Loading...
2003 01 28 PCI Planning 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 JANUARY 28, 2003 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2003-003 Beginning Minute Motion 2003-002 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 14, 2003. V. PRESENTATIONS: None PC/AGENDA VI. PUBLIC HEARING: A. Item ................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 Applicant .......... Evergreen Devco, Inc./Eisenhower Medical Center Location ........... Northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Washington Street Request ............ Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact and review of development plans for a 14,560 square foot drug and retail store on a 4.03 acre site. Action .............. Resolution 2003- and Resolution 2003- VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Item ................. SIGN APPLICATION 2003-679 Applicant .......... Censource/Von's Supermarket Location ........... Southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1 (78-483 Highway 1 1 1) Request ............ Consideration of a sign program amendment to replace two monument signs and the elimination of one oval sign in the Von's Shopping Center Action .............. Minute Motion 2003- B. Item ................. FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide Request ............ Request for a finding of General plan conformity for the La Quinta Redevelopment Agency's proposed acquisition for the extension of La Quinta Drive and development of the ranch property with a municipal golf course and tourist commercial uses. Action .............. Resolution 2003- VI11. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Report of City Council meeting. X. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on February 11, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA January 14, 2003 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Tom Kirk, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Richard Butler. C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Kathy Jenson, Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed IV. CONSENT ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of December 10, 2002. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Robbins to approve the minutes as presented. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the Commission about the upcoming League of California Cities Planners Institute to be held March 20-22, 2003 in San Diego. V. PRESENTATIONS: None VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None A. Site Development Permit 2002-757; a request of La Quinta Developers for consideration of development plans for construction of a -:E5,000 square foot commercial office building in an approved commercial office complex located on the south side of Avenue 47 at Caleo Bay Drive, east of Washington Street. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 - 1 4-03.wpd 1 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if the elevators were located only on the center portion of the building. Staff noted the location of the elevators on the site plan. 3. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant was available to answer any questions. 4. There being no questions of the applicant and no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 5. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Abels to adopt Resolution 2003-001, approving Site Development Permit 2002-757, subject to the conditions as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. B. General Plan Amendment 2002-088; a request of the City for consideration of an Amendment to the City's General Plan Circulation Element by changing the existing classification for the following streets: Fred Waring Drive, Adams Street, and Dune Palms Road. 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. 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. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Robbins asked if this change would mean a restriping of the street to make it into six lanes. Staff noted it would still require some widening in the County. Commissioner Robbins asked about the potion that is still in the County. Staff G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 - 1 4-03.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 stated there is enough room to have six lanes, but not enough area for curb. Commissioner Robbins stated he had a concern regarding those homes who take direct access onto Fred Waring Drive. Staff stated on -site turn-arounds may have to be provided for those homes that back directly onto Fred Waring Drive. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked if that portion of Fred Waring Drive across from Palm Royale was part of the proposed development to provide six lanes, or will it remain vacant. Staff stated Fred Waring Drive is one of the must build streets, but is not part of the current discussions. Jefferson Street has the priority. The City may have to use public funds to finish Fred Waring Drive. 4. Chairman Butler asked if the speed limit would be changed on any of these streets. Staff stated the speed limits are set by the motoring public with statistical analysis used to determine if a change needs to be made. 5. There being no further questions of staff and no other public participation, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion and opened the matter up for Commission discussion. 6. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Abets to adopt Resolution 2003-002, approving General Plan Amendment 2002-088, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Butler, NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2002-758, a request of Cornerstone Developers for review of architectural and model home landscaping plans for four new prototype residential units located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Miles Avenue. 1. Commissioner Robbins stated he may have a potential conflict of interest as this project abuts his property and removed himself from the dias. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Oscar Orci presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 - 1 4-03.wpd 3 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked if this would need a compatibility review. Staff indicated it would not, as it is a separate tract and not a part of any of the other existing tracts. 3. Commissioner Tyler asked for an explanation of the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) recommendation. Staff explained the conditions imposed by the ALRC on the site map. Commissioner Tyler asked for an explanation of the air conditioning pads. Staff explained the condition would ensure they provide the appropriate distance on the side yard. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to explain the requirements of the Zoning Code in regard to sideyard setbacks. Staff stated the provisions in the Zoning Code and reminded the Commission this subject would be before the Commission on January 28, 2003 for discussion and to provide staff with direction. If any Code changes are made, this developer may be required to meet the new requirements. 4. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on the elimination of the windows on the garage doors. Staff explained it was a recommendation of the ALRC. Commissioner Kirk asked if one of the models would contain water efficient plants. Staff stated it was a standard conditions. Commissioner Kirk asked the status of the CVWD Water Efficient Ordinance. Staff would report on the status at the next meeting. Commissioner Kirk asked if a provision could be drafted in the interim. 5. Commissioner Tyler asked if the street names noted on the tract map were approved, or suggestions. Staff stated the normal process is for them to be submitted for approval. Staff would review and see if they were approved. 6. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Joe Swain, representing Cornerstone Developers gave a presentation on the project, and explained the "shaded" area on the roof as requested by Commissioner Kirk. 7. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was any objection to the ALRC recommendation on the curvilinear landscaping. Mr. Ray Lopez, landscape architect for the project, stated the area of concern is so small it is not an issue with them. In regard to the drought tolerant landscaping they do encourage it, but it is still a hard sell. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-14-03.wpd 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 8. Commissioner Tyler stated there seems to be a similarity between these models and those proposed for the Esplanade project. Mr. Swain stated they are, but larger. 9. Mr. Brad Phoenix, 44-290 Via Coronado, asked for an explanation about a rumor regarding gating this project. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated there is a portion of the lots that will be connected to the northern tract and the applicant is exploring the option of constructing gates at this location. The streets are public and they would need to be vacated before it could be approved. Mr. Swain indicated the southerly gate and northern entrances on the map. They have tried to encourage some dialog with the residents to introduce a gate at the entrance off Washington Street, but after reviewing all the implications, they decided it would be better to review it further at a later date and not make it a part of this process 10. Mr. D. J. Ryan, 44-265 Via Coronado, asked what percentage of the homeowners would be required to make this happen. City Attorney Kathy Jensen stated the streets are currently public and in order for them to become private streets, the City Council would have to adopt findings determining the streets are no longer necessary. A homeowners' association would have to be formed along with a maintenance agreement for the roads. 11. There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Minute Motion 2003-001, approving Site Development Permit 2002-758, as amended: a. Windows on the garages allowed as an option. Unanimously approved Vill. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\ 1 - 1 4-03.wpd 5 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2003 IX. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Chairman Butler asked for participation on who would be the Commission's representative to the City Council meetings. It was determined to be a rotational attendance by the Commission. Commissioner Abels offered to attend the meeting of January 21, 2003, and staff would prepare a rotational list for the remainder meetings. X. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held January 28, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:51 p.m. on January 14, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1-14-03.wpd 6 PH #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 28, 2003 CASE NO: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC./EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; AND 2) REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A 14,560 SQUARE FOOT DRUG AND RETAIL STORE ON A 4.03 ACRE SITE. LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF AVENUE 48 AND WASHINGTON STREET (APN: 643-200-001). ENGINEER: DAVID R. GRAY, INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460; BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC)/ REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: VACANT LAND (MARRIOTT HOTEL SITE) SOUTH: RANCHO LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT EAST: LAKE LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT WEST: LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION AND LAGUNA DE LA PAZ DEVELOPMENT. Martin\SDP 02-753Walgreen's\PCStfrptSDP2002-753 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-460/SDP 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 BACKGROUND: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Avenue 48 and Washington Street (Attachment 1). The property is vacant and approximately 4.03 acres in size. This property is part of a previously approved Tract Map (TTM 24230) for the commercial and residential lots along the east side of Washington Street between Avenue 47 and Avenue 48. This project site had a former approval for a two-story, 47,894 square foot medical office building (Eisenhower) that was never constructed. The Zoning Map designates the property as Regional Commercial. However, the General Plan designates the property as Community Commercial. Under State law, whenever there is an inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map, the General Plan prevails. Therefore, the Community Commercial zoning district will set the development standards for this site. Also, the City has a 22 foot height restriction within the 150 foot setback for buildings located along Major Arterials. This helps reduce a project's visual impact and building mass along major arterials such as Washington Street. Existing streets surrounding the site include Washington Street, a Major Arterial with a 120 foot wide right-of-way (six -lane divided), Caleo Bay, a Local Street with a 60 foot wide right-of-way (two-lane undivided) and Avenue 48, a Primary Arterial with an 110 foot wide right-of-way (four -lane divided). All streets are improved with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. In addition, the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 48 is currently a three-way signalized intersection. