1999 10 12 PC�r
lw►N �
i 5T-,ibt, 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 12, 1999
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 99-068
Beginning Minute Motion 99-022
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 for September 28, 1999
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item .................. SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant.......... Home Depot
Location........... Northwest corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street.
Request............ Recommendation for approval to amend the Specific Plan to allom
40 days of special outdoor sales events per year.
Action .............. Resolution 99-
B. Item .................. SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENT #5 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-660
Applicant.......... Century -Crowell Communities
Location........... Along the south side of Calle Norte, east of Avenida Las Verdes
within Duna La Quinta.
Request............ Recommendation for approval to increase the unit count, separate
"the Seasons" from Specific Plan 83-001, add a new grading/uni
type along the south side of Calle Norte, allow a 10-foot real
setback, and approval of development plans for two prototype
residential condominium units for construction in Tract 20158,
Phase 2.
Action .............. Resolution 99- and Resolution 99-
C. Item .................. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-388, SPECIFIC PLAN
99-038, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT 99-658
Applicant.......... Eisenhower Medical Center/La Quinta Medical Development, Inc,
Location........... Northeast corner of Washington Street and 48`h Avenue
Request............ Review of the development principles and guidelines for a six acrf
medical office complex (two buildings) and architectural anc
landscaping plans for a two story high medical office building
(Phase 1) consisting of 47,890± square feet of floor area.
Action .............. Resolution 99- , Resolution 99- , and Resolution 99-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Discussion of issues regarding side -street access to arterial streets - Fred Waring Drive an(
Miles Avenue - review and comment.
B. Commission report on the City Council meeting of October 5,1999
IX. ADJOURNMENT
nr+ ITnvKm7
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
September 28, 1999
CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by
Chairman Kirk who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Robert Tyler, and Vice
Chairman Steve Robbins. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Butler/Tyler to excuse Chairman Tom Kirk. Unanimously approved
C. Staff present: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, and
Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Kirk asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of September 14,
1999. There being no changes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Tyler to approve the minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Site Development Permit 99-656; a request of World Development, Inc. for approval
of architectural and landscaping plans for four new prototype residential plans within
Tract 25691, located on the north side of Miles Avenue, east of Dune Palrns Road.
1. Vice Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the staff
report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information
contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department. Staff recommended a change to Condition 45
"...side elevations, per the Zoning Code" for clarification.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-28-99.wpd 1
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
2. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked staff to explain what staff is accomplis:ning by
requesting the change. Staff stated it is to offer some relief to the side
elevation if they are a flat continuous plane. It gives the surrounds some
depth to the building. Commissioner Butler asked if staff had spoken to the
applicant about the change. Staff stated they had and it was a Code
requirement as well. Commissioner Butler asked if Styrofoam could be used.
Staff stated it could be used.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if Condition #1 could be clarified to define the
caliper of the tree. Staff stated it would be modified as requested.
Commissioner Tyler asked if the garage doors could be required to be roll -up
as they are shown on the plans. Staff would make the modification to the
condition.
4. Vice Chairman Robbins stated that at the last meeting there was a discussion
regarding streetscapes along major streets and houses that backing up to those
streets; is there anywhere in the processing of this tract where the streetscape
is reviewed to determine what it will look like along Miles Avenue. Staff
stated that as far as the setback of the houses, they will go through a precise
grading plan where all setbacks are reviewed and those setbacks along Miles
Avenue are required to be 25-feet from the rear property line. The street
landscaping was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at the
time of the tract map approval.
5. Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Mr. Scott Stokes, representing World Development, stated he
was available for any questions.
6. Commissioner Butler commended the applicant on the side -loaded garages.
7. There being no further discussion, Vice Chairman Robbins closed the public
hearing and opened the issue for Commission discussion.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-
067 approving Site Development Permit 99-656, subject to the Findings and
Conditions of Approval as amended.
a. Condition # 1: clarify the caliper of the trees size.
b. Condition #5: side elevations, per the Zoning Code.
Unanimously approved.
C:\Mv Documents\WPDOCS\PC9-28-99.wpd 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Master Design Guidelines 99-008; a request of Lendel Ventures, Inc. for approval of
plans and guidelines for housing units to be constructed throughout the Cove.
1. Vice Chairman Robbins asked for the staff report. Planning Manager
Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a
copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Tyler asked staff to clarify the difference in front setbacks;
should there be only a one foot difference in the setbacks along a given string
of houses? Staff stated this was correct.
3. There being no further questions of staff, Vice Chairman Robbins asked if the
applicant would like to address the Commission.
4. There being no public comment, Chairman Kirk closed the public
participation and opened the issue for Commission discussion.
5. Vice Chairman Robbins stated he had a problem with the one elevation, Plan
VL, that had a side -loaded garage. He applauded the garage design, but the
front elevation of this unit was missing detail.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if the Commission had an option to pick and
chose between the elevations submitted. Staff stated they could reject
elevations and approve others.
7. Vice Chairman Robbins asked that this front elevation plan be revised and
resubmitted to the Commission for approval.
8. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Minute
Motion, 99-021 approving Master Design Guidelines 99-008 with the
exception of Plan VL which is to be resubmitted for approval. Unanimously
approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Vice Chairman Robbins informed the Commission that a Joint Meeting would be
held between the City Council and Planning Commission on October 26, 1999, from
5:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Butler asked if they would be receiving any
information prior to the meeting. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\PC9-28-99.wpd 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1999
stated this was the first look at land use alternatives. Staff needs this meeting to start
the traffic analysis based upon the land use alternative map. There will be two maps;
one that shows the existing designations and the other will show the changes
proposed and staff is looking to see if the Council or Commission has any strong
concerns regarding the proposed changes. Commissioner Abels stated he would be
unable to attend as he will be out of the Country.
B. Vice Chairman Robbins stated he had asked staff to include pictures of the house in
the Commissioners packets for discussion regarding Fence and Wall Standards. He
then asked staff that if the colors used on the house in the pictures was according to
Code and were there any options available to the Commission for review of this
house. Staff stated that when a house is finalized and built, the property owner has
the option to change the color without any review process. The only option available
to the Commission is to request the City Council consider changing the Code.
C. Commissioner Tyler gave a report on the City Council meeting of September 21,
1999.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to be held October 12, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 7:28 P.M. on September 28, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
CWN, I)ocumcnts\WPDOCS\PC9-28-99.wpd 4
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999
CASE NUMBER: SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: HOME DEPOT
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TO AMEND SPECIFIC
PLAN 96-027 (SECTION 3.20.1) TO ALLOW 40 DAYS OF
SPECIAL OUTDOOR SALES EVENTS PER YEAR
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1 AND JEFFERSON
STREET IN THE JEFFERSON PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325 WAS CERTIFIED
BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1996. NO
CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS EXIST
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PURSUANT
TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21166.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY
ZONING: REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH NONRESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
NORTH: COACHELLA VALLEY STORMWATER CHANNEL
SOUTH: ACROSS HIGHWAY 1 1 1, VACANT COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY IN LA QUINTA AND THE CITY OF INDIO
EAST: ACROSS JEFFERSON STREET, COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF INDIO
WEST: VACANT COMMERCIAL (CR) PROPERTY
Page I of 3
BACKGROUND:
The Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan (SP 96-027) permits approximately 218,300 square
feet of office/retail development on 20 + acres at the northwest corner of Highway 1 1 1
and Jefferson Street under City Council Resolution 96-72 (Attachment 1). Home
Depot, approximately 129,802 square feet, was built in 1997. The IHOP Restaurant,
with 4,700 square feet, was completed this year.
Project Request
The applicant requests an amendment to Section 3.20.1 (Outdoor Sales) of their
Specific Plan to allow special outdoor sales events in the existing Home Depot parking
lot up to 40 days per year with 10 days maximum per event. Events held would not
utilize searchlights or inflatable balloons, but could include the use of laser displays and
other similar technologies. Each special event will require approval by the Community
Development Department under a Temporary Use Permit application (Attachment 2).
