE: Keith International. Inc., January 18, 2002
FIGURE
Proposed Site Pled
feet from the eastern property boundary, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer setback.
Immediately south on parcel 5, a 86,584 square foot Retail A Building is proposed, with parking provided
to the west. The Retail A Building is also positioned 60 feet away from the eastern Project boundary, 10
feet of which also includes a landscaped setback. To the southwest of this parking area is parcel 11, which
includes the 115 square foot gas station, associated with the potential occupation of Retail B Building by a
Wal-Mart Supercenter. The gas station is on the southeast corner of the Auto Centre Drive and La Quinta
Drive intersection. However, access is only provided to the station from within the Project site. The gas
station is approximately 50 feet from La Quinta Drive, which includes a 10 foot landscaped buffer. To the
south of the gas station is parcel 1, which includes parking and the proposed 228,218 square foot Retail B
Building. This building would include a garden center and a tire installation and express lube facility on
the western side of the building. Retail B Building is located 60 feet from the southern boundary and 30
feet from the eastern boundary. The southern boundary also includes a 10 foot landscaped setback.
Access to the Project site is provided from Highway 111, La Quinta Drive and Auto Centre Drive. As
proposed, two access points would be provided off of Highway 111, just west of parcel 6. This access
extends south, through the Project site down to the Retail B Building. This is the only major internal north
and south drive aisle. Three access points would be provided along La Quinta Drive. One would be
north of Auto Centre Drive, the second would be the entrance at the intersection of La Quinta Drive and
Auto Center Drive, while the third is located to the south of this intersection. The northern access extends
east, into the site, up to the 19,200 square feet of shops. at the eastern extent of the site, while the southern
access extends east into the site, along the frontage of the Retail B Building. As proposed, 1,743 parking
stalls would be provided, of which only 1,336 is required by applicable City Ordinances.
Table 1
Land Use Summary
Parcel Proposed Use Acreage Square Feet Parking Provided
1 Retail B/Parking 19.44 228,218 1,124
5 Retail A/Parking 7.35 86,584 484
6 13 Specialty Stores/Parking 1.82 19,200 135
11 Gas Station 0.47 115 and 8 pumps 0
TOTALS: 29.081 334,117 1,743
129.08 acres represents total land area of the proposed Project within the 38.35 acre Planning Area III
8 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
Findings of this AddendurrVInitial Study
This Addendum relies on an Initial Study Checklist Form, as suggested in State CEQA Guideline Section
15963, assessing a wide variesty of potential environmental impacts. Section 2.0 of this document
contains the Initial Study and explains the basis for each response to the questions on the environmental
form, and that analysis is expressly incorporated into this Addendum. The City also requested that
additional updated information be collected for this addendum with respect to three potential issues:
Secondary Land Use Impacts, such as blight, Transportation and Circulation, and Noise.
Impact Sciences, Inc. retained the Natelson Company to review and update its prior Market Impact
Analysis that was prepared for the Previous EIRs, in light of this specific Project and, in particular, the
potential relocation of the existing Wal-Mart store in La Quinta to the proposed Retail B Building at the
Centre at La Quinta. A copy of this study is included as Appendix A. In summary, five key topics
associated with the economic impact of the Project were addressed including (1) whether there is
sufficient consumer demand to support the grocery component of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in La Quinta;
(2) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the Kohl's store; (3) whether there is sufficient
consumer demand to support 40,000 square feet of additional general merchandising in a larger Wal-Mart
Supercenter; (4) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the 19,200 square feet of
commercial uses on Parcel 6; and (5) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the re -use
of the existing Wal-Mart store located in the City of La Quinta. Based on the analysis prepared by the
Natelson Company, no significant impacts would result from the development of 334,117 square feet of
new retail stores and/or relocation of commercial tenants, such as Wal-Mart. As a result, no new or more
severe secondary land use impacts were determined to occur.
An updated traffic analysis, which was prepared by Urban Crossroads, and is presented in Appendix B,
was based on the proposed Site Plan with specific square footages, land use (including the proposed Wal-
Mart gas station) and parking lot configurations. As stated in the updated traffic analysis, the proposed
Project would not generate a volume of traffic that would significantly impact any of the studied roadway
segments or intersections. Furthermore, the updated traffic analysis examined the internal circulation
network of the Project site to determine if any of the proposed uses could cause internal circulation
conflicts. It was concluded, based on this analysis, that the Project would not result in any new or more
severe traffic conditions either on public roads or internal to the Project site.
9 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
Noise impacts associated with the buildout of Planning Area III have been previously analyzed, based on
full buildout as originally envisioned in the 1998 Specific Plan amendment. An updated noise analysis
was prepared as specific land uses and operational characteristics of the Project are more defined at this
time. Vacant land, zoned as regional commercial, exists to the east and south of the Project site. The
regional commercial zone allows up to 16 dwelling units per acre on this property. Therefore, there is a
potential for future residential uses to be located adjacent to a portion of the proposed commercial uses.
In order to make reasonable assumptions regarding a future exterior noise environment, operational
characteristics from WaI-Mart Supercenters, including truck delivery rates were utilized. Noise
monitoring of delivery truck activity was conducted at a supermarket in November 1999 by Impact
Sciences. Based on these noise levels and environmental factors, and comparing them to La Quinta's noise
standards, the resulting noise level attributable to Project operations is less than the accepted threshold
for determining the significance of impacts. Accordingly, no new or more severe impacts are expected as
a result of noise generated from the project.
10 addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
2.0 INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL STUDY
1. INTRODUCTION
The Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) of 1970 as amended and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA Guidelines).
Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that the purposes of an Initial Study are to:
1. Provide the lead agency, in this case the City of La Quinta, with information to use as the basis for deciding
whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration;
2. Enable an applicant or lead agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared,
thereby enabling the project to qualify for a negative declaration;
3. Assist the preparation of a EIR, if one is required, by:
a. Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant,
b. Identifying the effects determined not to be significant,
c. Explaining the reasons why potentially significant effects would not be significant, and
d. Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process can be used for analysis of a
project's environmental effects.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project,
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have
a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
According to Section 15063(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, if the lead agency determines that there is substantial
evidence that any aspect of the project, either individually or cumulatively, may cause a significant effect on the
environment, regardless of whether the overall effect of the project is adverse or beneficial, the lead agency shall do
one of the following:
1. Prepare an EIR,
2. Use a previously prepared EIR which the lead agency determines would adequately analyze the project at hand,
or
3. Determine, pursuant to a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate process, which of a project's effects were
adequately examined by an earlier EIR or negative declaration. The lead agency shall then ascertain which
effects, if any, should be analyzed in a later EIR or negative declaration.
11 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Fehruanj 2002
2. PROJECT INFORMATION
Case No(s)project Title:
General Plan Designation:
Existing Zoning: RL and RM
County Assessor's Information:
The Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan
Regional Commercial
Map Book No. Page Parcel
List of other agencies whose approval is required: None
(e.g., permits, financial approval, participating agreement)
Site Description: (Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability,
plants and animals, historical or scenic aspects.)
La Quinta is located within the Coachella Valley portion of central Riverside County, in southern California. This
area forms the northwest extension of the Colorado Desert in southeastern California. It is characterized by arid,
sparsely vegetated desert land. The valley floor is composed generally of sandy soils that were deposited through
the effects of water and wind erosion. Westerly winds are persistent, and contribute to extensive erosion and the
formation of blowsand activity and sand dunes. Vehicular access to the Coachella Valley is provided by the
Interstate 10 Freeway, providing an east -west linkage to the Los Angeles metropolitan area to the west, and the
desert areas to the east.
The City of La Quinta encompasses approximately 31 square miles of both mountainous and desert terrain land area
in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. La Quinta is a community of which nearly 13 square miles
consist of protected mountain open space, parkland or golf course open space designations. Roughly 70 percent of
the land within the city is undeveloped, and much of this consists of steep, rocky slopes of the Santa Rosa
Mountains.
The Project site consists of approximately 29 acres of vacant land within the 38t acre Planning Area III of the Centre
Specific Plan. The elevation of the site is approximately 285 feet above sea level (asl).
Surrounding Properties: (Describe the surrounding properties and the effect the proposed Project will have on the area.)
The irregular -shaped Project site is generally bordered by State Highway 111 to the north, Dune Palms Road on the
east, and Adams Street to the west. Uses immediately surrounding the site include open space to the north, east,
south and west with the auto center component of the specific plan to the northwest.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Stamko Development Co.
78-060 Calle Estado, Suite 5
La Quinta, CA 92253
Project Description: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any
secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation.)
The applicant is requesting approval for a 29t acre regional commercial development within the Centre at La Quinta
Specific Plan Area. Specifically, the Specific Plan allows the development of retail commercial uses in Planning Area
III under all four scenarios, of up to 400,000 square feet or a Floor -Area -Ratio (FAR) of .25. A FAR of .25 applied to
13 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
the Project site, which is approximately 39 acres, results in a developable square footage of 429,000 square feet ("the
Previously Approved Square Footage"). As proposed, the applicant would develop only 334,117 square feet of
regional commercial uses, which is substantially below the development intensity originally evaluated in the
Previous EIRs. Planned uses include 19,200 square feet of specialty stores, two stand alone retail buildings totaling
314,802 square feet, and a 115 square foot gas station with 8 gas pumps.
14 Wdendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
3. DETERMINATION
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 analysis
on the following pages.
❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
Population and Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities and Service Systems
Geophysical Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water ❑ Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Determination.
The basis of this initial evaluation:
The proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. 11
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 have been added to the project.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
The project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required. El
The proposed Project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on the following pages, if
the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or potentially significant unless mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
Although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a
significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project.
COMMENTS:
15 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
To be considered by the La Quinta Planning Commission
on February 26, 2002
16 9ddendum to the Centre at La Qutnta
February 2002
4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Explanation of Evaluations:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the information sources a lead agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the
one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained
where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose
sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole of the action involved, including off -site as well as on -site,
cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct,
and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
an effect is significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is
required.
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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. Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity?
c. Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.,
El
F
impacts 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)?
Documentation:
As stated in the Previous EIRs, retail demand analysis indicated that there was sufficient retail demand to
support the redevelopment of commercial retail buildings for other retail commercial uses should any
retailers relocate to the new commercial development in the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Area. Land Use
impacts on the surrounding areas were not determined to be significant for any of the four development
scenarios, including full buildout of retail commercial uses in Planning Area III up to 400,000 square feet of .25
FAR. The Project was also expected to add to the growth of commercial development along the Highway 111
corridor, and further increase competition among auto dealers and other retail uses within the Coachella
Valley.
The proposed 334,117 square feet of development is less than the intensity of development previously
approved by the Specific Plan and analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. As a result, the total amount of retail that could
be drawn from other locations would be reduced from the level assumed in the 1998 SEIR. In order to assess
the potential impact associated with secondary land use issues, for this proposed Project, an updated market
impact analysis was prepared for the Project by the Natelson Company, Inc. which is included in Appendix
A. five key topics associated with the economic impact of the Project were addressed including (1) whether
17 Addendum to the Centre at la Quinta
February 2002
there is sufficient consumer demand to support the grocery component of a Wal-Mart Supercenter in La
Quinta; (2) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the Kohl's store; (3) whether there is
sufficient consumer demand to support 40,000 square feet of additional general merchandising in a larger
Wal-Mart Supercenter; (4) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the 19,200 square feet of
commercial uses on Parcel 6; and (5) whether there is sufficient consumer demand to support the re -use of the
existing Wal-Mart store located in the City of La Quinta. Based on the analysis prepared by the Natelson
Company, no significant impacts would result from the development of 334,117 square feet of new retail
stores and/or relocation of commercial tenants. As a result, there are no new or more severe secondary land
use impacts as a result of the proposed Project.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Cumulatively exceed official or local population
El
❑
1-1projections?
b. Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
El
❑
❑
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)?
c. Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ Elhousing?
El Documentation:
As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Population and Housing impacts were determined not to be significant. The
proposed Project would develop approximately 334,100 square feet of commercial uses in Planning Area III.
No homes would be built or demolished as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore the Project would not
result in any new or more severe impacts to population and housing.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Less than
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Fault rupture?
❑
❑
b. Seismic ground shaking?
El❑
c. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
❑
❑
d. Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
❑
❑
❑
e. Landslides or mudflows?
1-1
1-1
f. Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
❑
❑
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?
18 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
g. Subsidence of the land? a ❑
h. Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑
IVXI
i. Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑
Documentation:
Project development was expected to expose persons and structures to severe ground shaking during an
earthquake along the San Andreas fault, and possibly during earthquakes along other regional faults. No
threat of ground rupture was expected in the plan area; although, a trace of an inferred fault was identified on
the western property boundary. Additional study was suggested to determine whether it presents any special
constraints or design considerations for development of the western portion of the Specific Plan Area.
Preliminary studies indicated that the potential for liquefaction was very low as expansive soils are not
present and ground lurching was not expected. Settlement potential was significant and required special
consideration for grading and foundation design. Wind erosion potential was also very high and construction
and post -construction control measures were implemented. As previously concluded in the prior EIRs, the
site is considered geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. Additionally, the Previous EIRs
determined that the Specific Plan development would not contribute to cumulative impacts involving
geological hazards or features on any other site.
19 Draft Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
IV
The proposed Project maintains a similar configuration and orientation of land uses that was analyzed in the
1998 SEIR. Additionally, the total square footage of the Project would be substantially less than the Previously
Approved Square Footage approved by the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment, resulting in an overall decrease in
land use intensity. All grading, site preparation and construction plans would be developed according to
current building standards and subject to approval by the City. Furthermore, as the Project location is
situated on the eastern portion of the Specific Plan Area, issues associated with the inferred fault are not
relevant as the Project site is on the opposite or eastern side of the plan area. As a result, the proposed Project
would not result in any new or more severe geotechnical impacts.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
WATER. Would the proposal result in: Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact No Impact
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
1:1
El
Elthe
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
❑
❑17
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen, or turbidity)?
d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
❑
VN
e. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
❑
Elwater
El
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?
g. Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
El
El
❑
VN
h. Impacts to groundwater quality?
❑
❑
❑
i. Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
❑
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Documentation:
The prior EIRs determined that uncontrolled grading and site preparation activities could result in erosion
and runoff of loose soils and other contaminants that could adversely affect downstream water quality. The
developed site was expected to substantially increase impervious surface coverage that would, in turn,
increase the amount and rate of runoff and which would change the composition of existing runoff to include
more urban pollutants. The Project drainage system is planned to retain all runoff on site (up to 100-year
storm) and would filter runoff in retention areas. As a result, the analysis in the prior EIRs did not identify
any significant flood hazards or any significant Project or cumulative water quality impacts.
20 Addendum to the Centre at La Qumta
Februanj 2002
V
All storm drainage improvements would be developed to City of La Quinta standards. It should be noted
that, as with any urban Project, runoff entering the storm drainage system would contain minor amounts of
pollutants (including pesticides, fertilizers and motor oil). This would incrementally contribute to the
degradation of surface and sub -surface water quality. Additionally, grading activities would temporarily
expose soils to water erosion that would contribute to downstream sedimentation. However, through the
incorporation of standard conditions of approval, construction activities would minimize the extent of erosion
and runoff from the exposed soils. As the site is currently unpaved and exposed, development of the
proposed Project would lessen the existing site contribution to sediment runoff at Project completion. Finally,
the Project maintains a similar configuration and orientation of land uses as was analyzed in the Previous
EIRs. As the Project only proposes 334,117 square feet within Planning Area III, overall land use intensity
would be substantially less than that which was originally approved and analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. With the
approval of the storm drainage facilities by the City Engineer, incorporating standard conditions of approval
into the Project's design, as well as complying with all applicable storm water discharge permits, no new or
more severe impacts would occur.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
a. Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
❑
c. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d. Create objectionable odors?
El
1:1
❑
Documentation:
Construction period emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds as would long-term traffic emissions.
These impacts were previously identified as significant in the Previous EIRs. However, no significant
localized pollutant concentrations were identified in the former environmental analysis. It should also be
noted that the Project was not in violation of the AQMP and therefore, Project development would not
interfere with attainment of the air quality standards within the AQMP. In summary, implementation of
SCAQMD-recommended mitigation measures, construction -related and operation -related emissions would be
considered unavoidably significant, while .cumulative impacts would be avoided.
The proposed Project would only develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses in PIanning Area III,
which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage as analyzed in the 1998 SEIR. It
should be noted that air quality emissions resulting from a development Project is directly related to its
intensity and scale, assuming similar uses. As the proposed Project would develop less than what was
originally approved, air quality emissions, both construction and operational, would be less than originally
calculated. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or more severe impacts with regards
to air quality emissions.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
21
Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
Would the proposal result in:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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?
❑
❑
f. Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
g. Rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts?
Documentation:
The traffic analysis for the Specific Plan projected, at buildout, that between 19,900 and 20,250 average net
daily vehicle trips would be generated. Significant congestion impacts were projected at two intersections in
the year 2000, and at four intersections in the year 2005. Traffic signals were warranted at the main Project
entrances at Highway 111 and Adams Street. The proposed Project would construct street, sidewalk and
landscaping improvements along Highway 111 and Adams Street frontages in accordance with City's
Circulation Element standards. Significant cumulative congestion impacts were projected at the same two
intersections in year 2000, and the same four intersections in the year 2005. However, implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures would reduce Project and cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of retail stores, substantially less than previously
analyzed and approved in the 1998 Specific Plan Amendment and SEIR. This less intensive development
would result in a direct reduction in vehicular trips when compared to higher square footages. An updated
traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed Project based on the proposed Site Plan with specific square
footages, land use (including a proposed Wal-Mart gas station) and parking lot configurations. As stated in
the updated traffic analysis, the proposed Project would not generate a volume of traffic that would
significantly impact any of the studied roadway segments or intersections. Furthermore, the updated traffic
analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads and presented in Appendix B, examined the internal circulation
network of the Project site to determine if any of the proposed uses could cause internal circulation conflicts.
The Project, as proposed, would not result in any new or more severe traffic conditions either on public roads
or internal to the Project site and consequently, would not result in any new or more severe impacts.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
Potentially
Potentially Significant
Significant Unless
Impact Mitigated
a. Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
22
Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
Documentation:
Grading would remove all existing vegetation and would displace much of the on -site wildlife. This would
result in loss of potential habitat for one threatened species (Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard), which was
identified as a significant impact. Buildout of the site would attract urban -adapted wildlife that would
compete with native species in nearby open areas which was identified as an adverse but not significant
impact. The loss of potential habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe -toed lizard would contribute to a net
cumulative loss of habitat for this threatened species. However, with the previously approved mitigation,
impacts were reduced to a level that is less than significant.
The Specific Plan was approved in 1997 and amended in 1998 and as a result, the plan area has been graded,
streets and infrastructure supporting the plan area has been installed and some of the auto dealers have
occupied other portions of the plan area. This is supported by the existing regional commercial zoning
designation for the entire Specific Plan Area. The loss of potential habitat to rare, threatened or endangered
species has already been evaluated in the former environmental review process in 1997 and 1998. As the
proposed Project would not develop outside of the Specific Plan Area, no new or more severe impacts to
biological resources would occur as a result of Project implementation.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a. Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b. Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Documentation:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less than
Significant Unless Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact No Impact
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Energy and Mineral Resource impacts were determined to- be less than
significant. The proposed Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Area
III of the Specific Plan Area which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage.
Consequently, the proposed Project is less intense that what was originally approved. It should be noted that
there is a direct relationship between the size and scale of a Project and the total amount of energy and
mineral resources required for the development, assuming similar uses. Consequently, the total energy and
mineral resources required for the Project has also been reduced. The proposed Project would not develop any
uses that would be inconsistent with the former environmental analysis. No new or more severe impacts
would occur.
23 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Fehruanj 2002
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigated
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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
El
hazard?
d. Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
El
❑
❑
health hazards?
e. Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑
brush, grass, or trees?
Documentation:
Hazard impacts, as concluded in the 1998 SEIR, were determined to be less than significant. The proposed
Project would develop 334,117 square feet of commercial uses within Planning Area III of the Specific Plan
Area which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. Consequently, the proposed
Project is less intense that what was originally approved. As such, hazard issues associated with originally
analyzed construction, and operational characteristics of the Project would also be reduced as there is a direct
relationship between size and scale of a Project and the potential for hazardous occurrences. As the potential
for hazardous impacts has already been analyzed in the Previous EIRs. This Project does not alter that
analysis.
Further Studv Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
24 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Increases in existing noise levels? ❑
El
❑
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑
❑
Documentation:
The Previous EIRs determined that construction noise would temporarily increase local noise levels, which
could lead to complaints at some nearby residential areas. This impact was determined to be adverse but not
significant. The developed site would increase noise levels on and immediately surrounding the Project site,
but was not predicted to exceed City standards contained in the City's Municipal Code. Deliveries for some
commercial uses, such as grocery stores, could occur during nighttime hours when people are most sensitive
to noise, causing a potential significant impact. Project traffic would add to cumulative traffic volumes on the
surrounding street system, near several sensitive receptor locations. With the implementation of the
previously approved mitigation measures, noise impacts would be less than significant.
Noise impacts associated with the buildout of Planning Area III have been previously analyzed based on full
buildout of the Previously Approved Square Footage. However, as the current Project would develop less
than the total allowable building space in a land use configuration similar to that which was originally
analyzed, noise impacts resulting from construction, operation and mobile sources would be less that
previously approved and analyzed in the SEIR. As all uses within the Specific Plan Area are commercial in
nature, noise associated with the Project would not generate any significant impacts to on site uses. However,
existing residential uses are located to the southwest of the proposed Retail B Building. Additionally,
although vacant land zoned as regional commercial exists to the east and south of the Project site, the regional
commercial zone may be developed with up to 16 dwelling units per acre. Therefore, there is a potential for
future residential uses to be located adjacent to a portion of the proposed commercial uses. Noise generated
from the proposed commercial uses could affect the existing and potential residential uses near the Project
site.
As shown on the proposed site plan, both retail buildings A and B have been located 60 feet from the eastern
Project boundary. Given the :and use configuration of the proposed Project, the buildings themselves would
serve to attenuate noise generated from within the entire Specific Plan Area to potential residential uses that
could be located to the east of the Project site. This is because all activities from within the site, including
mobile source noise, parking lot cleaning and outdoor activities, would be blocked by the retail structures
themselves from traveling further east.
Assuming a worst -case scenario, noise impacts to potential future residents would most likely result from
delivers to the loading docks on the eastern and western side of the Retail B Building. In order to make a
reasonable assumption regarding future delivery schedules, truck delivery rates from Wal-Mart Supercenters
were utilized. Typically, Wal-Mart Supercenters average 60 deliveries per week. These deliveries would
arrive at the store and either utilize the western or eastern loading docks. Each of these docks are recessed
and have a 3 foot support wall around them. The trucks would back into these docks at which time they
would be unloaded. Given that the unloading would occur within the loading dock that is recessed and
behind the truck, noise associated with the unloading process would not be significant. Consequently, the
only potential significant activities would be the trucks maneuvering into position to deliver goods and leave
the site.
Noises associated with truck deliveries usually include engines starting and doors opening and closing. Of
these types of noises, back up signals while the delivery truck is maneuvering into position could be the most
audible. Noise monitoring of delivery truck activity was conducted at a supermarket in November 1999 by
25 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
Impact Sciences. Monitoring was conducted about 25 feet away from a lightweight van, a medium-sized
truck and a tractor -trailer truck making deliveries. Over a 10 minute monitoring period, these trucks
generated a 56.7 dB(A) Leq noise level. This is a relatively low noise level. Instantaneous noise levels
monitored while a tractor -trailer took two minutes to enter the area, turn, and back up averaged 62.0 dB(A)
Leq. A small truck using a backup horn averaged 70.0 dB(A) Leq over the 30 seconds that it backed up. This
monitoring demonstrates that over an average 10 minute period, the existing noise level would be increased
by only about 0.5 dB (A) by the 56.7 dB(A) Leq noise level generated by 3 trucks. It should be noted that
changes in a community noise level of less than 3.0 dB(A) are not typically noticed by the human ear.1
Changes from 3.0 to 5.0 dB(A) may be noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in
noise. A greater than 5.0 dB(A) increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10.0 dB(A)
increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound.
The City of La Quinta's zoning ordinance has specific standards with regards to screening commercial and
loading dock areas from residential uses to minimize the effects of noise and aesthetics on sensitive receptors.
For example, § 9.100.300, 9.100.050 and 9.100.210 all include regulations that would screen the loading docks
from the potential future residential uses that could be located to the south or east of the Project site with a
wall. With a 6-foot perimeter wall along the eastern and southern property boundary acting as a noise
barrier, noise from the Retail B Building loading area would be attenuated by approximately 5 dB(A).
Therefore, utilizing the tractor -trailer noise level of 62 dB(A) at 25 feet, including the attenuation provided by
the solid perimeter wall and accounting for the distance to the property boundary, instantaneous noise levels
resulting from truck deliveries to the Wal-Mart Supercenter are expected to be approximately 51 d(A), at the
property boundary. It should be noted that actual noise levels would be less at the residential property as
they are located further than 100 feet away. It should also be noted that this noise level is not a CNEL noise
value. The city's noise ordinance allows for the land use noise standard plus 5 dB(A) for any 5 minute period.
Given that the residential uses are considered sensitive receptors, the most restrictive noise standard for this
use is 50 dB(A) between 10 PM and 7 AM. For any five minute period, such as a truck maneuvering into
position, the La Quinta Noise Ordinance allows for community noise levels plus 5 dB(A). As the resulting
noise level is less than 55dB(A), no new or more severe impacts are expected as a result of noise generated
from tractor -trailer deliveries.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
Potentially
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Unless
Less than
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
❑
❑
d. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e. Other governmental services?
El
❑
Documentation:
Project development was anticipated to increase demand for services by the Riverside County Sheriff and Fire
Departments. Both departments indicated that the Project would not have a significant impact on service
1 Highway Noise Fundamentals, (Springfield, Virginia: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, September 1980), p. 81.
26 Addendum to the Centre at to Quinta
February 2002
levels in the City of La Quinta or other surrounding environs. Project development was also anticipated to
contribute to increasing demand for services provided by the Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments
along the Highway 111 corridor and throughout the Coachella Valley. Plans to add a Sheriffs substation at
Kohl Ranch, and another fire station along the Highway 111 corridor in La Quinta were sufficient to mitigate
cumulative impacts to less than significant levels.
The proposed Project would be developed within Planning Area III of the Specific Plan Area. As currently
proposed, the Project would develop substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. As a
result, the Project would be of a smaller scale and intensity than originally analyzed. Therefore, impacts to
both fire and sheriff services would be less than originally forecasted. No new or more severe impacts would
occur as a result of Project implementation.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
27 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
Potentially
proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities::
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Unless
Less than
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Power or natural gas?
❑
❑
❑
VN
b. Communications systems?
❑
❑
c. Local or regional water treatment?
❑
❑
❑
VNJ
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
❑
❑
❑
e. Stormwater drainage?
❑
❑
❑
f. Solid waste disposal?