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The current application is for a single -story, ± 14,560 square foot drug and retail store on the 4.03 acre site (Attachment 2). A portion of this site is reserved for future development. This remainder portion of the site will be processed under separate applications to be brought back to the Planning Commission at a later date. Per discussions with the applicant, these buildings will be medical related and the architecture will compliment the current proposal. Architecture The proposed building will have a Mediterranean theme with a combination concrete the/parapet roof, exposed roof beams, integrally colored stucco finishes with desert Martin\SDP 02-753Walgreen's\PCStfrptSDP2002-753 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-460/SDP 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 tones, stone tile wainscot, columns with connecting arches, medallions on the corner elements, and decorative light fixtures. The building will be approximately 22 feet in height with an architectural projection (tower) at the southwest corner of the building at thirty (30) feet -eight (8) inches in height. Architectural projections not containing usable floor space are permitted to extend fifteen feet above the maximum structure height if approved as part of a Site Development Permit. Also, the footprint area of such projection cannot encompass more than ten percent of the ground floor area of the structure. The footprint of the architectural projection, as proposed, would be 576 square feet, which falls within the ten percent limit. The main entry will face in a southwestern direction and be accented by the tower. A covered walkway and landscaped planters will be located along the western and southern boundaries of the building to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrians. Glass windows and doors will be added to the western and southern facades. The smooth shaped columns, arches and tile roofs will help break up the building mass. Landscaping The building is setback far enough to allow landscaping and lighting within the site's setback area. Minimum building setback requirements include thirty (30) feet from Washington Street, twenty (20) feet from Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay and zero feet from interior property lines. The building is setback one -hundred fifty (150) feet from Washington Street, thirty-five (35) feet from Avenue 48, two -hundred fifty (250) feet from Caleo Bay, and one - hundred forty (140) feet from the adjoining property to the north. Landscape setbacks include twenty (20) feet from Washington Street and ten (10) feet from Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay. Although there is no setback requirement from interior property lines, the applicant is proposing a five foot setback from the adjoining property to the north for the future phases. In addition, the applicant proposes a three (3) foot high wall along Washington Street and Avenue 48 to screen the parking lot from public view. The conceptual landscape plan for the site consists of a wide variety of trees, shrubs and ground covers. The western frontage along Washington Street is currently landscaped with Date Palms, California Fan Palms, turf and a meandering walkway. This will remain as part of the project. Additional landscaping will be installed along Martin\SDP 02-753Walgreen's\PCStfrptSDP2002-753 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-460/SDP 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 the site boundaries as well as within the site. The applicant will be required to stabilize the vacant remainder of the site in accordance with Section 6.16 of the Municipal Code to reduce dust emissions. The proposed landscaping will provide visual relief, compliment the buildings and provide an overall design that is prevalent throughout the City. Lighting The lighting fixture proposed for the building is a twelve (12) inch high carriage -light. It will be mounted on all sides of the building, with similar fixtures hanging under the covered walkways. The parking lot lighting proposed consists of a "shoe box" type fixture mounted on a four (4) inch square steel pole twenty-two (22) feet in height. The lighting fixture will be installed along the perimeter and within the parking lot of the site. Lighting at the site is proposed to be set on a timer so that night lighting will be reduced and allow sufficient lighting for safety purposes only. Access Vehicular access is provided at three locations; Washington Street, Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay. The Zoning Code requires undivided two-way driveways twenty-eight (28) feet wide minimum. The applicant is proposing to have all three entrances thirty-five (35) feet wide. The entrances at Washington and Avenue 48 will be right-in/right-out only. The entrance on Caleo Bay will be a full -turn. Interior vehicle circulation is provided by twenty-six (26) feet wide aisles throughout the parking lot. All three site entrances are proposed to have decorative paving to accent the project entries. The proposed drive-thru for the pharmacy will be located on the eastern side of the building and have two drive -ways. The drive-thru will be covered by a shade structure that will be architecturally integrated with the building design. The zoning code requires that drive-thru aisles be a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide. Currently, the proposed layout does not meet this requirement. The applicant will be conditioned to meet the code requirements. Proper striping will also be required to allow for safe vehicle circulation leaving the drive-thru area. Parking Section 9.150.060 of the Zoning Code requires one (1) parking space per two -hundred (200) square feet. Based on 14,560 square feet of retail space the required parking Martin\SDP 02-753Walgreen's\PCStfrptSDP2002-753 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-460/SDP 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 is seventy-three (73) spaces. The applicant proposes ninety-one (91) spaces. Additional parking will be required for other uses on the site as it builds out. The applicant will be conditioned to provide sufficient parking for all uses at build out. The proposed loading area for the project will be at the rear of the building. The Zoning Code requires buildings between 1,000 and 19,999 square feet to provide at least one loading berth measuring forty-five (45) feet by twelve (12) feet. There is sufficient space at the rear of the building to accommodate the loading berth. There are landscaped islands on each end of the loading area and walls enclosing the trash compactors and bins. No parking is permitted in this area other than that needed for the delivery trucks. Signage The signage shown on the elevations are conceptual. The applicant will submit detailed plans showing the proposed signage for the site to be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval under a Planned Sign Program. Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRC) At the December 4, 2002, ALRC meeting, the Committee discussed the project and identified certain issues for consideration by the Planning Commission. These included the pedestrian area at the corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48, landscaping on the site, and soil stabilization. The meeting minutes are attached for your review (Attachment 3). Public Notice: This project was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 4, 2003, and mailed to all property owners within 500-feet of the site. To date, three letters have been received from adjacent property owners and are attached (Attachment 4). Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the meeting. Public Agency Review: A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received from public agencies and City Departments have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. Martin\SDP 02-753Walgreen's\PCStfrptSDP2002-753 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT EA 2002-460/SDP 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to approve EA 2002-460 and SDP 2002-753 pursuant to Sections 9.210.020 of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003- , certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact (EA 2002-460) pursuant to the findings set forth in the attached Resolution; 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, approving SDP 2002-753, subject to findings and conditions. Attachments: 1. Site Location Map 2. Plan Set 3. December 4, 2002, ALRC meeting minutes 4. Letters from adjacent property owners Prepared by: Martin Magana Associate Planner Martin\SDP 02-753Walgreen's\PCStfrptSDP2002-753 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460 PREPARED FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-754. CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN DEVCO WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 281h day of January, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Environmental Assessment 2002-460 and Site Development Permit 2002-753 to allow a single -story ± 14,560 square foot drug and retail store, generally located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows: APN: 643-200-001, 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 2002-460) and has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant adverse impact on the environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permit 2002-753, and therefore, 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 make the following findings to justify certifying said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed project 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 2002-460. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PC Reso EA 02-460.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460 JANUARY 28, 2003 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 in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. 6. The proposed project 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 in that mitigation measures are imposed on the project that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2002-460 and said 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, 92253. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PC Reso EA 02-460.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2002-460 JANUARY 28, 2003 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2002-460 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 and attached hereto. 3. That Environmental Assessment 2002-460 reflects the independent judgement of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 281h day of January, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PC Reso EA 02-460.wpd Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Site Development Permit 2002-753; Walgreens Drug and Retail Store 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Martin Magana, 760-777-7125 4. Project Location: The northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48; APN: 643-200-001 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Evergreen Devco, Inc. 2920 East Camelback Rd., Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 6. General Plan Designation: Community Commercial 7. Zoning: Regional Commercial 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Site Development Permit proposes the construction of a 14,560 drug and retail store (Walgreens) on a portion of a 4.03 acre site. The balance of the site, labeled Phase II, are undefined in terms of use. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. North: Vacant, approved for Marriott Residence Inn South: Avenue 48, golf course and single-family residential West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation partially developed site East: Caleo Bay and single-family residential 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 1-1 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 1-1 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR 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, nothing further is required. r 1 , Signature Date 701 P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "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. 4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVHI, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analysis are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) The analysis of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. ':\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: AESTHETICS: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map, Property Owner) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to nonagricultural use? (No ag. land in proximity to project site) II. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impart ►94 KI ►l M F.9 X 91 X X \Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd V. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment, p. 73 ff.) CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions, has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best available example of its type, or is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person)? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 123 ff.) X X X X X X X X R. X \Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChk1st460.wpd 1I. L"At I c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 123 ff.) GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan Exhibit 8.2) iv) Landslides? (General Plan Exhibit 8.3) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan Exhibit 8.4) c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Application materials) c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) X X X X X X X X X X X ►Al 'AMartin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChk1st460.wpd d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR, p. III- 187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Project Preliminary Grading Plan) f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) X ►91 ►' ►j /4 X X X X X X PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or X redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Project Description) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan p. 18 ff.) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) C MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) U. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan p. 95) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Residential project -- no ground borne vibration) c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR, p. III-144 ff.) d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive levels? (General Plan land use map) XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: it X X X i:9 <t ►;1 X :\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application Materials) ;III. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p. 46 ff.) [IV. RECREATION: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application Materials) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials) (V. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) X X X X X X F X F.9 X /12 F.9 \Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Project Site Plan) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Project Site Plan) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Project Site Plan) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project Description) W1. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X X X X X X X X X X X X .0 ':\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? WIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. 91 X Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets. a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analysis and state where they are available for review. None b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. See attached Addendum. DURCES: [aster Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 2002. eneral Plan, City of La Quinta, 2002. eneral Plan EIR, City of La Quinta, 2002. CAQMD CEQA Handbook. ity of La Quinta Municipal Code \Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EAChkIst460.wpd Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2002-460 a), b) & c) Washington is designated an Image Corridor in the General Plan. The proposal includes a single story Mediterranean style building on 4 acres. The proposal will be a low rise building which will not impact scenic vistas. Surrounding development, both existing and planned, reflects the same low rise design. The project will reflect the high quality development which the General Plan encourages on Washington Street. No scenic landmarks occur at or near the site. I. d) The project will generate light from parking lot lighting. The City's dark sky ordinance will be applied to all lighting plans submitted for the proposed project site. These requirements do not allow lighting to spill over to other properties, which will mitigate the potential impacts associated with the project. The potential impacts associated with light and glare are not expected to be significant. II. a)-c) The proposed project site is neither in a prime agricultural area, nor subject to Williamson Act contracts. III. a), c) The proposed project will result in the construction of 14,560 square feet of retail space, which will generate 1,284 trips at buildout'. Since the balance of the uses on the site are not identified, additional trips are likely, but cannot be calculated at this time. Based on the drugstore trip generation, the proposed project will generate the following pollutants. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 39.80 1.53 8.16 -- 0.17 0.17 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 1,284 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F, year 2005. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project and the need for an EIR. Trip Generation, 6th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 881, Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through Window. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EA-Adden460.wpd The proposed project will not exceed any threshold for the generation of moving emissions, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District in determining the need for an EIR. It is further unlikely that the additional buildings on the site, currently designated as Phase II, will generate sufficient trips to exceed standards. However, the future buildings will be subject to review under CEQA, and their potential effects will be analyzed at that time. The impacts to air quality relating to chemical pollution from the proposed project are not expected to be significant at this time. III. d) The construction of the proposed project will generate dust, which could impact residents both on and off site. The Coachella Valley is a severe non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). The proposed project would result in the disturbance of up to 4.03 acres of land, and the movement of about 555 cubic yards of dirt on the site. Cut and fill is expected to be balanced. This has the potential to generate 106.4 pounds per day in fugitive dust during the grading of the site. The Valley has recently adopted stricter measures for the control of PM 10. These measures will be integrated into conditions of approval for the proposed project. These include the following control measures. CONTROL MEASURE TITLE & CONTROL METHOD BCM-1 Further Control of Emissions from Construction Activities: Watering, chemical stabilization, wind fencing, revegetation, track -out control BCM-2 Disturbed Vacant Lands: Chemical stabilization, wind fencing, access restriction, revegetation BCM-3 Unpaved Roads and Unpaved Parking Lots: Paving, chemical stabilization, access restriction, revegetation BCM-4 Paved Road Dust: Minimal track -out, stabilization of unpaved road shoulders, clean streets maintenance The contractor will be required to submit a PM 10 Management Plan prior to initiation of any earth moving activity. In addition, the potential impacts associated with PM 10 can be mitigated to a level less than significant by the measures below. 1. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 2. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Waigreen's\EA-Adden460.wpd 3. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 4. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 5. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 6. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 7. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. Landscaping along Caleo Bay and on the northern boundary of the site shall be installed immediately following completion of precise grading on the site. 8. The areas identified as Phase II on the site plan shall be landscaped and irrigated with either sod or hydroseed, or desert wildflower mix prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building. 9. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 10. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour 11. The project proponent shall conform to the notification standards included in the 2002 SIP for PM10 in the Coachella Valley. III. e) The construction of the proposed project will not generate any objectionable odors. IV) a)-f) The proposed project is located within the required fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringed -toed lizard, and will be required to pay the mandated fee at the issuance of building permits. The payment of the fee will reduce the potential impacts to this species to a less than significant level. The site has previously been graded, and is significantly impacted for potential as a biological habitat. The impacts to other biological resources are not expected to be significant. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EA-Adden460.wpd V. a)-d) The site has been previously graded, and has a low potential for surficial archaeological resources. There is, however, a potential that buried resources do occur on the site which will not be uncovered until grading and excavation occur. As a result, the following mitigation measure shall be required: 1. Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a written report on all activities on the site prior to occupancy of the first building on the site. VI. a) i)-iv) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. Structures on the site will be required to meet the City's standards for construction, which include Uniform Building Code requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans. This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground shaking are reduced to a less than significant level. The site is not in an area subject to liquefaction or landslides. VI. b) The site is located in a severe blowsand hazard area, and will therefore be subject to significant soil erosion from wind. The project proponent will be required to implement the mitigation measures listed under air quality, above, to guard against soil erosion due to wind. These mitigation measures will lower the potential impacts associated with wind erosion to a less than significant level. VI. c)-e) The soils on the site are not expansive, and will support the development proposed by the project proponent. The project proponent will be required to submit a site -specific geotechnical study at the time of building permit issuance to assure that all building techniques employed on the site result in safe structures. These standards will lower the potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vill. a), c),d) & e) The proposed project will be responsible for the drainage of on and off site flows. The City Engineer requires that all project retain the 100 year storm on - site. The proposed project will be required to conform to this standard, which is expected to lower potential impacts to a less than significant level. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EA-Adden460.wpd Vill. b) The Coachella Valley Water District provides domestic water to the subject property. The retail development on the project site will be required to implement the City's standards for water conserving plumbing fixtures and on - site retention, which both aid in reducing the potential impacts to groundwater. The proposed project will also meet the requirements of the City's water - conserving landscaping ordinance. These standards will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. IX. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and will be developed for its General Plan designation of Community Commercial. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the project site. The project will not divide an existing community, or conflict with a land use plan or with a habitat or natural community conservation plan. X.a) & b) The project site occurs outside the MRZ-2 Zone, and is not expected to contain resources. XI. a) The project site is located in an area of the City subject to high traffic noise levels. The project will develop as retail commercial development, which is not a sensitive receptor. The closest sensitive receptors are located to the east and south of the project site, in Lake La Quinta and Rancho La Quinta. The project site plan includes parkway landscaping and parking lot setbacks which will increase the separation between the commercial land use and the residential units. The project site will include a loading and delivery area on the north side of the site, and a drive -through window on the east side of the site. These uses have a potential to generate loud noises, particularly from truck traffic and loudspeakers at the drive -through. The most sensitive times for noise at sensitive receptors is the night-time hours, when ambient noise levels are low. Therefore, in order to mitigate the potential impacts to the sensitive receptors on the east and south, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 1. The delivery and drive -through hours on the project site shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. XI. c) The construction of the project will generate noise from construction equipment and activities. Existing homes occur to the east and south of the site. Homes are considered sensitive receptors to noise, and the construction at the site could have a short term negative impact. In order to reduce these potential impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EA-Adden460.wpd 1. All internal combustion equipment operating within 500 feet of any occupied residential unit shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers and air intake silencers. 2. All stationary construction equipment (e.g. generators and compressors) shall be located in the northwestern quarter of the site, as far away from existing homes as possible. 3. Construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the La Quinta Municipal Code. XI. d) & e) The project site is not within the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. XII. a)-c) The project site is currently vacant, and will result in the construction of commercial development. No impacts to population and housing are expected. XIII. a) Buildout of the site will have a less than significant impact on public services. The proposed project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Buildout of the proposed project will generate property and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services. The commercial development will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees to mitigate potential impacts to schools. To offset the potential impacts on City traffic systems, the project or its components will be required to participate in the City's Impact Fee Program. Site development is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XIV. a) & b) The construction of commercial development will not impact recreational services. The generation of property and sales tax, and the General Plan policies in place to ensure that standards for parkland acquisition are followed by the City as development occurs, will mitigate potential impacts to these facilities to a less than significant level. XV. a) & b) The proposed project will generate 1,284 trips per day, and will generate additional trips when the Phase II components of the project are constructed. However, the proposed project is well within the type of use identified in the General Plan for the Community Commercial designation, and has been analyzed in terms of the impacts to traffic and circulation on Washington and Avenue 48. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Wa1green's\EA-Adden460.wpd The impacts to the circulation system are expected to be consistent with those identified in the General Plan EIR, and are not expected to be significant. XV. c)-g) The project will not impact air patterns. The design of the site does not create any hazardous design features. The site plan includes parking requirements generally in conformance to the City's standards. The site plan provides for emergency access points. Alternative transportation in the form of bus stops will be implemented throughout the area based on General Plan policies and programs. XVI. a)-f) Utilities are available at the project site. The project developer will be required to pay connection and service fees for each of the utilities, which are designed to incorporate future needs and facilities. These fees will eliminate the potential impacts associated with utilities at the site. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\EA-Adden460.wpd 0 0 0 0 N M �O M O O N 2 o z zz x U A U W d F A U� PPia� U O� UU V V O O A a U N cn W) _o N a rA ou °A O •U 4-b 4-' O •U � 4' o U O •U O •U O •0 � � � U UrA & U U U a� U O� V O �M, O bA V N O N c a a, a. a c w w a � O o � 1.4 A o i c�• s�. a U U U UACA 0A CE tn N O O O N y U.O 4- au 0 A NO bn U U bA M En a % O N etq� ¢' C/i 10 'CS .. o cn 0 a m a a .a A A U� U� U U o U U U U .a U U U wG7 � wG7 FA to o a o w L H o '" cn rA W 9 CIS uIVA o o 0 rZ v'� 3 CA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT PLANS TO ALLOW A SINGLE -STORY, ± 14,560 SQUARE FOOT DRUG AND RETAIL STORE ON A 4.03 ACRE SITE. CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 APPLICANT: EVERGREEN DEVCO WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 281h day of January, 2003 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by Evergreen Devco for approval of a single -story, ± 14,560 square foot drug and retail store, generally located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48, more particularly described as follows: APN: 643-200-001, WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2002-460), and determined that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Zoning Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with the General Plan: The proposed project as proposed is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan in that the design, height, scale and mass of the project is compatible with the Community Commercial Land Use designation. 2. Consistency with the Zoning Code: The proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the Regional Commercial Zoning District, including but not limited to, setbacks, architecture, building heights, building mass, exterior lighting, parking, circulation, open space and landscaping. 3. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of CEQA, in that Environmental Assessment 2002-460 was prepared for this project with a PAMartin\SDP 02-753-Walgreens PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 recommendation for certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 4. Architectural Design: The architectural design of the proposed building, including but not limited to, architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and and other th rcthectural qualityleofents, is design compatible with surrounding development prevalent in the City, in that it lacks the bulky mass of a commercial building due to the articulation, stucco exterior finish, desert tone colors, tile and flat roofs; the proposed building is adequately set back with architectural variations so as to minimize the appearance of a large structural mass. 5. Site Design: The site design of the proposed project, including but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian access, screening of equipment, trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements such as scale, mass, appearance, and amount of landscaping are compatible with surrounding development and quality of design prevalent in the City in that the proposed project meets the development standards of the City's Zoning Code. 6. Landscape Design: The landscaping plan for the proposed project, including but not limited to, the location, type, size, and coverage of plant materials, has been designed to provide visual relief, complement the building, screen undesirable views and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual appearance of the project. The proposedlandscaping shrgr ound Ie with covers the surrounding area in that the variety of trees,shrubs and g provide an aesthetically pleasing and well functioning use of landscaping space. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Site Development Permit; 2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2002-753 for h attached reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of Approval hereto; P:\Martin\SDP 02-753-Walgreens PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 28th day of January, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\Martin\SDP 02-753-Walgreens PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 GENERAL 1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits contained in Site Development Permit 2002-753 unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. The remainder of the site shall remain vacant until such time that other development proposals are submitted. At that time a separate permit(s) will be required for the development of the remainder of the site with approval by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 2. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents for plan checking processes. 3. This approved Site Development Permit shall be used within two years 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 9.200.080 (D). 4. 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. 5. The hours of operation for the project, including the drive-thru, shall be between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. 6. There shall be no storage or sales of alcohol on the premises. 7. Prior to the issuance of any permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and/or clearances from the following agencies: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit) • Community Development Department • Riverside County Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB) • Waste Management of the Desert P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 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. 8. 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 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 erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. F. The approved SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. 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. 10. 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) Washington Street (Augmented major arterial, 132-foot right-of-way) additional 6 foot dedication measured from the property line to provide for a 132 feet of right-of-way. This dedication may be waived if a future General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council. 2) Avenue 48 - None required. 3) Caleo Bay - None required. 11. The applicant shall create perimeter landscaping setbacks along all public right-of-ways as follows: A. Washington Street - Landscape setback have been dedicated. With the additional dedication required for street right-of-way, additional 6 foot dedication for landscape setback will also be required. This dedication may be waived if a future General Plan Amendment is approved by the City Council. B. Avenue 48 - None required. C. Caleo Bay - 10 feet from the street right-of-way . The setback requirements shall apply to all frontages including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and sites dedicated for utility purposes. 12. 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, bus turn out, and common areas shown on the Site Development Permit. PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 13. Direct vehicular access to Washington street, Avenue 48, and Caleo Bay from any portion of the site from frontage along Washington Street, Avenue 48, and Caleo Bay are restricted, except for those access points identified on the site plan for this project, or as otherwise conditioned in these conditions of approval. 14. 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. 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 -site 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. A. Striping Plan on Caleo Bay 1 " = 40' Horizontal B. Perimeter Landscape Plan on Caleo Bay 1 " = 20' Horizontal C. Site Development 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. 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. "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 for parking stalls and access to the building; and show the existing street improvements out to at least the center lines of adjacent existing streets. PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 17. 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. 18. 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. GRADING 19. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements), LQMC. 20. 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. 21. 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. D. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES stormwater discharge permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), 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. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 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. 22. 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. 23. Grading within perimeter setback and parkway areas shall have undulating terrain and shall conform to LQMC 9.60.240(F). The maximum slope shall not exceed 4:1 anywhere in the landscape setback area, and shall not exceed 8:1 in the first 6 feet adjacent to the curb in the right of way. 24. Building pad elevations of perimeter lots shall not differ by more that one foot from the building pads in adjacent developments. 25. Building pad elevations on the precise grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the approved site plan, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 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. 26. 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 Site Plan, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. 27. 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. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 DRAINAGE 28. Stormwater shall be directed to the approved drainage system for Tract 24230/Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta). Nuisance flows from the subject SDP 2002-753 shall be accommodated on site through an acceptable system. The applicant shall demonstrate that there is sufficient capacity in the existing system to accept the design run off from the proposed project. If the existing system is not capable to carry any or all of the developed run off from this development, the applicant shall retain the incremental difference on site. 29. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to Section 9.100.040(B)(7), LQMC. The parking lot drainage may not be directed to the existing retention basin in the Washington Street parkway unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer that the basin was sized to accommodate the run off from the developed property as well as the run off from Washington Street. 30. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the development. 31. 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. 32. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route. UTILITIES 33. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.110 (Utilities), LQMC. 34. 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. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 35. 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. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 36. 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. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 37. 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. 38. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the following: A. Primary Entry: (Washington Street) shared access located approximately 320 feet north of Avenue 48. This driveway shall be a shared access drive with the adjacent landowner to the north and shall be centered on the northerly property line to reduce access points and turning movements off of, and onto, Washington Street. This driveway shall have right in/right out turning movements only. Reasonable cooperation by the adjacent landowner does include granting of reciprocal cross -access easements between the two landowners that facilitate construction of improvements necessary to implement the shared access concept on both properties in a manner that precludes unnecessary reconstruction of the improvements in the future. B. Secondary Entry: (Avenue 48) located approximately 330 feet east of Washington Street shall have right in/right out turning movements only. C. Additional Entry: (Caleo Bay) located approximately 220 feet north of Avenue 48, and approximately 110 feet south of the north property line. This driveway may have full right in/right out and left in/left out turning movements. PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 The applicant shall re -stripe portions of Caleo Bay to accommodate the two way left turn lane at the driveway. Signing and striping plans which detail the two way left turn lane and centerline striping shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for approval. 39. Pursuant to Section 9.150.080(A)(8)(b) (Parking), LQMC, the applicant shall provide 30-foot uninterrupted driveway throats into the parking lot. 40. The applicant CONSTRUCTION 41. 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. LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING 42. The applicant shall comply with Sections 9.90.040 (Table of Development Standards) & 9.100.040 (Landscaping), LQMC. 43. The perimeter landscaping for the project shall be consistent with what is existing in the immediate area. 44. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, common lots and park areas. 45. 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. PAMartin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 46. 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. 47. Only incidental storm water 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. 48. Parking lot lighting fixtures shall be shielded to reduce glare to the surrounding area. In no case shall lighting standards for the parking lot be taller than 22 feet. The parking lot lighting fixture shall be a shoe box type lighting fixture mounted on a four (4) inch square steel pole. 49. The applicant is required to provide loading/unloading berth in accordance with the Zoning Code. Such loading/unloading berth shall measure a 45 feet by 12 feet minimum. Striping shall be provided to clear mark the loading/unloading area. 50. The proposed drive-thru for the pharmacy shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet wide. Proper striping is required to allow for safe vehicle circulation leaving the drive- thru area. QUALITY ASSURANCE 51. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures that meet with the approval of the City Engineer. 52. The applicant shall employ, or retain, qualified engineers, surveyors, and such tr 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. 53. 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. 54. 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 P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 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. MAINTENANCE 55. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance), LQMC. 56. 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 57. 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. 58. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 59. The site shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 55 and 82 of the district for sanitation service. 60. Grading, landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Water District for review to ensure efficient water management techniques. 61. Appropriate fees, if any, shall be paid to the Coachella Valley Water District in accordance with their current regulations for service to the site. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 62. Approved super fire hydrants shall be spaced every 330 feet and shall be located not less than 25 feet, nor more than 165 feet, from any portion of the buildings as measured along vehicular travel ways. 63. Blue dot reflectors shall be placed in the street 8 inches from the centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is located, so as to identify fire hydrant locations during an emergency. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 64. Fire Department connections shall not be less than 25 feet nor more than 50 feet from a fire hydrant and shall be located on the street side of the buildings. 65. Based on a building square footage of ± 14,560 and the building having a fire sprinkler system, the required fire flow would be 1,625 gpm at 20 psi residual for a 3-hour duration. 66. Building plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review to run concurrent with the City's plan check procedures. 67. Water plans for the fire protection system (fire hydrants, fdc, etc.) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 68. Buildings over 5,000 square feet are required to be fully equipped with fire sprinklers (NFPA 13 Standard). Fire sprinkler plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 69. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. 70. Fire Department street access shall come to within 150 feet of all portions of the 1 St floor of all buildings, by path of exterior travel. 71. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Department for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes with appropriate lane painting and/or stop signs. Streets shall be a minimum 20 feet wide with a height of 13'-6" clear and unobstructed. 72. Install a KNOX key box on the building. Contact the Fire Department for an application. 73. Install portable fire extinguishers as required by the California Fire Code. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 74. The applicant will be required to pay a school mitigation fee at the time a building permit is issued. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - ADOPTED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2002-753 JANUARY 28, 2003 SIGNS 75. The applicant shall be submit a detailed Planned Sign Program for the site to be approved by the Planning Commission. MITIGATION MONITORING 76. The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program in connection to the certified Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. P:\Martin\SDP 02-753 Walgreen's\PCSDP 02-753 COA.wpd ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT MONUMENT Cn 2 +z l G) O z cn m m I - TU MARRIOTT INN ?6" HIGH LI.IU �(REEII WALL )i• i PHASE - II 1 A y-----------------------------�' .•" HIGH GMU 48TH AVE 4----------&---------4-----------&-- I� E�----------_------------------- . Site Infomallon Gross SW Area: 4.03 Acral 75,546.8 s.f. Gross Area (Phase IJ 100,729.4 Lf, Gross Floor Area: 14,560 s.f. Hardmope Area ParWng: 63.032.56 s.f. 62.68% Wale: 2.105.83 s.f. 2.09% Total: 65,138.38 s.f. 64.67% Landscape: 25,523.7 s.f. 14.5% Parift Required Walgreens (11200) 73 spaces PoftV Provided: 91 spores PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 == 30' 8800 VENICE BLVD #317 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL 310.838.9766 ' FAX 310.838.0760 ARCHITECTS CITY OF LA 9UINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTON ST @ 48TH AVE LA 9UINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. PROPOSED SITE PLAN Project No: 147.029 Sheet No: Date: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Scale: ,'� = 30' A-1 Drawn: MN Checked: ut V 1 D3' 4 T 5 l t I sroRAOE t - — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — ❑ I I jj wuWiri � FF !11iiRFHDTO 1000I.ERFREE2ERF .PHARMACY i � --1�, I H N I I I I II I ❑ I II I I II I I I II I I lj i 4�J L R I -- I I i I I 1 � I �. GENERAL 9ALE5 I � I E^TIENRIIfC - -- 1 OFFICE I I I I I I I I I F= I' II I ,• j ..