Public Notice
The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 1, 1999, and mailed
to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. No written correspondence has been
received.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve the request, per Chapter 9.240 (Specific Plans) of the
Zoning Ordinance can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution with the
exception of the following Finding:
1 . Public Welfare - Approval of the amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare.
The amendment request would allow 40 days per year instead of 12 days per year for
special events per Section 9.100.130 (Sidewalk Sales and Commercial Events) of the
Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has stated to staff that they require more days per
year to accommodate merchandising shows hosted by the various Home Depot
departments (i.e., Garden Center, Tools, etc.).
Staff Comments: Home Depot's request is identical to the auto mall's special event
program approved under Specific Plan 97-029 for property at the southeast corner of
Highway 111 and Adams Street. The Community Development Department will
STRPTSP 27Home- 36 Page 2 of 3
evaluate internal circulation and parking for each Temporary Use Permit event. Events
shall only be held provided they do not adversely affect surrounding property owners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99-_, recommending to the City Council
approval of Amendment #1 to Specific Plan 96-027, subject to the attached findings
and conditions.
Attachments
1 . SP 96-027 Exhibit (Reduced)
2. SP 96-027, Amendment Request
0
lell, Assoafate planner
Submitted by:
ristine di lorio, lanning Manager
STRPTSP 27Home- 36 Page 3 of 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027,
AMENDMENT #1
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT: HOME DEPOT
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did
on the 121h day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider an
amendment to Specific Plan 96-027 allowing special events in the Home Depot parking lot
up to 40 days per year, located on the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson
Street, and more particularly described as:
Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 649-020-032 and -033
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California did on the
17th day of September, 1996, approve Specific Plan 96-027 allowing office/retail
development of approximately 218,300 square feet on 20+ acres, located on the northwest
corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street; and,
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment
96-325) for SP 96-027 was certified by the City Council on September 17, 1996. No
changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would trigger the preparation of
a subsequent Environmental Assessment.
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings of approval to the City
Council to justify a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan Amendment:
1. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and
policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated
Mixed/Regional Commercial which permits the temporary uses proposed for the
property and is consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) provided conditions are met.
2. That the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare in that the special events
proposed for the site will require separate approval by the Community Development
Department under a Temporary Use Permit application, subject to the rules and
regulations of Section 9.100.130 of the Zoning Ordinance.
ResoPCSP 27X - 36
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 96-027, Amendment #1
Home Depot
October 12, 1999
3. The Specific Plan Amendment is compatible with the zoning of adjacent properties
in that the site is primarily bounded by compatible mixed/regional (commercially
zoned) designated properties in the City of La Quinta.
4. Mitigation measures were required for Specific Plan 96-027 in 1996 to reduce
environmental impacts associated with development of the commercial shopping
center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Specific Plan
Amendment request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 12' day of October, 1999, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
ResoPCSP 27X - 36
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027, AMENDMENT #1
HOME DEPOT
OCTOBER 12, 1999
TEXT AMENDMENT CHANGES
Prior to issuance of a Temporary Use Permit, the Specific Plan document shall be revised
as follows:
1. Section 3.20.1 - Add Item #3 stating: "Special events in the Home Depot parking
lot shall be limited to no more than 40 days per year with no single event lasting
longer than 10 days. Events may not utilize searchlights or inflatable balloons, but
may apply for laser displays and other similar devices upon approval of a
Temporary Use Permit application. Outdoor lighting devices used to promote a
special event shall not be used after 10:00 p.m."
A:W0ASP96-027X.wpd - 36 Page 1 of 1
ATTACHMENTS
a n a i ACC:
s i I 5 Q $wzs8 �SR�::ZR�:$
a
6
s 01
'r . r �'ir-"r�a
A 'ell
IN 11
i,, IC
21 i
.: a e e n
Attachment 1
133MIS J_ NOSV3"3r
< 3e
W
rC
O
J
<d
W
C,
3gui ;
C
a
W C<
o
$
es
M
OO
303 §
i
z
Ln
"YEl
1
as
U
qJ
Attachment 2
3.20.1
(3) The Home Depot operation will include regularly scheduled special events designed to increase the
flow of traffic into the Home Depot. These special events shall be limited to no more than 40 total days per
year for the Home Depot with no single event lasting more than 10 days. These special events may not
utilize searchlights or inflatable balloons. However, laser displays and other similar technologies or
techniques may be used upon approval of the individual Temporary Use Permit. In no case shall any such
lighting activity continue after I O:OOP.M. or after business hours. All special events under this entitlement
process shall be individually considered and approved by the Community Development Director through
the Temporary Use Permit process.
PH #B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999
CASE NOS.: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 - AMENDMENT 5
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-660
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
KENT ARMSTRONG, PROJECT MANAGER
PROPERTY OWNERS: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES, INC.
LOCATION: SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE, WEST OF WASHINGTON
STREET, ALONG CALLE NORTE, EAST OF AVENIDA LAS
VERDES (LOTS 2 & 3 OF TRACT 20158), AND SOUTHWEST
AND SOUTHEAST OF AVENIDA LAS VERDES (LOTS 1 & 2
OF PARCEL MAP 19730), IN DUNA LA QUINTA.
REQUESTS:
Specific Plan:
1. TO MODIFY THE TOTAL UNIT COUNT NOT TO
EXCEED 184
2. REVISE THE BOUNDARIES TO SEPARATE THE
SEASONS FROM DUNA LA QUINTA,
3. ADD A NEW DETACHED SPLIT-LEVEL
GRADING/UNIT TYPE REQUIREMENT ALONG THE
50-FOOT ELEVATION OF THE CHANNEL BERM,
SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE NORTE
4. REVISE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO 10-FEET
MINIMUM, ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF CALLE NORTE
Site Development Permit:
1. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR TWO
NEW DETACHED SPLIT-LEVEL PROTOTYPE
RESIDENTIAL UNITS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST HAS BEEN
PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH EIR
P:\perptSP83-001 #5SDP99-660Oct12, 99.wpd
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ZONING
DESIGNATION:
SURROUNDING ZONING
AND LAND USES:
BACKGROUND:
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE # 83-061305, SPECIFIC PLAN
83-001) CERTIFIED ON MAY 15, 1984. NO CHANGED
CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS ARE PROPOSED
WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE PREPARATION OF A
SUBSEQUENT EIR PURSUANT TO PRC SECTION 21166.
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RM)
PROJECT SITE: VACANT
NORTH: RM - RESIDENTIAL UNITS; GOLF -
GOLF COURSE
SOUTH: FP - FLOODPLAIN; RM - VACANT
WEST: G - GOLF; RM -RESIDENTIAL UNITS
EAST: CO, FP, RM, G - VACANT EAST OF
WASHINGTON STREET
The project location is within Planning Areas II and III of the Duna La Quinta community,
which is bounded on the east by Washington Street, on the north by 50th Avenue, and on
the south by the La Quinta Evacuation channel (Attachment 1). Duna La Quinta is a part
of Specific Plan 83-001. To date, Duna La Quinta has been developed with a golf course,
103 condominium units built in 1984/85, and 14 condominium units under construction on
the north side of Calle Norte approved under SDP 99-642, by Resolution 99-046 A total
number of 187 residential units are permitted in Duna La Quinta.
In 1994, Specific Plan 94-024 was created from a portion of land (Parcel 1 of Parcel Map
19730) within Specific Plan 83-001 for the Seasons development, which is located south
of the applicants' project area. Specific Plan 94-024 consists of the Seasons senior
apartments and the Seasons Villas single family subdivision.
Proposed Planning Area II, where a portion of the proposed condominiums will be located
has been graded to accommodate previously approved split-level types of units. To the
west of the project site are existing split-level units along the north side of the channel
split-level units.
PAperptSP83-001 #5SDP99-6600ct1 2,99.wpd
Current residential development standards for Specific Plan 83-001 require minimum rear
setbacks of 15 feet.