❑
❑
❑
Documentation:
The prior EIRs estimated that the Project would consume roughly 522-acre feet of water per year. The
Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) indicated that this demand would not exceed their current or
projected water supplies. No substantial water system improvements were needed to serve the Project and no
wasteful water use or practices were anticipated. CVWD studies projected a continued overdraft of regional
groundwater supplies as the Coachella Valley continues to grow. Water storage and distribution facilities will
need to be expanded substantially to accommodate growth. No significant Project or cumulative impacts
were identified in the prior EIRs.
The Project was calculated to generate roughly 7,900 tons of construction wastes and between 2,040 and 2,400
tons of solid wastes per year at full occupancy. It was determined that if construction and operational
controls are implemented to divert wastes from Iandfills, in accordance with local and state regulations,
impacts would be less than significant. The Edom Hill Landfill was the only landfill available to dispose of
solid wastes from the Coachella Valley. Solid waste reduction, reuse and recycling efforts were needed to
minimize cumulative solid waste impacts and meet the requirements of AB 939 to reduce total landfill
disposal. Given the shortage of local landfill capacity at the time the EIR was prepared, cumulative impacts
were considered significant.
The proposed Project would only develop 334,117 square feet of commercial retail uses in Planning Area III
which is substantially less than the Previously Approved Square Footage. Since there is a direct relationship
between the size and scale of a development and its overall water demand, the reduction in total building area
would result in an overall decrease in the amount of water required for the Project. Therefore, as the total
amount of water required for the proposed Project is less than that previously required for the Proposed
Project, no new or more severe impacts would occur.
There is also a direct relationship between the size and scale of the development and its overall solid waste
generation, the reduction in total building area would result in an overall decrease in the amount of solid
waste generated by the Project. Additionally, it should be noted that since the prior EIRs were prepared,
additional landfill sites have been developed. Specifically, Azusa Land Reclamation Co, Lamb Canyon
Disposal Site and the Spadra Sanitary Landfill are all available for waste disposal from the Project site.1
Therefore, as the total amount of solid waste generated by the proposed Project is less and the availability of
additional disposal site is greater, no new or more severe impacts would occur. It should be noted that, as
new landfill space has been afforded to the City of La Quinta, cumulative solid waste impacts originally
identified in the environmental impact reports have in fact been reduced.
1 California Integrated Waste Management Website, February, 2002 http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/
28 Addendum to the Centre at La Quetta
Februanj 2002
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
29 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
El
❑
❑
b. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
a
❑
❑
c. Create light or glare?
❑
❑
Documentation:
The developed Specific Plan Area would replace a formerly vacant area. The proposed arrangement and size
of buildings in the mixed -regional commercial areas along Highway 111 would substantially obstruct views
of the Santa Rosa Mountains from westbound lanes of Highway 111, which was identified as a significant
impact. Proposed landscape setbacks along Highway 111 and Adams Street were consistent with City's
policies for primary and secondary image corridors, while the proposed development intensity was below the
maximum allowed under the City's General Plan for Mixed/Regional Development. Proposed berming
provided along Highway 111 would not fully screen views of vehicles in regular new vehicle display areas
located between the special vehicle display pads along Highway 111 or vehicles displayed on the rest of the
dealership pads. This was not consistent with the standards in Section 9.150.L.1 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code for the screening of parking areas and the Highway I II Design Theme guidelines for screening "outdoor
storage/display areas." This inconsistency represented a significant aesthetic impact. Unscreened views of
entrances in and out of dealership/repair buildings on Pads 1, 2, and 3 was also a significant aesthetic impact.
Project development would continue expansion of commercial development along Highway 111 corridor as
envisioned in La Quinta General Plan. However, with implementation of the proposed mitigation measures,
no significant Project or cumulative impacts were anticipated.
As discussed above, the Project would develop substantially less than the Previously Approved Square
Footage as originally analyzed in the Previous EIRs. As a result, the Project would be of a smaller scale and
intensity. Additionally, as the Project is within a specific plan, all building, landscape and other design
features would be subject to consistency with the guidelines established within the plan area. As a result of
the Project being less intense than what was formerly approved and since it would be constructed in a manner
consistent with other uses in the plan area, no new or more severe impacts would occur as a result of Project
implementation.
Further Study Required:
The Project's potential aesthetic impacts should be studied further.
Potentially
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Unless
Less than
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Disturb paleontological resources?
❑
b. Disturb archaeological resources?
❑
c. Affect historical resources?
❑
VN
d. Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e. Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
30 Addendum to the Centre at La Quinta
February 2002
Documentation:
Previous site surveys did not identify any significant cultural resources within the plan area. Site grading and
development was not expected to have a significant impact on cultural resources, however, there is always
some potential for buried undiscovered artifacts to be damaged during grading activities. Project and
cumulative impacts were deemed less than significant with mitigation.
The proposed Project would develop all land uses within the boundary of the specific plan. As originally
reviewed in the former environmental impact reports, the proposed land uses would be developed in a
manner consistent with the original land use configuration. It should be noted that the total amount of
building space would be less than what was originally analyzed. As no part of the proposed Project would be
developed outside of the area that has previously undergone cultural resource surveys, the proposed Project
would not disturb any un-surveyed land. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in any new or
more severe impacts from that of the approved Project.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact
No Impact
a. Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
❑
parks of other facilities?
b. Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Documentation:
As concluded in the 1998 SEIR, Recreational impacts were determined to be less than significant. There are no
residential uses planned for the site. The proposed Project would not develop any uses that would be
inconsistent with the former environmental analysis. No new or more severe impacts would occur.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
Potentially
Potentially
Significant
Less than
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Significant
Unless
Significant
Impact
Mitigated
Impact No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to significantly
❑
El
El M
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
c. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
❑
term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
31 lddendum to the Centre at La Quinta
Februanj 2002
environmental goals?
b. Does the project have impacts which 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.)
c. Does the project have environmental effects which F1 El El M
will cause significant adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
Documentation:
Nothing in the proposed Project would result in any new or more sever impacts, than those previously
disclosed in the Previous EIRs. Therefore, the Project would not, apart from any impacts previously
addressed in the 1997 and 1998 EIRs, significantly degrade the quality of the environment, achieve short-term
goals at the disadvantage of long-term goals, have individually limited but cumulatively significant impacts,
nor would it result in impacts that would cause a significant adverse impact to humans.
Further Study Required:
No further analysis is required regarding this topic.
32 Addendum to the Centre at la Quinta
February 2002
APPENDIX A
Natelson Report
MARKET IMPACT ANALYSIS
FOR
THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA
Revised
February 11, 2002
Prepared for:
Impact Sciences
Prepared by:
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
24835 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite I
Yorba Linda, California 92887
Telephone: (714) 692-9596
Fax: (714) 692-9597
Email: info@tnci.com
ik a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Number
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................3
III. RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS......................................................................................7
APPENDIX A: RETAIL DEMAND MODEL — LA QUINTA RETAIL TRADE AREA
I. INTRODUCTION
This report evaluates the potential economic impacts of the proposed Centre at La Quinta retail
development. The project site is located on Highway 111 just east of Washington Street in the
City of La Quinta. For purposes of this analysis the project is assumed to include the following
land uses:
• A Wal-Mart "Supercenter" store totaling 228,218 square feet;
A Kohl's store totaling 86,584 square feet;
• 13 specialty stores totaling 19,200 square feet; and
• An eight -pump gas station.
The Wal-Mart "Supercenter" would include 60,000 square feet devoted to supermarket -type
sales, with the balance of the store devoted to general merchandise space. The general
merchandise component would replace the existing Wal-Mart store located across Highway 111
from the subject site, and add about 40,000 square feet of new general merchandise space over
and above what currently exists across the street. Per the applicant's current plans, the
analysis assumes that the project would open in October 2003.
Given the size, location and proposed anchor tenants of the proposed project, the analysis
considers potential demand levels in an overall trade area defined by a five -mile radius centered
at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. The analysis further assumes that
the project would derive its core market support from a primary market area defined by a three-
mile radius around this intersection. The balance of the overall five -mile trade area is treated as
a secondary market area (where the project would achieve lower shares of overall market
demand).
The economic impact analysis addresses four key issues:
1. The extent to which there will be sufficient consumer demand to support the Wal-Mart
grocery component without negatively impacting the long-term market shares of existing
supermarkets in the trade area;
2. The extent to which there will be sufficient demand to support the Kohl's store and the
40,000 square feet of new Wal-Mart general merchandise space without negatively
impacting the long-term market shares of existing general merchandise (department)
stores in the trade area;
3. The extent to which there will be sufficient demand to support the 19,200 square feet of
specialty store space without negatively impacting the long-term market shares of
existing specialty/apparel stores in the trade area; and
4. The extent to which there will be sufficient demand to support re -use of the existing Wal-
Mart site with other retail facilities, thereby preventing the creation of long-term blight at
the existing site.
Per Section 15131(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project's economic impacts are considered
significant only if they can be tied to direct physical impacts. For purposes of the economic
analysis prepared for this project, The Natelson Company, Inc. (TNCI) has established the
following criteria to determine if the project's market impacts would be significant enough to
create a lasting physical change in a market area:
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
• Any diversion of sales from existing retail facilities would have to be severe enough to
result in business closures; and
• The business closures would have to be significant enough in scale (i.e., in terms of the
total square footage affected and/or the loss of key "anchor" tenants) to affect the
viability of existing shopping centers or districts.
As it relates to the planned closure of the existing Wal-Mart store across the street from the
proposed project, the potential blighting impact of this move would only be deemed significant if
there were no foreseeable market demand to replace the closed store with other "anchor tenant"
retail uses.
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. PROJECTED RETAIL SALES VOLUMES OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The analysis assumes that the proposed project would generate the following new retail sales in
the trade area:
Table II-1
Potential New Retail Sales in Trade Area
The Centre at La Quinta
Building
S uare Feet
Sales per
Square
Foot
Total Sales
Volume
Anticipated Sales Volumes:
General Merchandise
-- Wal-Mart'
40,000
$300.od
$12 000 00
-- Kohl's
86,584
$230.9
$20 000 00
TotallAvera a
126,584
$322.8%1
$32 000 00
Wal-Mart(grocery component)
60,000
$400.0
$24 000 00
Specialty Retail
19,200
$250.od
$4 800 00
Source: TNCI
B. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC IMPACTS
This section briefly summarizes the consultant's findings relative to the four major issues
evaluated by this study.
Issue 1: Potential Impact of Wal-Mart Grocery Sales
Magnitude of Potential Impact: For purposes of this analysis Wal-Mart's grocery sales are
estimated at approximately $24 million per year.
Projected Growth in Grocery Demand: Within the evaluated trade area, total demand for
grocery sales is projected to grow by $20.2 million between now and the proposed project's
opening date in October 2003. We estimate that cumulative growth in grocery demand (over and
above 2002 levels) will reach $24 million (the amount needed to fully support Wal-Mart's grocery
sales) by February 2004. Thus, while the project may result in some initial diversion of sales
from existing stores, ongoing growth of the overall market will fully mitigate this impact within
approximately four months of the project's opening.
' The indicated square footage and sales volume for the Wal-Mart general merchandise space
includes only the incremental space over and above Wal-Mart's existing La Quinta store (since this
incremental space is the only amount the represents a new competitive impact in the market area).
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
i1 "
Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: Based on the above projections, TNCI does
not believe that the Wal-Mart grocery component will have a significant competitive impact on
existing food stores in the trade area. As indicated above, incremental demand for food sales
(resulting from anticipated population growth) will be sufficient to fully absorb Wal-Mart's grocery
sales within about four months of the project's opening. Moreover, any short-term negative
impacts to existing supermarkets would be spread over a number of stores and in total would
represent only about 2% of existing grocery sales in the trade area.
Issue 2; Potential Impact of Kohl's/Wal-Mart General Merchandise Sales
Magnitude of Potential Impact: For purposes of this analysis it is assumed that the project
would generate approximately $32 million per year in new general merchandise sales.
Projected Growth in General Merchandise Demand: Within the evaluated trade area, total
demand for general merchandise sales is projected to grow by $15.6 million between now and
the proposed project's opening date in October 2003. We estimate that cumulative growth in
general merchandise demand (over and above 2002 levels) will reach $32 million (the amount
needed to fully support the new general merchandise sales) by April 2005. Thus, while the
project may result in some initial diversion of sales from existing stores, ongoing growth of the
overall market will fully mitigate this impact within approximately 18 months of the project's
opening.
Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: TNCI does not believe that the project's
general merchandise sales will have a significant competitive impact on existing stores in the
trade area. As indicated above, incremental demand for general merchandise sales (resulting
from anticipated population growth) will be sufficient to fully absorb the project's sales within
about 18 months of the project's opening. While this would theoretically suggest that existing
general merchandise stores in the five -mile trade area would be temporarily impacted by the
proposed project, the reality of current retail shopping patterns in the Coachella Valley is that a
significant portion of existing general merchandise demand in the La Quinta/Indio area "leaks" to
the concentration of "big box" facilities in Palm Desert. TNCI estimates this current leakage at
about $45 million per year. Thus, the short-term (18-month) competitive impact of the proposed
project would be spread over a larger geographic area than just the five -mile trade area
considered in this analysis. As a result, any short-term impacts to individual stores are likely to
be relatively small in percentage terms (i.e., less than 5% of current sales volumes).
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
Issue 3: Potential Impact of Specialty Store Sales
Magnitude of Potential Impact: It is estimated that the project would generate approximately
$4.8 million per year in new "specialty" store sales. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed
that these stores would fall into the following retail sales categories: Apparel, Home Furnishings,
and Specialty.
Projected Growth in Specialty Store Demand: Within the evaluated trade area, total
demand for Apparel, Home Furnishings and Specialty sales is projected to grow by $21.5 million
between now and the proposed project's opening date in October 2003. Thus, the new
"specialty" store sales associated with the proposed project would be fully supportable within
projected incremental demand.
Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: Given the significant growth in trade area
demand and the relatively small amount of specialty store space planned for the proposed
project, no competitive impact is projected.
Issue 4: Demand for Re -Use of Existing Wal-Mart Site
"Candidate" Tenant Types for Re -Use of Existing Wal-Mart Site. The existing La Quinta
Wal-Mart store totals approximately 127,000 square feet and serves as the anchor tenant for the
eastern portion of the "111 La Quinta Center" (which extends from the northeast corner of
Washington Street and Highway 111). In TNCI's opinion, the most appropriate candidates for re-
use of the existing site would be one or more "big box" retail stores. This conclusion is premised
on the following facts:
• The overall Washington/111 vicinity is currently evolving into a de facto "power center"
with the existing Wal-Mart and Lowe's stores, the planned Staples store (under
construction in the 111 La Quinta Center), and the proposed Kohl's and Wal-Mart
"Supercenter";
• The concentration of automobile dealerships in this vicinity (another retail use that tends
to draw a regional patronage) further strengthens the rationale for expanded power
center type tenants; and
• The eastern portion of the Coachella Valley is currently "under -stored" in the big box
category. In addition to the stores mentioned above, the only other stores in this category
are the Home Depot and Big Kmart stores in Indio. At present, much of the east Valley's
resident demand for these types of uses "leaks" to facilities in Palm Desert.
Within the big box genre of stores, there are no obvious candidates for single -use facilities that
could fill the entire 127,000 square feet currently occupied by Wal-Mart. The only big box stores
that are typically in this size range are general merchandise stores (e.g., Target, Costco and
Sam's Club) and home improvement stores (e.g., Lowe's and Home Depot). With the
development of Kohl's and the Wal-Mart "Supercenter", and the existing Big K-Mart, Lowe's, and
Home Depot stores, it is unlikely that there will be near -term demand for either general
merchandise or home improvement stores to fill the existing Wal-Mart space.
A more likely scenario for re -use of the existing Wal-Mart site would be for the space to be sub-
divided (or redeveloped) for use by two or three smaller big box stores. These would
complement the existing (and planned) uses in the area and would serve to recapture some
portion of the demand that currently leaks to facilities in Palm Desert.
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
Projected Demand for New Retail Uses Suitable for the Subject Site. The quantitative
retail analysis in Appendix A evaluates potential demand for various categories of big box
tenants (see Table A-15). Based on this analysis, TNCI believes that the following types of
stores would be appropriate candidates for the subject site:
Apparel Stores (current demand estimated at 50.000 sauare feet)
• Marshalls (size ranges from 24,000 to 50,000 square feet)
• TJ Maxx (typical size is 25,000 to 35,000 square feet)
• Ross Dress for Less (typical size is 30,000 square feet)
Furnishings/Appliance Stores (current demand estimated at 50.000 square feet)
• Circuit City (typical size is 33,500 square feet)
• Best Buy (typical size is 30,000 to 45,000 square feet)
• Bed Bath and Beyond (size ranges from 20,000 to 85,000 square feet)
• Linens 'N Things (typical size is 35,000 to 40,000 square feet)
Specialty "Big Box" Stores (current demand estimated at 190,000 square feet)
• Petco (typical size is 12,000 to 16,000 square feet)
• Petsmart (typical size is 26,000 square feet)
• Toys 'R' Us (typical size is 50,000 square feet)
• Sportmart (size ranges from 13,000 to 40,000 square feet)
Conclusion Regarding Significance of Impact: Given the excellent retail location of the
subject site and the overall strength of the La Quinta retail market, TNCI believes that it is highly
unlikely that closure of the existing Wal-Mart store would result in long-term physical blight.
Since this part of the Coachella Valley is generally underserved with "big box" retail stores
(except in the general merchandise and home improvement categories noted previously), TNCI
believes there would be significant opportunities to re -use the existing site with big box stores in
the apparel, furnishings/appliance and specialty categories. Total demand in these three
categories is estimated at approximately 290,000 square feet currently and is projected to grow
to approximately 320,000 square feet over the next three years. Given that the amount of
anticipated demand represents about 2.5 times the space that would be vacated by Wal-Mart,
TNCI believes it is reasonable to conclude that alternative retail uses could be attracted to the
vacated site.
THE NATELSON COMPANY. INC.
W
LA QUINTA RETAIL TRADE AREA - RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS
This section examines potential retail demand associated with the population residing in the
market area that would be served by The Centre at La Quinta project. The analysis projects
future retail demand of residents in City of La Quinta as well as the resident demand of
surrounding communities that would shop at the proposed facility. This analysis covers the time
period from January 2002 to April 2005.
Market Area Boundaries
For purposes of this study, the market area boundaries have been defined in terms of two radii
(each is centered on the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111):
Primary Market Area (PMA): 0-3 mile; and
• Secondary Market Area (SMA): 3-5 mile.
For purposes of this report, the entire market area (i.e., Primary and Secondary Market Areas
combined) is referred to herein as the La Quinta Retail Trade Area (LQRTA).
The smaller three-mile market area represents local resident demand contained within portions of
Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta and Palm Desert that will represent the proposed project's core
market support. The secondary market area includes the remaining portions of Indian Wells,
Indio, La Quinta and the majority of the population of Palm Desert. Due to the availability of
competitive retail facilities in closer proximity to some SMA residents (especially those in Palm
Desert), the total retail demand of this market segment has been discounted to 50 to 60 percent,
depending on the retail category. These capture rates of SMA demand take into account the
market shares of existing and proposed retail facilities in the Palm Desert area, such as the
Desert Gateway project and neighborhood -serving retail centers. (A further explanation of this
provided in "Capture Rate Analysis" later in this section.)
It should be noted that each of the market areas also includes the unincorporated areas of
Riverside County that are located to the north of the Interstate 10 Freeway. It is likely that the
project will derive some patronage from outside the defined Trade Area. However, in an attempt
to remain analytically conservative, TNCI has excluded this potential market support from the
demand analysis. Figure I provides a geographic representation of the market areas.
THE NATELSON COMPANY, INC.
APPENDIX A:
RETAIL DEMAND MODEL
(LA QUINTA
RETAIL TRADE AREA)
Table A-1
Population Projections
La Quinta
Retail Trade Area
January
October
April
October
April
Area
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Primary Market Area (PMA)
Residents
47 94'I
6918
52�R2b,
63 Si2
5SA 418
Part -Time Residents (FTE)
SAW
7,ty83,
7.2 2
,$7i
7931
Subtotal, PMA
54,566
58,412
59,557
60,748
61,939
Secondary Market Area (SMA)
Residents
72,w '-.
77�tw. . -
i8,1$f!
- St; 754
82 948
Part -Time Residents (FTE)
7981
W4
S.71I
a -me
8,t1S0
Subtotal, PMA
80,526
86,201
87,891
89,650
91,408
Total Market Area
135,092
144,613
147,448
150.398
153,347
Source: ESRI Business Information Systems (BIS); TheNatelson Company, Ind. fMI)
— --- --
Table A-2
Per Capita Income Projections
Le Quinta
Retail Trade Area
In constant dollars
January 2002
Primary Market Area (PMA):
" $28ASI
Secondary Market Area (SMA):
Annual Increase Factor'
'�
January October April October April
Area
2002 2003 2004 2004 2005
Primary Market Area (PMA)
$26,051 $26,966 $27,233 $27,505 $27,777
Secondary Market Area (SMA)
$21.832 $22,599 $22,823 $23,051 $23.279
Source: ESRI BIS; TNCI
Table A-3
Total income and Potential Retail Sales Projections
La Quanta
Retail Trade Area
In thousands of constant dollar;
Percent of Income Spent for Retail Goods, PMA a
- 35.0%
Visitor and Business Spending
8.Q°Jr
Total, PMA
40.0%
Percent of Income Spent for Retail Good, SMA ' ` °'L'
,- . � 35 f796
Visitor and Business Spending
Total, SMA
40.0%
January
October
April
October
April
Area
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Total Income:
Primary Market Area
$1,421,497
$1,575,122
$1,621,899
$1,670,877
$1,720,503
Secondary Market Area
$1,758,077
$1,948.074
$2,005,933
$2,066,528
$2,127,925
Total
$3,179,573
$3,523,196
$3,627,832
$3,737.404
$3,848,428
Potential Retail Sales:
Primary Market Area
Residents
$497.524
$551,293
$567,665
$584,807
$602,176
Business/Visitors
$71,075
$78,756
$81,095
$83.544
$86,025
Subtotal
$568,599
$630,049
$648,760
$668,351
$688,201
Secondary Market Area
Residents
$615,327
$681,826
$702,076
$723,285
$744,774
Business/Visitors
$87,904
$97,404
$100,297
$103,326
$106,396
Subtotal
$703,231
$779,230
$802,373
$826.611
$851.170
Total Potential Retail Sales
$1,271,829
$1,409,279
$1,451,133
$1,494,962
$1,539,371
Source: TNCI
Table A-4
Distribution of Retail Sales by Retail Category
La Quinta
Retail Trade Area
Retail Category
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
General Merchandise
Home Furnishings
Specialty
Subtotal
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
Eating and Drinking
Subtotal
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/ Hardware/ Farm
Auto Dealers and Parts
Service Stations
Subtotal
Total
%Distribution 1/02 %Distribution 10/03 %Distribution 4104
%Distribution 10104 %Distribution 4105
3.80%
3.80%
3.80%
3.80%
3.80%
14.55%
14.55%
14.55%
14.55%
14.55%
3.65%
3.65%
3.65%
3.65%
3.65%
12.65%
12.65%
12.65%
12.65%
12.65%
34.65%
34.65%
34.65%
34.65%
34.65%
20.28%
20.28%
20.28%
20.28%
20.28%
9.63%
9.63%
9.63%
9.63%
9.63%
29.91 %
29.91 %
29.91 %
29.91 %
29.91 %
8 54%
8.54%
8.54%
8.54%
8.54%
18 46%
18.46%
18.46%
18.46%
18.46%
8.44%
8.44%
8.44%
8.44%
8.44%
35 44%
35.44%
35.44%
35.44%
35.44%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Source: TNCI, based on historic trends reported by the State Board of Equalization for Riverside County.