� :�� E� E I �c I I I I II II II II II III II II II II IuI III ----=---- ----------- ----------- ----- ------ 3 p . A-4 'Lo aR KLAN_ j� 1 SCALES 1' 8800 VENICE BLVD #317 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL 310.838.9766 FAX 310.838.0760 ARCHITECTS CITY OF LA OUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTON Si @ 4 STH AVE LA QUINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. FLOOR PLAN Protect No: 147-029 Sheet No: Date: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 S001e: 1/0° = 1'-Q' /f1 i> Drawn: MN ,L �` L Chocked: B �1 ROOF PLAN SCALE: 11B" =1'-0" 8800 VENICE BLVD #317 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL 310.838.9766 ' FAX 310 - 838. 0760 ARCHITECTS CITY OF LA 9UINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTDN ST Cd 48TH AVE LA QUINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. ROOF PLAN Proleaf NO: 147-M Sheer No: Date: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Scale: 1/8' = 1'-0" Drawn: MN A— 3 Checked: 411 SQUARE STEEL POLE COLOR FINISH TO MATCH FIXTURE FINISHED GRADE TYPICAL LIGHTING POLE DETAIL NO SCALE IN m Luminaire `: ch edule T �` SymGc1 Lcbd Description Lumens LLF Fi-e •-{] Z -t• GE 250W MH FTW W/ ELS -DS 21000 0.389 .GE.1192JES 1-0 7.-1WM GE 25OV1 MH FWT W/EL5-DS 21000 0389 GE1 192 IES o--0 Z -11W GE 250W MH FV/7 TWIN NA, 0389 N,A Numeric Surnmary Lobel f CalcType Units Avg ISgx I,Ln A,g/Min Ma./hl GRADE - Illuminance J Fc 1.8 7.8 Q6 3.00 - 13 00 7 13 12 1.2 OB -..•-r �-�-- - �..--�� -T--.f_.„r�-_ r _ 1+121 1.6 1.1 j :,r ,j� � /. .' .r.• j• r'f -� i �� /f/� � ' l� .'� f f' J j,J f _ _ 9^25Y.�129 20 _,i/ /f f.,ir , rfr� J. 1 53 30 21 f .!J r/,/.'/r. fj.• �' •� • rrff`' r{ ` F tf�f f r •� ,:f r' JF'r.j `�; j' j /,j' 7 i0 2.7 20 ./ '' r - ' - J .•';.• ,' J .• .r r f' ter' 'r r J/ .. / r i.'r• ff �'.' ,: r f fig, r-�: / 2.1 19 19 18 !� `fri,�`f,•ff. /f ��'I`iFi��-.I� -•f f .- rr�//f' fJf �'r•�� ✓��r`�I.•f •� DrLS-. 13 1 s ' : � f ' • % _� i f , f .' J • f .rr -_ _ / _' r � : ::� � •�.' f� •: r , f . �..� :. fr� .-� ;_4 19 1.4' .....r•. { ' f. r f_. r .•{} _f. /_ / _ �f� r' • i f f f i ��f f r 'r � _.... .L .,. -•. •.. - ? . 7-12 Z=1 Z 1 . 1--578 31 22 17 11 07 0.6 05 0.6 07 QE 07 07 1.0 +1 1,0 09 1,0 10 Ll 1,1 1.0 10 10 10 09 08 II 19 36 33 16 0.9 1.0 IB 366 33 1,6 09 10 19 36 31 1.5 0.9 11 21 39 1 S�3 .11 22 18 13 0.9 10 1I 10 11 09 09 11 1.3 14 1.4 1.4 15 14 L5 1,5 1.5 15 1.4 14 13 1.2 13 1.9 28 2.7 17 1.1 II 17 26 25 16 11 1.2 18 25 24 1,5 10 12 1.8 25 k7 T1! 26 20 16 1.61+5 ?Q 1 IB 15 1, 0.9- 1.1y �] 20 15 1,5 19 21 20 1.6 16 20 7 a .'� 1,3 L2 t3 15 15 -3 11 13 14 14 '2 11 II 1.3 14 14 L2 10 11 13 1,3 17• X20.-19 7-B 13 1 I 11 24 1B 1, 1.0 2 - ii- ii - Z^•18 16 27 93 33 1.9 1.9 3j 4�-, B LS 11 7-P L2 1.2 7- r'2=e11Ar.•--- ••L'=i101i r•r.• r' J f',. 9--Y.r 1.3 S I.S_ i1- ,4 - ._3 2 7 20 1 !+,Q 1 1 t' _ 10 07 08 10 0.9 I7 17 1,3 ' 46 27 20 .....1 0 7 06 . 7 32 24 19 ,1,'�1�i4 - --27 23 18 12 0.7' P. -j 'G7 O6 07 7 :S 30 22 '1,d ': 1 f 17 17 1.6 I I 07 o_jjr�;1.5 .� 11 08 30 27. 1,B 15 S:1 1.3 1-4 1,4 Ill _0 >•' - 1WW. .,>} 1.3 1,0 - _ ..��,•r• ij - r e 7.-14 25 20 1.6 22 20 1,1 I�.- 7 it ' l i+ 1 4.'i t 1.4 1.1 t� 19 IB 1.1 !g 4d �7 25 1.9 1,1. ]�. '• i L4JI 27 9 1 4 1,1 f 11 r- f ! rr rJ , ;,,•. r, �� 1 4 I.6 1,Z„L12� " S2 28 21 i -y._ �{ 7.i 1 4 4 1.4 09 + •% .f-• ,' j r - 19 1tl 1.3•••A.7 28 21 T;�-S 1 IE. 14 f 14. 09 37. 26 20 i.crtC v1 ..2-1- 23 L7 $,7_30 22 I.�T -'T7 17 I,5 r'_ INL 47 2J 1 f f rrl r• r• / l/f S r, 5 1.2 // 1 43,5_ 11 2.3 $1 11 12 12 12 ' 3-6 22 SS 1.1 rr b' -i-:' 25 27 1717 ,. ..•.r'�-•-':_r :-? -6- :-rT_ -� _- �T 20 11 14 09. r, 19 7.•' 20 20 I7 1.4 14 L5 17 19 18116 1,3 13 1,2 15 17 17 14 11 11 1,1 14, 1.B 18 17 14 1.2 p= f ! F x'. 22 7-4 23 21 19 16 1.9 2J 23 23 20 18 1.5 1.0 20 22 21 19 16 13 76 1g 2.1 21 19 16 IO L�9yq' a 25 ll�V.3 7 19 14 11.6 2,fi 31 111 25 16 11.4.181 1,5 1 30 2.4 Ifi 12 l.d 15 3.0 3.0 24 16 09 - - - - ���.5 33 601 It A $,i t l,i 3,4 55 n,� 7 ILF 120 1£ If, 13 17 L2 8 35 17 i_. SETBACK 48TH AVE PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN , SCALE 1'1 = 301-011 v � TANDEW 6NGIHUIM SOl 91KST 4adn wa.v1 u>,y wit -w-8e1 rlto.wc 'w"-, M014 14f-tl!•m YcNullr ! •--.+�I.., lnc D.I. 6 TJ- & C... Inc. v cnnnlc.l 4l.la'.- fli-IA nl DM... w CFTY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTON ST. (� 48TH AVE. LA QUINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN Y+-htcc No: 361100 5 inc Nv Dace: 05 NOVEMBER 02 Drawn: MB2 Checked: DEW PH- I Th6 drn+7.p ie m th,lM1. prWri4 0l ax and ropRly of Tantlwn Enpin«rMy Sou 1M1.n1 and 9�r• Y Idlln.lr pryers. The un W "Wt!, t!, reJrk+ad Iry 1 „ wyln� +IH Id .n 1 I. rryyyd p,d I.+ f:d 9467 1• sa 1. .yr r 11mnr� m ack w- * � >1r. �£CiRLL'~ FpPEs L[6 w CFTY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTON ST. (� 48TH AVE. LA QUINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. PHOTOMETRIC SITE PLAN Y+-htcc No: 361100 5 inc Nv Dace: 05 NOVEMBER 02 Drawn: MB2 Checked: DEW PH- I I JB1 V- yao A - _ •ate +N —.-,��_ F 1 /8" =1'-0" I P o�Vc�.:.....,.'.�t...:.: :.'.:...: :..: :' SCALE: I 4 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8'='r -o' I E 6 a I�)i iT�p .w3NV, —. —. 1 ..: ... SOUTH ELEVATION 48TH AVE) SCALE 118" =1'-0" .. Exterior Flnlshes O Fleld: 147.029Sheet No: ?. r2} _ Tel :(714) 780-5953 .........: . MN A-5 Color: Frazee Coral Brawn 8292W Manufacturer. Dryd Qual 11nlsh Tel: (714) 780-5953 OcIle; ;� f�. Color: Rasa Vlep rill Manufacturer. De Santana Tel: (602) 231-0971 ------ ..... Roo ire: p JB1 V- yao A - _ •ate +N —.-,��_ F 1 /8" =1'-0" I P o�Vc�.:.....,.'.�t...:.: :.'.:...: :..: :' SCALE: I 4 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8'='r -o' I E 6 a I�)i iT�p .w3NV, —. —. 1 ..: ... SOUTH ELEVATION 48TH AVE) SCALE 118" =1'-0" .. Exterior Flnlshes O Fleld: 147.029Sheet No: Color: Frazee Coconut Twist CM35W o r2} _ JB1 V- yao A - _ •ate +N —.-,��_ F 1 /8" =1'-0" I P o�Vc�.:.....,.'.�t...:.: :.'.:...: :..: :' SCALE: I 4 EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8'='r -o' I E 6 a I�)i iT�p .w3NV, —. —. 1 ..: ... SOUTH ELEVATION 48TH AVE) SCALE 118" =1'-0" .. --- T77TT777 l•- WEST ELEVATION (WASHINGTON ST) SCALE: 1/8"= V-0" TOWER ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" Exterior Flnlshes O Fleld: 147.029Sheet No: Color: Frazee Coconut Twist CM35W Manufacturer: D" Quarl finish -,/B•- ..o.. Tel :(714) 780-5953 OAccent: MN A-5 Color: Frazee Coral Brawn 8292W Manufacturer. Dryd Qual 11nlsh Tel: (714) 780-5953 OcIle; Product; CaMera Stone Tile Color: Rasa Vlep Manufacturer. De Santana Tel: (602) 231-0971 ------ ..... Roo ire: p Product; Two Plece MLslon Tile ...... Color: EI Camino Blend Manufacturer: U.S. Ile Tel: (909) 737-0200 OPrecast --- T77TT777 l•- WEST ELEVATION (WASHINGTON ST) SCALE: 1/8"= V-0" TOWER ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" =1'-0" 8800 VENICE BLVD #317 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL 310.838.9766 ' FAX 310.838.0760 ARCHITECTS I CIN OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTON ST , 48TH AVE LA 9UINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. Exterior Flnlshes O Fleld: 147.029Sheet No: Color: Frazee Coconut Twist CM35W Manufacturer: D" Quarl finish -,/B•- ..o.. Tel :(714) 780-5953 OAccent: MN A-5 Color: Frazee Coral Brawn 8292W Manufacturer. Dryd Qual 11nlsh Tel: (714) 780-5953 OcIle; Product; CaMera Stone Tile Color: Rasa Vlep Manufacturer. De Santana Tel: (602) 231-0971 Roo ire: Product; Two Plece MLslon Tile Color: EI Camino Blend Manufacturer: U.S. Ile Tel: (909) 737-0200 OPrecast Meddllons: Product 36" Arabesque Window Manufacturer. Precast Supply Co Tel: (480) 968.5400 OUllht Sconce; Pooduet: 12' Adlrgb n Flnlsh: Nulme© Wt nut Manufacturer: Steve Handeknan Studlos Tel: (805) 962-5119 8800 VENICE BLVD #317 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL 310.838.9766 ' FAX 310.838.0760 ARCHITECTS I CIN OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTAL WASHINGTON ST , 48TH AVE LA 9UINTA, CA EVERGREEN DEVCO, INC. ELEVATIONS Project No: 147.029Sheet No: Date: NOVEMB12, 02 - ER 20 Scale: -,/B•- ..o.. Drawn: MN A-5 Checked: �TYNER BEYOND SECTION A SC SECTION TOP UNIT 4. 8800 VENICE BLVD #317LOS ANGELES, CA 90034TEL 310 838 9766FAX 310 838 0760 SECTIONS PfoI No: 147-029 Sheet No: Date: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Drawn: CMU A-6 SECTION A SC SECTION TOP UNIT 4. 8800 VENICE BLVD #317LOS ANGELES, CA 90034TEL 310 838 9766FAX 310 838 0760 SECTIONS PfoI No: 147-029 Sheet No: Date: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Drawn: MIN A-6 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET ) 1 Ince - YO lC . w .3Z " wDun,r 1Pm rw� —�NI— E . 11 E�Ymw: c•Mraa ua � wnsFD owraR qK{iiM tr aAIE a RON CEL�GCM 910.11 NE_, Y A., FY51WC 1 mB Dwrsanw 91aw xNEaI uaePrts PBvosD ccxsr. W f £: z1 Q n � O I M C z ' cn '/ t a <v m �L • I' - ..SI'LL Is - SITE CIT'! OF LA OUINTA TO MARRIOTT r• - HOTEL RESIDENCE r INN VICINITr MAP t EARTHVInpi, F)IJANTITIES CUT: 553 C , FILL 621 C IMPORT: 13 C IIDTE:-11/,!'jnTIES F?fJ51 rC'i; 3 COURTECY AND CONVEIIIEI:�[ TO ,f'I, L'iFl� ARE FOR BONDIIJG AND F_N! sa Ecv rVpr4ZC. 0!1(_Y PUBLIC UTILITIES P00. F"Ir IC'S 11F�) 1ss-:f 51 C MOE. 912J6 WARq (OACNEILl "1VALLEY WA,EP —7 LIKE TANNEP P.O. 6Dr 1IM) ]9x --:+.I COM R CA YI: POKR -MAL 122.AL IRRIGAPW pS,F{i CA— PPYTCP CIq V (IF7) 199-9?N EASTKCODA E2111 GAS rx tlf rv�'uft mllc I,fO) 1K -A", P.Y; EP'(Yl CA 9— MIA EPRNO$ CA 11 A-�ceoioLLs u ro TIIOT To scALE 1153F I- � ' � Imo.+i • _- � - k_.— PHASE -11 � ISI •� , I 'rte C'! n,�YY�I iIrTN RsD;I.:M RFA:ER ' il':; 4'•'Ar7Si/ IViR P�+N':•:: T.1:L•. - ' 61_93 61]1 T .___—___—��-.__--.. FS F6 61.34it _a:.- ,/��-/ lc„-• It•- 4 T--,rL 1. •�.1 ! _ _ ”: _s0 61.31F5 �-`ter+ �-E .•Y, .� ! ._i,... r�i� rnI 6?.ROTC AFF •I LEI :EN�Di A G mNr A AT B IX 6 WAI CB G1W RADII CM CRY! CM EE P1.—U,f RP4R R BONING � NIIBffD SUPFA2 w 9a IELEPxrNE PB x w PARLLimc uE1Fa AI fQ CeL FD15Cx SCB 9:YEa QEAll W1 L ZM MVN Y SBSEr LVNi 55 S4aTAgl YWLfl IC � LY CIDa IB ARIC S'WLL u w VALVE RE _ VALLf � � r a rRAYYDAY3 xiB �m a TNFIIYOPAvr SBIFEr 9a1 T CON6ElE f1� EUSTOP o:,D�Ex« i - _- _ —� I, ECk; :P PI'. EAIF.t VT F.ECNv_lD/ie1LPP Q W OO N m o Z a �., PHASE - II ! ^J^ Q LJ_ — - r,I C -- - -- L s? , Q J F 111 6152 F.' _ __ ____ _____ ___—_____ 61 S • it , ,l• �. W 10— � G , _ c llllllllr A co-- br— —— — — -- EI SJ.~ a. lz 61.COiC rr..❑..� fJl -- 7'•` a r J u ao 0 AVEPIUE 48 111 =77— F I I --------------- JOB NO. 0265 NOVEMBER 2002 RC 849-G4 " wDun,r 1Pm rw� —�NI— E . 11 E�Ymw: c•Mraa ua � wnsFD owraR qK{iiM tr aAIE a RON CEL�GCM 910.11 NE_, Y A., FY51WC 1 mB Dwrsanw 91aw xNEaI uaePrts PBvosD ccxsr. f £: z1 Q a I0 '/ t a <v m �L < W I JOJr < U l m GI I w Q dao If �-8- VmO 0. Q I I > [C W y Q O I. D �' Ua iy o I a of w z m - _- _ —� I, ECk; :P PI'. EAIF.t VT F.ECNv_lD/ie1LPP Q W OO N m o Z a �., PHASE - II ! ^J^ Q LJ_ — - r,I C -- - -- L s? , Q J F 111 6152 F.' _ __ ____ _____ ___—_____ 61 S • it , ,l• �. W 10— � G , _ c llllllllr A co-- br— —— — — -- EI SJ.~ a. lz 61.COiC rr..❑..� fJl -- 7'•` a r J u ao 0 AVEPIUE 48 111 =77— F I I --------------- JOB NO. 0265 NOVEMBER 2002 RC 849-G4 PALMS Phoenix dactyllFera •A Ulashingtonla robueta TREES ----------------- Chamaerops humllb VINES Tipuana Tlpu Bougainvillea 'Barbara Karat' 5HRUB5 Galllandra Inasqullatera Bougainvillea 'Oh La La' Carrlea g. 'Prostrata' Agave geminiflora Xyloema congestum D :I 'I 1 .I .1 I Symbol Quantity Scientific Name Common Name Plentin Size 58 Chamaerope humilis Mediterranean ran palm 24"-5ox 12 Phoenix dactylirera A� y'y►�t► i3!�A 20' HT. ul 13 Waehingtonla robueta Mexican fan palm �l7 �• 14 Acacia eallclna Willow acacia 24" -Sox 158 Carries 9.'Proetrata' I p.Y�� jilt � f• r �i F'r i yty��►�v l•h Ii i II� ry SIF= Symbol Quantity Scientific Name Common Name Plentin Size 58 Chamaerope humilis Mediterranean ran palm 24"-5ox 12 Phoenix dactylirera A� Date palm 20' HT. ul 13 Waehingtonla robueta Mexican fan palm P�16 eHo Tree Symbol Quantity Scientific Name Common Name Planting Size 12 Tlpuana Tlpu Tipu Tree 24" -Sox 'T Schinus molle Galirornia pepper tree 5 -Gal 14 Acacia eallclna Willow acacia 24" -Sox GROUNDGDVER5 l,r Lantana montevidensle Lantana 'New Gold' Shrub i �;iS�laT�7ir1sT�F � y:r,�a:s;ai►is?i =riTZa \DLY* ai ,r .fJr "1�siiTL•R 7•!r' W�yyk.'�,, •. YY' err' e� � . ",17Rt Symbol Quantity Sclentlflc Name Common Name Planting Size 42 Bougainvillea 'Barbara Karst' Galllandra Inaequllatera Agave geminiflora Twin flowerer agave 5 -Gal 43 4E101 Bougalnvlllea 'Oh La La' Bougalnvlllea 5 -Gal S4 Xylosma congestum Xyloema 5 -Gal 158 Carries 9.'Proetrata' Natal Plum 5 -Gal Ground Cover Symbol Quantity Scientific Namer Common Name Planting Size 181 Lantana 'Now Gold' New Gold lantana 1-1e1 136 Lantana montevidensis Trailing lantana I -Gal Vine Symbol Quantity SCIentIFIC Name Common Name Planting Size 42 Bougainvillea 'Barbara Karst' Galllandra Inaequllatera Bougainvillea Pink powder puff lo5n wa�l sap. IS -Ga 1 eep. AC Annual Color Seasonal Flats DG 2" riepth Decomposed Granite 1n ail planters SOD Hybrld Bermuda null: giant quantities are for estimate proposed only T K ❑ A% IAT€5 INC Pt WN 1ANrUCTURE 7¢I E TANQUUZ CANYON WAY Ax1E r PAW SPR( CµI MMA 'm PI•x OaD1 i;¢eeey FAIN Gaol W-60 EVERGREEN DEVELOPMENT U QUINTA CALIFORNIA llvs RMr L�TIOSCApf y `s. o ti am, � rur, rearr�,rr,rn a�op Mr rnru,rr no we,n.an�irwerun •„ w re nuuunonamwrw, u�r..ra.n amnerwronwtarwam woiei� ip�a,rrrer rrrkrk rk nv mwnn ria. r.,x narnoa,un,smrawp tour nn,rour,r nwnw carr a nm raean,n,n�rawro a mrrnrnpum, Mawwxiri ean,mm�e neprr,.o a � rnnrena. s�r,ry PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN rr,B .uu 1"030' Iwecrnwl 11fi3 REVISIONS NO DATE TYPE BY IRATE: i1.i4@ (ISSUED FOR: IEFFECTIVE DATE: IDESr3N BY: TKD (DRAM BY: EF FILENMSE IIm7H erP SHEET NO. TOTAL r SHEETS L ATTACHMENT MINUTES ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA December 4, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER 10:00 a.m. A. This meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Planning Manager Oscar Orci who led the flag salute. B. Committee Members present: Bill Bobbitt and David Thorns. It was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to excuse Committee Member Cunningham. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Planning Manager Oscar Orci, Associate Planner Martin Magana, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Staff asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of November 6, 2002. There being no corrections, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Thoms/Bobbitt to approve the Minutes as submitted. V. BUSINESS ITEMS: A. Site Development Permit 2002-753; a request of Evergreen Devco, Inc. for review of architecture and landscaping plans for a 14,560 square foot drug and retail store on a 4.03 acre site located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48. 1. Committee Member Thoms stated he does reside a distance further than 500 lineal feet from this project and believes he has no conflict of interest with the project. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\l 2-4-02.wpd 1 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes December 4, 2002 2. Associate Planner Martin Magana, introduced the applicants for the project. Mr. Reuben Garbett, Associate Project Manager for Evergreen Devco, Inc. gave a presentation on the project. He stated the first phase will be the Walgreens building with a developer to build the remainder of the site. 3. Committee Members Thoms and Bobbitt agreed this design was an improvement over the other stores. 