Existing Housing Unit Description for Duna La Quinta
The existing residential development within Duna La Quinta includes one story and split
level condominium units, in duplex and fourplex buildings. Near the southwest corner of
Washington Street and 50th Avenue (Tract 20218), there are 16 one-story units featuring
front courtyards. The exterior walls have a rough texture plaster with hipped roofs covered
with mission roof tile. To the west, are 52 units in duplex and fourplex buildings (Tract
20158) with attached 2-car garages. The units along the north side of Calle Norte are one-
story (14'6" to 226" high). Along the south side of Calle Norte, west of Avenida Los
Verdes, the units are split level with garages located along the street level and the one
story units behind the garage atop of levee. These units feature hipped roofs and plaster
walls. Within the tract, of which this project is located, are 5 existing duplexes consisting
of one-story units with hipped roofs and flat roofs. The remaining vacant pad sites within
Duna La Quinta were graded in the past in anticipation of similar residential development,
including grading for split level units along the channel berm. Three new
California/Mediterranean style residential plans were approved under Site Development
Permit 99-642 consisting of two facade alternatives for each plan, varying from 1,802 to
2,418 square feet. Houses are situated on existing (Calle Norte and Avenida Los Verdes)
or future private streets on lots backing onto golf course fairways. All plans are one-story
(17" to 18" high), excluding the chimney projections. The plans feature two car garages
with golf cart storage areas.
Project Requests
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5
The applicant has submitted a request for approval of Amendment #5 to Specific Plan 83-
001 (Attachment 2). The project locations related to this request are vacant parcels, one
section north of the golf course (Planning Area II) which is in the flood channel, and the
second area (Planning Area III) south of the golf course, and north of a detention basin
and the Seasons developments.
The amendment requests consist of modifying the total unit count in the Specific Plan by
increasing the number of permitted units to 40 in Planning Area III, as shown in Exhibit A
of Attachment 2. This area is currently approved for 25 units, but was approved for 40 units
with the original Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The addition of 15 units would result in the
applicant's project total of 81 units. As proposed, the applicant's request would result in
a total Duna La Quinta build -out of 184 units. This is 3 units less than originally approved
within the Specific Plan, in 1983.
The second request is to separate the Seasons project from the Duna La Quinta Specific
Plan, as the Seasons is subject to the development standards of Specific Plan 94-024.
Staff has asked the applicant to remove this area from Specific Plan 83-001 to reflect the
PAperptSP83-001 #5SDP99-660Oct12, 99.wpd
current boundaries.
The third request is to add a new detached split-level single family unit/grading type along
the south side of Calle Norte.
The last request is to reduce minimum rear yard setbacks to 10-feet for those proposed
units on the south side of Calle Norte (Units 1-5 and 19 & 20), as shown in Exhibit B of
Attachment 2.
Site Development Permit 99-660
In addition, the applicant has submitted a request for approval of Site Development Permit
99-660, for two detached split level prototypes (Attachment 3), each with two facade
alternatives. The proposed units are 1,803 and 2,107 square feet of liveable area.
Garages wHI be on the lower level and the living areas on the upper level. The unit design
is tailored to the existing project site grading.
A Cal ifornia/Mediterranean architectural style is proposed for the project, utilizing exterior
plaster walls and concrete flat and S-tile roofing with color flashing. Roof styles are a mix
of front facing gable and hip. Desert color tones (e.g., various shades of cream, tan, sand,
etc.) are proposed for the exterior building surfaces. The material sample board will be
available at the meeting. Front entries accessed by an exterior stairway are located on the
side elevations. The 2-car garages are front -loading, with a golf cart bay and separate
door. Plan 2 features an arched entryway at the top of the stairs. Both plans feature
fireplaces with decorative chimney caps. Facades feature glass block insets, decorative
vent trims, decorative windows, and various trims.
The typical front yard landscaping plan previously approved under SDP 99-642, is
proposed for these units. Front yards are to include a minimum of two shade trees, palm
trees and numerous shrubs highlighted by lawn. A varied plant palette is included.
Public Notice: These cases were advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 1,
1999, as well as mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. No comments
have been received. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies on
September 16, 1999, and any applicable comments received have been incorporated into
the Conditions of Approval.
ALRC Action
The City's Architecture and Landscaping Committee reviewed the proposed new unit
prototypes on October 7, 1999 (Attachment 4). The Committee adopted Minute Motion 99-
020 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Site Development Permit 99-
660, subject to the recommended conditions.
PAperptSP83-001 #5SDP99-6600ct1 2,99.wpd
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS:
The Specific Plan findings, per Section 9.240.010 of the Zoning Code, to approve this
request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution.
The Site Development Permit findings, per Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Code, to
approve this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolution, except
for the following:
1. Architectural Design. The architectural design of the project, including but not
limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors,
architectural details, roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with
surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. The
proposed detached split-level single-family prototype plans are compatible with
existing dwellings in the project in that the roof materials and lines, stucco plaster
finish, exterior colors, window treatment and garage door style, lot area, and
building mass and scale are similar to that found in the existing homes in Duna La
Quinta. However, to soften the blank wall staff recommends that the facades be
revised on Plans 1A-S and 213-S to include a pot shelf or decorative lighting at the
left edge of the garage (See Condition No. 4).
2. Sete Design. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project
entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site
design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality
of design prevalent in the City. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
requires a 50-foot elevation along the top of the storm water channel/golf course
berm. The proposed residential pad elevations will be between 50-feet and 46.7-
feet, requiring only minimal retention walls along the south elevation to ensure
adequate drainage and to soften the slope for safety concerns with no loss of
integrity to the berm. The elevational differences can be addressed by Condition
No. 5 that requires lots with less than 15-feet of rear setback area, more than 3-foot
difference between the 50-foot top of berm elevation and the unit pad elevation, and
with a 2:1 slope or less, to construct a 2-foot high retaining wall/planter wall at the
edge of the patio slab.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- recommending to the City Council
approval of Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment 5, subject to the attached Findings
and Conditions of Approval; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- recommending to the City Council
approval of Site Development Permit 99-660, subject to the attached Findings and
Conditions of Approval.
P AperptS P83-001 #5SDP99-660Oct12, 99.wpd
Attachments
1. General Location Map
2. Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment #5 Exhibits
3. Site Development Permit 99-660 Exhibits
4. ALRC Minutes - October 7, 1999
Prepared by:
Leslie Mourigifand, Ass6ciate Planner
Submitted by:
l
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
P: \perptSP83-001 #5SDP99-6600ct12, 99.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #5 TO
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AT DUNA LA QUINTA
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT NO. 5
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12th day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Century -Crowell Communities for approval of a modification to the
specific plan unit count to permit the construction of 40 single family condominium
units, separate the Seasons from Specific Plan 83-001, modify the rear setback
requirement along the south side of Calle Norte to 10-feet, and add a new split-level
grading/unit type requirement along the north side 50-foot elevation of the channel
berm, south of 501h Avenue, west of Washington Street, southwest and southeast of
Avenida Los Verdes, more particularly described as:
that area bounded by Avenue 50 on the north, Washington Street on the east, the
retention basin located between Specific Plan 94-024 and Parcels 1 & 2 of Parcel
Map 19730 to the south, and Avenida Bermudas on the west
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has been determined to have
been previously assessed in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #83-061305) prepared. for Specific Plan 83-001, and certified on May
15, 1984, and no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would
trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify recommending
approval of said Specific Plan Amendment No. 5:
1 . Consistency with Genera/ Plan: With the recommended Conditions of Approval,
the proposed amendment to modify the unit count to 184 total residential units
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the La Quinta General
Plan, in that the General Plan density range for the Medium Density Residential
land use is 4 to 8 dwelling units per acre, and the request for an additional 15
residential units on Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 19730 will not cumulatively
exceed the specific plan maximum of 187 residential units or the density
allowed under the General Plan designation.
PALESLIE\peresSP83-001 Amd5Dunampd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment No. 5
Century -Crowell Communities
October 12, 1999
2. Public We/fare: With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed
specific plan amendments will not create conditions materially detrimental to
the public health, safety, and welfare of the public, in that these issues have
been considered in the Environmental Impact Report.