Table A-5
Projected Demand for Retail Sales for Primary Market Area by Major Retail Category
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
do thousands of constant dollars
January
October
Retail Category
2002
2003
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
$21,604
$23,939
General Merchandise
$82,743
$91,685
Fumiture/Appliances
$20,762
$23,005
Specialty
$71,937
$79,711
Subtotal
$197,045
$218,340
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
$115,299
$127,760
Eating and Drinking
$54,746
$60,663
Subtotal
$170,045
$188.423
Heavy Commercial Goods:
3uilding/ Hardware/ Farm
$48,570
$53,819
Auto Dealers and Parts
$104,935
$116,276
Service Stations
$48,003
$53,191
Subtotal
$201,509
$223,286
Total
$568,599
$630.049
Source: TNCI
April
October
April
2004
2004
2005
$24,650
$25,394
$26,148
$94,408
$97,258
$100,147
$23,689
$24,404
$25,129
$82.078
$84.557
$87,068
$224,824
$231,613
$238,492
$131,554
$135,526
$139,552
$62.465
$64,351
$66.262
$194,018
$199,877
$205,814
$55,418
$57,091
$58,787
$119,729
$123,345
$127,008
$54,770
$56,424
$58,100
$229,917
$236,860
$243,895
$648,760
$668,351
$688,201
Table A-6
Projected Demand for Retail Sales for Secondary Market Area by Major Retail Category
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
In thousands of constant dollars
January
October
Retail Category
2002
2003
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
$26,719
$29,607
General Merchandise
$102,334
$113,394
Fumiture/Appliances
$25,677
$28,452
Specialty
$88.970
$98,585
Subtotal
$243,701
$270,038
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
$142,599
$158,010
Eating and Drinking
$67,709
$75,027
Subtotal
$210,309
$233,037
Heavy Commercial Goods:
April October April
2004 2004 2005
$30,486 $31,407 $32,340
$116,761 $120,289 $123,862
$29,298 $30,183 $31,079
$162,703 $167,618 $172.598
Building/ Hardware/ Farm $60,071 $66,563 $68,540 $70,610 $72,708
Auto Dealers and Parts $129,782 $143,808 $148,079 $152,552 $157,084
Service Stations $59.369 $65,785 $67,739 $69.785 $71.858
Subtotal $249,22' $276,155 $284,357 $292,947 $301,650
Total $703,23, $779,230 $802,373 $826,611 $851,170
Source: TNCI
Table A•7
Potential Capture of Projected Primary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales Expressed In Percentages
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
January
October
April
October
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
100.00%
100.00%
100.000/0
100.00%
General Merchandise
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Fumiture/Appliances
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Specialty
100,00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Eating and Drinking
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/ Hardware/ Farm
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Auto Dealers and Parts
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Service Stations
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Table A-8
Potential Capture of Projected Secondary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales Expressed in Percentages
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
Retail Category
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
General Merchandise
Fumiture/Appliances
Specialty
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
Eating and Drinking
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/ Hardware/ Farm
Auto Dealers and Parts
Service Stations
Source: TNCI
April
2005
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
January
October
April
October
April
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
50.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
60.00%
�k
1
Table A-9
Potential Capture of Projected Primary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales
La Quinta
Retail Trade Area
In thousands of constant dollars
January
October
April
October
April
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
$21,604
$23,939
$24,650
$25,394
$26,148
General Merchandise
$82,743
$91.685
$94,408
$97,258
$1DO, 147
Fumiture/Appliences
$20,762
$23,005
$23,689
$24,404
$25,129
Specialty
$71,937
$79,711
$82,078
$84,557
$87,068
Subtotal
$197,045
$218,340
$224,824
$231,613
$238,492
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
$115,299
$127,760
$131,554
$135,526
$139.552
Eating and Drinking
$54,746
$60,663
$62,465
$64.351
$66,262
Subtotal
$170,045
$188,423
$194,018
$199,877
$205,814
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/ Hardware/ Farm
$48,570
$53.819
$55,418
$57,091
$58.787
Auto Dealers and Parts
$104,935
$116,276
$119,729
$123,345
$127,008
Service Stations
$48,003
$53,191
$54,770
$56,424
$58.100
Subtotal
$201.509
$223,286
$229,917
$236,860
$243,895
Total
$568,599
$630,049
$648,760
$668,351
$688,201
Source: TNCI
Table A-10
Potential Capture of Projected Secondary Market Area Demand for Retail Sales
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
In thousands of constant dollars
January
October
April
October
April
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
$16.032
$17,764
$18,292
$18,844
$19.404
General Merchandise
$61,401
$68,036
$70,057
$72,173
$74,317
Fumiture/Appliances
$15,406
$17,071
$17.579
$18,110
$18,648
Specialty
$53,382
$59,151
$60.908
$62,747
$64.612
Subtotal
$146,220
$162,023
$166,835
$171,874
$176,981
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
$71,300
$79,005
$81.352
$83,809
$86,299
Eating and Drinking
$33.855
$37,513
$38,628
$39.794
$40.977
Subtotal
$105,154
$116,518
$119,979
$123,603
$127,276
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/ Hardware/ Farm
$36,042
$39.938
$41,124
$42,366
$43,625
Auto Dealers and Parts
$77,869
$86,285
$86.847
$91,531
$94,251
Service Stations
$35,621
$39.471
$40,643
$41,871
$43,115
Subtotal
$149,533
$165,693
$170,614
$175,768
$180.990
Total
$400,908
$444,234
$457,428
$471,246
$485,247
Source: TNCI
Table A-11
Total Potential Capture for Retail Sales for Total Market Area
La Quints
Ratak Trade Area
In thousands of constant dollars
January
October
April
October
April
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
$37,636
$41,703
$42,941
$44,238
$45,552
General Merchandise
$144,143
$159,721
$164,464
$169,432
$174,464
Fumiture/Appliances
$36,168
$40,077
$41.267
$42,513
$43,776
Specialty
$125,318
$138,862
$142,986
$147,304
$151,680
Subtotal
$343,265
$380,362
$391,659
$403,488
$415,473
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
$186,699
$206,765
$212,905
$219,335
$225,851
Eating and Drinking
$88,601
$98,176
$101,092
$104.145
$107,239
Subtotal
$275,200
$304,941
$313,998
$323,481
$333.090
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/ Hardware/ Farm
$84,613
$93.757
$96,541
$99,457
$102,412
Auto Dealers and Parts
$182.804
$202,561
$208,576
$214,876
$221,259
Service Stations
$83,624
$92.662
$95,414
$98,295
$101.215
Subtotal
$351,041
$388,979
$400.531
$412,628
$424,885
Total
$969,506
$1,074,283
$1,106,188
$1,139,597
$1,173,448
Source: TNCI
Table A-12
Potential Distribution of Retail Sales by Type of Retail Location
La Quinta
Retail Trade Area
Traditional
"Big Box"/
Neighborhood
Other
Retail Category
Regional
Community Retail
Retail
Retail*
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
40%
25%
15%
20%
General Merchandise
25%
65%
10%
0%
Furniture/Appliances
30%
40%
10%
20%
Specialty
30%
30%
20%
20%
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
5%
0%
80%
15%
Eating and Drinking
15%
25%
20%
40%
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/Hardware/Garden
5%
55%
40%
0%
Auto Dealers and Parts
0%
0%
0%
100%
Service Stations
0%
0%
0%
100%
' Includes goods sold outside of retail centers, such as in freestanding stores, downtown areas, mail order and the Internet.
Source: TNCI
Table A-13
Potential Distribution of Retail Sales by Type of Retail Location
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
Traditional
"Big Box"/
Neighborhood
Retail Category
Regional
Community Retail
Retail
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
$200
$200
$200
General Merchandise
$200
$400
$200
Fumiture/Appliances
$200
$300
$200
Specialty
$200
$200
$200
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
$400
N/A
$400
Eating and Drinking
$400
$400
$200
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/Hardware/Garden
$200
$200
$200
Auto Dealers and Parts
N/A
N/A
N/A
Service Stations
N/A
N/A
N/A
Source: TNCI. based on data from the Urban Land Institute.
Table A-14
Total Supportable Retail and Services Space -TRADITIONAL REGIONAL RETAIL
La Quinta
Retail Trade Area
Expressed in Square Feet
Services Space Factor (as percentage of retail):
10.0%
January
October
April
October
April
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
75,271
83,406
85,883
88,477
91,105
General Merchandise
180,179
199,651
205,580
211,789
218,081
Furniture/Appliances
54,252
60,115
61,901
63.770
65,664
Specialty
187,978
208,293
214,479
220,956
227.520
Subtotal
497,679
551,465
567,843
584,993
602,370
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
23,325
25,846
26,613
27,417
28,231
Eating and Drinking
33.225
36,816
37,910
39,054
40,215
Subtotal
55,550
62,662
64,523
66.471
68,446
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/Hardware/Garden
21,153
23,439
24,135
24,864
25,603
Auto Dealers and Parts
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Service Stations
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal
21,153
23,439
24,135
24,864
25,603
Services Space
57,538
63,757
65.650
67,633
69,642
TOTAL
632,921
701,323
722,151
743,961
766,060
Source: TNCI
1, - a
Table A-15
Total Supportable Retail and Services Space -"BIG BOX"/COMMUNITY RETAIL
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
Expressed in Square Feet
Services Space Factor (as percentage of retail): 5.0%
January
October
April
October
April
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
47,044
52,129
53,677
55,298
56,941
General Merchandise
234,232
259.546
267,255
275,326
283.505
Fumiture/Appliances
48,224
53,436
55,023
56,685
58,368
Specialty
187,978
208,293
214,479
220,956
227,520
Subtotal
517,478
573,404
590,433
608,265
626,334
Convenience Goods.
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Eating and Drinking
55.376
61,360
63,183
65,091
67,024
Subtotal
55,376
61,360
63.183
65,091
67.024
Heavy Commercial Goods:
BuildingtHardware/Garden
232,685
257,832
265,489
273,507
281,632
Auto Dealers and Parts
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Service Stations
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal
232,685
257,832
265,489
273,507
281,632
Services Space
40,277
44,630
45,955
47,343
48,749
TOTAL
845,816
937,225
965,060
994,206
1,023,739
Source: TNCI
Table A-16
Total Supportable Retail and Services Space -NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL
La Quints
Retail Trade Area
Expressed in Square Feet
Services Space Factor (as percentage of retail): 20.0%
January
October
April
October
April
Retail Category
2002
2003
2004
2004
2005
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
28,227
31,277
32,206
33,179
34.164
General Merchandise
72,072
79,860
82,232
84,716
87.232
Fumiture/Appliances
18,084
20,038
20,634
21.257
21,888
Specialty
125,318
138,862
142,986
147,304
151,680
Subtotal
243,701
270,038
276.058
286,455
294.965
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
373,197
413,530
425,811
438,671
451,701
Eating and Drinking
88,601
98,176
101,092
104,145
107,239
Subtotal
461,798
511,706
526,903
542,816
558,940
Heavy Commercial Goods:
Building/Hardware/Garden
169,225
187,514
193,083
198,914
204,823
Auto Dealers and Parts
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Service Stations
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Subtotal
169,225
187,514
193,083
198,914
204,823
Services Space
43,736
48,463
49,902
51.409
52.936
GRAND TOTAL
918,461
1,017,721
1,047,946
1,079,595
1,111,664
Source: TNCI
Table A-17
Total Supportable Retail and Services Space -TOTAL RETAIL
La Quanta
Retail Trade Area
Expressed in Square Feet
Retail Category
Shopper Goods:
Apparel
General Merchandise
Furniture/Appliances
Specialty
Subtotal
Convenience Goods:
Food (Supermarkets/Liquor)
Eating and Drinking
Subtotal
Heavy Commercial Goods:
BuOding/Hardware/Garde n
Auto Dealers and Parts
Service Stations
Subtotal
Services Space
GRAND TOTAL
Source: TNCI
January October
2002 2003
150,542 166,812
486,483 539.058
120,560 133,589
501,273 555,447
1.258,868 1,394,906
April October April
2004 2004 2005
171,766 176,953 182,210
555,067 571,831 588,818
137,557 141,711 145,921
571.943 589,217 606,720
1,436,333 1,479,713 1,523,668
396,522
439,375
452,424
466,088
479,933
177,202
196,353
202,184
208,291
214,478
573.724
635,728
654,608
674,378
694,410
423,064
468,785
482.707
497,286
512,058
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
423,064
468,785
482,707
497.286
512,058
141,551
156,849
161.507
166.385
171,328
2,397,198
2,656,269
2,735,156
2,817,763
2,901,464
APPENDIX B
TRAFFIC REPORT
if, I
uR6�►N
CROSSROADS
LA QUINTA AUTO MALL ACCESS
EVALUATION (REVISED)
City of La Quinta, California
John Kain, AICP
Carleton Waters, P.E.
Bill Lawson, AICP
Scott Sato, P.E.
41 Corporate Park, Suite 210 Irvine, CA 92606
p: 949.660.1994 • f: 949.660.1911
e: admin@urbanxroads.com • www.urbanxroads.com (t
February 14, 2002
BAN;SROA�S
)orate Park Mr. David Alpern
to 210 IMPACT SCIENCES, INC.
30343 Canwood Street, Suite 210
CA 92606 Aguora Hills, CA 91301
.660.1994
.660.1911
Subject: La Quinta Auto Mall Access Evaluation (Revised)
Dear Mr. Alpern:
'ORTATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NNING
RKJK and Associates, Inc. (RKJK) previously completed a traffic
.DEMAND
study for the Centre at La Quinta in 1997, in connection with the
DELING
preparation of an EIR for the Centre at La Quinta by Impact
ABASE
Sciences, Inc. RKJK also completed a Supplemental Traffic Impact
.OPMENT
Analysis in 1998 in association with the preparation of a
GIs
Supplemental EIR for the Centre at LA Quinta by Impact Sciences,
Inc..
AFFIC
VEERING
Urban Crossroads, Inc. recently completed a traffic access
USTICAL
UDIES
evaluation for the Center at La Quinta in September 2001, entitled
the La Quinta Auto Mall Access Evaluation for submission to
G STUDIES
Caltrans and has reviewed the 1997 and 1998 traffic impact
by RKJK in preparing this letter report. Urban
AFFIC
analysis completed
T STUDIES
Crossroads, Inc. has now reviewed Stamko Development
Company's proposed Site Development Permit, Conditional Use
Permit, and Tentative Map applications reflecting the proposed
development of two large Box Retail Stores (totaling approximately
314,802 square feet), a stand alone gas station (totaling
;ain, AICP
approximately 115 square feet) and 13 specialty stores (totaling
Waters, P.E.
approximately 19,200 square feet) within the commercial retail
vson, AICP
Sato, P.E.
0 ' 1
area (Planning Area 3) of the Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan ("the Project"). Based on
our review of the proposed land use changes, and the completion of updated trip
generation rates, trip distribution patterns, and the proposed internal circulation plan and
review of the prior EIR's, Urban Crossroads, Inc. anticipates that there would be no new or
more severe traffic impacts caused by the project than those previously disclosed and
mitigated in the two prior EIR's for the Centre at La Quinta.
With regard to Urban Crossroads Inc.'s recent La Quinta Auto Mall Access Evaluation
Report (completed in September 2001), prepared in connection with Stamko
Development Company's submission to Caltrans, Urban Crossroad's previously
recommended certain improvements for ingress and egress from Highway 111 to the
Centre at La Quinta Specific Plan Area. Stamko Development Company has
implemented those recommended improvements in its proposed Site Development
Permit submitted to the City. Any additional recommendations specified in this Letter
Report, with respect to potential internal circulation issues, are purely optional
recommendations, which do not effect the ultimate determination set forth above, i.e.,
that this proposed project does not result in any new or more severe adverse traffic
impacts.
INTRODUCTION
The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit this revised access evaluation
for the proposed La Quinta Auto Mall expansion. The proposed project is located south
of Highway 111, between La Quinta Drive and Dune Palms Road in the City of La Quinta
(see Exhibit A).
Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has discussed the project with Caltrans to determine the
issues and a methodology to address the proposed access driveways. Several retail
developments (totaling approximately 314,802 square feet), 13 specialty stores (totaling
approximately 19,200 square feet), and a gas station with 16 fueling positions are the
specific land uses proposed for this site. Exhibit B illustrates the site plan. As indicated
in Exhibit B two right in/out driveways are proposed along SR 111.
2
EXHIBIT P
LOCATION MAP
l.' URB
�Aas�A
La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:01
EXHIBIT E
SITE PLAN
r^WY 111 ENTRY MONUMENT �-
URE
La QUINTA AUTO MALL La Quinta California 00585:04 �'
It is our understanding that a single right -turn in/out access driveway to Highway 111 is
currently approved for this site and would be located approximately 600 feet east of La
Quinta Center Drive. Based on the current site plan including both a right turn in and a
right turn in/out driveway, the westerly driveway (right turn in only) would be located
approximately 370 feet east of La Quinta Center Drive and the easterly driveway (right
turn in/out only) would be located approximately 350 feet further to the east. Therefore,
to determine the feasibility of an additional driveway, this analysis focuses on comparing
"Opening Year" (project buildout) conditions (Year 2003) with a single and dual
driveway configuration.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Exhibit C identifies the existing roadway conditions for study area roadways. The number
of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and the existing intersection controls are
identified.
Traffic Volumes and Conditions
Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes on SR 111, west of Dune Palms Road are
shown on Exhibit D. ADT volumes are based upon the latest traffic data collected by
Urban Crossroads, Inc.. Exhibit D also illustrates AM and PM Peak Hour intersection
traffic volumes for existing conditions (Appendix "A" contains the traffic count worksheets).
Adjustments have been made to the traffic data collected in the summer to reflect peak
winter conditions. Historical traffic data has been provided by the City of La Quinta (See
Appendix "A") for daily volumes along Highway 111 during the winter months. Based on
this data, a factor of 1.22 has been applied to the summer volumes to reflect peak winter
conditions.
The technical guide to the evaluation of traffic operations is the 1997 Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). The HCM defines
level of service as a qualitative measure which describes operational conditions within a
traffic stream, generally in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to
maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. The criteria used to
5
EXHIBIT
EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANE!
AND INTERSECTION CONTROL;
LEGEND:
= TRAFFIC SIGNAL
® = ALL WAY STOP
-s- = STOP SIGN
4 = NUMBER OF LANES
D = DIVIDED
U = UNDIVIDED
i
I
La QUINTA AUTO MALL La Quinta California 00585.03
i
EXHIBIT C
EXISTING DAILY AND PEAK HOUR COUNTS
LEGEND:
10000 = VEHICLES PER DAY
15/84 = AM PEAK HOUR/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta California 00585.02
evaluate LOS (Level of Service) conditions vary based on the type of roadway and
whether the traffic flow is considered interrupted or uninterrupted.
The definitions of level of service for uninterrupted flow (flow unrestrained by the existence
of traffic control devices) are:
LOS "A" represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the presence of
others in the traffic stream.
LOS "B" is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic stream
begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but
there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver.
LOS "C" is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow in
which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with
others in the traffic stream.
LOS "D" represents high -density but stable flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are
severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience.
LOS "E"
represents
operating conditions
at or near the
capacity level.
All speeds are
reduced
to a low,
but relatively uniform
value. Small
increases in
flow will cause
breakdowns in traffic movement.
LOS "F" is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever the
amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can traverse the point.
Queues form behind such locations.
R
The definitions of level of service for interrupted traffic flow (flow restrained by the
existence of traffic signals and other traffic control devices) differ slightly depending on the
type of traffic control.
The level of service is typically dependent on the quality of traffic flow at the intersections
along a roadway. The HCM methodology expresses the level of service at an intersection
in terms of delay time for the various intersection approaches. The HCM uses different
procedures depending on the type of intersection control. The levels of service
determined in this study are determined using the HCM methodology.
For the signalized intersection, the average total delay per vehicle for the overall
intersection is used to determine level of service. Levels of service at the signalized study
area intersections have been evaluated using an HCM intersection analysis program.
The level of services are defined for the various analysis methodologies as follows:
LEVEL OF
SERVICE
AVERAGE TOTAL
DELAY PER VEHICLE
(SECONDS)
SIGNALIZED
A
0 to 10.00
B
10.01 to 20.00
C
20.01 to 35.00
D
35.01 to 55.00
E
55.01 to 80.00
F
80.01 and up
Existing peak hour traffic operations have been evaluated for the study area intersection.
The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 1, along with the existing intersection
geometric and traffic control devices at the analysis locations. Existing intersection level of
service calculations is based upon manual AM and PM peak hour turning movement
counts conducted by Urban Crossroads, Inc. in September 2001.
9
TABLE 1
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
DELAYZ
LEVEL OF
NORTH-
SOUTH-
EAST-
WEST-
TRA=FIC
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
(SECS.)
SERVICE
INTERSECTION
CONTROL'
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM I PM
Dune Palms Rd. (NS) at:
1
1
1
1
1 1
• SR-111 (EW)
TS
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 2 0
1 2 0
27.8
26.9
C
C
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
Z Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity
Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For
intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single
lane) are shown.
3 TS = Traffic Signal
U:'�UcJobs\00585\ExceP[00585-02.xlsFT 1
For existing traffic conditions, the study. area intersection is currently operating at an
acceptable Level of Service ("C") during the peak hours. Existing HCM calculation
worksheets are provided in Appendix "B".
TRIP GENERATION
The anticipated traffic due to the proposed project expansion was determined based on
trip rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation manual.
Table 2 presents the trip rates used for the proposed retail and restaurant
developments. Table 3 summarizes the expected daily and peak hour trip generation.
As indicated in Table 3 approximately 17,500 trips per day and 523 AM peak hour and
1,626 PM peak hour trips are expected to occur.
TRIP DISTRIBUTION/ASSIGNMENT
The traffic from the proposed project has been assigned to the surrounding roadway
system based on the proximity to the regional roadway system and the right in/out
access restrictions. Exhibit E illustrates the traffic distribution patterns for a single
driveway along Highway 111 for the retail/gas station developments. Similarly, Exhibit F
illustrates the traffic distribution patterns for dual driveways along Highway 111.
Traffic has been manually assigned to the project driveway(s) for the conditions with a
single and dual right turn in/out driveway. Exhibits G and H illustrate the project only
traffic volumes that are expected to occur for daily and peak hour conditions for a single
and dual access driveway, respectively.
FUTURE GROWTH
An ambient growth rate has been applied to the existing data to account for future
through traffic and other projects that are unknown at this time. A growth rate of 8
TABLE 2
TRIP GENERATION RATES'
LAND USE
ITE CODEJ
QUANTITY
I UNITSz
PEAK HOUR TRIP RATES
DAILY RATE
AM
IPM
IN
OUT
IN
OUT
Gas Station
844
1 16
1 pos
1 6.26
6.01
7.43
1 7.13
168.56
Shopping Center (Walmart/Retail)
820
334.002
tsf
0.60
0.38
2.00
2.17
44.32
' Source: ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual, 6th Edition, 1997
2 tsf = Thousand Square Feet
pos = Vehicle fueling positions
U:\UcJobs\00585\Excel\[00585-02.xls]T 2
12 it )
TABLE 3
LA QUINTA AUTO MALL TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY
LAND USE
QUANTITYJ
UNITS
PEAK HOUR
DAILY
AM
PM
IN OUT
IN OUT
Gas Station
, 16
pos
100
96
119
114
2,697
Shopping Center (Walmart/Retail)
334.002
tsf
200
127
668
725
1 14,803
TOTAL
300
1 223
1 787 1 83L_L
17,500
' tsf = thousand square feet
pos = Vehicle fueling positions
U:\UcJobs\00585\ExceR[00585-02.xis]T 3
13
EXHIBIT I
RETAIL & GAS STATION WITH ONE DRIVEWAI
LEGEND:
— — — = INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
= OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
TRIP DISTRIBUTIM
NTA AUTO MALL. La Ouinta. California -
-12
14
EXHIBI
RETAIL & GAS STATION WITH TWO DRIVEWAI
TRIP DISTRIBUTIC
o,
rl
I
I
s0 I
- - - - - - - - - 1
0
I 40
�1 N�IIOQ
Oi O
SITE
W
0 3
g'
tA H
LA
oQ.
W
V
W
Z
Q
Q
�
LA QUINTA
CENTER DR.
LEGEND:
— — — = INBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
= OUTBOUND TRIP DISTRIBUTION
�a QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:05
0
r
15
EXHIBIT
PROJECT PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
WITH ONE DRIVEWA
LEGEND:
15/84/9042 = AM PEAK HOUR/PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES/ADT
I
a QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:07 URB
16 14* ,
EXHIBI*
PROJECT PEAK HOUR AND DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMI
WITH TWO DRIVEWAI
8---
4
6162/2/2625
0/157/1750--1
W
1--
Z
W
V
LEGEND:
361/676/9042 = AM/PM/ADT
i
La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, Calffornia - 00585:06
moo
!-0/o
m o 0 120/315
J i �► i-0/0
.2/84-J � f (`
/336 Ito-
0/0—1 O O o
22/84/875' - 111/420/4375'-o-
60/157/1750---� ci
NCc
O J
Ln Q
m O.
w W
m Z
o :3
e+ 0
SITE
t
URI
Laos.
17
percent per year has been calculated from the daily traffic volumes provided by the City
of La Quinta. The calculation is provided below:
1999 Daily Traffic Volume on Highway 111 (e/o Washington) = 23,272
2000 Daily Traffic Volume on Highway 111 (e/o Washington) = 25,116
Estimated Annual Growth Rate = 25,116/23,272 = 1.079, or approximately 8 percent
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Based on the anticipated trip generation and trip distribution/assignment of the
proposed project, traffic has been evaluated at the key roadway and intersection
locations. Exhibits I and J illustrate the Opening Year (2003) anticipated traffic volumes
for one and two driveways, respectively. These traffic volumes on SR 111, at the
project driveways, and at the intersection of Dune Palms Road/ SR 111 include the
seasonal growth rate, the ambient growth rate, and the project traffic.
DAILY CAPACITY REVIEW
Based on discussions with Caltrans staff, Highway 111 is anticipated to be widened to
six lanes prior to the opening year of this project (2003). The roadway capacity of a 6
lane urban arterial has been based on Riverside County Integrated Plan Calculations.
The evaluation of the additional traffic is summarized below in terms of the daily
volume -to -capacity ratio for SR 111, west of Dune Palms Road:
Existing Conditions
Roadway Segment
SR 111(4 lanes)
Volume Capacity
27,138 35,900
Opening Year Conditions With Project With One Driveway
Roadway Segment Volume Capacity
SR 111 west of project driveway
SR 111 east of project driveway
40,300
40,300
V/C Ratio LOS
0.76 C
V/C Ratio LOS
53,900 0.75 C
53,900 0.75 C
18
OPENING YEAR WITH
AND DAILY TRAFFIC
LEGEND:
351/676 = AM/PM
48.8 = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VEHICLES IN 1000'S)
La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:10
EXHIBIT
PROJECT PEAK HOUR
WITH ONE DRIVEWAI
19
OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT
AND DAILY TRAFFIC WITH TWO
40.3
760/1=57/1750--�
40/104 J
691/1351-
89/31--1
38.6
60/157/1750 f
c
M
m
0
a�
SITE
LEGEND:
361/676 = AM/PM
48.8 = AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (VEHICLES IN 1000'5)
L-45/58
—860/1218
40.3
EXHIBI
PEAK HOUI
DRIVEWAII
t
La QUINTA AUTO MALL, La Quinta, California - 00585:09 lJR1
20
t ► ",
Opening Year Conditions With Project With Two Driveways
Roadway Segment Volume
SR 111 west of project driveways 40,300
SR 111 between project driveways 38,600
SR 111 east of project driveways 40,300
Capacity V/C Ratio LOS
53,900
0.75 C
53,900
0.72 C
53,900
0.75 C
The daily traffic analysis presented above indicates that the segments along Highway
111 will remain within the LOS "C" capacity range. Additionally, to evaluate actual peak
hour operating characteristics, the downstream intersection of Dune Palms Road has
been analyzed.
INTERSECTION PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
The intersection traffic analysis at the intersection of Dune Palms Road and SR 111 for
Opening Year (2003) conditions with the proposed project are presented in Table 4. As
in indicated in Table 4, this intersection is anticipated to operate at an acceptable level
of service (LOS "C") during the peak hours. Therefore, based on the peak hour
analysis, it is anticipated that the future infrastructure will accommodate the future peak
hour forecasts in this area.
ACCESS RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the daily and peak hour traffic analysis presented above, it can be concluded
that the capacity conditions with a single or dual driveway configuration would be similar
for project buildout conditions.
The proposed distances between the two project driveways along Highway 111 will be
less than the recommended spacing requested by Caltrans (600 feet between
intersections). The proximity of the easterly driveway to Dune Palms Road will require
traffic leaving this driveway and desiring to turn left at Dune Palms Road to weave
across three lanes of traffic to enter the left turn pocket. Therefore, Urban Crossroads,
Inc. recommends that a stop sign, stop bar, and stop legend be provided at this
21
TABLE 4
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS FOR OPENING YEAR WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
INTERSECTION APPROACH LANES'
DELAYZ
LEVEL OF
NORTH-
SOUTH-
EAST-
WEST-
TRAFFIC
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
(SECS.)
SERVICE
L T R
L T R
L T R
L T R
AM
PM
AM
PM
INTERSECTION
CONTROLS
Dune Palms Rd. (NS) at:
1
1
1
I
• SR-111 (EW)
TS
1 1 1
1 1 0
1 3 0
1 3 0
26.0
21.6
C
C
' When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be
sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes.
L = Left; T = Through; R = Right
Z Delay and level of service calculated using the following analysis software: Traffix, Version 7.1.0607 (1999). Per the 1997 Highway Capacity
Manual, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with traffic signal or all way stop control. For
intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single
lane) are shown.
' TS = Traffic Signal
U:\UcJobs\00585\Excel\[00585-02.xIsIT 4
22
driveway to ensure that a driver comes to a complete stop prior to entering the flow of
traffic on Highway 111. Furthermore, it should be noted that other egress opportunities
are available (e.g. the westerly driveway and La Quinta Center Drive) that would provide
additional weaving distance.
It is recommended that a right turn lane be provided at both driveway locations along
Highway 111. In reviewing the inbound traffic to the site for a single versus dual
driveway configuration, a significantly longer right turn lane would be required to service
the traffic volumes with only a single driveway. The second driveway configuration
allows traffic to distribute to another location, thereby decreasing the traffic intensity at a
single point. The length of the driveways should be a minimum of 150 feet with a 90-
foot transition.