4. Committee Member Thoms asked the purpose of the pedestrian area at the corner of Avenue 48 and Washington Street. Mr. John Peruzzi, Peruzzi Architects, stated they are required to have the public access according to the Building Code, Title 24. Committee Member Thorns suggested it become something more than a path, but part of the landscaping. In connection with the monument sign, and a little imagination they could create something more than a path, but still serve as a path. Something art -like, or utilizing artwork in the setting. Mr. Tom Doczi, landscape architect, suggested a plaza. 5. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated there may be some topographic changes as it does undulate at the corner. 6. Mr. Tim O'Neil, Senior Project Manager for Evergreen Devco, Inc. stated they understood the issue and would look into it. 7. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the border where it calls for decomposed granit QG) along Avenue 48. Mr. Doczi stated that a screen wall is adjacent to the DG. The wall will screen the parking lot. Committee Member Bobbitt asked the height of the wall. Mr. Doczi stated it was three feet. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the plants would be on the wall, or in the DG. Mr. Doczi stated they would be planted along the wall to grow over the wall. 8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the size of the parking lot island shade trees; would it be possible to create a little more space for the base of the trees? Mr. Garbett stated the space is six feet. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the size is larger than what most developments create, but he would rather see them eight feet by eight feet. There may be a problem with the trees on the west side. Mr. Garbett stated they are designed to be six feet as well. G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\] 2-4-02.wpd 2 Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes December 4, 2002 9. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the small flower beds around the parking spaces in front of the building which become more of a nuisance than an attractive feature due to the pedestrian traffic. He suggested a smaller planting area be used with vines and that the area be paved to facilitate pedestrian access. 10. Committee Member Thorns agreed and suggested eliminating the plants in front of the cars and use small planting beds around the columns. The planting beds along the side that does not have parking should survive. Mr. Tim O'Neill asked what makes the determination as to whether or not to make the change as recommended by this Committee. Staff stated this Committee's recommendation is taken to the Planning Commission and changes would be made after that meeting. 11. Committee Member Bobbitt questioned the trees along the north property line. Mr. Garbet stated all the landscaping as proposed would remain and would be setbacks from the buildings themselves. 12. Committee Member Thorns suggested they use something other than lantana, like bougainvillea. 13. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if the City had any requirements regarding the undeveloped lots. They will be using soil stabilization, but it might be better if it were planted with grass. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated the phasing of the project needs to be discussed with the applicant before this could be decided. 14. Committee Member Thorns noted the landscaping along Washington Street and Avenue 48 frontage is already planted with grass; how do you coordinate the existing with the new landscaping. Planning Manager Oscar Orci stated the developer will be conditioned to maintain the corner. Mr. Dorzi stated it will be separated out and the two will be constructed to function together. 15. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members Bobbitt/Thoms to adopt Minute Motion 2002-043 recommending approval of Site Development Permit 2002-753 as amended: G:\WPDOCS\ARLC\l 2-4-02.wpd 3 ATTACHMENT WILLIAM H. IVEY 78665 DESCANSO LANE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (760) 7 7 1 - 4 2 8 4 FAX (760) 771-3565 January 21, 2003 President of Planning Commission And Planning Commission City of La Quinta P.O. box 1504 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Re: Proposed Walgreens NEC of Washington Street & Avenue 48, La Quinta, CA Gentlemen: The residents of adjacent Rancho La Quinta are virtually unanimous in their opposition to the location of a Walgreens store on the above referenced proposed site. They feel that this use of the land is clearly incompatible with existing development in the area as well as future improvements planned for the surrounding area. Further, the site appears to be an inappropriate selection by Walgreens in light of demographic and other site selection criteria and alternate sites would seem to be more attractive. These conclusions are detailed in the attached document. They feel that a more appropriate use of the site, considering the surrounding residential neighborhood, would be professional office. Sincerely, s row William H. Ivey Resident WALGREENS NEC Washington Street and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California Summary: The residents of adjacent Rancho La Quinta are virtually unanimous in their opposition to the location of a Walgreens store on the proposed site. They feel that this use of the land is clearly incompatible with existing development in the area as well as future improvements planned for the surrounding area. Further, the site appears to be an inappropriate selection by Walgreens in light of demographic and other site selection criteria and alternate sites would seem to be more attractive. These conclusions are detailed below. Building Description Evergreen Devco of Arizona is proposing to build a 14,560 SF Retail Food and Drugstore on a 4- acre site situated at the NEC of Washington Street and Avenue 48 in the city of La Quinta, California. Walgreens will be located on the corner 1-acre parcel with the balanced of the site planned for professional medical office uses. Photographs of the typical Walgreens building elevations, signage and site improvements are enclosed. Site Description The subject site is situated at the NEC of the signalized intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 48. The site is vacant, however all utilities are located on or adjacent to the property. The site plan shows right in and right out turning lanes only as both Washington Street and Avenue 48 are improved with medians. Area Description The subject site abuts Lake La Quinta on its eastern boundary at Caleo Bay Street and is immediately north of Rancho La Quinta Country Club on Avenue 48. The La Quinta Arts Festival is located west of the subject property across Washington Street. Laguna De La Paz and La Quinta Country Club are located southwest of the subject site along Washington Street. Located to the north of the site is vacant land, the Lake La Quinta Inn and the new Omri & Boni restaurant that is under construction at the NEC of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta. WALGREENS NEC Washington Street and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California Traffic Counts The average daily traffic counts according to the City of La Quinta are as follows: Washington Street, south of Highway 111 - 23,493 Washington Street, north of Highway 111 - 31,986 Highway 111, east of Washington Street - 25,116 Highway 111, west of Washington Street - 31,661 Avenue 48, east of Washington Street - 3,409 Avenue 48, west of Washington Street - 4,605 Competition There are 10 food and drugstores that compete directly with Walgreens within an approximately 3-mile radius of the proposed site, 6 competitors within 1 %z-miles and 3 within 1 mile. Should Walgreens locate at the subject site, they would become the l Ith food and drugstore in the 3-mile trade area. See competition map for details. Demographics The following 2002 demographic estimates were prepared by Clarhas Demographics for the intersection of Washington Street and Avenue 48, city of La Quinta, California: See Demographic Snapshot for details. Description Radius 1.0 Radius 2.0 Radius 3.0 Population 2,770 14,065 41,559 Population By Age 60 + 40.85% 22.56% 19.27% Average HH Income $124,095 $85,349 $76,283 HH Incomes $75,000 + 50.62% 34.27% 32.50% Housing Values $500,000 + 13.30% 7.81& 5.45% WALGREENS NEC Washington Street and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California About Walgreens Walgreens is primarily a convenience retail discount food and drugstore that features products such as baby care, beauty care, health care, personal care, vitamins and nutritional care, cameras and film, electronics & batteries, food & snacks, household and hardware goods and school and office supplies. They depend upon a drive-thru pharmacy for convenience and because their store space interior has limited square feet for this use. They emphasize their computerized workflow system, point of sale scanning, online drugstore web site, one -hour photo finishing service, freestanding stores with dirve-thru pharmacies and expanded convenience foods section for the on the way home customer. More than 470 new stores opened in fiscal 2002. Walgreens plans to open more than 450 new stores. They are the largest of the food and drugstores in the country with about $29.6 billion in annual sales. A typical store is 14,500 square feet with a sales area of 11,000 Square Feet. They offer 20,000 items for sale, employ 25-30 people with annual sales of $7.1 million. See their wed site at www.waljzreens.com for further details. Argument against Walgreens locating at the subject site: Walgreens is not a compatible land use. Walgreens is not compatible with the character of the surrounding residential land uses. The demographics do not support the use. Walgreens is a discount food and drugstore that will not be supported by the residences. Within the 1-mile trade area of the proposed site, there are only 2,770 people, many of whom are second homeowners. About half of them are over the age of 60 with average household incomes of $124,095. Approximately 13.30% of the residence home values range from $500,000 to well over $1,000,000 dollars. • Food and Drugstore facilities have over -stored the trade area. There are 10 competitors within the 3-mile trade area to service a population of 41,559. Walgreens will become the 1 lth' Residence already have an abundant of retail shopping choices within 1- mile of the subject site at Washington Street and Highway 111 and within 1-1/4 mile of Washington and Calle Tampico where one stop shopping provides all of their food, drug, grocery, pharmacy and photo needs. WALLGREENS NEC Washington Street and Avenue 48 La Quinta, California The subject site is not conducive to retail uses due to poor ingress and egress off Washington Street and Avenue 48. The existing medians on both of these streets create a circulation problem for the site allowing for only right hand turns in and out of the property at two locations. Because of this situation, U-turns will become numerous on Washington Street causing traffic delays and increasing the chances of automobile accidents. Westerly traffic will back up on Avenue 48 to take advantage of Walgreens drive-thru window. • Accidents are likely to occur when returning home traffic exits the site at Caleo Bay Street making a left hand turn on to Avenue 48 east bound while east bound traffic on Avenue 48 from Washington Street is turning left into the site at Caleo Bay Street. This street will become further congested when the proposed Marriott Residence Inn is completed. • The proposed Walgreen's site is located on the wrong side of the street to capitalize on the going home traffic that would otherwise purchase convenient foods and drugs. • There are numerous environmental and building elevation concerns that residents have with locating a Walgreen's at the subject site. They include but are not limited to noise, security, lighting, safety, signage, truck deliveries, hours of operation, set backs, landscaping, screen walls, building heights, parking and circulation. Walgreens would best serve their customers by locating a store on a corner location along the heavily traveled highway 111 retail corridor between Adams Street and Jefferson Street should they chose to enter this highly competitive and saturated food and drugstore market. I (, COMPETITION MAP Rite -Aid Walgreens Ralphs Savon �.. Vons Stater Bros Walmart Ralphs Ralphs „ °. s... ->-- ... - ---.._ IL, ..�.. .W,.,;a°`" sty-- •— --- � , ' NS 'a s ' Pop -Facts: Demographic Snapshot Arca(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 WASI IING'I ON ST AT AVENIQA 48 - LA (, UINTA, CA 92253 1'rrh;,.ICLI or: llillIvy - �Larit,,tic --13 699900 ------------_ .. -110.29,900 peg Hption Radius 1.0 Radius 2.0 Radius 3.0 ----- - ------------- 2007 Prn;cclivn 3,089 17,013 49,652 2002 Fm mlt, 2,770 14,005 41,S59 2000 ('ensus 2,648 12,887 38,328 199t) Ccorns 1,032 4,529 20,109 Growl) 2002 - 2007 :1.50'%, 20.96'Y, 19A7:16 Gromb 2000 - 2002 4.61"/u 9.14% 8 43'%u Gravtll 1990 - 2000 156.66,o 184.5311X, 90.60'% 2002 F,S1. Population by Single Race Classification 2,770 14,065 41,559 White AlovC 91.7h'% RO 6S'4 ; 72.09o/, Itlack of African American Alonc 1.12"/o 1.32"1, 1.92'i16 American Indian and Alaska Nativc Alone 0.29%u 0.61'l6 0.73'Yu Asian Alone 1.73^/° 2A140 2.13% N tl:vt I hwai6n and Other Pacific tslander Alone (W3 A 0,07 Yu O.OF'Su Some Other R;.ce Alotiz 3.3VA 1 ! 77 %, 9.61%n TWO of IViute 10C.CS 1.73% 3.14;0 3.43iu 2002 Est. Populativa Hispanic ot• Latino by Origin 2,770 14,065 41,559 tiot I I'.,p;mic or Latilx, 92 39'% 73.1911,4, 60.40% l lispartic of 1.nI1110: 7.61% 26.819'" 39.60n,o 'Mexican 84.99196 85.96'%, 87.31'%, Puerto Rtesn 0.83% () 8?",n 0.59°;, C:11011) 0 98% 0.49'%, 0.2S% All O:hcr Illspanic or Latino 13.19'Y, 12.73'%, 11.82% 2002 Est. Ilispanic or Latino by Sitirle Race Class. 211 3,770 16,457 White Alone 47.791Yo 48 24';n 13.72° Black m Aft ican Amancan Alone 0.00% 0.29"6 0.44% Antcric;w Indian and Alaska Nativ, Alone 0.34'Y, 0 8O';;, 0.901111" Asian Vonc I.71°'. U.9ti":, 0.54')0 Native I l.t" wi;in and Other PaciFe Islrnder Alone 0.00'Y, 0.01°1. 0 0630 Svmc Other Race Alone 42 68'Yo 43 7i",', 49.32'S6 I wo or'M01c Roccs 7 49'>6 6 011G, 5.02% 2002 Est. POP. Asian Alone Race by Category Prclr,rd o 1' -tani:ny 13,200 04 C6:51 PI.I page 1 uC 9 48 310 h84 Pop -Facts: Demographic Snapshot Avea(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 I WAS I INOTON ST A T AV1 NJDA 43 - -- - La:aucic: 33 699900 - -- 1 1 A Q1,INI'A, CA 92253 Ii'ut'; -116 294900 Pr;paral I or: 11t11 Ivy ihscripfi°n 12adiu5 1.0 Radina 2.0 Raclius3.0 Chw..e�e,eact:l)tTaiwancnc -- -^ 103:"/n 1fi.0:"/, v =- --15.46'%, 1'1'il,int) 54.01`,'a 30.67"r.) 31.9010 1ayanc.�: 12.46'%, 15.25i, 16.05' o AvTll 11121111 6.467,;., ' K,)I:: n 9 6 HI, 1 1.7o,,:, X.5 to victuf1111Cs" 1.50'1'4 3.79';'. 7 011"S) C;ulabtod iall 0.001 o t1.0 " , 0 31 i't 1 Inu)nI 0.00'%, 0 0O'%, 0.00 A. 1 ,lonall 00011,10 0 00'!i, 0.001i14 Th.:i 1.501A 2 11 :" 1.39"N 0111Cr Asian 3.65% 4 K24!/" 4.64 Xi Two or more A,;'&1 calcgu, ics 1.501%, 3.32+',S, 2.3TX, 21102 I:a. Population by Scx 2,770 14,065 41,559 dale 4920".5 48 71'%, 49.091i;, 50.801/. 