3. Land Use Compatibility: With the recommended conditions of approval, the
proposed amendment to modify the unit count, separate the Seasons from
Specific Plan 83-001, modify the rear setback requirement along the south side
of Calle Norte, and add the new grading/unit requirement within Specific Plan
83-001 is compatible with Zoning designations on adjacent properties as the
number of units proposed by the applicant will not exceed the total number of
units originally permitted by the specific plan, and that the proposed
development consists of detached single family condominium residential units,
similar to existing residential development within Duna La Quinta, including
split level units.
4. Property Suitability: With the recommended conditions of approval, the
proposed specific plan amendment to modify the unit count, separate the
Seasons from Specific Plan 83-001, and add the new grading/unit requirement
within Specific Plan 83-001 is suitable and appropriate for the subject property
located in Planning Areas II and III of Duna La Quinta.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment
No. 5 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of
Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of October, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
P:\LESLIE\peresSP83-001Amd5Duna.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment No. 5
Century -Crowell Communities
October 12, 1999
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
P:\LESLIE\peresSP83-001 Amd5Dunampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001 AMENDMENT 5
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
OCTOBER 12, 1999
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
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 specific plan
amendment. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Notice of Intent
received from the CWQCB prior to issuance of a grading or site construction
permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required Storm Water Pollution
Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project site.
P:,pccoaSP83-001 n 5.wpd 1
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment 5
October 12, 1999
DRAINAGE
3. If the applicant proposes discharge of stormwater directly or indirectly to the La
Quinta Evacuation Channel or the Whitewater Drainage Channel, the applicant,
and subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall be responsible for any
sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may be required under
the City's NPDES Permit or other City- or area -wide pollution prevention
program, and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from
such discharge. If such discharge is approved for this development, the
applicant shall make provisions in the CC&Rs for meeting these potential
obligations.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
4. The applicant or developer shall comply with the following requirements of the
City Engineer:
a. The applicant shall complete improvements to Calle Norte (in Planning Area
2) and shall construct all street improvements in Planning Area No. 3. Homes
shall not be approved for occupancy until they are served by fully -improved
streets.
b. Low -volume private residential streets shall have a 36-foot travel width
(between curb faces or gutter flow lines). This width may be reduced to 32
feet with parking restricted to one side and to 28 feet if no on -street parking
is allowed provided there is adequate off-street parking for residents and
visitors and the applicant provides for perpetual enforcement of the
restrictions by the homeowners association.
SCHOOLS
5. The applicant shall pay a per -unit school development fee as determined by the
Desert Sands Unified School District in accordance with the school mitigation
agreements as approved by the La Quinta City Council and in effect at the time
of the issuance of building permits.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
6. Prior to final building inspection of the final units constructed within Tract
20158, the applicant shall install necessary perimeter walls including that along
P:\pccoaSP83-001#5.wpd 2
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Specific Plan 83-001 Amendment 5
October 12, 1999
the retention basin at the south boundary of Parcels 1 and 2 of Parcel Map
19730.
7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall design the units along
the south side of Calle Norte, east of Avenida Los Verdes, to be split level, with
below grade garages and 20 foot long driveways for those units requiring higher
than a four foot retaining wall.
8. For units along the south side of Calle Norte as 10-foot minimum rear setback
and 20-foot minimum front setback to main structure/garage are required.
9. The total unit build -out count shall not exceed 184 residential units, with 40
units permitted on Lots 1 and 2 of Parcel Map 19730.
10. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised
Specific Plan document/map with the area of Specific Plan 94-024- The Seasons
removed and the above conditions incorporated.
P:\pccoaSP83-001#5.wpd 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANS FOR TWO SPLIT-LEVEL PROTOTYPE UNITS IN A
PORTION OF TRACT 20158 ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF
CALLE NORTE, IN DUNA LA QUINTA
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-660
APPLICANT: CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12" day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing at the
request of Century -Crowell Communities, Inc. to consider for approval of architectural
plans for two new split-level prototype residential units to be constructed, south of
50th Avenue, west of Washington Street, along Calle Norte, east of Avenida Los
Verdes, more particularly described as:
Lots 2 & 3 of Tract 20158
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee of the
City of La Quinta, California, did on the 7th day of October, 1999, hold a duly -noticed
public meeting to consider approval of architectural plans for two new sp it -level
prototype residential units along Calle Norte, east of Avenida Los Verdes, and did, by
Minute Motion 99-020, recommend approval of the request subject to conditions;
and,
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has been determined to have
been previously assessed in conjunction with the Environmental Impact Report (State
Clearinghouse #83-061305) prepared for Specific Plan 83-001, and certified on May
15, 1984, and no changed circumstances or conditions are proposed which would
trigger the preparation of a subsequent environmental review pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21166; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be head, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify recommending
approval of said Site Development Permit:
With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed units are of a
compatible architectural design, colors, and materials to the existing units in
the tract. The units utilize similar architectural features such as the roofs,
exterior plaster, recessed windows, popout window and door surrounds, and
wood fascias. The plans are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Landscaping shall be provided pursuant to the plan approved under SDP 99-
642.
PAperesS DP99-660CenturyDuna 10-12-99.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-660
October 12, 1999
3. No two story residences are proposed adjacent to, or abutting a lot line of an
existing single -story home constructed in a prior phase of the same subdivision.
4. Masonry walls and sideyard gates are proposed between units and will be
compatible with existing walls and sideyard gates in the tract.
5. The size range of the existing residences is 1,375 to 2,160 square feet. The
proposed units are 1,803 square feet and 2,107 square feet of liveable space.
This request is in compliance with compatibility review requirements.
6. The final precise plot plan will ensure compliance with the requirement that
identical, or similar, front elevations shall not be placed on adjacent lots or
directly across the street from one another.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1 . That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Site Development Permit 99-660
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions of
Approval attached hereto;
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 12th day of October, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAperesSDP99-660CenturyDuna1 0-1 2-99.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-660
CENTURY-CROWELL COMMUNITIES
OCTOBER 12, 1999
GENERAL CONDITIONS
1 . This approval is for two split-level residential prototype unit plans con--,aining
1,803 and 2,107 square feet in habitable floor space.
2. Final front yard landscaping plans shall be submitted for review by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of the first building
permit for these units. The plans shall provide for and indicate 24-inch box,
minimum 10-foot tall tree sizes (1 .5-inch to 2-inch caliper measured 6-inches
above ground level) as per Section 9.60.300 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Garage doors shall be constructed of metal, wood, or composite materials and
be sectional roll -up style pursuant to the requirements of Specific Plan 83-001
Amendment 5. Lites are optional.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the facades shall be revised on Plans 1 A-S
and 213-S to include pot shelf inserts or decorative lighting at the left edge of
garage.
5. Units with less than 15-feet of rear setback, and with more than a 3-foot
difference between the 50-foot top of berm elevation and the unit pad
elevation, and with a 2:1 slope ratio or less shall construct a 2-foot high
retaining wall/planter wall across the width of the patio slab, at the edge of the
slab.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a revised
Specific Plan document/map with the area of Specific Plan 94-024 - The
Seasons removed and the above conditions incorporated.
P:\pccoaSDP99-660CenturyDuna10-12-99.wpd Page 1 of 1
I]
ATTACHMENT
133UiS NOIJNIHSVM
w
z
W
Q
0
U)
F-
z
0
w
o �..
a
cr
;O l'
a
I=
X
Lli
00
N
00
U)
W
cr
U
Q
Q
F—
O
F—
ATTACHMENT #;
EXHIBIT B
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
(DUNA LA QUINTA)
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PROJECT LOCATION: SOUTH WEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND WASHINGTON STREET
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, 4 TO 8 DU'S PER ACRE
EXISTING ZONING: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RM)
NUMBER OF UNITS: 81 CONDOMINIUM UNITS
ACRES: 12.16 ACRES PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT (82.38 ACRES TOTAL INCLUDING GOLF HOLES)
SURROUNDING LAND USES: RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE
MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 5000 SF (NA WITH CONDOMINIUMS)
MINIMUM LOT FRONTAGE: 50 FEET (NA WITH CONDOMINIUMS)
MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT: 28 FEET
MAXIMUM STORIES: 2
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO MAIN STRUCTURE: 20 FEET
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO GARAGE: 25 FEET (20 FEET SO. SIDE OF CALLE NORTE)
MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK TO GARAGE W/ROLL-UP: 20 FEET
REQUIRED FRONT VARIATION: 20 TO 25 FEET (NO REQUIREMENT FOR UNITS ON SOUTHSIDE
OF CALLE NORTE)
MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK: 5 FEET WITH ONE ADDITIONAL FOOT FOR EVERY FOOT IN
EXCESS OF 17 FEET IN HEIGHT, UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 10 FEET.