INTERNAL CIRCULATION EVALUATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has reviewed the access to the proposed gas station in terms of
potential queuing into La Quinta Drive and the internal drive aisles. Based on the
location of the gas station within the pad, it is not anticipated to attract as much pass -by
traffic in comparison to a location in closer proximity to Highway 111. Furthermore,
vehicles accessing the site will turn right off of the internal drive aisle without
experiencing delay due to conflicting traffic (i.e. a left turn movement could experience
potential queuing if the opposing flow of traffic occurs at a continuous rate). Based on
these considerations, it is not anticipated that vehicles will queue into either the internal
drive aisle or onto La Quinta Drive.
Although a queuing problem is not anticipated for the proposed gas station, the
following recommendations are provided:
A truck turning template illustrating the swept path should be provided to
indicate that the tankers will be able to maneuver within the site.
23
The access to the future development to the north of the gas station should
be eliminated or designed to only allow vehicles to exit onto the internal drive
aisle.
• It is recommended that the southerly drive aisle be directly aligned across
from Auto Centre Way South to prevent driver confusion and reduce vehicular
conflicts.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the proposed land use changes, and the completion of updated
trip generation rates, trip distribution patterns, and the proposed internal circulation plan
and review of the prior EIR's, Urban Crossroads, Inc. anticipates that there would be no
new or more severe traffic impacts caused by the project than those previously disclosed
and mitigated in the two prior EIR's for the Centre at La Quinta.
If you have any questions regarding the analysis presented above, please do not hesitate
to call at (949) 660-1994.
Respectfully subm
U
S1
Senior Hssociaie
SS:jt
00585-05
Attachments
M
{} " z
APPENDIX A
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNTS
Locaaon:SR-111 btwn. Dune Palms Rd. & La Quint La Quint Volumes for Wed. 8/22101
08650001
AM Period
EB
WB
PM Period
EB
WB
12:00-12:15
18
12
12:00-12:15
163
229
12:15-12:30
21
14
12:15-12:30
178
203
12:30-12:45
16
11
12:30-12:45
210
193
12:45-1:00
9
64 2
39 103 12:45-1:00
193 744
207 832 1576
1:00-1:15
22
8
1:00-1:15
189
157
1:15-1:30
7
3
1:15-1:30
239
183
1:30-1:45
10
5
1:30-1:45
217
172
1:45-2:00
4 43
6
22 65 1:45-2:00
180 825
181 693 1518
2:00-2:15
6
4
2:00-2:15
168
168
2:15-2:30
6
8
2:15-2:30
224
193
2:30-2:45
0
1
2:30-2:45
206
190
2:45-3:00
6 18
8
21 39 2:45-3:00
244 842
180 731 1573
3:00-3:15
2
5
3:00-3:15
238
196
3:15-3:30
4
0
3:15-3:30
202
212
3:30-3:45
6
6
3:30-3:45
193
156
3:45-4:00
3 15
2
13 28 3:45-4:00
182 815
187 751 1566
4:00-4:15
7
5
4:00-4:15
308
189
4:15-4:30
9
16
4:15-4:30
288
190
4:30-4:45
8
26
4:30-4:45
274
169
4:45-5:00
17
41
40
87
128
4:45-5:00
196
1066
155
703
1769
5:00-5:15
16
36
5:00-5:15
289
290
5:15-5:30
13
47
5:15-5:30
285
278
5:30-5:45
23
90
5:30-5:45
171
280
5:45-6:00
39
91
118
291
382
5:45-6:00
284
1029
254
1102
2131
6:00-6:15
39
81
6:00-6:15
141
251
6:15-6:30
57
97
6:15-6:30
155
259
6:30-6:45
52
118
6:30-6:45
166
242
6:45-7:00
76
224
139
435
659
6:45-7:00
127
589
240
992
1581
7:00-7:15
123
86
7:00-7:15
161
133
7:15-7:30
96
93
7:15-7:30
142
117
7:30-7:45
95
134
7:30-7:45
161
137
7:45-8:00
140
454
147
460
914
7:45-8:00
123
587
116
503
1090
8:00-8:15
141
104
8:00-8:15
114
110
8:15-8:30
129
115
8:15-8:30
112
92
8:30-8:45
142
129
8:30-8:45
97
106
8:45-9:00
141 553
135
483 1036 8:45-9.00
101 424
108 416 840
9:00-9:15
96
137
9:00-9:15
107
95
9:15-9:30
132
132
9:15-9:30
89
74
9:30-9:45
132
165
9:30-9:45
94
84
9:45-10:00
146 506
160
594 1100 9:45-10:00
56 346
71 324 670
10:00-10:15
146
163
10:00-10:15
75
60
10:15-10:30
169
161
10:15-10:30
57
48
10:30-10:45
138
200
10:30-10:45
49
38
10:45-11:00
186
639 192
716 1355 10:45-11:00
43
224 47
193 417
11:00-11:15
170
188
11:00-11:15
49
35
11:15-11:30
174
187
11:15-11:30
32
22
11:30-11:45
151
191
11:30-11:45
26
26
11:45-12:00
200
695 213
779 1474 11:45-12:00
24
131 16
99 230
Total Vol
3343
3940
7283
7622
7339
14961
Daily Totals
10965
11279
122244
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N-S STREET:
DUNE PALMS RD.
DATE:
8/22/2001
CITY:
LA QUINTA
E-W STREET:
SR-111
DAY:
WEDNESDAY
Intersection I.D.:
PROJECT#
0864001A
NORTHBOUND
SOUTHBOUND
EASTBOUND
WESTBOUND
RECEIVING:
X
X
X
X
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTA
LANES:
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
6:00 AM
6:15 AM
6:30 AM
6:45 AM
7:00 AM
5
10
7
8
13
3
3
64
11
7
106
5
242
7:15 AM
6
24
4
11
24
4
0
81
15
16
106
8
299
7:30 AM
8
24
6
6
33
4
4
86
18
17
137
9
352
7:45 AM
5
10
11
10
27
4
1
103
19
13
113
10
326
8:00 AM
7
25
5
8
32
2
3
124
14
13
137
4
374
8:15 AM
4
12
4
10
11
3
5
111
12
13
134
9
328
8:30 AM
4
15
5
9
17
3
2
111
8
6
121
11
312
8:45 AM
5
13
6
8
20
2
4
108
11
1
135
6
319
9:00 AM
9:15 AM
9:30 AM
9:45 AM
10:00 AM
10:15 AM
10:30 AM
10:45 AM
11:00 AM
11:15 AM
11:30 AM
11:45 AM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTA
VOLUMES =
44
133
48
70
177
25
22
788
108
86
989
62
2552
AM Peak Hr Begins at 730 AM
PEAK
VOLUMES = 24 71 26 34 103 13 13 424 63 56 521 32 1380
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
SOUTHLAND CAR COUNTERS
VEHICLE AND MANUAL COUNTS
N-S STREET: DUNE PALMS RD. DATE: 8/22/2001 CITY: LA QUINTA
E-W STREET: SR•111 DAY: WEDNESDAY
PROJECT# 0864001P
NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
LANES:
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
0
1:00 PM
1:15 PM
1:30 PM
1:45 PM
2:00 PM
2:15 PM
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
3:00 PM
3:15 PM
3:30 PM
3:45 PM
4:00 PM
17
24
19
16
9
4
2
171
4
10
167
8
451
4:15 PM
8
9
14
6
10
5
5
186
7
6
158
7
421
4:30 PM
6
22
8
4
11
3
0
177
5
5
141
11
393
4:45 PM
7
14
8
12
8
2
7
181
6
5
170
15
435
5:00 PM
2
7
5
7
6
6
6
176
8
8
141
17
389
5:15 PM
2
15
4
5
8
6
5
194
6
5
194
10
454
5:30 PM
5
10
5
7
10
8
11
177
6
3
154
11
407
5:45 PM
4
13
7
4
7
5
6
173
3
5
162
8
397
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
6:30 PM
6:45 PM
TOTAL
NL
NT
NR
SL
ST
SR
EL
ET
ER
WL
WT
WR
TOTAL
VOLUMES =
51
114
70
61
69
39
42
1435
45
47
1287
87
3347
PM Peak Hr Begins at
400
PM
PEAK
VOLUMES =
38
69
49
38
38
14
14
715
22
26
636
41
1700
ADDITIONS: SIGNALIZED
AUG-20-2001 10:5b hXUM:NUUL.11. WUCRS (CIO-f f ( - (IDS IV.7/7"-.UuVI w I A -
TRAFFIC COUNTS
STREET
I.D. #
SEGMENT
COUNT
YEAR
SEASON
Fred Wart
F-2
EJO Washington
12,820
1992
Winter
Fred WarinS
F-2
E/O Washington
5,122
1991
Winter
Fred Warm
F-2
E/O Washington
10,981
1990
Wintet
Fred Werin
F-2
E/0 Washington
7,528
1986
Winter
Fred Waring
EJO Washing9n
17,498
1999
Winter
111
H-1
E/O Miles
34,688
2000
Willer
111
H-1
5/0 Mlles
31.076
1999
Winter
H . 111
H-1
W10 Washl2gton
31,061
1997
Winter
H 111
H-1
W/O Washington
31,786
1990
Winter
H 111
H-1
W/O Washington
18 100
1988
Wlntor
111
H-2
EJO Washington
25,116
2000
Winter
111
H-2
E/O Weshin on
23.272
1999
Winter
ill
H-2
E/O Washington
25,501
1998
Winter
Hwy111
H-2
E/O Wash ton
25.300
1997
Winter
Hwy, 111
H-4
W/O Jefferson
20,468
1990
Winter
111
H-4
W/O Jefferson
18,500
1968
Winter
111
H-5
E/O Jefferson
24,331
1990
Winter
Hwy, 111
H-5
E/O Jefferson
18,500
1988
Winter
Jefferson
J-1 1
N/O Fred Waring
6,530
1991
Spring
Jefferson
J-1
N/0 Fred Waring
5,500
1990
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
5/0 Fred Waring
15,622
2000
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
S/0 Fred Waring
13,584
1999
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
S/O Fred Waring
11 222
1998
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
S/O Fred Waring
12,910
1997
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
S/0 Fred Waring
9,506
1995
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
S/0 Fred Waring
11,002
1994
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
S/0 Fred Wars
10.793
1993
Winter
Jefferson
J-2
5/0 Fred Wari
6,512
1992
Winter
Jefferson
J-3
S/O Mlles
10,803
1997
Winter
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
J-3
J-3
J-3
J-3
J-3
J-3
J-4
J-4
J-4
J-4
J-5
J-5
J-5
S/O Miles
S/0 Miles
S/0 Miles
S/0 Miles
S10 Miles
$10 Miles
N/0 .111
N/0 .111
N/0 Ffwy.111
WO FWy.111
S/O Hwy.111
S/O M. ill
S/0 Hwy. 111
S/O .111
S/O .111
S/O M. 111
S/0 .111
S/0 .111
S/0 Ave. 50
S/O Ave. 50
S/O Ave. 50
10,038
9,252
8 320
7,371
6,354
7,224
11187
9,625
9,262
7,371
131B82
111654
13,706
13.747
14,887
12,698
11,681
12,711
9,959
8,078
8 608
6,876
9,324
8,854
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
2000
1999
1994
1992
2000
1999
1998
1997
1995
1994
1992
1991
2000
1999
1998
1997
1995Jefferson
1994
Winter
Winter
Wlntor
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter -
odng
Jefferson
Jefferson
J-5
J-5
Jefferson
J-5
Jefferson
Jefferson
J-5
J-5
Jefferson
Jefferson
J-7
J-7
J-7
Jefferson
Jefferson
Jefferson
J-7
J-7
J-7
S/0 Ave. 50
S/0 Ave. 50
S/O Ave. 50
� .., oSfaf2000
Trs t Counts pnp�
APPENDIX B
HCM CALCULATIONS
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Sep 6, 2001 11:59:36 Page 1-1
La Quinta Auto Mall Access
Existing Conditions
AM Peak Hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W)
Cycle (sec): 0 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.348
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 27.8
Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
--------------------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------�
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 24 71 26 34 103 13 13 424 63 56 521 32
Growth Adj: 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22
Initial Bse: 29_ 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 29 87 32 41 126 16 16 517 77 68 636 39
--------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 1.74 0.26 1.00 1.88 0.12
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1686 214 1900 3142 468 1900 3401 209
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.16 0.16 0.04 0.19 0.19
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ++**
Green Time: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Volume/Cap: 0.10 0.15 0.06 0.14 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.73 0.73 0.24 0.84 0.84
Delay/Veh: 24.8 17.4 16.8 25.0 18.0 18.0 24.5 27.7 27.7 25.6 32.4 32.4
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 24.8 17.4 16.8 25.0 18.0 18.0 24.5 27.7 27.7 25.6 32.4 32.4
DesignQueue: 1 2 1 1 3 0 1 16 2 2 19 1
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
i ,r
Gr.� ,,, , FL U
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Thu Sep 6, 2001 12:09:57 Page 1-1
La Quinta Auto Mall Access
Existing Conditions
PM Peak Hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
Intersection 41 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W)
Cycle (sec): 75 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.398
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.9
Optimal Cycle: 75 Level Of Service: C
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
--------------------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------�
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 38 69 49 38 38 14 14 715 22 26 636 41
Growth Adj: 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22 1.22
Initial Bse: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initial Fut: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 46 84 60 46 46 17 17 872 27 32 776 50
--------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95
Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.27 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.88 0.12
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1387 513 1900 3502 108 1900 3391 219
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.02 0.23 0.23
Crit Moves:
Green Time: 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 20.0 20.0 10.0 23..0 23.0 10.0 23.0 23.0
Volume/Cap: 0.18 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.81 0.81 0.13 0.75 0.75
Delay/Veh: 29.2 21.3 20.9 29.2 21.0 21.0 28.5 28.7 28.7 28.9 26.2 26.2
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 29.2 21.3 20.9 29.2 21.0 21.0 28.5 28.7 28.7 28.9 26.2 26.2
DesignQueue: 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 27 1 1 24 2
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
.Y
r
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Feb 12, 2002 19:22:13 Page 1-1
La Quinta Auto Mall Access
Opening Year With Project
AM Peak Hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W)
Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.351
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 26.0
Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: C
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
--------------------------- --------------- --------------- 11---------------�
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
--------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 24 71 26 34 103 13 13 424 63 56 521 32
Growth Adj: 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
Initial Bse: 34 101 37 48 146 18 18 602 89 80 740 45
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 30 22 89 0 0 120 0
Initial Fut: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 34 101 37 48 146 48 40 691 89 80 860 45
--------------------------- --------------- ------------------------------�
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91
Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.25 1.00 2.66 0.34 1.00 2.85 0.15
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1430 470 1900 4595 592 1900 4929 258
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.17 0.17
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 28.3 28.3 14.2 32.5 32.5 10.0 55.5 55.5 10.0 55.5 55.5
Volume/Cap: 0.21 0.23 0.08 0.21 0.38 0.38 0.25 0.33 0.33 0.51 0.38 0.38
Delay/Veh: 52.0 37.2 35.8 48.4 36.0 36.0 52.3 20.5 20.5 55.3 21.1 21.1
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 52.0 37.2 35.8 48.4 36.0 36.0 52.3 20.5 20.5 55.3 21.1 21.1
DesignQueue: 2 5 2 3 7 2 2 26 3 5 32 2
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
MITIG8 - Default Scenario Tue Feb 12, 2002 19:22:58 Page 1-1
La Quinta Auto Mall Access
Opening Year With Project
PM Peak Hour
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level Of Service Computation Report
1997 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative)
********************************************************************************
Intersection #1 Dune Palms Road (N/S) / SR 111 (E/W)
********************************************************************************
Cycle (sec): 120 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.439
Loss Time (sec): 12 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 21.6
Optimal Cycle: 120 Level Of Service: C+
********************************************************************************
Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound
Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R
------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- 11---------------�
Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected
Rights: Include Include Include Include
Min. Green: 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 15 15 10 15 15
Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------�
Volume Module:
Base Vol: 38 69 49 38 38 14 14 715 22 26 636 41
Growth Adj: 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42
Initial Bse: 54 98 70 54 54 20 20 1015 31 37 903 58
Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 79 84 336 0 0 315 0
Initial Fut: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58
User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
PHF Volume: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58
Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced Vol: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58
PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Final Vol.: 54 98 70 54 54 99 104 1351 31 37 1218 58
------------ I --------------- 11--------------- 11--------------- ---------------�
Saturation Flow Module:
Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 1.00 0.91 0.91
Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35 0.65 1.00 2.93 0.07 1.00 2.86 0.14
Final Sat.: 1900 1900 1900 1900 671 1229 1900 5071 116 1900 4951 236
------------ I --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------I
Capacity Analysis Module:
Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.02 0.25 0.25
Crit Moves: **** **** **** ****
Green Time: 10.0 20.3 20.3 10.1 20.4 20.4 10.0 67.6 •67.6 10.0 67.6 67.6
Volume/Cap: 0.34 0.31 0.22 0.34 0.47 0.47 0.66 0.47 0.47 0.23 0.44 0.44
Delay/Veh: 53.2 44.2 43.4 53.0 46.0 46.0 63.0 15.7 15.7 52.2 15.3 15.3
User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
AdjDel/Veh: 53.2 44.2 43.4 53.0 46.0 46.0 63.0 15.7 15.7 52.2 15.3 15.3
DesignQueue: 3 6 4 3 3 6 6 42 1 2 38 2
********************************************************************************
Traffix 7.5.1015 (c) 2000 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to URBAN CROSSROADS, IRVINE
r
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP
BUILDINGS, BUILDING A, BUILDING B, AND SERVICE
STATION FOR THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC
PLAN
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-728
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26T" day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider
the request of the Stamko Development Company for the approval of site development
permit for a retail shopping center having 334,117± square feet, located along the south
side of highway 111 between la Quinta Centre Drive and 300 ±feet west of Dune
Palms Drive, more particularly described as:
APNS 649-030-057 thru 063
WHEREAS, said Addendum has complied with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and "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 determined
that although proposed could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects have
been analyzed adequately in the earlier EIR and SEIR pursuant to applicable standards
and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the earlier EIR and SEIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project and/or
were made a part of the Addendum and/or included in the Conditions of Approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on
February 13, 2002, adopted Minute Motion 2002-008, recommending approval of the
architectural plans, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of said
Site Development Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Zoning
Code, Specific Plan, and applicable Site Development Permit or has be
conditioned to be so.
PAJERRYIstamko-PC-reso.wpd
Resolution 2002-
Site Development Permit 2001-728
Stamko Development Company
February 26, 2002
3. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries, interior
circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of
equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements
are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design
prevalent in the city in that the design as conditioned has addressed these
issues.
5. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color,
texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide
relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and
vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between
adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an overall
unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and complement
the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and water use. The
landscaping has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding area,
complement the proposed improvements and provide required shading of the
parking area.
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 approve Site Development Permit 2001-728 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A",
attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of February, 2002, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:-JERRY,STAMKO-PC-RESO.WPD
4
Resolution 2002-
Site Development Permit 2001-728
Stamko Development Company
February 26, 2002
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:,JERRY-STAMKO-PC-RESO.WPD`
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-728
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit. The
City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the developer of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary
permits and/or clearances from the following 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 (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting the
improvement plans for City approval.
3. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Chapter 8.70 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls),
La Quinta Municipal Code ("LQMC"); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the
State Water Quality Resources Control Board's ("SWQRCB") Order No. 99-08-DWQ.
a. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of
land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than
five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
4 -
P: \JERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd
b. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or
off -site grading being done in relation to this Site Development Permit.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at
the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements
by the City.
d. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practice ("BMPs"), 8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC:
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
e. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this
project.
f. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order
throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been
accepted by the City.
4. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. Prior to the issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire, or confer, those
easements, and other property rights necessary for the construction and/or proper
functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable
offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services, and
for the maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
6. The applicant shall offer for dedication all public street right-of-ways in conformance
with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and/or as
required by the City Engineer.
P:VERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd y
7. Unless the ultimate developed right-of-way can be documented, the public street right-
of-way offers for dedication required for this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) State Route 1 1 1 (S.R. 11 1) - (Major Arterial) - 70 foot half right of way or
additional right of way if required by Caltrans for the design of the approved
construction and access plans for this parcel map. If required by Caltrans,
acquire and deed additional right of way as necessary for widening of the
median and resulting northward shift of the north side of the highway.
2) La Quinta Centre Drive - (Collector Street) - 60 feet of right of way as
required by the approved Specific Plan No. 97-029.
8. Right-of-way geometry for property line corner cut -backs at curb returns shall conform
to Riverside County Standard Drawing #805, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
9. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans and as may be required by Caltrans and SunLine Transit Agency.
10. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways
as follows:
A. S.R. 111 - Fifty (50) Feet from the R/W-P/L.
B. Interior Public Streets - As required by the General Plan and City Code unless
otherwise approved in the Specific Plan No. 97-029 for this development.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes.
11. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit.
12. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties
from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access
points shown on the Site Development Permit.
P:UERRIISTAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd �_
13. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, ingress/egress, or other encroachments will occur.
14. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, any existing right-of-way,
or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties owned by
others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access easement, to
those properties, or shall submit notarized letters of consent from the affected property
owners.
15. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of this Site Development Permit and
the date of final acceptance of the on and off -site improvements for this Site
Development Permit, unless such easement is approved by the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
16. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
17. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall
be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise
authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if
additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to
prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required
by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Public Street Plans: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate
plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding,
and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
B. State Route 111: As Required by Caltrans, including metric or dual units if
required.
C. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
D. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
P:UERRY\STAMK0-00A-SDP728.wpd j
F. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
G. On -Site Utility Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
H. On -Site Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing
plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan and a
"Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and
the City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but
not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage
systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
18. The City maintains standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee, established by City resolution, the applicant may purchase
such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City.
19. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all complete,
approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The
files shall be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable
through a basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or
a file format which can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
P: VERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd
OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
20. Prior to the conditional approval of this Site Development Permit, or the issuance of
any permit(s), the applicant shall construct all off -site improvements and satisfy its
obligations for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Off -Site
Improvement Agreement ("OSIA") guaranteeing the construction of such
improvements and the satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any
combination thereof, as may be required by the City.
21. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include removal of any existing
structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed improvements;
and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monuments.
22. When improvements are to be secured through an OSIA, and prior to any permits being
issued by the City, the applicant shall submit detailed construction cost estimates for
all proposed off -site improvements for checking and approval by the City Engineer.
Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted by City resolution, or
ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the same time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for the
security determination of the OSIA, the applicant shall also submit one copy of an 8-
1 /2" x 11 " reduction of the Site Development Plan, along with one copy of an 8-1 /2"
x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost
estimates for its own on and off -site improvements.
Cost estimates for the security of telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements
will not be required.
23. When improvements are phased through an administrative approval (e.g., Phasing Plan,
Site Development Permits, etc.), all off -site improvements and common on -site
improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls, landscaping
and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through an OSIA, prior to the occupancy
of any permanent buildings in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through an OSIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent
buildings within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
P:UERRY\STAMK0-00A-SDP728.wpd "
The same submittal criteria shall apply to all subsequent phases as required for the first
phase submittal. (E.g. detailed cost estimates, 8-1 /2" x 11 " reductions, etc.)
24. In the event the applicant fails to construct improvements for the development, or
fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the
approved phasing plan, or other phasing method, the City shall have the right to halt
issuance of all permits, and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the
development of the project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
25. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
26. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
27. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16 (Fugitive
Dust Control), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount
sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan
provisions submitted with its application for a grading permit.
28. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
29. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the
building pads in adjacent developments.
30. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential
shall not exceed five feet.
P:VERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd I , if
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
31. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
32. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide
a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6
hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
34. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basin(s) as shown on the
Tentative Parcel Map. Individual lot basins or other retention concepts may be
approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 '/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of
common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual
lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual lot retention provisions
of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
35. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
36. Nuisance water shall be retained on site by an approved system.
37. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
38. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
PAJERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd ,
39. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side
slopes shall not exceed 3:1. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth
shall not exceed two feet.
40. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots
along State Route 1 1 1. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls
onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with
berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
41. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels
or frequencies in any area outside the development.
42. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
43. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and
retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
44. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC.
45. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility
lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not
limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands,
to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
46. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and all
proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
47. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of
utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval
by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
48. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
4 �
P:VERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd -
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
49. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey
water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during
street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard
curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
50. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) S.R. 1 1 1 from the east side of La Quinta Centre Drive to the easterly project
boundary (Major Arterial) - Construct applicant's half of a 116 foot (curb
face to curb face) street improvements. Construct a 28 foot wide raised
landscaped median, and widen the north half as required for the widened.
Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components
such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends, and
signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements required
for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
(b) 28-foot wide landscaped median.
(The landscape median improvements are eligible for reimbursement
from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with
policies established for that program.)
(c) Main entry streets, bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes,
and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans
may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined
by the City Engineer, Caltrans or SunLine Transit Agency.
B. LA QUINTA CENTRE DRIVE
1) Construct 40 foot curb to curb full width improvements as shown on
the Tentative Map and approved in Specific Plan No.97-029.
51. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as
follows:
Residential 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
P:VERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd �,
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
52. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
53. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
54. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
55. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements.
PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS
56. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 (Parking).
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts, dedicated
turn lanes and other features shown on the approved construction plans, may require
additional street widths as may be determined by the City Engineer.
57. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry (La Quinta Centre Drive at Highway 1 1 1): Existing signalized
intersection with full turning movements.
B. Secondary Entry (Highway 1 1 1 between La Quinta Centre Drive and the easterly
project boundary):
1. Approximately 300' easterly of La Quinta Centre Drive: Right in only
driveway.
2. Approximately 600' easterly of La Quinta Centre Drive: Right in/right out
driveway.
The proposed driveway(s) on S.R. 111 shall require Caltrans approval.
C. Secondary Entry (La Quinta Centre Drive/Auto Centre Drive Intersection):
Driveway entrance with full turning movements.
P:VERRYISTAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd j -r
D. Secondary Entry (La Quinta Centre Drive northerly of Auto Centre Way South):
Driveway entrance with full turning movements.
E. Secondary Entry (At the Southerly Terminus of La Quinta Centre Drive): La
Quinta Centre Drive will terminate with ingress and egress into Parcel No. 1.
58. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b) (Parking), LQMC, the applicant shall provide
30-foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot, or alternatively provide a
combination of a dedicated right turn deceleration lane and the drive throat that will
equal a total of 30-feet.
CONSTRUCTION
59. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal
shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix
designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months
old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design
gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule
construction operations until mix designs are approved.
60. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential tracts are initially constructed
with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the pavement prior to
final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the tract or when directed by
the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
61. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards)
& 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC.
62. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas.
63. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the
City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City
Engineer.
P:VERRYISTAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd r
64. 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 18 inches of curbs long public streets.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
65. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the
approval of the City Engineer.
66. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such cr other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to prepare
and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction supervision.
67. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that construction materials and methods employed
comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations. After tributary -
area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently stabilized where
retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand filter percolation
tests, as approved by the City Engineer.
68. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed by the City
Engineer. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -
Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying
to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the AutoCAD or raster -
image files previously submitted to the City to reflect the as -built conditions.
MAINTENANCE
69. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
70. The applicant shall maintain the required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
71. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
P:VERRYISTAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd I
72. Approved Super fire hydrants at every intersection and spaced every 330 feet along
the street, and also they shall be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any
portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
73. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be placed in the street 8 inches from
centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
74. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot.
75. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to
be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the
fire department for review.
76. Install Knox Key Lock box on each commercial building. Contact the fire department
for an application.
77. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code.
78. Minimum fire flow 2500 GPM, with an actual flow from any one hydrant connected
to any given water main of 1500 GPM for 2-hours at 20 PSI reidual.
79. Building plans shall be submitted to the fire Department for plan review to run
concurrent with the City plan check.
80. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a hood/duct system for
fire protection. ( Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.)
81. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designation required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/
or signs.
SIGNS
82. Only 2 monument signs are permitted along Highway 1 1 1 frontage with the design as
identified in the Specific Plan.
83. The service station signs are not approved as part of this application. The applicant
shall submit the sign standards for Planning Commission consideration as a Business
Item
Building "A" signs are limited as follows;
Highway 1 1 1 frontage (north) 1- wall sign having 152 square feet.
P:UERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd
Parking lot frontage (West) 1- wall sign having 190 square feet.
Dune Palms Frontage (east) 1- wall sign having 50 square feet.
Avenue 48 frontage (south) 1- wall sign having 50 square feet.
Building "B" signs are limited as follows;
Highway 1 1 1 frontage (north) 1- wall sign having 190 square feet.
2- wall signs having 75 square feet each.
2- wall signs having 40 square feet each.
Garden Center 2- wall signs having 60 square feet each.
Express tire and lobe 2- wall signs having 60 square feet each.
The proposed 6 Ground Mounted tenant identity signs are not permitted
84. The Applicant has indicated its belief that the Retail B Building will be occupied by
Wal-Mart, which would relocate to Retail B from its existing building in La Quinta.
Should this relocation occur, in order to ensure the re -occupancy of the existing
Wal-Mart building and to avoid a situation in which vacant structures would remain
along the Highway 1 1 1 business corridor, the following conditions shall apply:
a. As a condition to relocating to the Retail B Building, Wall -Mart shall keep the
landscape, hardscape, and building exterior at the existing Wal-Mart site well
maintained. The physical condition of the structure, hardscape and landscaping
shall be kept, at a minimum, at the level of condition that exists as of the date
the Project is approved. In addition, nothing shall be done to the existing
structure that would give the appearance that the building has been vacated. As
an example, the windows may not be boarded. Any graffiti shall be removed
within two business days. The site shall not be used for storage.
b. In order to ensure the full reoccupation of the existing Wal-Mart building by one
or more commercial retail users within a reasonable time period (not to exceed
24 months) following any relocation of Wal-Mart from the existing building and
into the Retail B Building, the following additional condition is imposed upon the
Project. Within 90 days of approval of this Project, and prior to issuance of a
building permit for Retail B Building, the City and Wal-Mart shall execute either
(i) an option agreement which provides the City the option of purchasing the
approximately 13 acre Wal-Mart property in the City of La Quinta, both the
existing Wal-Mart building and all surrounding parking lot areas owned by
Wal-Mart (the "Existing Building"), or (ii) at the City's option, shall execute other
agreements satisfactory to the City that ensure that the Existing Building will be
fully reoccupied by one or more commercial retail users within a reasonable time
period, as defined above. The agreement referenced in (i) or (ii) shall be referred
to hereinafter as the "Agreement". If the City and Wal-Mart fail to execute the
Agreement within 90 days of Project approval, Stamko Development's
entitlement approvals shall remain effective for Retail B Building -- and this
condition of approval shall be deemed satisfied by the City -- so long as Retail B
Building at The Centre at La Quinta is not occupied by Wal-Mart. The City and
P:UERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd ; ; f
Wal-Mart may extend this 90 day period, if agreed to in writing, up to 150 days,
but in no event will a building permit issue if the Agreement has not been
executed. Any extensions agreed to beyond 150 days shall require Stamko
Development's prior written approval.
This condition of approval applies to Retail B Building only, and will have no application
to the issuance of building permits for any other development in Planning Area III of
The Centre of La Quinta Specific Plan.
NOISE
85. Once the business locating in Retail Building B is fully operational, noise monitoring
shall be conducted on one to two occasions, at the Applicants expense, under the
supervision of the City, to ensure that the typical operational noise does not violate the
City's noise ordinance standards. The monitoring shall be conducted at one or more
locations chosen by the City at the perimeter of the property.
P:\JERRY\STAMKO-COA-SDP728.wpd
RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW FOR A PLANT NURSERY/GARDEN
CENTER, AND AUTO REPAIR/SPECIALTY SHOP
AND AN AUTO SERVICE STATION IN
CONJUNCTION WITH RETAIL BUILDING "B"FOR
THE CENTRE AT LA QUINTA SPECIFIC PLAN
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-067
APPLICANT: STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26T" day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, to consider
the request of the Stamko Development Company for the approval of a plant
nursery/garden center, and auto repair/specialty shop and an auto service station in
conjunction with retail building "b" within a retail shopping center having 334,117+ square
feet, located along the south side of highway 1 1 1 between la Quinta Centre Drive and
300 ±feet west of Dune Palms Drive, more particularly described as:
APNS 649-030-057 thru 063
WHEREAS, said Addendum has complied with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and "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
determined that although proposed could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
effects have been analyzed adequately in the earlier EIR and SEIR pursuant to
applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the earlier EIR
and SEIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project and/or were made a part of the Addendum and/or included in the
Conditions of Approval; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Conditional Use Permit:
A. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that these types of units are
permitted in Regional Commercial zone with a Conditional Use Permit.
PAJERRY\STAMKP-CUP-RES0. wpd
B. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code and applicable Specific Plan or will be conditioned to be so in areas
of design development standards, parking, etc.
B. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that the uses comply
with applicable design requirements and are providing adequate landscaping and
are compatible with surrounding development.
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 approve Site Development Permit 2001-728 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions labeled Exhibit "A",
attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 26th day of February, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
by the following vote, to wit:
P:\J ERRY\STAM KP-CUP-R ESO. wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2002-067
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
GENERAL
1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits
contained in Conditional Use Permit 2002-067, Site Development Permit 2002-
728, and Specific Plan 97-029, unless otherwise amended by the following
conditions.
2. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the
effective 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. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this
development application or any application thereunder. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. The Applicant has indicated its belief that the Retail B Building will be occupied
by Wal-Mart, which would relocate to Retail B from its existing building in La
Quinta. Should this relocation occur, in order to ensure the re -occupancy of the
existing Wal-Mart building and to avoid a situation in which vacant structures
would remain along the Highway 1 1 1 business corridor, the following conditions
shall apply:
a. As a condition to relocating to the Retail B Building, Wall -Mart shall keep
the landscape, hardscape, and building exterior at the existing Wal-Mart
site well maintained. The physical condition of the structure, hardscape
and landscaping shall be kept, at a minimum, at the level of condition
that exists as of the date the Project is approved. In addition, nothing
shall be done to the existing structure that would give the appearance
that the building has been vacated. As an example, the windows may
not be boarded. Any graffiti shall be removed within two business days.
The site shall not be used for storage.
P:\JERRY\STAMKO-CUP-COA.wpd
r
RESOLUTION 98-061
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -ADOPTED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 98-040
JULY 28, 1998
b. In order to ensure the full reoccupation of the existing Wal-Mart building
by one or more commercial retail users within a reasonable time period
(not to exceed 24 months) following any relocation of Wal-Mart from the
existing building and into the Retail B Building, the following additional
condition is imposed upon the Project. Within 90 days of approval of this
Project, and prior to issuance of a building permit for Retail B Building,
the City and Wal-Mart shall execute either (i) an option agreement which
provides the City the option of purchasing the approximately 13 acre
Wal-Mart property in the City of La Quinta, both the existing Wal-Mart
building and all surrounding parking lot areas owned by Wal-Mart (the
"Existing Building"), or (ii) at the City's option, shall execute other
agreements satisfactory to the City that ensure that the Existing Building
will be fully reoccupied by one or more commercial retail users within a
reasonable time period, as defined above. The agreement referenced in
(i) or (ii) shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Agreement". If the City
and Wal-Mart fail to execute the Agreement within 90 days of Project
approval, Stamko Development's entitlement approvals shall remain
effective for Retail B Building -- and this condition of approval shall be
deemed satisfied by the City -- so long as Retail B Building at The Centre
at La Quinta is not occupied by Wal-Mart. The City and Wal-Mart may
extend this 90 day period, if agreed to in writing, up to 150 days, but in
no event will a building permit issue if the Agreement has not been
executed. Any extensions agreed to beyond 150 days shall require
Stamko Development's prior written approval.
This condition of approval applies to Retail B Building only, and will have no
application to the issuance of building permits for any other development in
Planning Area III of The Centre of La Quinta Specific Plan.
P:\JERRY\STAMKO-CUP-COA.wpd
T
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A SUBDIVISION OF 62.10 ACRES INTO
18 COMMERCIAL LOTS, AND 2 LETTERED LOTS
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
CENTURY CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26T" day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Stamko Development Company for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map
to create 18 commercial lots and 2 miscellaneous lots on 62.10 acres in the Regional
Commercial zone, located immediately south of State Highway 1 1 1, east of Adams
Street, approximately 300 feet west of Dune Palms Road and approximately 1,850
feet north of Avenue 48 and more particularly described as follows:, more particularly
described as:
APNS 649-030-057 thru 063
WHEREAS, said Addendum has complied with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and "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
determined that although proposed could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant
effects have been analyzed adequately in the earlier EIR and SEIR pursuant to
applicable standards and have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to the earlier EIR
and SEIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project and/or were made a part of the Addendum and/or included in the
Conditions of Approval; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to justify
a recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map:
1. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan in that with the lots will
be used for commercial uses which conforms with the General Plan and its
Elements provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed.
2. The design and proposed improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
the General Plan and applicable specific plans (Zoning Code) in that the
development and improvements of the lots will comply with applicable
PAJERRY\STAMKO-RESO-TPMAP.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract Map 30420
February 26, 2002
development standards regarding, density, grading, access, streets, lot sizes and
widths, etc., provided the recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed.
3. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements are not likely to
cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, or
wildlife, or cause serious public health problems since the project is surrounded
by development, or other urban improvements.
3. The design of the proposed map or types of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems because the development of the land will
require compliance with all health related requirements including traffic calming
techniques (i.e. stop signs, chokers, etc.), and provisions for sewers and water.
5 The design of the proposed map will not conflict with easements acquired by
the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed
Map since none presently exist and new easements as needed will be provided
and recorded.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does recommend approval of Tentative Parcel Map 30420 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 26T" day of February, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
P:\JERRY\STAMKO-RESO-TPMAP.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Tentative Tract Map 30420
February 26, 2002
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
' 4
P:\JERRY\STAMKO-RESO-TPMAP.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
GENERAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to
attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Tentative Parcel Map, or any
Parcel Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its
defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall
cooperate fully in the defense.
2. This Tentative Parcel Map, and any Parcel Map recorded thereunder, shall comply with
the requirements and standards of Government Code § § 66410 through 66499.58
(the "Subdivision Map Act"), and Chapter 13 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
("LQMC").
The City of La Quinta's Municipal Code can be accessed on the City's Web Site at
www://la-quinta.org.
3. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the
applicant shall obtain the necessary clearances and/or permits from the following
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 (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
• SunLine Transit Agency
The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from
the above listed agencies. When the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those
improvements plans for City approval.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quinta.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
4. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit, Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge
Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water), LQMC; Riverside County Ordinance
No. 457; and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 99-08-DWQ .
A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that
disturbs five (5) acres or more of land, or that disturbs less than five (5) acres of
land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than
five (5) acres of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water
Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP").
B. The applicant's SWPPP shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any on or
off -site grading being done in relation to this project.
C. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for inspection at
the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements
by the City.
D. The applicant's SWPPP shall include provisions for all of the following Best
Management Practices ("BMPs") (8.70.020 (Definitions), LQMC):
1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control).
2) Temporary Sediment Control.
3) Wind Erosion Control.
4) Tracking Control.
5) Non -Storm Water Management.
6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control.
E. All of applicant's erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be approved by the
City Engineer prior to any on or off site grading being done in relation to this
project.
F. All approved project BMPs shall be maintained in their proper working order
throughout the course of construction, and until all improvements have been
accepted by the City.
5. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the
Infrastructure Fee Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time
of issuance of building permit(s).
P:VERRYXPM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
FIRE DEPARTMENT
6. Approved Super fire hydrants at every intersection and spaced every 330 feet along
the street, and also they shall be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any
portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel ways.
7. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be placed in the street 8 inches from
centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
8. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot.
J. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all commercial buildings 5,000 sq. ft. or larger to
be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 standard. Sprinkler plans will need to be submitted to the
fire department for review.
10. Install Knox Key Lock box on each commercial building. Contact the fire department
for an application.
11. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code.
12. Minimum fire flow 2500 GPM, with an actual flow from any one hydrant connected
to any given water main of 1500 GPM for 2-hours at 20 PSI reidual.
Building plans shall be submitted to the fire Department for plan review to run
concurrent with the City plan check.
13. Any operation that produces grease -laden vapors will require a hood/duct system for
fire protection. ( Restaurants, drive-thru's, etc.)
14. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designation required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/
or signs.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
15. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and
other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the
proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate
or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance,
construction and reconstruction of essential improvements.
P:VERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd ", "j
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
16. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Parcel Map all public street right-of-ways
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans,
and/or as required by the City Engineer.
17. The public street right-of-way offers for dedication required for this development
include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) State Route 1 1 1 (S.R. 1 1 1) - (Major Arterial) - 70 foot half right of way or
additional right of way if required by Caltrans for the design of the approved
construction and access plans for this parcel map. If required by Caltrans,
acquire and deed additional right of way as necessary for widening of the
median and resulting northward shift of the north side of the highway.
2► La Quinta Centre Drive - (Collector Street) - 60 feet of right of way as
required by the approved Specific Plan No. 97-029.
3) Auto Centre Way South - (Collector Street) - 74 feet of total right of way
as required by the approved Specific Plan No. 97-029.
18. Right-of-way geometry for standard knuckles and property line corner cut -backs at
curb returns shall conform to Riverside County Standard Drawings #801, and #805,
respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
19. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left
turn lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction
plans and as may be required by Caltrans and SunLine Transit Agency.
20. When the City Engineer determines that access rights to the proposed street right-of-
ways shown on the approved Tentative Parcel Map are necessary prior to approval of
the Parcel Map dedicating such right-of-ways, the applicant shall grant the necessary
right-of-ways within 60 days of a written request by the City.
21. The applicant shall offer for dedication on the Parcel Map a ten -foot wide public utility
easement contiguous with, and along both sides of La Quinta Centre Drive and Auto
Centre Way South. Such easement may be reduced to five feet in width with the
express written approval of 1ID.
q
P:VERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
22. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways
as follows:
A. S.R. 1 1 1 - Fifty (50) Feet from the R/W-P/L.
B. Interior Public Streets - As required by the General Plan and City Code unless
otherwise approved in the Specific Plan No. 97-029 for this development.
The listed setback depth shall be the average depth where a meandering wall design
is approved.
The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to,
remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall offer for dedication blanket easements for those purposes on the Parcel
Map.
23. The applicant shall offer for dedication those easements necessary for the placement
of, and access to, utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park
lands, and common areas on the Parcel Map.
24. The applicant shall vacate all abutter's right -of -access to public streets and properties
from all frontages along such public streets and properties, excepting those access
points shown on the Parcel Map.
25. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate,
from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall
construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur.
26. When an applicant proposes the vacation, or abandonment, of any existing right-of-
way, or access easement, which will diminish the access rights to any properties
owned by others, the applicant shall provide an alternate right-of-way or access
easement, to those properties, or notarized letters of consent from the affected
property owners.
27. The applicant shall cause no easement to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
the subject property between the date of approval of the Tentative Parcel Map and the
date of recording of any Parcel Map, unless such easement is approved by the City
Engineer.
P:VERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PARCEL MAPS
28. Prior to the City's approval of a Parcel Map, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCAD files of the Parcel Map that was approved by the City's map checker on a
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. Such files shall be in a standard
AutoCAD format so as to be fully retrievable into a basic AutoCAD program.
Where a Parcel Map was not produced in an AutoCAD format, or produced in a file
that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will accept a raster -
image file of such Parcel Map.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect," refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
29. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans), LQMC.
30. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and
approval by the City. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall
be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise
authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if
additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to
prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required
by other agencies and utility purveyors.
A. Public Street Plans: 1 " = 40' Horizontal, 1 " = 4' Vertical
The street improvement plans shall include permanent traffic control and separate
plan sheet(s) (drawn at 20 scale) that show the meandering sidewalk, mounding,
and berming design in the combined parkway and landscape setback area.
B. State Route 111: As Required by Caltrans, including metric or dual units if
required.
C. Off -Site Street Median Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
D. Perimeter Landscape Plan: 1 " = 20'
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd T
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
E. On -Site Rough Grading Plan: 1 " = 40' Horizontal
F. On -Site Precise Grading Plan: 1 " = 30' Horizontal
Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed
above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing
plan preparation.
All Off -Site Plan & Profile Street Plans and Signing & Striping Plans shall show all
existing improvements for a distance of at least 200-feet beyond the project limits, or
a distance sufficient to show any required design transitions.
"Rough Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls with Top Of Wall & Top
Of Footing elevations shown. All footings shall have a minimum of 1-foot of cover,
or sufficient cover to clear any adjacent obstructions.
In addition to the normal set of improvement plans, a "Site Development" plan and a
"Site Utility" plan are required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official and
the City Engineer.
"Site Development" plans shall normally include all on -site surface improvements
including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor
elevations, parking lot improvements and ADA requirements.
"Site Utility" plans shall normally include all sub -surface improvements including but
not necessarily limited to sewer lines, water lines, fire protection and storm drainage
systems. The "Site Utility" plan shall have signature blocks for the Building Official
and the City Engineer.
31. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements
of construction. For a fee, established by City Resolution, the applicant may purchase
such standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes from the City.
32. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the AutoCAD files of all approved
improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall
be saved in a standard AutoCAD format so they may be fully retrievable through a
basic AutoCAD program.
At the completion of construction, and prior to the final acceptance of the
improvements by the City, the applicant shall update the AutoCAD files in order to
reflect the as -built conditions.
P:VERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd "
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Where the improvement plans were not produced in a standard AutoCAD format, or
a file format that can be converted to an AutoCAD format, the City Engineer will
accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AGREEMENTS
33. Prior to the conditional approval of any Parcel Map, or the issuance of any permit(s),
the applicant shall construct all on and off -site improvements and satisfy its obligations
for same, or shall furnish a fully secured and executed Subdivision Improvement
Agreement ("SIA") guaranteeing the construction of such improvements and the
satisfaction of its obligations for same, or shall agree to any combination thereof, as
may be required by the City.
34. Any Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("SIA") entered into by and between the
applicant and the City of La Quinta, for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of
any improvements related to this Tentative Parcel Map, shall comply with the
provisions of Chapter 13.28 (Improvement Security), LQMC.
35. Improvements to be made, or agreed to be made, shall include the removal of any
existing structures or other obstructions which are not a part of the proposed
improvements; and shall provide for the setting of the final survey monumentation.
36. When improvements are phased through a "Phasing Plan," or an administrative
approval (e.g., Site Development Permits), all off -site improvements and common on -
site improvements (e.g., backbone utilities, retention basins, perimeter walls,
landscaping and gates) shall be constructed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the
issuance of any permits in the first phase of the development, or as otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
Improvements and obligations required of each subsequent phase shall either be
completed, or secured through a SIA, prior to the occupancy of permanent buildings
within such latter phase, or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
In the event the applicant fails to construct the improvements for the development, or
fails to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, pursuant to the
approved phasing plan, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of all permits,
and/or final inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development of the
project, or call upon the surety to complete the improvements.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quinta.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
37. Depending on the timing of the development of this Tentative Parcel Map, and the
status of the off -site improvements at the time, the applicant may be required to: (1)
construct certain off -site improvements, (2) construct additional off -site improvements,
subject to the reimbursement of its costs by others, (3) reimburse others for those
improvements previously constructed that are considered to be an obligation of this
tentative parcel map, (4) secure the costs for future improvements that are to be made
by others, or (5) to agree to any combination of these means, as the City may require.
In the event that any of the improvements required for this development are
constructed by the City, the applicant shall, prior to the approval of the Parcel Map,
or the issuance of any permit related thereto, reimburse the City for the costs of such
improvements.
38. When improvements are to be secured through a SIA, and prior to any conditional
approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall submit detailed
construction cost estimates for all proposed on -site and off -site improvements,
including an estimate for the final survey monumentation, for checking and approval
by the City Engineer. Such estimates shall conform to the unit cost schedule adopted
by City resolution, or ordinance.
For items not listed in the City's unit cost schedule, the proposed unit costs shall be
approved by the City Engineer.
At the time the applicant submits its detailed construction cost estimates for
conditional approval of the Parcel Map by the City Council, the applicant shall also
submit one copy each of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " reduction of each page of the Parcel Map,
along with a copy of an 8-1 /2" x 11 " Vicinity Map.
Estimates for improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies and submitted to the City along with the applicant's detailed cost
estimates.
Security will not be required for telephone, natural gas, or Cable T.V. improvements.
Development -wide improvements shall not be agendized for final acceptance by the
City Council until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the
applicant has met all the requirements for telephone service to all lots within the
development.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quinta.wpd
f y i
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
39. Should the applicant fail to construct the improvements for the development, or fail
to satisfy its obligations for the development in a timely manner, the City shall have
the right to halt issuance of building permits, and/or final building inspections, withhold
other approvals related to the development of the project, or call upon the surety to
complete the improvements.
GRADING
40. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading
Improvements), LQMC.
41. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the
applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer.
42. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval
of all of the following:
A. A grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer or architect,
B. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a qualified engineer, and
C. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive
Dust Control), LQMC.
All grading shall conform to the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils
Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by a soils engineer, or by an
engineering geologist.
A statement shall appear on the Parcel Map that a soils report has been prepared in
accordance with the California Health & Safety Code § 17953.
The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount
sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan
provisions as submitted with its application for a grading permit.
43. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind
and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be
planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control
measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan.
44. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
t `r
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
45. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the
building pads in adjacent developments.
46. The applicant shall minimize the differences in elevation between the adjoining
properties and the lots within this development.
Building pad elevations on contiguous interior lots shall not differ by more than three
feet except for lots that do not share a common street frontage, where the differential
shall not exceed five feet.
Where compliance within the above stated limits is impractical, the City may consider
alternatives that are shown to minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and
neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
47. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by
more than plus or minus three tenths of a foot from the elevations shown on the
approved Tentative Parcel Map, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading
changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review.
48. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide
a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor.
Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading
plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad
certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. The data shall be
organized by lot number, and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
49. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.120 (Drainage),
LQMC, Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03. More specifically, stormwater falling on site
during the 100 year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the
centerline of adjacent public streets. The design storm shall be either the 3 hour, 6
hour or 24 hour event producing the greatest total run off.
50. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basin(s) as shown on the
Tentative Parcel Map. Individual lot basins or other retention concepts may be
approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 t/2 acres in size or larger or where the use of
common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be impracticable. If individual
lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual lot retention provisions
of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
P:\JERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
51. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rete shall be two inches per
hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site specific data indicating otherwise.
52. Nuisance water shall be retained on site by an approved system.
53. The project shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water (through
underground piping and/or retention facilities) from any on -site or adjacent well sites
granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a requirement for
development of this property.
54. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by
the Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
55. For on -site common retention basins, retention depth shall not exceed six feet and side
slopes shall not exceed 3:1. For retention basins on individual lots, retention depth
shall not exceed two feet.
56. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots
along State Route 1 1 1. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls
onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The
perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with
berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC.
57. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels
or frequencies in any area outside the development.
58. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity
to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic
drainage relief route.
Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained
or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
59. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.1 10 (Utilities), LQMC.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quinta.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
60. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility
lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not
limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands,
to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
61. Existing overhead utility lines within, or adjacent to the proposed development, and
all proposed utilities shall be installed underground.
All existing utility lines attached to joint use 92 KV transmission power poles are
exempt from the requirement to be placed underground.
62. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of
utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer.
The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval
by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
63. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Sections 13.24.060 (Street
Improvements), 13.24.070 (Street Design - Generally) & 13.24.100 (Access For
Individual Properties And Development), LQMC for public streets; and Section
13.24.080 (Street Design - Private Streets), where private streets are proposed.
64. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations that will convey
water without ponding, and provide lateral containment of dust and residue during
street sweeping operations. Unused curb cuts on any lot shall be restored to standard
curb height prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on the lot.
65. The applicant shall construct the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses.
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) S.R. 1 1 1 from the east side of La Quinta Centre Drive to the easterly
project boundary (Major Arterial) - Construct applicant's half of a 116 foot
(curb face to curb face) street improvements. Construct a 28 foot wide
raised landscaped median, and widen the north half as required for the
widened.
P:VERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quinta.wpd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Street widening improvements shall include all appurtenant components
such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, traffic control striping, legends,
and signs, except for street lights. Other significant new improvements
required for installation in, or adjacent, to the subject right of way include:
(a) 8-foot wide meandering sidewalk.
(b) 28-foot wide landscaped median.
(The landscape median improvements are eligible for reimbursement
from the City's Development Impact Fee fund in accordance with
policies established for that program.)
(c) Main entry streets, bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes,
and/or other features contained in the approved construction plans
may warrant additional street widths or other measures as determined
by the City Engineer, Caltrans or SunLine Transit Agency.
B. LA QUINTA CENTRE DRIVE
1) Construct 40 foot curb to curb full width improvements as shown on
the Tentative Map and approved in Specific Plan No.97-029.
C. AUTO CENTRE WAY SOUTH
1) Construct 54 foot curb to curb full width improvements as shown on
the Tentative Map and approved in Specific Plan No. 97-029.
66. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure
for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as
follows:
Residential
Collector
Secondary Arterial
Primary Arterial
Major Arterial
3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
4.0"/5.00"
4.0"/6.00"
4.5"/6.00"
5.5"/6.50"
or the approved equivalents of alternate materials.
P:UERRIY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quinta.wpd
a
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
67. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Primary Entry (La Quinta Centre Drive at Highway 1 1 1): Existing signalized
intersection with full turning movements.
B. Secondary Entry (Highway 1 1 1 between La Quinta Centre Drive and the easterly
project boundary):
1. Approximately 300' easterly of La Quinta Centre Drive: Right in only
driveway.
2. Approximately 600' easterly of La Quinta Centre Drive: Right in/right out
driveway.
The proposed driveway(s) on S.R. 1 1 1 shall require Caltrans approval.
C. Secondary Entry (La Quinta Centre Drive/Auto Centre Drive Intersection):
Driveway entrance with full turning movements.
D. Secondary Entry (La Quinta Centre Drive northerly of Auto Centre Way South):
Driveway entrance with full turning movements.
E. Secondary Entry (At the Southerly Terminus of La Quinta Centre Drive): La
Quinta Centre Drive will terminate with ingress and egress into Parcel No. 1.
68. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
69. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted
standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City
Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
70. Standard knuckles and corner cut -backs shall conform to Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805, respectively, unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
71. The applicant shall extend improvements beyond the subdivision boundaries to ensure
they safely integrate with existing improvements.
P:l1ERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
CONSTRUCTION
72. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphaltic concrete and Portland cement concrete. The
submittal shall include the test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include the most
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test
results confirming that the design gradations can be achieved in current production.
The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs have been
approved.
73. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings
have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets.
The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings
and street name signs. If on -site streets in residential developments are initially
constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete the
pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within the
development or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
74. The applicant shall comply with Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) &
13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans), LQMC.
75. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins,
common lots and park areas, including S.R. 1 1 1.
76. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
The applicant shall submit the landscape plans for approval by the Community
Development Department (CDD), prior to plan checking by the Public Works
Department. When plan checking has been completed by CDD, the applicant shall
obtain the signatures of CVWD and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner,
prior to submittal for signature by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
3� �
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
77. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn areas shall be minimized with no lawn,
or spray irrigation, being placed within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
78. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above ground utility structures.
PUBLIC SERVICES
79. The Bus Turnout and Shelter was not constructed with Parcel Map 28525 for the La
Quinta Auto Mall. Condition No. 60. of PM 28525 is deferred to this Tentative Parcel
Map. Bus turnouts shall be provided as a part of the project's public street
improvements. The project developer shall provide a bus stop shelter that complies
with the City's transit shelter plan for Highway 1 1 1, not to exceed fifteen thousand
dollars ($15,000).
QUALITY ASSURANCE
80. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the
approval of the City Engineer.
81. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such other
appropriate professionals as are required to provide the expertise with which to
prepare and sign accurate record drawings, and to provide adequate construction
supervision.
82. The applicant shall arrange for, and bear the cost of, all measurements, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program, but which may be
required by the City, as evidence that the construction materials and methods
employed comply with the plans, specifications and other applicable regulations.
After tributary -area improvements are complete and soils have been permanently
stabilized where retention basins have been constructed, testing shall include sand
filter percolation tests, as approved by the City Engineer.
83. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and
shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and
completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all AutoCAD or raster -image
files previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
1
RESOLUTION 2002-
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 30420
STAMKO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
MAINTENANCE
84. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance),
LQMC.
85. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of
all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
86. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.180 (Fees and
Deposits), LQMC. These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for
plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits.
87. Prior to approval of a final map or completion of any approval process for modification
of boundaries of the property subject to these conditions, the applicant shall process
a reapportionment of any bonded assessment(s) against the property and pay the cost
of the reapportionment.
P:UERRY\PM 30420 - The Centre at La Quintampd
NMI r O,
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002
CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14, FOR DESIGN OF FIRE
STATION
LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF ADAMS STREET, NORTH OF MILES AVENUE.
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA 2001-440) WAS
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED APPLICATION IN
COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
RECOMMENDED ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
The project site is located on the west side of Adams Street, north of Miles Avenue, and
is currently vacant. The site is bordered on the south by a church, on the west side by a
mobile home park, on the north by the Adams Street Park, and on the east, across Adams
Street by residential development.
In addition to the Environmental Assessment, the proposed project involves the review of
the design and site planning for the new proposed fire station. The fire station project is a
programmed Capital Improvement Project, and has been planned for some time.
The City Council approved the design concept at its study session on February 5, 2002.
This application represents the results of the design effort.
PAPC Stf Rpt EA 01-440.wpd
Project-Descripti n
The proposed fire station will be approximately 7,800 square feet, and will be located on
1.4 acres of currently vacant land. The fire station is proposed to serve the northern portion
of the City. A CVWD pump station is located at the northeastern corner of the site, and will
be walled in as part of this project. Wall is proposed for the balance of the site, with the
exception of wrought iron proposed for a portion of the northern boundary, to provide views
from the residential quarters to the Adams Park property.
The station will include a public office area, on the southern end of the building, vehicle
bays in the middle of the structure, and residential quarters on the northern portion of the
site. The facilities have been designed to provide as much buffer as possible to the
residential land uses to the northwest and west of the site.
The architectural style proposed is Mediterranean, with concrete tile on the pitched roof,
and a stucco finish on the walls.
Landscaping focuses on a desert planting palette and decomposed granite, for ease of
maintenance. The turf areas have been kept to a minimum, and occur adjacent to the patio
area which will be next to the living quarters.
Concerns regarding the noise levels which could be generated by the fire station,
particularly during the evening and night-time hours, have been addressed in the
environmental review of this project. The mitigation measures imposed will lower the
potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Asch:itecture and—L nds-caniLng Review Committee:
The ALRC reviewed the proposed landscaping and building elevations at their meeting of
February 13, 2002, and recommended approval subject to conditions (Attachment 3).
This application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on February 15, 2002. All
property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice
as required by the Zoning Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department.
All applicable agency comments received have been made part of the Conditions of
Approval for this case.
A _F-NT-OF MANDATORY FINOJN-$s
The findings necessary to recommend approval of the Capital Improvement Project can be
made, as noted in the attached resolutions with the exception of:
PAPC Stf Rpt EA 01-440.wpd
1. Architectural Design
The proposed fire station has been designed in the Mediterranean style, and incorporates
residential features to aid in its integration into the neighborhood. The structure was
proposed to be of rust concrete tile, and the walls stucco. The Architectural and
Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommended that the roof tile color be changed
to be compatible with the split face concrete block on the perimeter wall, and that a split
face veneer be used for the wainscoting on the building (see discussion below). Conditions
of approval are included to this effect.
Covered patios are provided on the eastern side of the building, supported by stucco
columns. An additional open patio is proposed for the entrance to the office (public) portion
of the building. The structure will be one story, with the exception of the vehicle bay, which
will rise to a height of 28 feet.
The windows are proposed to be mostly multi -paned, and contrasting colors are proposed
on the walls on all sides of the building. The structure will provide a visually similar style as
the area in which it occurs, and will therefore blend well with the neighborhood.
W_aAl Q-e siign
The ALRC recommended that the wall around the CVWD pump station and around the
balance of the site be of split face block, in order to improve its appearance. A condition of
approval has been added which requires that this be implemented.
Land-s-cape P-esign
The ALRC expressed concern regarding the height of the proposed palm trees on the site,
and requested that they be substantial. The Committee also recommended that the pine
tree proposed as a street tree be changed to be more compatible with the street trees on
Adams Street. The landscaping plan has been amended to reflect use of a California
Pepper at that location. The ALRC also recommended that vines (such as bougainvillea)
be used on the walls on the east, west and south of the property, to soften the hardscape.
These conditions have been included.
The Capital Improvement Project, as conditioned, represents an appropriate use of the
parcel on which they are proposed. The fire station, as conditioned, is compatible with
surrounding development in the immediate area, and in conformance with City
requirements. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached
Resolutions, can be made.
PAPC Stf Rpt EA 01-440.wpd
RECO MEN OATIQN:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City
Council adoption of Environmental Assessment 2001-440.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City
Council approval of Capital Improvement Project 2001-14.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. ALRC Minutes for February 13, 2002
3. Elevations
4. Site Plan
5. Landscape Plan
6. Environmental Assessment 2001-440
Prepared by:
Nicole Sauviat Criste, Consulting Planner
PAPC Stf Rpt EA 01-440.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440 PREPARED
FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-440
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did,
on the 26th day of February 2002 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-440 for Capital Improvement Project 2001-14, located on
the west side of Adams Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has 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 an Initial Study (EA 2001-440 and has
determined that although the proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 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 assessment
and included in the conditions of approval and a Mitigated 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 recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not be detrimental to the
health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in
that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2001-440.
2. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential
for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife
depends.
PAPC Reso EA 01-440.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Capital Improvement Project 2001-14
February 26, 2002
4. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been
identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not result in impacts which
are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 will not have environmental
effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly,
as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-440
and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental
Assessment 2001-440 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in
the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum on file in the Community
Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-440 reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
PAPC Reso EA 01-440.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Capital Improvement Project 2001-14
February 26, 2002
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 26th day of February 2002, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Jacques Abels, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAPC Reso EA 01-440.wpd
N
O
O
N
cd
a�
w
z
c
z
a
U
A
U
W
d
W
d
A
W �
z
aA
�W
ox
UU
Y
a
Cd
a
W
b
o
U
cts
Q
a
a
U
b
G7
°
Cd
o
°
0
0
00
F
C"
y
Q
N
U
•1
U
•4
°
on
U
� � U
�•..`�.
bq
bA
a
a�,
a s
a
s L1
L1
a
oco
z
z
a
o
O 0
a.
Q
a
Q
O
(Pi
O.
en0 U
on
3
a
W
�
"Cod
x
�040
W
H
Q
A
W y+
Q°
a�
�W
Ox
UU
e�
0
Q
•o
20
0
F
rr
�
CL
a
V
bcA
�
Q U
v� a,
a
0
U
O
a
wz
�
A O
c,
oz
o
e�
UQ
on
z
o
o
W
�
W
0
vi
V
0
F
Q
A
W �
WA
aU
W
Ox
UU
9
W
F+
O
o
O
O
o
0
V
U
U
U
U
U
U
a
a
a
a
a
a
F
0
a
O
a
O
o
U
a
O
o
U
U
v�
cn
Q
Ca
C�
Ca
a
o�
aW O
o.
o.
Q
Q
Q
G�
V
U
to
to
to
U
U
m
m
m
z
w
4,
O
Cd
o
.�
°
°
4)
U
HOl
L7�
a
3
b
O
Cd
o
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRE STATION
CASE NO.: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did
on the 26th day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the
request of the City to allow the construction of a fire station on the west side of Adams
Street, approximately 800 feet north of Miles Avenue; and
WHEREAS, said Capital Improvement Project request has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"
as amended by Resolution 83-8, in that Environmental Assessment 2001-440 was
prepared; 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 a recommendation for approval of said
Capital Improvement Project.
The Capital Improvement Project is consistent with the City's General Plan in that
the proposed project furthers the City's General Plan goals for a full service
community. The use is consistent with the goals and policies and intent of the
General Plan Land Use Element (Chapter 2).
2. The approval of this Capital Improvement Project is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance in that the project will conform to development standards contained in the
Development Code.
3. The proposed land use will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public
health, safety and general welfare or injurious to, or incompatible with other land
uses in that the project will integrate into the existing neighborhood.
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 constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
PAPC Reso CIP 01-14.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 02--
Capital Improvement Project 2001-14
February 26, 2002
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval by the City
Council of Capital Improvement Project 2001-14 to allow construction of a fire
station on 1.4 acres.
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Assessment (EA
2001-440) assessed the environmental concerns of this Capital Improvement
Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission, held on this 26th day of February, 2002, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Jacques Abels, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAPC Reso CIP 01-14.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2001-14
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
GENERAL
1. The height of the palm trees is to be substantial.
2. The design of the landscaping along the driveway and over the entire site shall
take into consideration the grade.
3. Vine material shall be added to the wall on the street side, west side and south
side.
4. The pine trees in the streetscape shall be replaced with something consistent
with what is across Adams Street.
5. The perimeter wall shall be split face and a split face veneer used instead of the
wainscoting.
6. The roof color shall be compatible with the split face color.
PAPC Reso CIP 01-14.wpd
PH #C
DATE:
CASE NO. :
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANTS:
ZONING:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
VILLAGE USE PERMIT (VUP) 2000-040,
AMENDMENT NO. 1
ALLOW DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 7,500
SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT.
NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 52 AND DESERT
CLUB DRIVE
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, LLC
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
NORTH: VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR)
EAST: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
The currently vacant Chapman project site of 4.99 acres, is located at the northeast
corner of Avenue 52 And Desert Club Drive. The site is adjacent and across Avenue
52 from The Tradition Club.
' • •1 l• •IlL] 1
•l
On February 6, 2001 City Council approved Planning Commission recommendation
to certify Environmental Assessment 2000-402 for General Plan Amendment 2000-
071, Change of Zone 2000-096, and Village Use Permit 2000-04 to allow the design
and development of a 16,222 square foot restaurant facility.
.• �' It � �O HOW
The applicant is requesting design and development plans to allow a 7,500 square
foot restaurant facility with outdoor dining. The site plan including access, driveways
and a 190 parking spaces lot remain the same as the previous approval.
The architecture of the restaurant is reminiscent of an early California or Spanish style
and similar in style to the previous approval. The structure utilizes russet blend
colored two piece mission clay tile roofing, white smooth hand troweled mission
plaster walls, columns with rustic ledge/cobble stone veneer, brown wood sash
windows and doors, stone veneer below some windows, brown wood trellises, and
terra cotta style chimney caps. The structure is irregular in shape and uses a variety
of roof types and heights, with a maximum height of 24 feet at the tower entry to the
restaurant facing the southwest. The balance of the structure varies from 17' 6" to
22 feet high. A majority of the windows are shaded by the trellis' or colonnade. A
gable tile roof porte' cochere is provided over the passenger drop off and valet area
at the entry.
The Landscape Planting Plan provides a pallette of plant material for shrubs,
groundcover, and trees and is the same as the previous approval with the addition of
landscape material around the building . At the access drive off of Desert Club,
California Pepper trees provide a canopy entrance Mesquite trees line the perimeter
of the project site along Avenue 52 and the north edge of the parking lot; and in
planter areas throughout the parking lot. At the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club
and surrounding the building and outdoor dining, shrubs, groundcover, and trees are
integrated into a unique landscape golf experience concept. The landscaping
concept enhances the building design and includes a putting green, lakes, and
pedestrian paths with connecting bridges. Undulating mounding (3-4 foot) is
provided in this area to buffer Avenue 52 and Desert Club; the mounding extends
along Avenue 52 buffering the east portion of the parking lot. A water efficiency
study has been completed and the project is in compliance with the code.
Site lighting consists of thirteen 18-foot high square poles, located generally on the
interior of the parking lot, with box luminaries with flush lenses directed downward.
Poles have 150 watt high pressure sodium lamps. There is also landscape accent
lighting including tree lighting and bollards. The photometric data from the
illumination study shows light in the parking area is between one and two foot
candles, and a 1.98 ratio of average light to minimum light in compliance with the
Zoning Code (Section 9.150.80K).
•
There are no illuminated signs proposed. Proposed is one approximately 7' high and
3'6" wide monument sign, located at the corner of Avenue 52 and Desert Club Drive,
consisting of "Eldorado" stone veneer and aged wood reveals with a Spanish Terra
Cotta tile roof to match the building. The type and size of letter, and the copy will
be determined at later date. One "Parking" directional monument sign, located at the
parking lot entrance on Avenue 52, 2"-27/8 " high and 3' wide for a total of 3.0
square feet. The sign will consist of "Eldorado" stone veneer and aged wood reveals
with a Spanish Terra Cotta the roof to match the building. The "Parking " signature
sign using 1 /4 " flat cut out letters will be mounted on both faces, this sign will not
be illuminated.
X41LIVIAON&V its] ". • .
The applicant's request was sent to sent City Departments and affected public
agencies on January 30, 2002, requesting comments to be returned by February 15,
2002. All applicable comments are incorporated in the Conditions of Approval.
•
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on February 15,
2002. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice.
I i•l�llct� ► 1�—�--�-_ ►� �
The La Quinta Community Development Department has determined that this project
is exempt per Section 15332 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS•
All findings can be made for each application per the Municipal Code as noted in the
attached resolutions with the exception of the following:
1. Final design of the sign for the monument sign has not been submitted, and
staff recommends adding a condition of approval to require the applicant to
submit to the Community Development Director for review and approval a sign
design for the monument sign prior to issuance of a building permit.( Condition
No. 78).
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- , approving Village Use
Permit 2000-04, Amendment No.1 to allow development plans for a 7,500
square foot restaurant with outdoor dining , subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Plan Exhibits
Prepared by:
Fred Baker, AICP
Principal Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A VILLAGE USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF A
7,500 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT FACILITY ON
4.99 ACRES
CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO.1
APPLICANT: CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 26`h day of February, 2002, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing and to
consider the request of Chapman Golf Development, L. L.C. for a Village Use Permit
Amendment as shown on Exhibit A., and more particularly described as:
APN'S: 770-190-001, 770-181-002, 770-181-003,
770-181-004
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Commission did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify said
Village Use Permit 2000-04, Amendment No. 1:
A. Village Use Permit 2000-04, Amendment No. 1 is consistent with the goals,
policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan proposed General Plan
Amendments are consistent with the City of La Quinta General Plan in that the
proposals meet General Plan Policy 2-5.1.1 and 2-5.1.3 which state:
The VC category shall provide for the development of the Village area
as the center of a year-round commercial, residential, recreational and
community government center. The VC category shall allow specialty
commercial, eating and drinking establishments, professional offices and
neighborhood commercial uses, all located in a unique pedestrian -
oriented atmosphere; and,
The City shall place a priority on facilitating the development of the
Village within the context of real estate market opportunities and
constraints.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1 \PC RESO 2000-04. Amd No. 1 .wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2000-04, Amendment No. 1
February 26, 2002
The Village at La Quinta Specific Plan shall specify appropriate
development standards and design criteria ,such as F.A. R.'s, building
heights, permitted uses, and applicable zoning districts.
1941
Along primary, secondary, and agrarian image corridors the City shall
establish appropriate building height limits to ensure a low density
character and appearance.
B. The design and development of the facility will be consistent with the City's
Zoning Code provided conditions contained herein are met to ensure
consistency with the General Plan.
C. The site design of the proposed project is compatible with the development
quality in the area and accommodates site generated traffic.
D. The landscape design of the proposed project complements the building and
surrounding development in that it enhances the aesthetic and visual quality
of the area, provides adequate visual buffering with trees and mounding, and
uses a high quality of plant materials.
E. The architectural design of the project is compatible with the surrounding
development in that is a similar scale, massing and building height of other
development in the area; the building materials will be high quality, durable and
low maintenance, provided conditions are met.
F. The architectural design of the project is consistent with the Village Design
Guidelines in that land use and circulation considerations, scale, massing and
building height the facility , and other provisions the Guidelines criteria are met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does approve Village Use Permit 2000-04, Amendment No. 1 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\PC RESO 2000-04. Amd No. 1.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002-
Village Use Permit 2000-04, Amendment No. 1
February 26, 2002
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 26th day of February, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
AWUP 2000-04 Amd 11PC RESO 2000-04. Amd No. 1 .wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
GENERAL
1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
(the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding
to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this permit. The City shall have sole
discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and
shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, 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 (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
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 projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits,
the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB acknowledgment of the applicant's
Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit. The
applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is
available for inspection at the project site.
3. Permits under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Infrastructure Fee
Program and Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of
permits.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1 \VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
PROPERTY RIGHTS
4. Prior to issuance of a permit, the applicant shall acquire or confer easements and other
property rights required of this approval or otherwise necessary for construction or
proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include
irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency
services and for maintenance, construction, and reconstruction of essential
improvements.
5. The applicant shall dedicate or grant public and private street right of way and utility
easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable
specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer.
6. Right of way dedications required of this development include:
A. PUBLIC STREETS
1) AVENUE 52 (Primary Arterial):
2) DESERT CLUB DRIVE (Local):
B. PRIVATE STREETS
No additional dedication required.
Additional 5-feet of dedication (for a
30-foot half -street). Dedication will be
based on a 450-foot centerline radius.
1) Commercial: Minimum 24-foot width, with on -street parking prohibited.
7. Right of way geometry for knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with
Riverside County Standard Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer.
8. Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn
lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
9. If the City Engineer determines that access rights to proposed street rights of way
shown on the site plan are necessary prior to dedication of the rights of way, the
applicant shall grant the necessary rights of way within 60 days of written request by
the City.
10. The applicant shall dedicate ten -foot public utility easements contiguous with and along
both sides of all private streets. The easements may be reduced to five feet with the
express concurrence of IID.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
11. The applicant shall create perimeter setbacks along public rights of way as follows
(listed setback depth is the average depth if meandering wall design is approved):
A. Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial): 20-feet
B. Desert Club Drive (Local): None required.
The setback requirement applies to all frontage including, but not limited to, remainder
parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes.
Where public facilities (e.g., sidewalks) are placed on privately -owned setbacks, the
applicant shall dedicate blanket easements for those purposes.
12. The applicant shall dedicate easements necessary for placement of and access to utility
lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas.
13. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to public streets and properties
from all frontage along the streets and properties except access points shown on the
approved site plan.
14. The applicant shall furnish proof of 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.
15. 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 or notarized letters of consent from the property owners
16. The applicant shall file a Parcel Merger to incorporate all of the properties (Lot 90 of
Tract 28470-1; APN 770-181-002; APN 770-181-003; and APN 770-181-004) into
a single parcel.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their
respective professions in the State of California.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1 \VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
17. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified
engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be submitted on 24"
x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets &
Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for
Community Development Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have
signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until
they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, entry
drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include irrigation
improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments. "Precise Grading" plans shall
normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
18. 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.
19. When final plans are approved by the City, 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 items 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.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
20. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels within this site and the
status of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to
construct improvements, to construct additional improvements subject to
reimbursement by others, to reimburse others who construct improvements that are
obligations of this permit approval, to secure the cost of the improvements for future
construction by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by the City,
the Applicant shall, at the time of approval of a development or building permit,
reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
21. 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 the issuance of any construction permits. 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.
22. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide estimates of improvement
costs for checking and approval by the City Engineer. 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 improvements under the jurisdiction of other agencies shall be approved
by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V. cable
improvements. However, development -wide 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.
23. If improvements are phased with administrative approvals (e.g., Site Development
Permits), off -site improvements and common improvements (e.g., retention basins,
perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be constructed or secured prior to approval
of the first phase unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Improvements and
obligations required of each phase shall be completed and satisfied prior to occupancy
of permanent buildings within the phase and subsequent phases unless a construction
phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
24. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely manner
or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement agreement, the City
shall have the right to halt. issuance of building permits or final building inspections,
withhold other approvals related to the development of the project or call upon the
surety to complete the improvements.
GRADING
25. This development shall comply with Chapter 8.11 of the LQMC (Flood Hazard
Regulations). If any portion of any proposed building lot in the development is or may
be located within a flood hazard area as identified on the City's Flood Insurance Rate
Maps, the development shall be graded to ensure that all floors and exterior fill (at the
foundation) are above the level of the project (100-year) flood and building pads are
compacted to 95% Proctor Density as required in Title 44 of the Code of Federal
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
Regulations, Section 65.5(a) (6). Prior to issuance of building permits for lots which
are so located, the applicant shall furnish certifications as required by FEMA that the
above conditions have been met.
26. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish a preliminary
geotechnical ("soils") report and an approved grading plan prepared by a qualified
engineer. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations of the soils report
and be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or engineering geologist.
27. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas
outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting properties
and between separate tracts and lots within this development. Building pad elevations
on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than three feet except for lots within the
site, but not sharing common street frontage, where the differential shall not exceed
five feet.
The limits given in this condition and the previous condition are not entitlements and
more restrictive limits may be imposed in the permit approval or plan checking process.
If compliance with the limits is impractical, however, the City will consider alternatives
which minimize safety concerns, maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner
dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
29. 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. 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.
30. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with
other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public
Works Departments.
31. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each pad,
the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the difference
between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be organized by lot
number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Engineering Bulletin No. 97.03 and the
following:
32. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the
design storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by
the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent
public streets.
33. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins
or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2 %2 acres in
size or larger or where the use of common retention is impracticable. If individual -lot
retention is approved, the applicant shall meet the individual -lot retention provisions of
Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
34. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated,
unimpeded overflow outlet to the historic drainage relief route.
35. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be retained on site or
passed through to the overflow outlet.
36. Retention facility design shall be based on site -specific percolation data which shall be
submitted for checking with the retention facility plans. The design percolation rate
shall not exceed two inches per hour.
37. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Maximum retention depth shall be six feet
for common basins and two feet for individual -lot retention.
38. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. In residential developments, nuisance water
shall be disposed of in a trickling sand filter and leachfield approved by the City
Engineer. The sand filter and leachfield shall be designed to contain surges of 3
gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq. ft.
39. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the
La Quinta Safety Department or the Riverside County Sheriff's Department), retention
basins shall be visible from adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed
around basins unless approved by the Community Development Director and the City
Engineer.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-O4,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
40. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the Coachella
Valley Stormwater Channel, the applicant shall indemnify the City from the costs of
any sampling and testing of the development's drainage discharge which may be
required under the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention
program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from such
discharge. The indemnification shall be executed and furnished to the City prior to
issuance of any grading, construction or building permit and shall be binding on all
heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors in interest in the land within
this project excepting therefrom those portions required to be dedicated or deeded for
public use. The form of the indemnification shall be acceptable to the City Attorney.
If such discharge is approved for this development, the applicant shall make provisions
in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential obligations.
41. The site shall be designed to accommodate purging and blowoff water from any on -site
or adjacent well sites granted or dedicated to the local water utility authority as a
requirement for development of this property.
42. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility
lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures including, but not
limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water valves, and telephone stands,
to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes.
43. Existing aerial lines within or adjacent to the proposed development and all proposed
utilities shall be installed underground. Power lines exceeding 34.5 kv are exempt from
this requirement.
44. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in
existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide
certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
MO M
45. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements shall
conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
AAVUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Avenue 52 (Primary Arterial) - Construct 6-foot sidewalk.
2) Desert Club Drive (Local Street) - Improvements (including 5-foot sidewalk)
will be constructed by the City under Phase VI Improvement District.
B. PRIVATE STREETS
1) Residential: 24-foot travel width with on -street parking prohibited. The
applicant is responsible for the installation of all driveway depressions,
approaches, and sidewalk modifications required for compliance with
applicable ADA standards.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus
turnouts, dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths as determined by the City
Engineer.
46. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and
other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, and sidewalks. Mid -block
street lighting is not required.
47. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g., grading;
traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or dimensions of streets
and sidewalks).
48. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved by the
City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be
stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
49. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
50. Streets shall have vertical curbs or other approved curb configurations which convey
water without ponding and provide lateral containment of dust and residue for street
sweeping. If a wedge or rolled curb design is approved, the lip at the flowline shall be
vertical (1 /8" batter) and a minimum of 0.1' in height. Unused curb cuts on any lot
shall be restored to normal curbing prior to final inspection of permanent building(s) on
the lot.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
51. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
(20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading
(including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows (or
approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.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"
52. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of
construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal
shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix
designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months
old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design
gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule
construction operations until mix designs are approved.
53. The City will conduct final inspections of buildings only when the buildings have
improved street and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The
improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and
street name signs.
54. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following:
A. Private onsite streets at Avenue 52 shall be limited to right turn movements only
(both from Avenue 52 and onto Avenue 52).
B. Private onsite street at Desert Club Drive shall allow full turn movements.
55. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins, common
lots, and park areas.
56. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention
basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1 \VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by the City
Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the City Engineer.
57. 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 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
58. A 6-foot sidewalk shall be constructed along Avenue 52. The sidewalk shall meander
within the 32-foot Right -of -Way and setback.
59. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
60. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical engineers,
surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient construction
supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
61. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing
procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by the City as
evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans, specifications
and applicable regulations.
62. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each sheet
shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" and shall
be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the
drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted
to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
63. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all on -site
improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The applicant
shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released from this
responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
64. The applicant shall pay the City`s established fees for plan checking and construction
inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application
for plan checking and permits.
FIRE MARSHAL
65. Super fire hydrants are to placed no closer than 25 feet and not more than 165 feet
from any portion of the first floor of the building following travel ways around the
exterior of the building. Minimum fire flow for these areas would be 1500 GPM for a
2-hour duration at 20 PSI.
66. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side
that the fire hydrant is on, to identify fire hydrant locations.
67. Building plans are to be submitted (2-sets) to the Fire Department for plan check to run
con current with City plan check.
68. City of La Quinta ordinance requires all buildings, other than single family homes,
5,000 sq. ft. or larger to be fully sprinkled. NFPA 13 Standard. Sprinkler plans will
need to be submitted to the Fire Department for plan check.
69. The proposed bridge element will need to be designed to handle a live load of 60,000
lbs. over 2 axles.
71. All structures shall be accessible from an approved roadway to within 150 feet of all
portions of the exterior of the first floor.
72. Gate entrances, if any, shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the travel
lanes, serving the gate. Any gate providing access from a road to a driveway shall be
located at least 35 feet setback from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to
stop without obstructing traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single
traffic lane provides access to a gate entrance, a 38-foot turning radius shall be used.
73. Gates entrances (if any) may be automatic or manual and shall be equipped with a
rapid entry system (KNOX). Automatic gate pins shall be rated with a sheer pin force,
not to exceed 30 pounds. Gates activated by the rapid entry system shall remain open
until closed by the rapid entry system.
A:\VUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2000-04, AMENDMENT NO. 1
CHAPMAN GOLF DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.
FEBRUARY 26, 2002
74. A minimum dimension for access roads is 20 feet clear and unobstructed width and
minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches in height.
75. Provide the Fire Department with 2 sets of water plans for any on -site fire protection
lines.
76. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by
the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed
on an individual lot.
77. The applicant or deve0oper shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/
or signs.
MISCELLANEOUS
78. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and
approval a sign design for the monument sign prior to issuance of a building permit.
AAVUP 2000-04 Amd 1\VUP 2000-04,Amd No. 1. COA.wpd
B 1 #A
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002
REQUEST: FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR DESERT SANDS
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT,
PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65401
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF CALLE TAMPICO AND EISENHOWER
DRIVE
APPLICANT: DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT/CITY OF LA QUINTA
BACKGROUND:
California Government Code Section 65401 (CGC) requires that any agency responsible
for planning and construction of major public projects, must submit a list of such
projects for the ensuing fiscal year to the jurisdiction in which they are to be located.
It also requires that jurisdiction's planning agency (i.e. Community Development
Department) to review and report to the official agency (i.e. Planning Commission) on
the conformity of said project(s) with the adopted General Plan.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) has identified a potential site for a new
elementary school in La Quinta, at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and
Eisenhower Drive (Attachment 1). The project specifications listing is included with this
report (Attachment 2).
FINDINGS:
Several current General Plan policies are applicable and are referred to for conformance
determination, as follows:
LAND USE ELEMENT
• The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the site as Village Commercial.
The zoning district for Village Commercial permits public educational facilities.
LAND USE ELEMENT
• Both Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive are designated as Primary Arterials on
the General Plan Circulation Policy Diagram. Primary Arterials function as
restricted access, higher -volume corridors for purposes of moving traffic around
neighborhood perimeters with minimal interruption of traffic flow. This ensures
movement of traffic around the school site, with specific intersection locations
for general access to the area developments. Bikeway, pedestrian and transit
improvements are imperative for school facilities, and are accommodated in the
Circulation Element improvement policies related to Primary Arterials.
• These streets are identified by General Plan policy as Primary Image Corridors,
with the intersection of Tampico/Eisenhower designated as a Primary Gateway.
These designations require special design considerations.
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
• The site contained a date palm grove which was removed several years ago.
Policy 4-3.1.3 designates this site as worthy of preservation as a link to the
City's agricultural past, and is designated on the Open Space Policy Diagram as
an Agricultural Retention Area. Through implementation of the policies for
gateway and image corridor treatments previously referred to, a consistent theme
can be developed and incorporated into design plans to maintain consistency with
this policy.
PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT
• No Key Planning Issues or policies identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT
• The site is designated on the Environmental Conservation Policy Diagram as an
Agricultural Retention Area. Policy 6-5.1.1 requires that such areas shall be
encouraged to remain in open space as long as possible. The area has been
previously cleared of the date palm grove.
INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT
• Several policies within this element address provision of adequate supplies of
potable and irrigation water sources, flood protection, and comprehensive sewage
collection, treatment and disposal. The proposed school site will need to provide
these services and develop in conformance with applicable policies and programs.
• A Key Planning Issue identified with regard to school facilities in the Infrastructure
and Public Services Element, is the provision of such facilities in close proximity
to residential areas. Siting of the proposed facility is consistent with this concept
due to it's proximity to the Cove residential area.
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT
• No Key Planning Issues or policies identified.
AIR QUALITY ELEMENT
• No Key Planning Issues or policies identified.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2002 - , confirming a finding of
conformity with the La Quinta General Plan for a potential DSUSD elementary school
project site, to be located at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower
Drive.
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1. Site Location Map
2. Project Fact Sheet
O%flEp S
Q �\\,�� 0
y BERMUDA DUNES r
RANCHO MIRAGE 0
6 INDIAN WELLS Co
PALM DESERT Y
tP LA OUINTA �a
�0 INDIO
Desert Sands Unified School District
47-950 Dune Palms Road • La Quinta, California 92253 • (760) 771-8515 • FAX: (760) 771-8522
BOARD OF EDUCATION
John J. Benoit
Tina A. Godecke
Jim Koedyker
Amy Swan -Draper
GaryTomak
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
- Facilities Services -
January 10, 2002
The Desert Sands Unified School District has identified the need for a new elementary school to
relieve overcrowded conditions at La Quinta schools. A potential site has been identified on the
northeast corner of Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive.
Enclosed is the site location and project description.
If you have any questions, please call me at (760) 771-8516.
Sincerely,
n
/?
�?���I
PeggyTteyes
Director
Facilities Services
Encs.
ATTACHMENT 1
Wej
-131\ J,
�'v,'ti`'�'1i�i '(�v I �-. � 'i All11 ,: •��•''�, `�'' � �I,i �� /��
Ili_-' �� `' fi •I
r ,
r,•
�'jr�,,`�•�� � �•\,'\;�<r-% i' ' tip, \= ; �. =moo• ,l i!' .� ����1' � . .
.;Water 1�'V, f• l,• j; •r• Gj� >]` bp' '
Is
�1i}� ����1�.,`i���r-;`; 7Y '�%• :�r,• 1 1 GQ `.'��•�.::}*�:.y' .Ilo: � i,
I�`�Z':__.-V�,l�.��.r,C,�j',:)? \Vll�ater �� I't .\ _- •`��_. ` •.�4• i is
50
. Water
WI ~ SITE`,
41
lNwk
RRIM—m—, M
-1K
II/ I lam, �;� VQatBr • f) , � ' •i / �u_��LJ e � � ;: I �
`\; } ! Y.-.-=_ti;: � r i�j �( l.."1✓ f I� _� ~�i����r I •I - -� , __ I• II • I i �I
•
�a.JLiQM i.J��L.' _' p11� f L��iJ6 ;'� �`) ry '•( —'�8
Jr, I7�\ �:.���,`�.�'I' •1 \ 1 � • h �'• • I •�� hi• :I, .I.Y� m �'•• h i jC�•�:�� r i0.�`` \ .
��+ ,f t'\ \� �`'�� ;\1 �11r �' \�! :I 6l �J• .il' ;,t,l .� ..; f% I, 1 �I: '�,�, _i = _ I
j'�"' se I '� •,
�, / � �r_ ��.; \l � �`1J�*i;`I�\ `�,; < I �r 'l ����V',I� �i'��lJa��� rr � )0a\'`� �\A,• -0 I
i / C J� �'� I II ° j l t' • e� i i I • La Quinta;..
���`) °�t / I` � 'il3�f •1{�II ,.i��'i� I,.:!leC!'•I �,�1:'`\\��`.`=,�� ,..5 \���C�1�, ),,%ll�;(I;`1
-
``\�\`I`\\``\ill 11 J �i � ah�iJ�•I'L'f�`j�� I�JI�.•i: •�� •� \��/l```\�r`� `����-K:i�il���'i4.'i...
;a! • � `-t / ( ! ? r1 jf .�I . r—l. „ I � , ', � ro\�1. ' ,�� �S = � �=r.,=°-=:.r"
'�',`\��1 �'fl�t� $� �;�`�- �_LI��_ �_' J� •''•!.'�' I�•' •I• �U�II �� �>�`\�(�l'/���1��``=��r'.>>i.-=` � sir'
'F����c°�' `.�• `=�`, W:lri .f• i--�;/e�-1� la I � � --�,5 ',tr.�L»>,,� �,�=�-I''l' ��'�
r i !� +` \ `., 1��;:\J_ .�% \/�I JL. 2 a I W r I• '� _' \�\.��� \\`� ` _�.�} '(� '�d•', �(� \ r _r
r i �
;,�.
\(; / \\',-�'���i'+` �t i'�--� I� •Si. i •i :I• i. I •1 /,y✓� rf,:��..���? %i\ ���r�'',�,•�`Td'..;'••; ''%-, fT .i��
' \l. .W_1 «.�' �/ �( C��' - h\�.�I^.,..-�' •'^�, _^^I �L_.J � �—r r /l :\r �� / / N
se Map; USGS 7-1/2' Quadrangle, La Quinta, California, 1959, Photo -revised 1980.
LEGEND Figure 1 - Site Location
—••— Site Boundary Proposed La Quinta Elementary School
NEC Eisenhower Drive and Calle Tampico
Project Number: 08360-02
N Scale: 1" = 2000' , Earth Systems
0 2000 4000 Southwest
2
y
i RUHNAU RUHNAU • CLARKE ~`
C Architects Planners HF•man 0 Rulmau FAIA Joseph A Calderon. Architect John Perry. School Planning
0.,,,d Ruhnau AIA Daniel J Benner. AIA Dan Gn01
5.,,ei Clarke. Aiclnlect Gustavo Bidart
Pamela Moore
NEW LA QUINTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive
Desert Sands Unified School District
December 11, 2001
PROJECT FACT SHEET:
1. Project Site Area: 12.85 AC.
(Typical elementary site is 10.0 acres)
2. Building Sq. Ftg.: 65,852 S.F.
(Library expanded and additional classroom
building added)
3. Number of Teaching Stations:
• Standard Classrooms: 28
• Kindergarten Classrooms: 4
• County Special Education Classrooms: 2
Total: 34
4. Parking Provided:
• Faculty/Staff: 108
• Visitor: 68
• Disabled: 7
Total: 183
5. Bus Drop -Off Capacity Parking for 7
6. Architectural Style California Mission
ATTACHMENT 2
3775 TENTH STREET RIVERSIDE CA 92501-3669 P 909 684 4664 F 909 684 6276 E wersideiOrrcarch com
5751 PALMER WAY SUITE C CARLSBAD CA 92008-7249 P 760 438 5899 F 760 931 8194 E carlshadOrrcarch com
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONFORMITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65401, FOR A POTENTIAL DSUSD
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PROJECT
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65401 requires that any
agency responsible for planning and construction of major public works projects, must
submit a list of such projects for the ensuing fiscal year to the jurisdiction in which
they are to be located, and;
WHEREAS, said Section 65401 also requires the jurisdiction's planning
agency (i.e. Community Development Department) to review and report to the official
agency (i.e. Planning Commission) on the conformity of said project(s) with the
adopted General Plan.
WHEREAS, the Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) did submit
to the City a potential elementary school site in the La Quinta City limits, for review
pursuant to said Section 65401, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 26th day of February, 2002, hold a public meeting to consider a finding of
conformity with the General Plan for said potential school site, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did make the following findings of
conformity with respect to the proposed project:
The proposed DSUSD elementary school project is in conformance with the La Quinta
General Plan, as follows;
A. LAND USE ELEMENT - The General Plan Land Use Diagram designates the site
as Village Commercial. The zoning district for Village Commercial permits public
educational facilities.
B. CIRCULATION ELEMENT - Both Calle Tampico and Eisenhower Drive are
designated as Primary Arterials on the General Plan Circulation Policy Diagram.
This ensures movement of traffic around the school site, with specific
intersection locations for general access to the area developments. Bikeway,
pedestrian and transit improvements are imperative for school facilities, and are
accommodated in the Circulation Element improvement policies related to
Primary Arterials.
resoDSUSD.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
C. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - Policy 4-3.1.3 designates this site as worthy of
preservation as a link to the City's agricultural past, and is designated on the
Open Space Policy Diagram as an Agricultural Retention Area. Through
implementation of the policies for gateway and image corridor treatments , a
consistent theme can be developed and incorporated into design plans to
maintain consistency with this policy.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT - The site is designated on the
Environmental Conservation Policy Diagram as an Agricultural Retention Area.
Policy 6-5.1.1 requires that such areas shall be encouraged to remain in open
space as long as possible. The area has been previously cleared of the date
palm grove.
E. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT -Several Policies within
this element address provision of adequate supplies of potable and irrigation
water sources, flood protection, and comprehensive sewage collection,
treatment and disposal. The proposed school site will need to provide these
services and develop in conformance with applicable policies and programs.
A Key Planning Issue identified with regard to school facilities in the
Infrastructure and Public Services Element, is the provision of such facilities in
close proximity to residential areas. Siting of the proposed facility is consistent
with this concept due to it's proximity to the Cove residential area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the finding of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby adopt this finding of conformity for the reasons set forth
in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on this the 26`h day of February, 2002, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
resoDSUSD.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2002 -
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
resoDSUSD.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002
ITEM: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2000-010
(CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 2002-008)
REQUEST: REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A TWO STORY
DETACHED ADDITION AND REHABILITATION OF THE
HISTORIC CITY OF LA QUINTA HISTORIC SOCIETY
MUSEUM
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AVENIDA MONTEZUMA AND
CALLE MENDOZA (77885 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA)
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
OF 1970, AS AMENDED, PER PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
SECTION 15303 CLASS 1(E)(2), AND THEREFORE, NO
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NEEDED.
ZONING: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
SOUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USE: NORTH: PARK FACILITY
SOUTH: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
EAST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
WEST: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
ARCHITECT: FERRIS, JOHNSON AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS
BACKGROUND:
The existing one story building is located at the northwest corner of the site and
serves as the Museum and offices of the La Quinta Historical Society. The 819 square
foot building was constructed in 1938 as a real estate office. The building has been
recorded by the City as a historic building at the local level.
SACommunity Services\hpc Iq hist museum .wpd
The existing "L" shaped building has an octagonal tower rising out of the northwest
portion of its irregular plan, which is cut diagonally to the street intersection at the
northwest corner. The cross -gabled roof, clad in red mission tiles, has overhanging
eaves with open rafters. A portion of the roof at its southern part is flat. The arched
double door opening at the northwest corner has a shallow entry porch with arched
entry. Decorative opening iron grilles secure the doors. Newer decorative tiles
surround the outside arch and small windows. Two larger multi -paned casement
windows are on the south end of west elevation. A similar window is set into the east
end of the north elevation. A similar window is on the south elevation. All windows
have decorative iron grilles on their exterior side. Two bullseye windows are set into
the tower. The exterior building walls are large brick, painted white.
PROPOSED PROJECT:
Proposed is an addition to the present museum, consisting of a detached partial two
story building with a single story balcony at the northwest corner adjacent to Avenida
Montezuma. The new "L" shaped building will be at the southeast corner of the
rectangular site, forming a central courtyard between the existing and new buildings.
An exit will added to the existing building, leading to the courtyard. The mechanical
equipment located on the south wall of the existing building will be moved to the
southwest wall and enclosed by a wall.
The new construction consists of a two story Mediterranean period building with 7271
square feet of floor space (Attachment 1). The first floor will consist of exhibit area,
a meeting room, kitchen, archive area, museum store, classroom/lab, and restrooms.
The second floor will be connected by an elevator and stairs and have future and
current exhibit areas and a balcony. The "L" shaped building will use a variety of roof
heights and styles, primarily gable. At the intersection of the "L", an octagonal
tower, the high point of the building, (31' high) is provided. The front of the building
faces the courtyard and is covered by a the roofed arcade supported by stucco
columns. Architectural features include multi -paned windows and doors, decorative
wrought iron railings, with iron covers, railings using roof tiles, and stain glass
windows on the tower from the demolished Desert Club complex.
The courtyard will be enclosed by a stucco wall and use tile pavers and decorative
concrete paving. A fountain will be provided in the courtyard adjacent to the north
wall adjacent to Avenida Montezuma.
A conceptual landscaping plan has been submitted primarily showing tree species and
their locations. Trees are low water desert or Mediterranean types. Shrub planter
areas are noted for planting with "desert accents" or shrubs.
SACommunity Services\hpc Iq hist museum .wpd + t
Fi�aoric Preservation Commission:
On January 31, 2002, the Historical Preservation Commission adopted Minute Motion
2002-002, recommending approval of the development plans to the Planning
Commission (Attachment 2). Their action confirms that the proposed project conforms
to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties.
Architecture and Lan-dS-U inReview Committee:
On February 13, 2002, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee adopted
Minute Motion 2002-002, recommending approval of the development plans to the
Planning Commission (Attachment 3). They determined the addition and rehabilitation
of the existing museum's architecture and landscape design was attractive as
submitted.
REOQ-MMENDAMON:
Adoption Minute Motion 2002-_, approving the development plans for Capital
Improvement Project 2000-010.
Attachments:
1. Proposed plan exhibits
2. Excerpts from January 31, 2002 Historic Preservation Commission minutes
3. Excerpts from draft of February 13, 2002 Architecture and Landscaping Review
Committee minutes
Prepared by:
r
l
Dodie Horvitz, Community Services
Director
SACommunity Services\hpc Iq hist museum .wpd
ATTACHMENT 2
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
January 31, 2002
V. BUSINESS ITEMS
A. Re -suits of Ph—. sue_ II_esting of twQPrehistoric___S es_ within --the
Gr-ov—e M_ oMain View Country Club for S ec' is Plan 90-016; a equest
r approval of testing results. Applicant: Toll Brothers- Historic
Co Itant: LSA
1. Prinalpql Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the st report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development partment.
2. Commissioners concurwith staff's recommendations.
3. There being no further discussion, ' was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Mitchell/Wright to adopfiMjnute Motion 2002-001
recommending approval of the Results of Phase.II Testing of two
Prehistoric Sites within the Grove/Mountain View County Club for
Specific Plan 90-016, Amendment #1. Unanimously approved.
B. Determination onsistenc_y- ith the Secretary of In er' r's-S.tandards
for the Treatmer tof iistoric Pro erties for the two story _detached
addition and rehabilitation of the historic City of La Quinta HisliGnic
Socie Museum; Applicant: City of La Quinta - Historic Architect: Ferris,
Johnson and Associates.
1. Planning Manager Christine di lorio introduced Mr. Paul Johnson
of the firm Ferris, Johnson and Associates, the architects for the
project. She then presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Sharp asked questions about when the balcony
would be built and the future expansion. Staff replied the entire
structure would be built at once, with a use designation applied to
the area noted as "future expansion". Staff also stated the
stained glass windows salvaged from the Desert Club would be
integrated into the tower element at the Museum. The City was
unable to integrate the Desert Club doors into the project, as they
were in an unuseable condition.
3. Commissioner Wright asked if Commissioner Irwin had been able
PACAROLYNUIPC 1-31-02.wpd -2-
Jirr4
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
January 31, 2002
to review the plans, and if she had made any comments. Staff
replied Commissioner Irwin had been involved when the City
Council was reviewing the documents during a Study Session.
4. Engineering Consultant Nick Nickerson stated Commissioner Irwin
made favorable comments during the Study Session.
5. Commissioner Wright asked if any comments had been made
concerning the existing tower and the new roof lines. Staff replied
nothing would be attached to the tower. The present Museum
building would be free-standing and the roof lines shown on the
plans were not attached to the Museum.
6. Commissioner Wright asked if the plans are two dimensional. Mr.
Paul Johnson replied the Museum was drawn in front of the new
building behind it, with nothing attached to the Museum. Planning
Manager di lorio stated there was a courtyard separating the two.
7. Commissioner Sharp asked about the proximity of the veterinarian
office. Staff replied there is a five foot setback to the property
line and a six foot wall separating the veterinary office from the
Museum.
8. Commissioner Mitchell asked if the color palette had been
determined as he would not like to requested that no light green
be used. Staff replied the colors had not been determined yet.
9. Commissioner Wright asked about the parking. Staff replied there
was one area closed off to vehicular traffic which would be used
for parking as well as parking in front of the Museum and to the
north abutting the Frances Hack Park.
10. Commissioner Wright stated he had no problems with the plans if
Commissioner Irwin was in favor of them. His only concern was
that the integrity of the original structure not be compromised.
11. Commissioner Sharp commented the tower finial need to be
repaired as it was composed of a ball and spike and the spike was
bent.
12. Chairman Puente asked what the primary consideration was on
exterior decoration. Staff replied there was a comment included
about the the which appeared to be a later addition.
P:\CAROLYN\HPC1-31-02.wpd -3-
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
January 31, 2002
13. Commissioner Sharp commented that they may have been the tiles
he helped put up about eight years ago.
14. Staff asked if the tiles were existing or were they duplicated.
Commissioner Sharp replied they took one of the existing tiles and
found duplicates at a tile store.
15. Engineering Consultant Nick Nickerson stated the tiles around the
door were just glued on. Normally tiles are an integral part of the
stucco surrounding it, but these tiles had no grout, they were just
glued on. The tiles around the door had gaps where they were
just touching the corners and were clearly an add on to the
building.
16. Planning Manager di lorio stated staff included this information to
make the Commission aware of the tiles.
17. Commissioner Mitchell asked a question about initiating Section
106 Consultation in regards to this proposal. Staff replied this
was not needed as there was no Federal money being used in this
project.
18. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Wright/Mitchell to adopt Minute Motion 2002-002
recommending approval of the determination of consistency with
the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties for the two story detached addition and rehabilitation of
the historic City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum; located in
the Village at La Quinta. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Planning Manager di lorio announced her resignation from the City of La
Quinta and her new position as the Director of Planning and Building for
the City of Carmel -by -the -Sea. The Commissioners congratulated her
and Commissioner Wright suggested the Commission do something
special, such as a plaque thanking her for all the help she has given
them. Staff stated they would look into it.
P:\CAROLYN\HPC 1-31-02.wpd -4-
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 3
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
February 13, 2002
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated it is keeping with the
Center. With regard to the color, color is getting to be the trend
and there is a lot of responsibility with color. Staff needs to ask
for the actual color chips and where the color lines break. He has
no objections to this project.
4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion
2002-006 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-729, subject to the conditions as recommended.
Unanimously approved.
C. Capital Improvement 2001-10; a request of the City for review of
architectural plans for a two story detached addition and rehabilitation of
the Historic City of La Quinta Historic Society Museum located at the
southeast corner of Avenida Montezuma and Calle Mendoza (77-885
Avenida Montezuma).
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
2. Committee Member Cunningham stated he had no objection. He
asked if they would be using random mudded and . Mr. Paul
Johnson, architect for the project, stated he proposing to use red
boosting throughout the roof. They do not want the roof to be too
rough but do want texture and character. The stucco color will be
similar to what is existing.
3. Committee Member Thorns asked about the existing door and if
there was any connection to the paved area. Staff stated it would
stay as it is historical.
4. Committee Member Thorns asked about the planters. Mr. Johnson
stated the planters would be added to the top of the pavement.
They would be detached and protected to retain it for historical
purposes. Additional planters would be added as well. All
existing trees will be retained as much as possible. Committee
Member Thorns asked about the four palms and stated they should
be used as an accept; four are too much and they should be
replaced and a desert scheme used. If shade is wanted use the
Palo Verde.
J
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\2-13-02.wpd 5
Ii�
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
February 13.2002
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Members Cunningham/Thorns to adopt Minute Motion
2002-007 recommending approval of Capital Improvement Project
2001-10, as recommended. Unanimously approved.
D. Site Development Permit 2001-728; a request of Stamko Development
Company for review of architectural and landscaping plans for a retail
shopping center, plant nursery, garden center, auto repair, specialty
shop, nd an auto service station, in conjunction with Retail Building "B".
1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department. Staff asked the
material and color of the canopy for the proposed gas station. Mr.
Bill Parrish, architect for the project, stated it would be made out
of metal and would be blue and painted to match.
2. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the applicant wanted to
give a presentation. Mr. Gary Shepner, Perkowit, gave a
presentation on the project.
3. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the fonts shown on the
elevations would be used for the signage. Mr. Shepner stated it
was their hope. Committee Member Cunningham stated it bring
an identify to each of the retail centers. The design is modern and
contemporary and not over the top which is good. This will work
with the other new buildings in the area. He likes the metal work
in the front as it is proportionate.
4. Committee Member Thorns asked where the accent red color
would be used. Mr. Shepner stated it would be used where the
blue is shown on the elevation. Committee Member Thorns asked
if each building has its own accent color. Mr. Shepner stated yes.
Committee Member Thorns asked if the landscape plans would
come later. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated yes, after the approval process. Committee Member Thorns
stated he would like to see that there is some kind of landscape
statement made, other than a sea of trees, at the entrance to tie
it together. Ms. Chris Clarke, the applicant, stated this is an
addition to the auto center and the same theme will flow over to
this project for the entire 90 acres. Statements have been made
and awards won for the Highway 11 landscape theme.
5. Committee Member Cunningham stated the auto center was done
G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\2-13-02.wpd 6 n' C!
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 93-197 (AMENDMENT #3)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: SCOTT R. WILSON
REQUEST: TO AMEND THE PLAZA TAMPICO SIGN PROGRAM TO ALLOW
FIRST FLOOR BUSINESS TENANTS FACING CALLE TAMPICO TO
USE GATORFOAM® FOR BUILDING SIGNS
LOCATION: 78-150 CALLE TAMPICO
SIGN
CONTRACTOR: PARAGON SIGNS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS PROJECT IS EXEMPT PER
SECTION 1531 1(A) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).
GENERAL
PLAN/ZONING
DESIGNATIONS: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL/VILLAGE CORE
BACKGROUND:
Site History
Plaza Tampico is located on six acres at the northeast corner of Calle Tampico and
Desert Club Drive in the Village of La Quinta. Existing improvements include two
multilevel office buildings and parking on the east side of the development that were
completed in the late 1980's under Plot Plan 85-217. The westerly -half of the site
was graded during development of the Phase #1 improvements and is currently
vacant.
P/SRPC' P1azaSign#3-greg/2-13 Page 1 of 3
Sign Program History
The Plaza Tampico Sign Program was approved by the City in 1989 to allow 1 /4" thick
painted bronze aluminum channel letters (14" high) for each tenant. The Program
stated that: "Exterior signage is not to exceed one square foot of sign area per lineal
foot of frontage, or for a total of 50 square feet." Thirty inch high pictorial logos were
also allowed. Corporate colors were only permitted for logo signs. Building mounted
signs were reserved for first floor level businesses, and lighting was to be from an
external source. Monument signs were permitted at primary development entrances
on Calle Tampico and Desert Club Drive.