51.2()'%, 50.91"/,, 2002 1'at. Populaliou by Age 2,770 14,065 41,559 Age 0 - 4 3.69'% 7.70 ,, 8.06'%) Age 5 - 9 4.9Y/n 8.11"„ F.G3'% Age 10 - !4 3.87'%, 7.10'/,, 7 99'%) Age 15 - 19 3.54"ii) 5.75°%, 6 64'A A�e 21) - 24 1 23',,) a.5.1"s, 4.93,A Age 25 - 3,1 5.231AI : 31;f, I2.F4':4i Aye 35 - 44 12 26':0 1 S 42"/, 14.96'%, A!;c •15 - 54 :4 66';f, AIle 55 - 59 9.75'%) 6.0li°•t, 5.13% Ag. 60 - 6.1 1 l.Ut1"r, 599 A,,e65-71 1881'%1 :006"i, 8.571tu Age 75 - 91 9.33"r„ 5.4VX� 4.94",(, Age 145 urd ol,l,:r 1.61`%, 11)ti'if 1.033L Ace 16 and ulder 86. 64'" 75.71 V) 73.76:X, Age Ili and older 84.99`;� 73.07 ra 70.1)4;S) Age 2; and u:dcr 83.70io 70.46':„ 07.65;f, Age 65 and older 29 78"r4 16 58',4, 1 1.44% hrt r.,y 11, 200 04.06'51 P1d 11p1;C 2 oC U - -- -- - y- - Pop -Facts: Demographic Snapshot Arca(`): Radius 1.0. Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 1Vl1SIIINGTON S'I' A'I ,\%']?NII)A 4S I.A QUIN ]'A, ('A 92253 I.o:•q rude: -. ! 0.291900 Pt.h.0 ed I or. BIU Ivy - I)cscripti°n Radius 1.0 Ratfiuc 2.0 12adiuc 3.0 2002 Est. Median Age - -- - -- � -- - --- -- 55.3219.1335 GR 2002 Est, Avenwc Age 50?6 IS I0 36.4F 2002 last. Nlalc i'opulation by Age 1,363 6,S50 20,403 AI;e 0 - 4 3.53". , Age 5 - 5 20'Y, R 60%b 1.961111 Age 10- I4 4.51% 7.65A 8.43'%: Age Is - 19 3.81% 625'A 7.16944 Age 21) - 2,1 1.5791, 3.62; , "• Age 25 - 34 5.43% I A!te 35 _4 " 1 1_ I69„ 15 05",,, 14.66'%, AIte 45 - 54 13.04% 1 1.53"/, 11 28"/, Age 55 - 51) R.13`,n 5 a I F; 4 67","" A pe 60 - 01 10. 881.4, 5.72 ;", 4.51 % AI;e 65 - 74 20.05"/, :0 24" 1 S.4S`,' Ag 75 - 81 10 99%. 5.7:111. 4 75"6 r\]c 85 and oldor 1 6O'%, 2002 Est. Median Age, Male 56.15 35 73 34.34 2002 F%1. Average Anne, Aare 50.44 35.12 35.54 2002 E0. Female Population by Age 1,407 7,2I4 21,I57 Ag, 0 - 4 3.53'No 7 431% 7.55"..) Age 5 -') 4 60",'o 7 GS /, 8.3WXo Age 10 - 14 3.24% 6 69'!,,, 7.571., Ago 15 - 11) 3 27% 5.33'! , 6. IR°5 Age 20 - 21 0.90"•b 3.41"„ 4 85'/,: Age'_5 - 3:1 5.04'% 11.62;„ 12 79,', Abe 35 - 44 13.32% 15.76'11/1, 15 24':0 AV,: 45 -54 16.23';., :2.74';', !2.0M/: Ale 55 - 5) 11.333b 6.72::, $ 59i41 1I2T14, t.2i^., 5 i5;S Age 65 - 74 17.65%. 9.99"", 8.6(t"/ci Are 75 - i 4 7.72% 5.15'%'" 4 93'iii A e 45 ant: o',dct 1 54' , 29;5 1.240/11 2002 Est. Median A!ge, Female 54 72 39 95 36.S4 I'ia,.uadun J:uumy 13.2003 0406.511"M hose 1 a 2l>n3 l'Lu itr,.: �_I',F'I I �•,S [-P—o--,p-----F-,a—ct-s-:—D,e—m--o-g—ra—p--h—ic,- Snapshot Areat(c): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 WMIIIN(;1 ON S f AT AVENIDA 48 I 'r 3;.699900 -- T LA QUIN"FA, CA 92253 Lunt lc. -110 204900 Ptvh.urd For: Bill Ivy I)cscripti')° -- Radius 1.0 1 adhis 2.0 Radiuc 3.0 --' _ 2002 Esl. Ascrat e Age, lFcmalc -50.09 --_� _- �9. t4 Y�-- �— 37.3r 21102 bat. Populalio0 Age I5+by 14aritol Stalas 2,424 10,831 31.305 Male. NcNct M.irricd 6.8s% '0.7N`;) 11.75% Female, N,:vcr Nbiricd 4.3WX. 7 96%; 9.75'%, To ,1 1�1,III I c d 74.86% 64 ?5,,,, 61 20"'.4 Pj,:v:ou.sly Mal lied 5.320/6 5 (,s"/„ S.9446 t•cn:alc, Previously Mal led 8.621%, 11. 3 ;a, 12.311% 2002 bat. Pop. A,,c 25+ by 1'sducalional Attainment 11792 9.52: 20,539 l.csa liMut 9111 prad;. 5.1 VX, A.74%6 F 30'% Sonic High igh School. »o diplopia 7.351%" 9 oS 11 gh Sch..00l (lr,ulu:uo (or GED) 21.681A 2�.62'SL 24.11`A Sonic Coilcge, ro dcgica 25.15'%, 24 i? ;, 25.80%, nssorl ,ic I h i,rec 10 34% 7.07';4, 7.45'%, ti::Clic!or I)CErIC 23.67"A 20 I I"4, 17.47% (;rad.-alc er I'rofession,tl Degree 6.7011/ 7.4511i, 6.49'%, Ilnnseholds 2007 Proia:lton 1,424 o,273 17,279 2002 Iia:1» ,t,c 1,203 5,284 14,773 2000 C' nsu. I.199 4,836 13,764 1990 (',:ns»s 452 I'S25 7.711 (liomh 2002 - 2007 12.78"%) 19.71'%„ 16.95':u Citm1h?000-2002 5.37 / 8.171S, 7.34'V, (.'iim Ili 1990 - 2000 165.40%) 167.6�Y%, 77.SD'%, 2002 Est. Average I Iouschold si/e 2 19 166 2 81 2002 Est. I louseholds by household "Type 1.263 5.28.1 14.773 1',tIll, ly l I schold. 75.19'Y) 75.5(,'V. 7,; 74`it N,onCrn:.l), 110,1,;c1101ds 24.82",L .: '.t, 25 260/, 20112 bat. (Troup Quarters Population 0 I 29 2002 bat. households by household Income 1,263 5,2N•1 14,773 --- -:--- - - ^_- - -- -- Ja rc,,y t}, 2(;03 IbLUG S! F:�I 1),a8' 4 of 9 ---_ 2012 Pop -facts: Demographic Snapshot Area(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 WASI IINOTO\ S 1• AT AVIall)A 48 LA QUIN I•A, CA 02253 I'rr�:act! For: 11111 Ivy 33.6999CU-----�- 1.nn�i,ude. -116 ''l(MO Description Radius 1.0 Radius 2.0 Ratliuc 3.0 Ir,con,c I cis titan y15,000 G.05' 10 •;5i;, 9.090/ Income S 15,000 - S24,991) 9 32"%, 11 48',4, 9 79'„ Income S25,000 - S31,999 3.299:1 10 4 TY, ,� 11.31'.n Income S35,000 - 549,999 6 6011,1, 12 _,13;' 14.7_2_, ,n Iltll'llt: w50,000 - y74,999 24.:0':s, 2I.08%) 2?.6U'iu inconu S75,000 - S99,999 20.03'X 13.67'%, 13 (1,):: Income S 100,00C) - 51-19,999 12.30% :0.96,!b 1 1.35" 6 Income S (50,000 - S M9,999 i 1.35 A 5.6S ;S, 5.0.3(, Incomc S250,000 - S499,991) 4.3TV, 2 51J0/, L011%) lncmne S500,000 and owl 2.57':41 1.37%, 0.8211, 2002 F;sL Average Ilou%ehuld Income S124,095 SAS'. S76,283 2002 Esl..11ydiau Ilouschuld Income S75,840 S56,357 S55,634 2002 Est. I'cl• Capita Income 556,580 532329 527.361 2002 Est. Ilonschold Type, Presence orO n Children 1,263 5, I4,773 Vim; 'c \I;;Ic Ilutucltu:dar 3 00'%, 7 25°6 7 17',u Sinrh Pentair (Irnls holder 12,63,,,:, :11.2 11:11 11 97Y, 1lirned-Cot,itic Family, own chi!tlion 13.98'%, 26 76"„ 27.65"% M.III Iitl C otlltl, Fallm1y, 110 Own Chl!Glen 55,8 37.7i,`;'u 32.69,Y,, Nfil!c I lot'..choldcr, Own children 0 R311110 1 1)11116 .56'%, s1;t'c I lot'scholdcr, no own chddlc,l O 65%] 1 15"46 l 62V, I;coral,: l lotwho!der, oun children 2.15'r;, 5 3q" , 6 X4,Y1 I'cnl.11. Ilouscho!dcr, ro own chddren 1.69- 2.61 A, 3.35° \url;utuly, \1,t'c Ilouscholdcr 2.50'%, 2.7()'S;, 3.40'%u ti0n1'In1.ly, 1'0111,31c }hr,ticholJl'I' 1.69'/,, 2 29': 2.36!% 2nn2 vsl. Ilouscholds by llouschold Sizc 1,263 5,2`.1 1 1,773 !-I)VI+on household 20 63':4, NAS'%, 19.1111115. 2-person houscl'old 58.34%o 41 25'9, 36.34^-o 3 wi,%or houszholtl S.81°1, 1 3.22 !4 79'%: 3 pelson hrn schold 7.471/, 14 19'S, 14 66%: 5•�e1�or. hnt'ccho!tl 3.67'%, 7 26"•, S 31'„ h-, rl:ion hr;+chu!ti 0.49';�1 2 S9';6 ,• 3.60,n 7 or 11101,: person hnuSChnld 0 SS'%, ?.U:'.n 2.90'X, 2002 Esl, Ilonwhohls by Presence Of Children 1,263 5?81 14,773 1 gyp;:red an Ja I.mLy 13, Z003 01.06:51 PM ;r,1;e 5 or 9 Pop -Facts: Ucrnographic Snapshot AI•ca(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 WA-91IfNU r()N S'I AT AVGNII)A 48 -- —� I -A QCIN ['A, CA 92253 I'rt•,1areo I'ur fell Ivy I .;Ii,UL'C. 33 699900 Luny i I A!C - I ; 6. 2') I')();l )h�criptlnll Radius 1.0 Radius 2,11 12adius 3.0 llouschnlds Will, Children Less'I'han Age 19. Man "ed-Conple family :4.67'Yh 27.7:s, 28.990:, 0111cr F,ur:ly, ;11a C Ilot>ct:u:d,r 0.83'% �.19;4, 2.98'14 00'er family, f:11MIC IL0r,Ch0l(Jcr 2 29;4, 5 96:41 7 64,,. vnnr.i illy. tilalc I for.s�ho:t+,er 0 :31/, ti'onfunily, Female I lous;hohlcr (1.0_'"; tl t15",4, 0.074•;. Ilou.cholds With No Children Less Than ,\gc 18: \.,Hied-C'o,q,lc fmul;y 55 ")';5, 36.,ru"; 31.37%, Mier 1''am,ly, Ilu.;sd•o:der 0.65".4, 0.$ 7`;S, 1.21'%, 011,C1. )'amity, I•Cmalc Ilou,cholder 1 55°1. '_.l)i"•n 2 561/,1 honl:ur.i:y, Xi,lle l lou�cholt':r 10.37 r., 9 h0"rl 10.75'7, Nonlilmily, FCIIWi : Ilous:holt'•el' 14.29°/. 14 45" ' 14.26% 2002 Em. Ilouseholds by Number or Vehicles 1,263 5,2i41 14,771 No V;hicici ''1iTA 5.2794, 1.29'X, I Vehicle 27.449„ 33.55",%, 32R55 '!S 2 Vchick.; 3 Vchic:c.i 9.99% 1 : 97V, 13.061%, 4 Vchid,:g 1.971!i, 1.02"/0 1.K9",Si 5 or more Vchlc:cs 0.67"% Family Ilollwholds 2007 Projeciio't 1,052 4,066 12,607 2002 I slimatc 951) 1,993 11,042 2000 C'crsm,; 908 3,71 ; 10,155 :990 C on>us 349 1,373 5,4: 7 Go„:h 2002 - 2007 10.80"11, 10.8G'ii, 14 f li u,t i h 2000 - 2002 4.63':6 7.53 s, 6 631;6 (!I o„ •Ih 1990 - 2000 :60.9h'G, : NO 7:''i„ 89.77'Yo 2002 Vtit. I'aulily Ilourehot(l► 1)), Ilausehold Income 950 3,993 11,042 h:crme La; than 515,000 I.85°:, 3.30'.4, 4.9h,y, lucou•o:,:5,000 - S24,991) 10?396 ; 1.�4"s, S N9% Ini owc : 25,000 - ti34, )09 1.591i;: :0 1214, 10 56111., h'come S35.000 - S49,999 6 SCI",/,, 12 = 1'i: 1131-1/1 In:ame S50,000 - S74,999 22.3-VA 22 R0°„ 2.1 091r, 'X ,Cd ca I.I,wary 11. NO! ,,, Cb 51 I'M 1>.'Sc t, nr 9 „, 2002 t':,:: i::,%. Pop -Facts: Demographic Snapshot �rca►(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 WAS w\,(; l'ON S f AT AVCNIDIN 48 --- — - 1.A OGIN I A, CA 92253 Prep ucll For 1101 by 1,aliw(fo: 33 699900 — -- LooL 11,:dc.-116191900 1Ttcrripllala Radius 1A Radius 2.0 Radius 3.0 h:como.S75,000-.999,999 -- l9.kl"/—_====is ll"L 11COm1 t: 11f0,O(10-SId0,999 17a•lVl, t; S:50.000 - 5249,999 12 78'1'. 6.67%. Income S350,000 - S499,999 5 55'i4, 1.3.,"/„ Ircontr S5UO,000 cuui over 3.29'!„ 2002I-M. Average hanii) liousehold Incouac S133,018 ti93;t•'.-3 S84,360 2002 Est. 3kdia11 F'alnily llouschol(1 Illconac S83,929 5+63,95 t 561,687 2002 17,t. families by i'oierty St.11us 950 3,993 11,042 Income Abuts Poverty I.c%*cl: \1,nlu,d-C'0L'plc F,unily,own childtcal 21.561% 23.591!1, 302TX. :11.utickI-C'oulllc 1=,aalaly, r.ta OW11 chil(hcn 70.27'%, 59.57$%, 46.53:6 Ia1 schoMer, aNn cluldrm 0.77% 1.33io Nlalc I luuschoidcr, no awn cliddren 0.22"" 1 19'S,. 2.46:5, l cntak I ltwschulti.cl, OAn chi idren 1.69'6, 4.831/, 6.821 1'cul.:lc I luascho!dcr, no own children I.kiS4, 70",,. 3.71YX, !scone Below Yovert)' Level: (t1 n'Icti-C'ouplc I•atnlly, own children Q.49'Y, 2 861!i: Moo l icd-Coup !c Family, no awn cltiltlren \•i,l" I ictu.+choldcr, OW11 childrea (1.66'%, ; 2`:4, LOW, �-Iu1c 11011whotticl, no own children 0.33'Y, 0.4:'3S, 0 29'Y" I'clnaic I lo;is, older, own chiYren 1 58'%, 2 59`%. rA 2.10/, I'clll.11c I lollscho!dcr, n0 own. cllt:dren 0.03^il 0.45'Y., 1.0011X„ 2002 Fsl. families by Number of Workers 950 3,993 11,012 No 55'olkeis 24.93"/, 2t1.92"/, 16.31% I Wolkct' 35.05',"a 1 o 2Workcis 28.14%) 33.53`;, 41 k3'%, 3 r r more Wmkcts 1 l k79t, 1 17r;. :0 82.14: 2002 Est. Ilmlltimigill /%m, 1(.4 Iiv IP—pity—,^;%g ••r- r•t�'•"• 2,406 I0,65I 30,655 In Armed Fmccs 0 92'% 0AW1111 0.05'X, ('nil';n. - I:,n1t;a)c,i 48 251%, 51021Y" 51).9WXI. C ,l'llan - (!rcm,tlu cd1.51% 3.561VI1„ tiUl I1 1.11:)w ('ores i�.(i2"/, -32.33 io 36.94'A ,e,ry 13 200; ow n6 51 FIN' page 7 t,r 9 Pop -Facts: Demographic Snapshot Arca(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 I.A QUIN1%%, ('A 1)2253 I'rcp,ur,l Tui. B41 lry I :;uulu',:. 31.td)9900 1_un�rt; dr. -1 16 294900 1)rccriplioit Radius 1.11 Iiadins 2.0 12adins 3.0 2002 I;,t. Emplo)ed Pop. Age 16+byOccupat!oil _----- --' 1,i61 5,75.1v— --- _-- 19,133 Vlnna ;r, ia: arul 1'r�lc .io::nl SpccUly 3 2 33,; 3') 40::, 28.85:%. 1ccln icol, S,le., aild Admillislralivc Support 32.54',,, 35.0911/1 Scrvicc 16.41'%, I .u7niu , 1•orc.l,y nrnl Fislung 4 17"/„ 3 897 3.93'Y, f ivei:;nn, Prod:tciion, Craft iitd R,:jmir 5.49"6 11.(1!`;, 1 1.21'iu O1,c,Altws, 1 abi ic,ilois and L.aholers 9.05"i, 0.71'IX4 7 62% 20112 1•:%(. Employed Pup. Arc 16-1• by Class of Wol•kcr ;,161 5.751 18,333 1'01--P,o1il I"watc Wii4col Salary Workers 69.79N' 63 69""' 66.7116, Nul-Fur-:'rolit I'r•vatc Wagc oi-Salary Workcrs 1.71°^6 64`""a 6.79'iS, ( ocal GoVc11"l)t2,tt Woikels 9. 3 , ", Stale (itrlaIasi Woikci, 0,43"4; 2.1(,' 2 6VWi k;:dertil Govcrnmcrt Wo,keis 5 6S'/, 7 q 1";, 1.420X, S.11' I:m,)loyCd Worker, 12.37",, 12 3;"s, 11 491/, Unpaid Family L' olkei, 1.6Ylo ;S';', 0.64 OX, 2002 EM. Workers Age 16+-, Transportation'l'o Work 1,157 5,(,07 18,024 Drove'Volle 72.9YA ;( I o7°i, 82.84"X, C,Ir Poo!cd 18.7 .73'%, I 0 82'X, I't:bl:c'T,aspoilali1° 2.55'S, (1,90"44 1< alk-ed 1.90% i Molorcyc.'c UJOYI) 0. i UN. 0.63% Iiicycic 0 00154, 0 2314, 0.5 G',„ u O:hcl ` ":lvs 0 0(I`%, 0.191!!, 0.409,, Work'cd dt home 3.9IN 3 01"'' 2.77',c 20112 FNt. Workers Age 16 by Travel Time to Work 1,112 5,197 17,525 1.•-.s:vw 15NI-wics 3233%, 3;.44} 34.71"1. 15 - 21)M,r.utc. 49.49'% 41I.1 :'Yu 41 9130 31) - 44 Minuici I6.12', , :6.35',` 15.300 :1C CI) 60 Ill*vlwc \f:r.ui 3.65IX, 2002 Est. Avvragv'I ravel Time to Work in Minutes 19.10 21.36 19.7S 1002 Est. Tenure of Occupied llou►ing Fiih§ ;,263 ;,�, 14.773 1a.c.i rn, i:uca^ry 13. 2CP3 —04 06 51 I'1 ►,, ,a 8 of l — =�-V �— --- -- '— ?one Pop -Facts: Demographic Snapshot Arcu(s): Radius 1.0, Radius 2.0, Radius 3.0 1VAS] IIN(ifoN Sf AT AVI•NJDA 48- 1 A Ol.IN l'A, CA 92253 T icp:ncd For lull Ivy i acuxdc — 13 699900 — — --- 1 o:: i:uctc: -1 16.29.1900 I�cscripfi°n ___ Radius LO Radius 2.0 12ndius 3.0 Utt oer t)ccuhic)i— — T -- --- 97.01 "rl. 83.10 s„ —_- 'ib. 19"r;, I��nl;rOccupied 7.999iri, :6.90"S 2191% 2002 F+t. 01� ner Occupied I lousing Values 1, i $,351 V.1111C Less Iha:: S25,060 0.07`, 0.13'%, .S25,000 - h49,91,9 0.00'%) 0 191Y11 0.33% V.11ne S50,000 - SS74,999 0.1)0'Ya 2.5 !, , 2.461,6 %'.Oue %75,00(j - S99,991) 2.76'- 6 1 l",,, 9.21�11,11 V;IIIIC 5100,000 - ai49.999 9.36'% 1 7.69"t, 31.05'/.1 V;111ic S150,000 - 5199,999 13.60%, 16.59% 19.3VV, Value w200,000-'S299,999 32.37% 31 56%, 20.49%, VdItIC g300,000 - S399,999 17.31'„ I i.33`%, 7.30);s, V.duc S400,000 - S499,999 10.4I46 6.13% 4.13`/`, Value S500,000 or more 13.30%'. 7 81'Y: 5.45'6- 2002 F:st. Median Ouncr Occupied housing Va1uc $272,289 1011'S09 ;S167,107 2002 E,: t. llnusiug [:nits by Units in Structure 2,397 7,817 19,499 1 !:nil Alt ;chat 35.50% 29 OS%, 15.77'%, I Uni11)cr.xhed 55.1M', 16.59';6 53.24Y 2 Units 0.64'i, 3 to 19 Units 4.851% 5 97°', 9.50%) r 21) to 49 l'ns 0.01'7, 0.30"/ 1.82% 50 ur Moro Units 0.001% 2.71^: 4.28•;,� ;vlob0cIIonic or'TruCel. 247X, 13.:0';1) 13.20A t h hri 1.44% 1 21)1%) 1.17'% 2002 I'.+1. housilig Quits h%, Veal. Built 2,397 7.517 19,499 I loos nh UIIII B-olll 1989 to I)[Csenl 61 29 %, 61 92,N' 47 S5%, I lousing Utu'. Built 1995 to 1998 9 48'%. I ' 42%, 1 1 65",'� I100.,111; !:nil liui!t 19SO to 1984 7.4i"„, 6.-17%. 10.07X� i io,,aing ilnr, ittnit 1970 to 1979 12 97% ; 14 I ;;, 14.62'.(, f lousing knit 131;i11 1960 to 1969 6 56'X) 6. E 3';b 9 17'X, Ilou>int' U1111 130111 195010 1959 LD$"/„ ? Ilo,;air.r_ Un.t BLt ilt 1940 to 1949 0.10"/) 0.600/i, 0.56'%) I10t•S�ng Lrtit RLIJ: 1939 cr T-arlict 1 10941 0 9n'%, 0.75,o -- Pr,parr,: on: —Ja)aa,y l a 3nn3'114 nb:51 Plvl nags `) of 9 ':'D0 WE NEED ANOTHER DRUG STORE, IN OUR RADIUS OF TWO MILES- ?N\,'T] i1T IS THE SECOND PART OF TINS A PORN STORF?A HARLEYDAVIDSOIN NlAR:F... ?'\k7T-]AT GUARTNTEES DO WE HAW. AS TO THEIR BUSINESSES.. ?�VILLMS BE A T\IT�NT�TOUR STORE TO LIGHT I TP A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.. '.'\\/PAT HAPPLNEDTO THE IDEA OF A ST YBDUE D �TILLAGE... ?HOW WOULD LIKE A THIRTY FONT TOWER Lrl'tfP nN')--,NI'Yl,'OLJR HOURS A DAY... ?t,\qijvr HAPPENS '1'0 THE TRAFFIC PATERN ONTT-LXT CORNER DOES ITF.XACE U,'�TE llf PRESENT ACCIDENTS-. ?", 111ERF, DOES EVERGRTIN DEV11POMENIT CO./W!