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK: 15 FEET (10 FEET FOR LOTS ON SOUTHSIDE OF CALLE NORTE)
MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE: 60% (NA FOR CONDOMINIUMS)
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: 1400 SF
PRIVATEDOCS\KENT\DUNALQF
SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001- CHANGES REQUESTED BY STAFF
PLANNING AREA II
There are currently 10 existing units within Planning Area II. 41 additional units are
proposed as shown in attached Exhibit A. The units along the north side of Calle Norte
shall be constructed as approved under Site Development Permit 99-642. The split
level unit type shall be added to SP 83-001 as a required unit /grading type for that
area along the south side of Calle Norte. These units shall be constructed as
approved under Site Development Permit 99-660. Change the development
standards to require a 10-foot minimum rear setback and 20-foot minimum front
setback to main structure/garage for units along the south side of Calle Norte.
PLANNING AREA III
The latest Specific Plan Amendment #4 currently stipulates a maximum of 25 dwelling
units for Area III. An additional amendment is hereby requested that will allow 40
condominium units as shown in Exhibit A. Originally, the 82.38 acre portion of Specific
Plan 83-001 located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and 50' Avenue,
was approved for the construction of 187 units. Based on the fact that 103 units have been
constructed to date (Exhibit A) the addition of 81 units as proposed for both Areas II & III
would result in a total build -out of 184 units, or 3 units less than originally approved. In
addition, under the provisions of the RM Development Standards that currently govern
Area III, this proposed total build -out of 184 units is below the allowed 8 dwelling units per
gross acre (82.38 Acres X 8 DU's per Acre = 659 units).
ALL
Remove the portion of land that is within Specific Plan 94-024- The Seasons, as this area
is no longer a part of Duna Fairways.
PALE SLIIMP83-001 # 5recommendedchanges 10-12-99. wpd
ATTACHMENT #4
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
September 15, 1999
2. Mr. Mark Hastings, representing the School, stated the architectural elements
would be the same as those contained in the pictures submitted of their
Cathedral City and Palm Springs Schools. Discussion followed regarding the
different architectural and landscaping elements on the different schools.
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated he thought the use of the property
is excellent and very attractive.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt agreed.
5. Committee Member Reynolds asked how the property would drain. Ms.
Margo Williams, with Mainiero Smith and Associates, stated it would drain
down Ladera Street into the existing basins to the east.
6. Commiftee Member Bobbitt asked if the City intended to install any 1 eft turn
lanes at the signal at this intersection. Mr. Hastings explained their drop off
procedure. The children will be taken to the classroom and dropped off with
the teacher and all the play areas are in the rear of the property.
7. Committee Member Cunningham asked the hours of operation. Mr. I lastings
stated 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. five days a week When they started their
Cathedral City they were in an existing residential area and they had to
address issues regarding circulation and traffic.
8. Committee Member Bobbitt asked how many students. Mr. Hastings stated
128 students.
9. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Bobbitt/Cunningham to adopt Minute Motion 99-019 approving
Site Development Permit 99-655 as recommended. Unanimously approved.
C. Site Development Permit 99-660; a request of Century -Crowell Communities for
approval of architectural and landscaping plans for two new prototype residential
condominium units within Tract 20158, along the south side of Calle Norte, cast of
Avenida I,as Verdes, within Duna La Quinta.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted the correction in square footage for the units.
2. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if this site was currently being graded. Mr.
Armstrong stated yes and the differential is nine feet causing the split level
unit design.
CWN Documents\WPIDOCS\AI,RCIO-7-99.wpd 4
Architectural &, Landscape Review Committee
September 15, 1999
3. Committee Member Cunningham stated the design appearance is good and
he has no objection.
4. Committee Member Bobbitt stated the split level units are a nice look and
offers a variation in the floor plan.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt asked if there would be any drainage problems
with the split level units for the area behind the garage. Mr. Armstrong stated
no, they would be using a sealant as well as drainage systems to assure there
were none.
6. Committee Member Reynolds stated he too agreed the design and layout
were attractive.
7. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked if flat tile or "S" the was proposed
to be used. Mr. Armstrong stated the units would have a mix of flat and "S"
tile with two to three colors.
8. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-020 approving
Site Development Permit 99-660 as recommended. Unanimously approved.
VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
V. COMMITTEE MEMBER ITEMS: None
VI. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Committee Members
Cunningham/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Review
Committee to the next regular meeting to be held on November 3, 1999. This meeting was adjourned
at 11:18 a.m. on October 7, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\ALRC10-7-99.wpd 5
c&ht 4 4 Q"
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: STEVE SPEER, SENIOR ENGINEER
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION . OF ISSUES REGARDING SIDE -STREET ACCESS TO
ARTERIAL STREETS - FRED WARING DRIVE AND MILES AVENUE
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW:
Introduction
This issue was originally presented to the City Council at its regular meeting on January 5, 1999.
During its discussion, the City Council stated a desire to obtain input from the City's Technical
Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission prior deciding whether to reaffirm the existing
side street access concept, or adopt a new concept.
The Technical Traffic Committee reviewed this issue at its May 20,1999 meeting. The
Committee's comments are summarized later in this report and the meeting minutes are included
as an attachment.
The Issue
Access to Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue from side streets serving adjacent housing tracts
is a frequently and critically broached topic by residents of these subdivisions and other residents
of La Quinta.
Whenever discussion regarding these side street intersections occurs, the issues or points of
discussion, typically fall into one of the following three categories:
• Traffic Safety
• Convenient Access
• Mobility
It's not surprising these topics consistently resurface, they are after all, the key considerations for
any intersection. Unfortunately, it's not possible to provide the maximum conceivable benefit in
each category at a given intersection due to inherent conflicts in the underlying factors that
S \cdev\9910123.wpd
produce the desired benefit. As a result, it's necessary to strike a balance in the desired benefits
by decreasing the level of benefit in one category to achieve an improved benefit in another
category.
Striking a Balance in Competing Interests
The task of striking a balance in benefits is an unenviable one because it commonly means one
faction of the parties interested in the decision may not be wholly satisfied. In essence, it is a
decision of what is more important: providing benefits for the community as a whole, or satisfying
the desires of a smaller special interest group. The good news is the decision making process for
striking this balance is actually quite well defined and designed to yield an orderly and
thoughtfully planned urban environment. When civic -minded parties of interest understand there
is an unavoidable duty to strike a balance in the competing benefits, and it involves gaining some
benefits at the expense of other benefits, the sacrifice that seems so strong in the microscopic view
is soon viewed as a price well paid for the greater benefit.
Planning An Urban Street System
All streets do not function in the same manner. Some streets are designed for convenient direct
access and others are designed for high quality regional circulation (i.e. mobility). The balance
in the competing benefits related to intersections occurring on these streets is decided when the
street is chosen to perform a certain function. For example, arterial streets are designed for
improved mobility, while residential streets are designed for convenient direct access to the
properties abutting it.
For La Quinta, the arterial street system is identified in the (general Plan (See Attachment #1).
Fred Waring Drive is designated as a Major Arterial (i.e. 6-lane street), and Miles Avenue is
designated as a Primary Arterial (i.e. 4-lane street). In addition to having a different number of
traffic lanes, these two street classifications also have different criteria with regard to side street
access points. Intersections that allow all turning movements at the intersection are allowed to
occur at 1,200-foot intervals on Miles Avenue, while on Fred Waring Drive, this type of
intersection occurs less frequently because the interval is increased to 2,600 feet (Attachment #2).