On June 22, 1993, the Sign Program was amended by the Planning Commission so
that tenant signs could also be constructed using three inch thick cedar wood
measuring 3'-0" wide by 14'-0" long (42 sq. ft.). Under the Program, sign information
was to be sandblasted into the wood surface and be painted in brown and beige color
tones.
On November 28, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Minute Motion 2000-021,
approving permanent signs for second story businesses that occupy 100% of the
building's floor area (Attachment 1 - Minutes).
Project Request
The applicant is requesting to amend Condition 3(a) of the Sign Program to allow
Gatorfoam° to be used to construct exterior building signs for businesses facing Calle
Tampico (Attachments 2-4). The proposed material is one inch thick and 2.5 inches
wide and has a laminated brushed silver and blue trim finish. The 15-inch high letters
have painted black sides. A sample of the material will be available at the meeting.
Gatorfoam° is a registered product of the International Paper Company and is designed
to withstand ultraviolet radiation. A company bulletin states: "Gatorfoam° is a series
of unique, lightweight structural panels consisting of a rigid polystyrene foam core
faced on both sides by smooth, moisture resistant man-made wood fiber veneers. The
foam and veneers are permanently bonded together in a sandwich construction. The
face laminates have been specially developed to provide an excellent surface for
painting, silk screening, laminating and photo mounting. Paragon Signs cuts out the
sign letters from the Gatorfoam° at their shop in Palm Desert and applies the laminate
facing material before site installation.
MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Sections 9.160.090 and 9.65.040(F8) of the Zoning Ordinance, the
Planning Commission must make the following findings to approve modifications to
this Planned Sign Program:
a. The sign program is consistent with the purpose and intent of this chapter;
P/SRPC P1azaSign#3-greg/2-13 Page 2 of 3
b. The sign program is in harmony with and visually related to:
i. All signs within the planned sign program, via the incorporation of several
common design elements such as materials, letter style, colors,
illumination, sign type and sign shape.
ii. The buildings they identity. This may be accomplished by utilizing
materials, colors, or design motif included in the building being identified.
iii. Surrounding development. Implementation of the planned sign program
will not adversely affect surrounding land uses or obscure adjacent
conforming signs.
CONCLUSION:
A copy of the revised Sign Program, in highlighted format, is attached (Attachment 5).
Internally illuminated building signs were not allowed for this site based on the
development standards for the Village in 1989. However, this requirement was
removed in 1998 which would allow Condition 2 to be changed at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion 2002- , approving Sign Application 93-
197 (Amendment #3), subject to the attached findings and conditions.
Attachments:
1. November 28, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes (Excerpt)
2. Letter from applicant dated January 14, 2002
3. Plaza Tampico Site Plan Exhibit
4. Proposed Gatorfoam° Sign Exhibit
5. Revised Plaza Tampico Sign Program
Pr�7�r"
by:
r,
Greg Tra 11, Associate Planner
P/SRPC P1azaSign#3-greg/2-13 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
competitive advantage over small, or locally owned businesses." There
being no further corrections, it was- moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to approve the minutes as corrected.
B. Department,Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEAROGS:
A. Env
,Wonmental Asses§ment 2000-402 General Plan Amendment 2000-
1 Zone Change ,1000-069 Village Use Permit 2000-004; a request
.116f Chapman Golf Development, LLC and the City of La Quinta for
Certification oVa' Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact
and developMent plans for a 16,222 square foot restaurant to be located
at the northeast and southwest corners, of Avenue 52 and Desert Club
Drive arfd the west side of Eisenhower Drive from Calle Tampico to
Avenida Montezuma. '
1. Commissioner Kirk w6drew from the dias due to' a possible
conflict of interest��'
2. Staff informed the Commission that are obst had been received
by the applicant to continue this it n. It was moved and
seconded , "by Commissioners Tyler`%Robbins to continue the
application to December 12, 2000, as requested. Unanimously
approved.
B. Sign Application 93-197, Amendment #2; a request of Thane
( International to amend the Plaza Tampico Sign Program to allow tenants
to use corporate sign colors and permit major second story tenants
identification signs on building entry towers located at 78-140 and 78-
150 Calle Tampico (Plaza Tampico).
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had a. picture showing the
location of the proposed signs as the exhibit on Attachment 4
does not appear to look like the facade of the building.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-28-OO.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if the exhibit was a photo. Staff stated
it was a xerox of a photo. Commissioner Kirk questioned that he
thought the Housing Authority had a sign on the tower part of the
as well. Staff stated that presently there are no signs on any of
the towers above the parapet. The first floor tenant, the Housing
Authority takes up the first floor and the second floor would be
allowed a second sign with approval of this request.
Commissioner Kirk noted for the Commission that the exhibit was
not a recent photo, or the Housing Authority sign had been
removed. To update the Commission, there is a large Housing
Authority sign above the first story on the tower element.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. There being no one present, Chairman Robbins
asked if anyone else wanted to speak regarding this project. There
being no public comment, the public participation portion of the
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if other two story office buildings in the
City, allowed second story tenants signs. Staff stated it is
dependent upon the sign program. With the Bougainvillea building
they were allowed second story signs under their sign program,
otherwise the Zoning Code does not allow it. The Code allows it
if the second floor has a walkway balcony off the street.
Commissioner Kirk stated his concern for sign proliferation. This
does seem to be appropriate for a major tenant, but having two
signs on a tower element is generally not appropriate on an office
building where the Commission tends to look for signage where
there is access and restrict signage on second floor elements. He
would hate to have this become a precedent. In addition, the
signage on this building are not attractive as it is. There is signage
on various locations on the building with very little consistency,
therefore, in many ways he is reluctant to approve the request.
6. Commissioner Tyler stated there had been a lot of concern raised
regarding second floor tenants of the Bougainvillea building
because they were not going to have visibility. We are trying to
be a "business friendly" City, they were allowed the second story
signs. He agrees that exceptions have been made, but this tenant
is a major contributor to the City and the signs are already a
mixture.
G:\WPDOCS\PC11-28-OO.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 28, 2000
7. Commissioner Kirk stated that is where he is concerned. This is
a significant business to the community, but that gets into
concerns regarding whether they were allowing one thing for one
company and not something for another. This is a value
judgement that makes him nervous. Having one sign, whether
Thane or Housing Authority, would be appropriate. The point with
the Bougainvillea building was that there were going to be retail
tenant on the second floor in a retail setting. Here it is an office
complex where the sign does not denote a company where you
would pull in to purchase something. He feels strongly that all
businesses be treated equally and he does not think the rationale
is strong to allow second floor signage on office buildings per the
Zoning Code.
8. Chairman Robbins stated he shares both concerns. In this
instance he believes the sign is appropriate.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked if Thane was leasing 100% of the
second floor. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk stated the sign
program is written for any tenant with 50% of more occupancy.
He would rather changed the sign program that if a tenant is
leasing 100% of the second floor they can have one sign on the
tower. It will not change the number of signs, but restricts the
signage to only the large major tenants.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2000-021
approving Sign Application 93-197 Amendment #2, as amended:
a. Second floor level tenants are not permitted exterior
building signs, unless the business leases 100% of the
upstairs floor area.
Unanimously approved.
C. Environmental Ass ss n 00 -4T
'v r 241971
a request of Century Crow Commification o a Miti d
Negative Declaration of vironmenthe sub vision of 63
acres ihto 206 sine family anlla ous lots loc ed
generally on the west side of Jefb tween Fred Waring
Drive and Miles Avenue.
G:\WPDOCS\PC 11-28-OO.wpd 4
Scott R. Wilson
P.O. Box 714
Palm Desert, CA 92261 Attachment 2
FEB - 12002
January 14, 2002
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Amendment to Sign Program for the office complex located at 78-150 Cane
Tampico, La Quinta, CA
To Whom It May Concern:
We would like to submit this application to change the sign program for the above
referenced office complex commonly known as Plaza Tampico.
Enclosed please find a site plan with a drawing that shows the location of where we
would like to place the new signs. We have also included a rendering of what the
new signs will look like.
For materials, we would like to use fifteen inch "Gatorfoam" letters with brushed
silver faces (see attached sample).
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by calling (760) 837-
1880 or you may speak directly with the owner of the sign company we are working
with (Don Swindell, Paragon Signs). His number is (760) 345-3340.
Thank you in advance for your assistance with this matter.
Sincerely, ,K
Scott R. Wilson
SRW:dm
Cc: Metroplex One
Cc: Don Swindell
L�
Attachment 3
rq
-
484
CC)
Vk
W�
.o
z
Lu
LL
--- -
-M
- - ----i
0�
LUO zw p-
[t >- 0 =3
LU ui Cr 0 WLL W
0
LL
o Attachment 4 t5
5� w imr Luxx
0
unis
Attachment 5
PLAZA TAMPICO SIGN PROGRAM
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2002-
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 93-197, AMENDMENT #3
PURPOSE: The purpose of this criteria is to establish sign standards necessary for
tenant identification insuring architectural compatibility through the use of common
graphic elements and colors.
FINDINGS:
A. That the Planned Sign Program Amendment, as conditioned, is consistent with
Chapter 9.160 (Signs) and 9.65 (Village Commercial) of the Zoning Ordinance.
B. That the Planned Sign Program Amendment allows design variation for exterior
signs in terms of color and materials, but limits sign placement and letter style
to create flexibility and visual harmony for each respective tenant or business.
C. This Planned Sign Program Amendment does not adversely impact any
surrounding developments, nor obscure views of neighboring off -site signs.
D. Building signs shall be designed as an integral feature of the buildings they relate
to, and be in good scale and proportion to the structures consistent with the
design guidelines for The Village.
CONDITIONS:
1. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta and
possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined herein.
2. Tenants signs may be illuminated from an external source, provided the light
fixture is shielded to comply with the requirements of the City's Zoning
Ordinance. Internally illuminated signs are not allowed, unless otherwise
approved by the Planning Commission (i.e., Business Item agenda). In order to
apply for an illuminated building sign, a business must occupy 25 percent of the
building's leaseable floor area for the level it is located on.
3. Building signs shall conform to the following requirements:
First floor level tenants are permitted one building sign per street or parking lot
frontage not exceeding one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of building
CondPlazaSi gn#3/p/greg
frontage, or 50 square feet. The aggregate total per business is 100 square
feet. Sign sizes include logo pictorials.
Second floor level tenants are not permitted exterior building signs, unless the
business leases 100 percent of the upstairs floor area. One building sign per
street or parking lot frontage is allowed not exceeding one square foot of sign
area per lineal foot of building frontage, or 50 square feet. The aggregate total
per business is 100 square feet. Sign sizes include logo pictorials.
a. Sign construction specifications are:
Option #1 - 1 /4" thick aluminum (individual 24 inch high letters) with
painted surface stud mounted to the adjacent stucco surface. One row
of sign copy is allowed. Logo pictorials may not exceed 30 inches.
Option #2 - Three inch thick wood (i.e., redwood or cedar) plaque
measuring 3'-0" wide by 14'-0" long with 24 inch high letters
sandblasted into the wood. Nine inch high letters shall be used for two
rows of copy information. Letters shall be painted darker than the
proposed background color (i.e., white, light brown, etc.). A painted 1 "
wide border shall frame the sign graphics, including radius corners.
Option #3 - One inch thick Gatorfoam° letters, measuring 2.5 inches
wide, are required for signs facing Calle Tampico, provided the letter
faces are covered using a brushed silver laminate accented by a blue trim
border. Sign letters shall not exceed a height of 24-inches, and no more
than one row of sign copy is allowed. Logos may not exceed a height of
30 inches.
b. Additional requirements:
• Helvetica type lettering shall be used for sign graphics, unless the
business has a registered trademark and/or more than three
existing businesses with identical graphic characteristics.
• Exterior signs shall be located on the building's facade below the
second floor windows and above the first floor windows. Major
tenants may place their building identification signs on tower
elements of the center, subject to approval by the Community
Development Director.
• Signs shall be proportional to the facade they are to be mounted
onto. Existing architectural features of the building shall not be
CondPl azaSign#3/p/greg
modified to place a tenant sign on the facade unless the change
enhances the overall design characteristics of the office complex.
• Earth tone colors are required for all exterior sign graphics
excluding corporate users.
• Prior to submission of a Sign Application to the City, the applicant
shall obtain written approval for the sign from the property owner
and/or his or her legal agent.
4. One monument sign per street frontage is allowed based on the City's Zoning
Ordinance requirements in effect at the time a building permit is applied for.
5. All other signs not addressed herein shall be subject to the rules and regulations
of City's Sign Ordinance when submitted.
6. The Community Development Director may approve material changes that are
architecturally compatible with the proposed program, subject to approval by
the property owner.
7. Modifications to this Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission.
8. This Sign Program Amendment superceded all previous City of La Quinta
approvals.
C ondPlazaSign#3/p/greg
BI #D
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2002
CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2002-597 (AMENDMENT TO SIGN
PROGRAM APPLICATION 2000-502)
APPLICANT: CHEVRON OIL (MR. GREG HOHN)
PROPERTY
OWNER: PARCEL 1 - SKYLINE PACIFIC PROPERTIES
REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO SIGN PROGRAM FOR DUNE PALMS CENTER
(FORMERLY LAPIS ENERGY; SP 96-028) TO ALLOW CANOPY
SIGNING
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DUNE PALMS ROAD/HIGHWAY 111
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 1531 1(a)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
Site History
On February 4, 1997, the La Quinta City Council approved Site Development Permit
96-590, one of four applications filed by Lapis Energy Organization for the referenced
site. Subsequently, revisions to the site layout, building design and additional building
area for Allstate Self Storage were approved, and more recently, an amendment to
the specific plan was approved for a 23,200 s.f automotive retail facility on Parcel 2,
located between Allstate and the fueling station.
Currently, the fueling station building is completed and final inspections are pending.
Chevron Oil will be the operator. The 23,200 s.f. building to be on Parcel 2 is in plan
check. The Allstate Self Storage facility on Parcel 3 is completed.
The sign program as presently constituted consists of text and drawings which
govern the general type, location and installation of signs for the center.
AMENDMENT PROPOSAL:
Referring to the sign schedule submitted for the amendment, staff has approved the
monument ID and pricing sign administratively, pursuant to the existing sign program,
along with some ancillary signs for self serve pump ID and a 3' x 3' point -of -sale sign
on one pump island (Signs 1, 3 and 6). Staff could not approve the canopy ID signs
(Signs 2 and 4) due to a provision in the program that states that no signs are
permitted on canopies (approved Sign Program, Attachment 1). Sign 5 locations were
not approved as the spanner assembly above the pump canister may not be
illuminated based on past policy with other stations, such as Shell and ARCO.
The applicant requests that the remaining signs 2, 4 and 5 be approved as submitted.
The amendment is only necessary to remove the prohibition of canopy signs.
ANALYSIS:
1. The sign criteria proposed under the program primarily address the conditions
which apply to sign design, location and installation. These criteria are
consistent with the City sign code. The Sign Program does not specifically
address the gas station parcel, as no tenant had been identified at the time;
however, the signs are subject to the provisions of the Sign Program.
2. Pump spanner signs are proposed to be illuminated. In the past, such
illumination has been discouraged with gas station uses on the basis of
adequate overhead and ambient lighting being available under the canopy.
While there is no code or sign program restriction in this regard, staff would
maintain that the spanners not be illuminated. The spanner logos are
considered more of a decorative identification than advertising sign, and are
not obtrusive.
3. Canopy signs are common for gas station uses. The restriction on canopy signs
was likely an oversight by the original program preparer. In fact, many of the
original sign program drawings refer to superceded elevations and are not
applicable as to changes made to the site. Due to the uncertainty of tenants
for the remaining center space, other than Allstate Storage at the time the sign
program was prepared and approved, the sign program was premature. As it
stands, the sign program will likely need to be amended again as additional
tenant spaces are determined for the revised building on Parcel 2, which was
conditioned to submit complete sign plans.
FINDINGS:
Sign Application 2002-597 is consistent with the purpose and intent of
Chapter 9.160, and the approved Sign Program in that the number and
location of signs proposed with said Application are consistent with said
Chapter and Sign Program.
• Sign Application 2002-597 is consistent with and visually related to all
signs incorporated under said Application, as colors, sign design criteria
and location have been considered in the sign design and demonstrated
to allow unique sign options while maintaining basic uniformity among
the proposed signs.
• Sign Application 2000-502 is consistent with and visually related to the
buildings proposed in the Dune Palms Center, through incorporation of
colors and materials common to said buildings and as set forth in the
Sign Program.
• Sign Application 2002-597 is consistent with and visually related to
surrounding development.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion No. 2002- , approving Sign Application 2002-597, subject
to compliance with the following requirements:
1. Amend sign criteria C.8 to eliminate the second sentence.
2. Eliminate sign criteria C.10.
3. Eliminate all drawings from the sign program.
Prepared by:
w� N
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
1 . Proposed station signs
2. Approved Sign Program
14:27 City of LaQuinta Comm•Dev.Dept
ID= 768 777 1233 P•98
0
PROJECT; DOPE PALMS CiOCM
BIGHl"Y 111 & DUNE PALMS RD.
LA QUXNTAr CA
SIGN CRITERIA
THIS CRITERIA HAS B33EN ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRO%v DrNG
CO3PT'INUITY WITH ALL NEW SIGNS FOR THIS LOCATION-
1. ALL PERMITS FOR NEW SIGNS AND TR= INSTBI.T+ATION SHALL NE
08TAIN= BY DUKE •PALK CTR. OR ITS RBPRESMATIVE& AOHG
WITH THE SUBMITTAL OF DR VING TO THE LA QUlXTA PLAiB AG AND
BOILOING 13RPARTME TTS .
2. DM PALMS CYR. OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE RBSPONSIBL33
FOR TUN PULFILLMENT OF ALL RBQUYREMEE?S AM SPECIFICATIONS4
SET FORTH IN THIS EXHIBIT.
g. GENIAL SPECIVICATIONS
1. no AUI3I33T.E, FLASHING OR ANIMATED SIGNS WILL BE PAMKITTi�b.
2. NO PROJECTIONS ABOVE OR BELOW NEW SIGN PANELS WILL BE
pgMITTED. EAM NRN SIGN ?MUST BE WITHIN DIMENSIOI[BD LIMITS
AS INDICATED.
3. IT IS T= RESPONSIBILITY OF DOHE PALMS CTR. TO V33RIFY ALL
CONDUIT LOCATIONS AND SERVICES PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR X=
SIGws.
d. ALL K= SIGNS AND THEIR INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITA ALL
LOCAL BUILDING A31D ELECTRICAL COMBS AND SPAR AN O.L. LAREL
IN AN INCONSPICUOUS LOCATION.
5. NO EXPOSRD RACE+ MYS , CROSSOVERS ♦ CONDUCTORS e, TRANSFORM CRS •
ETC. SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR NEW SI=S.
5. DUNE PALMS CTR. SHALL BE RESPONSIT'1L.E FOR THE INSTALL&TION
AND NAINTENANCR Or ALL SIGNS.
7. ALL Un SIGHS ARE TO BE INSTALLED UNDER TM DIJU=100 OF
THE PROJECT SIGN CONTRACTOR OR OWUMOS REPRESE)WATYVB.
9. SIGN CONTRACTOR SHATS. REPAIR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS WORE.
(1)
ATTACHMENT #2
PAGE 1 OF 4
08
1 13-01 14:28 City of LaAuinta Comm•Dev-Dept ID= 760 777 1233 P•99
C. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS- WAIL SIGNS/CHANNEL LrMERS
1. no LABELS WILL Be PERMITTED ON THE DOSED SURFACE OF NEW
SIGNS, EXCEPT THOSE REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE WHICH SHALL
BE PLACHD in AN INCONSPICUOUS LOCATION-
2. DESIGN, LAYOUT AND MATERIALS FOR riUNE PALMS CTR. SHAI.L COMPORM IN
ALL RESPECTS WITH THIS CRITERIA.
3. ALL pENVMTYOWS OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURE REQUIRED FOR NM
IA]STALLATIONS SHALL BE SEATED IN A WATERTIGHT CONDITION AND
SHALL HE PATCHED TO HATCH ADJACEW YINISA.
4. THS FACE OF SIGH TO DR CONSTRUCTED OF 1/8 THICK ACRYLIC FACBS
WITH GOLD TRIX CAP. SIGNS TO HE C0NsTi2UCTED Or 22 GAVGN SHBE"!
METAL, PAINTED TAX. FACE COLOR-. RSD, BLUE, yELLOW# WaXTE OR CORP.
COLORS, SUBJECT TO PLANNIWx RSVIBN.
5. INTERNAL ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS TO BE NEON WITH 30 Mh. TWWSFOPJMRS.
6. ALL NEW. SIGNS ARE TO. RAVE SERVICE ACCESS TO I"" 8&'J A+S'•TS
AND iiIRING.
7.. SIGN CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL FIELD CONDITIONS BEFORE
INSTALLING NEW SIGNS.
8. no LOGO SHALL BE LARGER T>E M 4' TALI" MD 4' LONGER THAN THE
CHAh1M LF. ZRS USED IN SIGN. NO LOWS ail SIGN MAY BE INSTALLED
on CANOPY, EXCEPT AS REQUIRED 33Y STATE MW LOCAL LAW'
9. LETTER HEIGHT TO BE ISO MAXIM N AMD 12' MINIMOIL. SIGN LZNGTA
NOT To M=ED 751 OF STORE =TIWC:S. SIGN SIZE TO BE
CALC;ULATSD On 1 SQ. FT. or SIGN AREA PER I LINEAR YT. or
BUILDING FRONTAGZ. (SEE PROVIDED EYHIHIT)
10, ALL WALL SIGNS IV AUTO SERVICE CENTER SHALL DR INSTALLED AS
Snows IN ATTACHED DRAWING.
D. C:ONSTRUCTION R=IRENENTS-•MONUMENT SIGNS
1. ALL NEW FASTENINGS ARE TO BE CONCEALED AM BE OF ""AN1ZED.
STAINLESS OR ALUMIM M METAT,S.
2. no LhHELS WILL BE PiatmITTED ON 'tT6E pmmzD SURFACE OP NEW
SIG or EXCEPT THOSE REQUIRED BY LOCAL ORDINANCE 'WHIC E SHALL
BE PLACED IN AN INCONSPICUOUS TDC.ATION.
3. DESIGN, LAYOUT AND MATERIALS FOR COMPLEX SIGHS SHALL CON"RK
IN ALL RESPECTS fiITW THIS C RITE tlA.
4. THE OVERALL iiil= OF THE MONUMENT SIGH SHALL RE 80-O'.
5. wx FACE OP THE MONUmENT SIGN SHALL 0E 3/16' S=I00
poLyCARBONATE PLASTIC AND THE HOUSING SHALL BE 22 GAUGE
SHEET XRTAL .
6. ALL WEN .SIGNS ARE TO HAVE SERVIC N ACCESS TO LAMPS, BALLAST AM
WIRING. (2 )
PAGE 2 OF 4
v4
t, tJ1 14:28 City of LaQuinta Comm•Dev•Dept ID= 760 777 1233
r•id
7. SIGN CONTRACTOR
SEA
I4�iSgRYFY A"PIBLD CONDITIONS BEFORE
MAANUFACTORING Nw
g„ INTERNAI. ILLUMINATION QP THE MONUMENT SIGN IS TQ BE FLDOR$S
9. COLOR FOR A%1. SIGNS: RED, BLUES YELLOW. WBXTE OR CORP. COLA #
suaJBCT TO I'Lhmn= REVIEW-
RC.BLS HAVING ROT To
ON TWO STRUTS SHALL HE AIJA M ONE
1p. PARCEL
SINGLEFACE MONUMENT SIGN FACYNG THE INTERSECTION, RTO
EXCEM 50 SQ.".
E. OTIM CR.I-rzRlA►/RZQUI s
1. AUZ'(J SERVICE CENi'ER GN
IS ALLOW= 1/3 OF SIGN AFXA on XONMUMT ST
O S RVICEMIpYC A. ]1LI. TENPAT SIGNS SAAla. COWLY WITH THIS SIGH
AS CRITERIA. 15 SIGN
2. GAS STATIOII/MINI-M T SIGNAGARATZ T SY JBCT To TH
PYJ►I�INIWG Di�P' �FObt AI1pITMtlk ITIONAL
I S NAGE R'I' TO = BY STATE AND AL �W'
SIGNAGE RFQUI�
(3)
PAGE 3 OF 4
H
9-13-01 14:28 City of LaQuinta Comm.Dev.Dept ID= 769 777 1233 P.11
i
Jr. PROHIBI'M SIM
1. FLUNIfl6, HO IiiG, pULSATIVC; OR INTEMITTXWLY LIGNM SIGHS,
�pbISFLi►Y�8 11G TIMR71�1D !&iP1,�N1'0'AS�SRRYICIt SIG" SUCK AS
2. NOW SIGMe. IlmicaQpxFLICT HITS ANY TRAFFIC COR MOL ONVICZ MM
NOW
COLAR, t�O"IMG, 1�8SIGM, u=TI011 Olt 11r.rMIIiA?It]�. OIL xI�
TU SA", EFFYCIMr FLOM OF 1/EHICUW Olt pmSSTRIAM TM*2C.
a. AVIDLUX OA HOMI►M Balm", 'LIVB GIl SINUTATMAT1141m AO SIG".
41 LOpOgPRAIMS* Oit SIG" M6ICa MIT SOt1I1D. OOOA OIL VISISIA
NRT1'MR• .
5. 1 711f,CAL MOVEMENT SIGHS. IiiCL=lXQ ffiwC'1'"IC Ri11DZRJDDAJM.
6. PAW SIam$ AM pAO.7SCTrNG SIGNS.
7. NEW XXGUS MHICII 0i1N3iTx!' M A NUIS11I1 M Olt HALO MR VC THEI1t
ZIITSMSrry Or LIMT. No mp sm N:ON 81mum PXM-T'rm-
•. MILL00AWS Oft ADVZRTZS134G STAUCTu"At INCLUDING AMA OFF -
SITE SIG" IMSTA14= FM Tag pWp0SE OFF VX IPSIW A
PRO►7wre SUA.Twr OR I10SI11888 U TO
vpw "a(m T8a SIGM IS LOCAIW.
9 • XA WX WICK AJtZ NOT FIiRMRMSITl'L7f A',I TACMD "M ADZLtaI=S INCLUDING A-ypAn SIGNS AM TW6X OF 1�
GROOM*
10. SIGNS an An PUAY.IC F WrMTY Olt pw0JWTZwG IIITSZv TM rVOLZC
RIGq'l OF WAY? 87ICSF? POLITICAL SIGNS AND TOMB XNq(1Z�1W NT
LAM. Tan SRt non SHALL+ PROaIUxT THE PLiIC
ApVUT18=11G Co PSQLdI& EBVI T-,RAusxlUSMIM AND
BICXCi.B AACRS•
ZKM
AOOTUS NITSIM TEE VMIC RIGHT OF "AT AS R1 xR�
XT "M CITS.
(6)
PAGE 4 OF 4
11