\J.,(JRi,,ENS COME FROl'vI ARE TI-11'YrN AND C ;Uf OR GOOF) FOR THE VALLEY.... S INCERF LY. JACK SHELLEY. /8 565 DFSCANSO LA QUIN'-f-A. C.A. 92253 21,87 `Igyov- C c,` rY�la vw,� rune Greek lei)lei)�:.eCTo%� rom: Makinney, Bill [fmakinney@PillsburyWinthrop.com] ent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 8:32 AM o: June Greek ubject: Planning - une, please forward on to the appropriate individuals and departments. any thanks! entlepersons: I want to go on record vehemently opposing the proposed Walgreen's tore at the northeast corner of Washington and 48th Avenue. We somehow sed to stop the proliferation of Walgreen's in our community, and in ar Late for that matter. We have a Walgreen's, Rite Aid and Savon in the 2nd id Washington vicinity. A Long's will be completed at 50th and >_fferson, id there are pharmacies available at the nearby Stater Brothers, Von's -id ilph's stores. Why another pharmacy? With the unbelievable congestion i ie stretch of Washington, please do what you can to preserve some of ie itural beauty that is inherent to desert living. Don't turn those Locks Washington into another Highway 111. Thank you, Bill Makinney ----Original Message ----- .'Om: June greek [mailto:jgreek@la-quinta.org] !nt: Thursday, May 10, 2001 4:19 PM ): fmakinney@PillsburyWinthrop.com eject: Re: Speed Limits . Makinney, I am forwarding copies of your letter to the Mayor and embers of the City Council as well as our Engineering Department. .ease feel free to call me at 777-7002 if I can provide any further sistance. June Greek, City Clerk > "Makinney, Frederick W., IV" <fmakinney@PillsburyWinthrop.com> 05/10 > 12:40 PM >>> ty of La Quinta: As a part-time resident of La Quinta for more than a year now I am ,ndering what considerations are being given to reducing the speed .mits Washington Street and on 48th Avenue. With the continued growth of ,th sidential communites and commercial endeavors in La Quinta it is now me r speed limit to come down. I propose that the city embark upon a asibility study to determine what the proper course of action should 1 iQuinta is no longer a remote country retreat, and unfortunately we ve to deal with that reality. The courtesy of a reply would be preciated. 1 B I #A STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: JANUARY 28, 2003 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2003-679 APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CENSOURCE/(VON'S SUPERMARKET) REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT TO REPLACE TWO MONUMENT SIGNS AND THE ELIMINATION OF ONE OVAL SIGN IN THE VONS SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 (78-483 HIGHWAY 111; APN: 604-050-013). ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS REQUEST IS EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 19, SECTION 15311, OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR)/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (CR) SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: POINT HAPPY COMMERCIAL CENTER SOUTH: RESIDENTIAL EAST: LA QUINTA COURT COMMERCIAL CENTER WEST: CITY OF INDIAN WELLS BACKGROUND: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 (Attachment 1) which is the Von's Shopping Center. This project has an existing approved planned sign program. However, it does not include monument signs. Currently, the sign program is for tenant identification only. If approved, this amendment will be added to the existing sign program. The Zoning Code states that changes to an approved planned sign program require approval from the Planning Commission. PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to remove the "Von's" monument sign which is located at the center entrance to the site off of Highway 1 1 1. In addition, the applicant proposes to replace the two remaining monument signs with a new type of sign (Attachment 2). The existing signs are internally illuminated and are approximately seven (7) feet high by six (6) feet wide. The new signs will be internally illuminated and installed in the same locations as the existing signs (Attachment 1). Sign "B" is proposed for the northwest end of the shopping center site, and sign "C" is proposed for the southeast end of the center. The signs will be slightly smaller measuring six (6) feet -six (6) inches high by five (5) feet wide. Each of the proposed signs will be placed on new concrete base. The existing electrical conduits will remain to provide electricity to the signs. The Zoning Code allows one monument sign per street frontage with a maximum height of eight (8) feet and minimum letter heights of ten (10) inches. While the monument signs are less than eight feet in height, the tenant signs on the monument sign do not have letter heights of ten inches minimum. The applicant will be conditioned to provide minimum letter heights of ten inches to meet the Sign Ordinance. Overall, the design of the signs are compatible with the existing center. With regard to sign "C", the applicant proposes to remove the two existing palm trees so that the sign can be set back off Washington as far as possible to allow adequate visibility for people as they exit the center. This is a right -in, right -out, and left -in only intersection. Currently, people exiting the center have an obstructed view unless they pull their vehicles out into the right-of-way, which creates a safety hazard. With the palm trees removed, and the sign installed approximately three feet back, it would allow adequate visibility for those exiting the center at the east end. Landscaping such as low shrubs and ground covers will be installed around the monument sign for enhancement similar to the one sign at the northwest end of the center. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings necessary to approve this request pursuant to Section 9.1260.090.E.1. of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code can be made and are contained below. 1. To facilitate compatibility with the architecture of structures on the site and improve the overall appearance on the site. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Minute Motion No. _, approving the applicant's request for the Sign Program Amendment as proposed. Attachments: 1. Plan Set Prepared by: Martin Magana Associate Planner PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE MOTION 2003- SIGN APPLICATION 2003-679 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -RECOMMENDED JANUARY 28, 2003 GENERAL 1. The signs shall be in conformance with the approved plans contained in Sign Application 2003-679, and on file in the Community Development Department, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The applicant shall submit plans showing a minimum of ten inches in letter heights for all tenant signs within the monument signs. 3. The applicant shall obtain the proper building permits and inspections needed to install the signs. Said work shall be done by a licensed and insured contractor. 4. The applicant shall install landscaping around the monument signs to enhance their appearance within the center. 5. The applicant/property owner agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, or litigation arising out of the City's approval of this project. This indemnification shall include any award toward attorney's fees. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its sole discretion. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 28, 2003 REQUEST: FINDING OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY FOR THE CITY OF LA QUINTA'S POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE EXTENSION OF LA QUINTA DRIVE LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, BETWEEN ADAMS STREET AND DUNE PALMS ROAD (APN: A PORTION OF 649-020-006) APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA California Government Code Section 65402 requires that a jurisdictions planning agency (i.e., Planning Commission) review and report upon whether a proposed acquisition of real property for public purposes is consistent with the adopted General Plan. The City of La Quinta is considering whether or not to acquire approximately 16,500 square feet (approximately 200 lineal feet) from the Mannino family for the purpose of extending La Quinta Drive north of Highway 1 1 1, west to Adams Street (Attachment 1). The property is located on the north side of Highway 1 1 1, between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road (Attachment 2). If the acquisition is ultimately approved by the City Council, the property would be used to extend La Quinta Drive, thereby providing for the safe, efficient flow of traffic in that vicinity, and would further allow the public to fully utilize the existing intersection improvements located at La Quinta Drive and Highway 1 1 1. The Planning Commission is required to determine whether the proposed acquisition of property for public purposes is consistent with the adopted General Plan. The determination will then be reviewed by the City Council in its determination of whether or not to acquire the property. P:\Oscar\StfRpt\MannGPConsisNV.wpd.doc Several current General Plan policies are applicable and are referred to for conformance determination as follows: LAND USE ELEMENT: The recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element designates the site and surrounding properties as Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC), which permits major commercial land uses that service the local and regional population. The Element indicates the need to maintain compatible high quality land uses. This project will not alter the surrounding land use designations, and is consistent with the Element. CIRCULATION ELEMENT: This Element indicates the need to establish and maintain a transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City, while maintaining and protecting its residential resort character. This project will improve the existing circulation network and will facilitate safe, efficient traffic circulation in that vicinity. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. NATURAL RESOURCES: This element provides several policies and programs designed to protect and preserve the unique and/or valuable resources, including biologic resources. The area at issue is disturbed. To the extent applicable, this project will be subject to the requirements the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Fee Mitigation Program. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT: This Element indicates that the site is within an area that is susceptible to wind-blown sand, collapsible soils, potential liquefaction hazard, and seismically induced settlement. If the property is acquired, the construction of La Quinta Drive will meet all applicable engineering requirements, and the street and landscape improvements will reduce the potential for blowsand in the vicinity of the subject property. CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT: No key planning issues or policies are identified. P:\Oscar\StfRpt\MannGKonsisNV.wpd.doc r` h �tj 10:10161W41# 01 REV II7N Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_, confirming findings of conformity with the La Quinta General Plan for a potential acquisition and construction of the extension of La Quinta Drive on the north side of Highway 1 1 1 between Adams Street and Dune Palms Road. Prepared and Submitted by: Oscar Orci, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Site location 2. Proposed improvement. g- P:\Oscar\StfRpt\MannGPConsisNV.wpd.doc o k o j ATTACHMENT #1 80 aae LMaS.LSN3 B►n aa3,T BQIB J d dll'83NDn1 V !nins-oi N 4) LSO L5 Y �� 1 GO A Y -0013 WO1:1 1 ZO-EI-nON pan!e398 ZO'6b9-dSV-AW-N3 :00G AZZb86 :10p10 iI I I I I IWI O lls R R u r- `-"3o -r8_ �p� ":. L 1 l:. i''O ROC r Y•—n i O Y R ti ►_- silk i 1 O 1 j .Y 1 F 1 40, 1 �• OY '�M 1 r g� 1 _ Flo nn r 3 8 Q q 4 1 JJ° .a/vrno L _ Xpodoid wnluaA I I I pagoeus s! ew 41Ip go14M of us d! 'Ao!lod aauetnsu! app agl)o SUOISIAoid pus suual atp(qPGP!Aoid w dissatdxa s! aseep to ssol Bons toj a8etanoo lualxa ag+ of ldaoxa dew s!a;- uo aomgat wotj linsal .(ew go!gm a8sump to sso!,!o ,4!pga!i /Cue sw!slos!p Alssatdxa uaouawd Is -lid •uoatag palo!dap pull 2413o ,(antns s aq 7ou AuLu to Aaw daw s!41, soot XVd ZT:ZT ZOOZ/£T/TT ry i_„ It ATTACHMENT #,f U- O W o ( C U t f A W iy t( O may O � Z � O Q:D � 4 Ol OL LLJ W Wht ld 03SOdO�Yd W W (NO/SN31X3) . > V. 86l tVymnoVT'" 3AIHG�� o a , dlN L(� •Ob M/Y 03SOd0?/d Z CC 1 Q W � 1 J r Lc i i ' liJ Ole, to PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2003- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING FINDINGS OF CONFORMITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402, FOR A POTENTIAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE EXTENSION OF LA QUINTA DRIVE (A PORTION OF APN 649-020-006 WHEREAS, said Section 65402 also requires the jurisdiction's planning agency (i.e., Planning Commission) review and report upon whether proposed acquisitions of real property for public purpose is consistent with the adopted General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 28th day of January, 2003, hold a public meeting to consider a finding of conformity with the General Plan for said potential Project Site, more particularly described as, A PORTION OF APN: 649-020-006 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did make the following findings of conformity with respect to the proposed project: 1. The proposed acquisition is in conformance with the La Quinta General Plan, as follows: 2. Land Use Element: The recently adopted General Plan Land Use Element designates the site and surrounding properties as Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC), which permits major commercial land uses that service the local and regional population. The Element indicates the need to maintain compatible high quality land uses. This project will not alter the surrounding land use designations, and is consistent with the Element. 3. Circulation Element: This Element indicates the need to establish and maintain a transportation and circulation network that efficiently, safely and economically moves people, vehicles, and goods using facilities that meet the current demands and projected needs of the City, while maintaining and protecting its residential resort character. This project will improve the existing circulation network and will facilitate safe, efficient traffic circulation in that vicinity. 4. Open Space Element: No key planning issues or policies are identified. 5. Park and Recreation Element: No key planning issues or policies are identified. G:\WPDOCS\PC ResolutionsWannGPConf.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ La Quinta Drive Extension General Plan Conformity Finding Adopted: January 28, 2003 6. Environmental Conservation Element: No key planning issues or policies are identified. 7. Natural Resources: This element provides several policies and programs designed to protect and preserve the unique and/or valuable resources, including biologic resources. The area at issue is disturbed. To the extent applicable, this project will be subject to the requirements the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Fee Mitigation Program. 8. Infrastructure and Public Services Element: No key planning issues or policies are identified. 9. Environmental Hazards Element: This Element indicates that the site is within an area that is susceptible to wind-blown sand, collapsible soils, potential liquefaction hazard, and seismically induced settlement. If the property is acquired, the construction of the La Quinta Drive will meet all applicable engineering requirements, and the street and landscape improvements will reduce the potential for blowsand in the vicinity of the subject property. 10. Cultural Resources Element: No key planning issues or policies are identified NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: 1. That the recitations are true and constitute the findings 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 and as contained in the attached Exhibits "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 28th day of January, 2003, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: G:\WPDOCS\PC ResolutionsWannGPConf.doc Planning Commission Resolution 2003-_ La Quinta Drive Extension General Plan Conformity Finding Adopted: January 28, 2003 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\PC ResolutionsWannGPConf.doc EXHIBIT "A" LL. 0 LLI CL u En x P-1 LLJ z 0 w Z2 1 z .99 V) z p 'z SiE � �9 Ole of LLJ (j:-z x > (1VO15'V31X3). V11 ..7,961 V.L V7. < 7 lot hild 03SOdolydD7� Z CY < All < Cq U Z cc L Qe Oe