Mobility and Safety Versus Convenient Access
In general terms, mobility on a given street is inversely proportional to the number of access
points to the street. As the number of access points increases, the quality of mobility afforded by
the street decreases. Eliminating direct access to the street from abutting properties is the first step
to achieving improved mobility for a street. The next step is limiting the number of signalized
intersections which is accomplished by specifying the minimum allowable spacing intervals
between full -turn' intersections. The latter step requires a longer view into the future to avoid
circumstances that create the need for signalized intersections. Full -turn intersections that seem
reasonable and appropriate in the present moment may ultimately defeat the desired mobility
benefit, or become a traffic safety concern, in the future.
' "Full -turn" means there are no turning restrictions at the intersection
S \cdev\991012a wpd
Full -turn intersections are, in general, strong candidates for traffic signals given the right
circumstances. Signals are warranted, pursuant to a prescribed analytic technique, when there is
sufficient cross traffic or if there is an adverse safety history at the intersection. For that reason,
the spacing of full -turn intersections is specified in the General Plan to guide the City as it grows
so the benefits of an arterial street system become reality.
Reasonably convenient access can be achieved in an arterial street corridor with intersections that
provide less than full -turn access along with other circulation opportunities that avoid overly long
travel courses (time or distance) which are adverse to the motorist's desired direction of travel.
When adequate alternative circulation opportunities exist regarding access to a given arterial street,
motorists actually receive a shorter commuting -time benefit.
Transition From Rural to Urban
Achieving the mobility benefit for an urban arterial street occurs by limiting the number of access
points to the street as well as of the quality of the access that is allowed to occur. Although the
concept is simple to express, implementing it proves more difficult as one considers some streets
were already in existence when the need for employing an urbanized street concept became a
necessity. Access to a street occurs in two ways: 1) direct access from the abutting property, and
2) side street or cross street intersections.
Existing access points are generally left in place. However, turning movement restrictions
associated with those access points are commonly imposed as the arterial street is widened and
begins to carry more traffic. Major cross streets become signalized as warrants are met, and other
cross street locations are identified as potential candidates for signals.
Locations for new connections to an arterial street in the form of cross streets or side streets are
guided by the criteria set forth in the General Plan. However, existing property lines and land
uses along the arterial corridor can influence a less than perfect plan for locating side street
connections, unless significant devotion (up to and including expenditure of public funds in some
cases if deemed appropriate) is given to offset and counter the factors which can adversely
influence side street connection location.
Inventory of Existing Conditions and Future Plans
Attachments 3 through 8 provide a complete overview of existing side street and cross street
connections to Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue. Attachments 9 and 10 provide an overview
of the existing and future turning movements that are proposed at the "T" intersections on these
two arterial streets.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES:
It's not possible to provide the highest conceivable level of convenient access at every side street
that intersects Fred Waring Drive or Miles Avenue without sacrificing the mobility or safety
benefit that is intended for these two arterial streets. Mobility and safety are, in general terms,
S \cdev\991012a wpd
inversely proportional with the number of access points and cross street connections, which means
mobility and safety declines as the number of access connections with full -turn movements is
increased.
The policy that governs intersection location and affects the turning movements allowed at an
intersection is in the General Plan to guide the City as it grows, so the benefits of a high quality
arterial street system will become a reality.
Summate of Technical Traffic Committee
• There have been two broad side injury collisions on Fred Waring at Las Vistas caused by
left -turn out movement from Las Vista onto Fred Waring.
• Residents in Starlight Dunes have complained that the left -turn pocket on Fred Waring at
the Galaxy Drive is too short and sometimes leaves left turn traffic stacked into the through
lane.
• It was suggested that an acceleration lane would help at La Quinta Palms Drive. (Staff
comment: we have an acceleration lane at Las Vistas, see first comment above)
• It was pointed out by the Caltrans representative on the Committee, that once a turning
privilege is granted at an intersection, it is very difficult to take it away later on even when
there is evidence of a safety problem.
Safety Considerations
The City Council stated the importance of keeping the streets as safe as possible. To that end,
staff referred to the Traffic Engineering Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers
and found the following statistical insights:
• "The results of one study have shown that vehicles turning left into and out of driveways account for 70%
of all driveway accidents." Page 379
• "The number and location of traffic signals is an important part of access management. Traffic signals along
a~terials should be limited to half -mile intervals for providing progression in both directions at 35 to 45
mph ..... these signal spacings reduce the number of stops and accidents..." Pages 380-381
In conclusion it should be noted, access management is a well researched topic supported by
scholarly reports and papers prepared by transportation scholars in the federal and state
governments and academic sector. The access management concepts found in the La Quinta
General Plan have been drawn from documents based on those research findings.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and provide comments for City Council consideration as deemed appropriate.
S \cdev\991012a wpd
Attachment 1:
Circulation System Policy Diagram
2:
Roadway Design Standards
3:
Fred Waring Intersection Spacing
4:
Fred Waring Signal Spacing
5:
Fred Waring "T" Intersections
6:
Miles Ave Intersection Spacing
7:
Miles Ave Signal Spacing
8:
Miles Ave "T" Intersections
9:
Turning Restrictions on Fred Waring
10:
Turning Restrictions on Miles Avenue
11.
City Council minutes 1/5/99
12.
Technical Traffic Committee minutes 5/20/99
Pre ared by:
Steve peerrenior Engineer
Submitted by:
(Zu
Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager
S \cdev\991012a wpd
ATTACHMENT
O
a
Z
F
Z
cq
1� LttA,l
Q.i c
�3
�^ a
i
5
-a
ATTACHMENT 3
JEFFERSON
Port Maria
Old Harbor
DUNE PALMS
c r
c
r n Horizon Palms
N
P
Chapelton P
e
ADAMS
P_
Galaxy
eg
N �
Venice
tV
C
Palm Royale
Las Vistas
W
N
<
M
J
�
C
0
W
J
WASHINGTON
W
L1..
/0
V
C
Z
M
a
ry C0
ha-C1
O
U)w'
W
N
C
W
LL
ATTACHMENT
_IPFFERSON
ATTACHMENT 5
Port Maria
Old Harbor•
chapelton
Galaxy
Venice
Palm Royale
JEFFERSON
DINE PALMS
Horizon Palms
r
E
o
� o
ri I a
ADAMS
Las Vistas
WASHINGTON
W
ATTACHMENT 6
Los Manos
Vista Dunes MH Park
N. Harland
Seeley
Q tD' U O ul
v
0
v
m
N
rf
JEFFERSON
DINE PALMS
Bridgette
ADAMS
0
U b
m �
Q
w Coldbrook
b
v
m
V.
W
zc
c
W
oT
U
a
N C
N
C
0
W
N
N
ATTACHMENT 7
'Fd
C
@
c
z
W
f0
�7
J
SO
N
I1.
L.
Q
Z
A
1p
<%
W
a.
<L
•®
Los Manos
Vista Dunes MH Park <
N. Harland
Seeley
JEFFERSON
DUNE PALMS
Bridgette
ADAMS
Coldbrook
E
0
W
E 'z
fD
N W
CD
.- o \
'V
Q.
n. - W
rn
co N
N
.r Q
G.�
�-E
co m
r 1 O
ATTACHMENT 8
o
z
°
0
J
o
E c
m
c
z
0
m
Q.
c
c
W
p
O
fA
U
E i
c
a
Z
,
a
Vista Dunes MH Park
N. Harland
Seeley
JEFFERSON
DUNE PALMS
0
c
m
tV
E
m
0
LL
N 0
ADAMS
� E
0
P
m 1
O
Coldbrook
- - - Future Extention
ATTACHMENT 9
"T" INTERSECTIONS - FRED WARING DRIVE
TURNING RESTRICTIONS
EXISTING FUTURE RESTRICTIONS
same as Will Implement when
INTERSECTION HISTORY' RESTRICTIONS Emsttng median isconstwcted
A None yes
Palm Royale Drive_
A Left Out yes
Venice Drive Left Out
A� None
Las Vistas Drive Left Out`
A Left In, Left Out -"'-
Galaxy Left Out
C None
Chapleton Drive Left Out
None
Horizon Palms g Left Ins, Left Out
C None
Old Harbor Drive Left Out
Port Maria Drive
C None
1. - HISTORY LEGEND subject to City General Plan requirements
A = Intersection created after City incorporation incooration subject to County requirements
g = Intersection created before City incorporation
C= Side street located in County area; half of intersection belongs to City
land on the north side of Fred
2. Palm Royale Drive e ill become a full cross -street intersection when the
Waring Drive develops
Las Vistas Drive originally had the Left -In and Le O hturning
w Ver due to light ovements traffic conditionsnon Ft to red
3' royal for the Las Vistas subdivision,
Conditions of App opportunities in the vicinity, the City Council lifted the
Waring Drive and a lack of other circulation
irculation opportunities are in place and the traffic volume on Fred
restrictions in 1993 until future c
Waring has increased to a point that the Left -Out restriction should be re -implemented.
4. The striping will be revised in early 1999 to allow the "Left -In' movement
o anticipated heavy future west -to -south bound b
5. Due t or Drive not be accommodated because of
Dune Palms Road, the "Left -In movement at Old
insufficient space to install back-to-back left turn
Poctum Schoocketol traffic going to the high school an
future middle school will most likely need a lengthy P
TVWD07WAFRSPWOI.DtFrod Waring IntemecOOMAs
ATTACHMENT 10
"T" INTERSECTIONS - MILES AVENUE
TURNING RESTRICTIONS
EXISTING
INTERSECTION HISTORY' RESTRICTIONS
A
None
Seeley Drive
A
Left in, Left Out
North Harland
A9
Left Out
Coldbrook k Lane
West Entrance MH Park
B°
Left In, Left Out
Middle Entrance MH Park
g4
Left Out3
East Entrance MH Park
g4
Left In, Left Out
FUTURE RESTRICTIONS
1. HISTORY LEGEND
oration subject to City General Plan requirements
A = Intersection created after City incorporation
g = Intersection created before City incorporation subject to County requirement south side of Miles
2. Seeley Drive will become a full cross -street intersection when the land on the
Avenue develops..
cted pursuant to the
3. Coldbrook Lane originally had the omen unbddiv s on..Left-Out
Ho ever due to the needn o prov de mprov to
Conditions of Approval for the into Homes s on Miles Avenue was revised
circulation accesstito the movement Dunit at Coldbrook Lanbile Home e' the striping
allow the Le
4. Entrances to mobile home park originally had aoons. However, when Miles
r s It of the Incorning nHomes developm development, the street was
Avenue was widened on the south side asall
striped to restrict Left -in and Left -Out turning m novetients at at the middlerent ance only. Also see iNo e 3
revised in 1998 to allow the Left -In turning
The Coldbrook Lane turning movements were also revised at the same time.
T..WWD9rrWrAFRW 0W files Ave trdersectic—ss
01
ATTACHMENT 11
Council Minutes
RESOLUTION NO. 99-05
5
January 5, 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUSTATE SUMMARY CRIMINAL MINAL HISTORNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA Y
AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO.OBTAIN
INFORMATION OF EMPLOYEES AND VOLUNTEERS.
it was moved by.Council Members Adolph/Sniff to adopt Resolution No. 99-05
as submitted. Motion -carried unanimously.
STUDIF SE
1. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES REGARDING IDES STREET E ACCESS TO ARTERIAL
STREETS - FRED WARING DRIVE AND
Mr. Vogt, Public Works Director, advised that staff has been receiving a lot of
questions from the residents over Uhe past Avenue;ral months regarding side street
so staff has prepared this report
access to Fred Waring Drive and
in order to give Council some background, configurations and future planning
for these streets.
Mr. Speer, Senior Engineer, presented the overview, advising that both Fred
Waring Drive and Miles Avenue are arterial streets and that the
questions/concerns broached are those generally related to traffic safety at the
intersections, convenient access (in terms of the kinds of turning movements
allowed at the side street intersections) and mobility. Unfortunately, it's not
possible to provide the maximum benefit in each category at a given intersection
due to inherent conflicts in the underlying factors that produce the desired
benefit. As a result, it's necessary to strike a balance in the desired benefits by
decreasing the level of benefit in one category to achieve an improvement
benefit in another category.
He further noted that all streets do not function in the same manner. Some are
designed for convenient direct access while others are designed for high quality
regional circulation. The balance in the competing benefits related to
intersections occurring on these streets is decided when the street is chosen to
perform a certain function. For example, arterial streets are designed for
improved mobility, while residential streets are designed for convenient direct
access to the properties abutting it.
In general terms, mobility on a given street As the numberofproportional
acc access points
number of access points to the street.
City Council Minutes
increases, the quality of mobility afforded by ertees is the firreasest step tola hieving iminating `
direct access to the street from abutting prop
improved mobility for a street. The next d b'slimiting the number of
signalized intersections which is accomplish Y specifying the minimum
allowable spacing intervals between full -turn intersections. The latter step
requires a longer view into the future to avoid circumstances that create the
need for signalized intersections.
implementing the transition from rural to urban is difficult as many
of the
st pout _
were already in existence when the City incorporated and were
any restrictions. As we become more urbanized, it becomes necessary to
impose certain restrictions such as limiting turning movements and installing
more signals.
In summary, Mr. Speer stated that it's not e possible
th t intersects Fred
conceivable level of convenient access at every side street
Waring Drive or Miles Avenue without sacrificing the Mobility
b Ibytand safety ay or safety re,
that is intended for these two arterial streetand
general terms, inversely proportional with thenumber dsafety declines the
cross -street connections, which means mobility
number of access connections with full -turd affect the turning movements
ovements is increased. The
policy that governs intersection locations an guide the City as it grows.
allowed at an intersection is in the General Plan to g
Mr. Speer then presented slides depicting several intersection ect on situations
c spacing, signal
both
Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue showing
spacing and "T" intersections while explaining the uniqueness of each.
ime buld-out of Fred
A brief discussion ensued regarding the widening and f there s an'ything we can
Waring Drive with Council Member Henderson asking '
do to force the County to .pave it out to its cuwas approved in 1988 (whichte right-of-way and Mr. Speer
that when the 112 cent sales tax increase
t build streets"
is a 20-year program) there were six streets lit d
mu tbe built as sto is ultimate
and Fred Waring Drive is one of them, so it
configuration within the next nine years.
Robert Tyler, 44-215 Villeta, addressed the Council, stating testhat a center the need for left -
that can be used for left turns as motorist need to, n
ere
turn pockets and all the confusion that is creaadding that unlessem. He felt that hyou
are some fundamental errors in the theories presented,
have raised medians, people are going to cross lines and do what is convenient
for them.
0
January 5, 1
City Council Minutes 7 January 5, 1999
Betty Jean Johnsen, 78-380 Via Sevilla, urged the Council to consider the left
turn lanes as she felt that the u-turns are far more dangerous. She also
expressed concern about the speed of traffic on Via Sevilla as it's often
traveling upwards of 65 miles per hour.
Tricia Ryan, Montero Estates, expressed major concerns about traffic circulation
in the City. She and ' her husband have found -that traffic is a real problem,
primarily because the traffic signals are not synchronized.
In response to Council Member Adolph, Mr. Speer advised that this report was
prepared for the City Council and has not been submitted to the Technical
Traffic Committee,
Council Member Adolph felt that it should be presented to the Technical Traffic
Committee for their expertise prior to the City Council considering any action.
Council Member Perkins felt that this is -an excellent report, but felt that it can
be redefined and made more compatible in certain areas for the citizens and at
the same time, provide a safe and orderly flow of traffic in the City. He wished
for it to come back to the Council incorporating comments from the citizens.
He noted that with the opening.of Miles Avenue and the tennis complex, traffic
will be increasing on Miles. He also noted that off-season traffic is now just
about the same as in -season traffic. He said that whatever we do has to be
reasonable and accepted by the motoring public.
Council Member Henderson also felt that it's an excellent report and pointed out
that what it does is delineate what is currently in place in accordance with the
General Plan. She wished to see the report go before the Planning Commission,
as they need to be aware of the problems with growth; and how new projects
relate with' the traffic flow.
Council Member Sniff agreed with the need to synchronize the traffic signals.
He felt that consistency is needed so that the motorist doesn't have to think too
much. Safety has to be the number one priority and mobility is a necessity, in
that we need to accommodate people going both east and west. In order to
accommodate that, there needs to be some limitation of access and some
intersections signalized. Whenever possible, we need to have raised medians
to prevent illegal movements.
Mayor Pena agreed that the signals need to be synchronized (also on Highway
111 and valley -wide) and commented that with growth comes challenges in
achieving mobility and good traffic flow. He agreed sending this report to the
Technical Traffic Committee. He also felt that it's essential to have adequate
City Council Minutes
January b,
traffic enforcement to slow traffic down. He suggested more use of the traffic
speed trailer.
Mr. Vogt advised that CVAG. has a valley -wide synchronization program, but it
requires valley -wide cooperation. He added that there is an interconnect being
discussed between the County, CVAG, Indian Wells and Palm Desert on
Washington, which will synchronize the signals from Highway 111 to Country
Club. He added that there will be a street from the Garden .of Champions -lining
up with Via Sevilla which will be signalized.
Council concurred on directing staff to submit this report to the Technical
Traffic Committee and the Planning Commission.
D. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY
Council Member Sniff advised that there will be a meeting of the Conservancy
on Monday and asked if Council is in sync with the letter that was sent to the
Conservancy by staff, and if so, that is the stance he will assume.
Council concurred.
Mr. Weiss, Assistant City Manager, noted that he has been advised that they
are not planning to prepare any changes to the proposed legislation as some of
the other cities are supporting it as is.
A-1 UPDATE ON POTENTIAL BERMUDA DUNES ANNEXATION
Council Member Sniff suggested that the City Manager attend the meeting with
staff and that no one from the Council attend as he felt that it could become
complex and problematic.
Discussion ensued in which Council concurred on the Mayor and City Manager
attending and only providing information about the City since the Council has
not taken a stance regarding such an annexation.
ATTACHMENT 12
LA QUINTA TECHNICAL TRAFFIC COMMITTEE
MINUTES
MAY 20, 1999
The meeting of the La Quinta Technical Traffic Committee was called to order at
10:32 a.m. by Steve Speer.
Patrick Hsu, Sr. Traffic
,Calans Manager, D'strict SUSDB
Stella Cervantes, Transportation
Deputy John Doyle & Sgt. Burdo, Riverside County Sheriffs Dept.
Tom Hartung, Building & Safety or
Steve Speer, Senior Engineer
ABSENT!
Lawrence Tai, County Traffic Engineer, Riverside County Transportation
Dept.
a. Approval of Minutes of November 19, 1998
b. Approval -of Minutes of February 20, 1999
None.
023
Paae 1
4
NEW BUSIN-
Discussion of issues regarding side street access to arterial streets -Fred Waring
Drive and Miles Avenue.
l in
Mr. Speer presented a Power Point Presentation that warigiven to the City and Miles Avenue
January 1999 on access to arterials streets on Fred 9
DriveCity Council directed Mr. Speer to bring it to the Technical Traffic Committee for
comments and to continue on to the Planning Commission and give the same
presentation to them for their comments at which time a report will be made back to
the City Council with what has been found.
This was a discussion regarding side street access arterialto s frequentlyabroached Fred
by
Waring Drive and Miles Avenue. This is a topic that
members of the community regarding intersections primarily focused on issues such
as traffic safety, convenient access, and mobility. The mobility complaints come in
the form of too many signals, or they are not properly timed. It is not possible to
achieve the maximum conceivable benefit in each category at the same intersection.
Mobility is inversely proportional to convenient access. As the quality to one category
decreases, the quality of another category increases, (i.e., as the access quality
increases, the mobility decreases) so it becomes a task of striking balance between the
competing interests. It is necessary to decrease the benefit in one category to achieve
an improved benefit in another category. To improve benefits
nef is fo� the community as a
the community as a
whole, it becomes a situation where the improved be uni Typically, this
whole versus improved benefits for a smaller special interest group.
task is solved by street classification (i.e., an arterial street serves a large portion of
the community, has a high level of regional mobility reetand a low s at the theel of convenient
extreme and of
access on the side street; whereas, a residential
that spectrum, it serves a small portion of thecommunity, has a high level of
convenient access and a very low level of regionalY
Mobility is a term that refers to the quality of regional circulation. The lit me, neft'1s
serves a large portion of the community, provides improved commute
achieved by eliminating or limiting the factors that degrade mobility.
The City's General Plan has policies that affectthoughtfully
don,t all havethe
environment which has arterial streets and residential streets,
same characteristics. Fred Waring is a Major Arterial street, intended to be six lanes
when it is built out with a raised median. The intent isAtrtoehStreet ll turn intersections
intended to be a
no less than 2600' apart. Miles Avenue is a Primary al
four -lane street with a raised median and there we allowing the fell turn
intersections to be closer together, as close as 1200apart
The type of movements that are typically restricted
hoss ng uall the lanes nuone
rns
out being the most hazardous turns, because you are c
direction and turning into what's considered the fast lane. The left turn in is allowed
Pane 2
if space permits. By restricting the left turns it improves safety by reducing lane
crossings and improves mobility on the arterial street by reducing the need for signals.
When these kinds of restrictions are put on these intersections, there is a need to also
take into account the residents that are trying to come out of that residential
neighborhood. There is a need for us to reduce their traveling time in the direction
that's adverse to the direction that they want to go (i.e., alternate routes to an arterial
street that work reasonably well for them and provide U-turn opportunities on the
arterials streets).
La Quinta is a City that is in a transition from a rural environment to an urban
environment. When the City incorporated in 1982, many of the existing streets
inherited from the County already had side street connections and no turning
restrictions. They were basically rural two lane streets with very light traffic volume.
As the City transitions into an urban environment, there is a need to start imposing and
implementing new standards to achieve
feet and eegulati g the intethe
rse ton
benefit, by imposing turning restrictions on the s
in spacing and connection locations.
Venice Drive, three turning movements; left turn in, right turn in, and right turn
out.
Las Vistas Drive has all four turning movements (with an acceleration lane for
a left turn out)
Deputy Coyle stated there have been two injury traffic collisions in this
area, both right-of-way (broadside) violations. Vehicles were going
northbound on Las Vistas attempting to go into the left turn westbound
acceleration lane and struck by an eastbound Fred Waring Drive vehicle.
Galaxy Drive, three turning movements; left turn in, right turn in, and right turn
out.
Deputy Doyle spoke about complaints from people inside the
development about the length of the left turn in lane.
Deputy Doyle stated that their concern is the left turn into Galaxy Drive
and the traffic stopping in the number one lane, speeds are typically high
on Fred Waring and that was the concern of the citizen that called in
regarding lengthening that lane.
Patrick Hsu stated that when you have traffic stopping in the number one
lane it will cause tremendous weaving movements on Fred Waring Drive.
M
Paae 3
Chapelton Drive, two way left turn lane on Fred Waring.
La Quinta Palms Drive, full turns. The City anticipates taking away the left turn
out when a raised median is built.
Deputy Doyle asked that if that stays there, is it possible to make an
acceleration lane. There is a lot of traffic in and out of there.
Mr. Speer stated that the intent is to have three lanes in each direction
with a 18' wide median. The median is wide enough to provide
opportunity for an acceleration lane. We may end up with a narrower
median than 18' and only two lanes on the north side.
Deputy Doyle stated that an acceleration lane would help in this situation,
there is one lane going westbound and there is a lot of traffic that goes
out. There have been no collisions here.
Patrick Hsu stated that in regard to the left turn out movement, a double
left turn lane gives the choice of acceleration or to wait, rather than an
acceleration lane you have to accelerate.
Deputy Doyle stated his concern with the speeds on Fred Waring being
pretty high. Typically in the 60 - 65 miles per hour. If we had a Vane like
that where they can at least rest when they are crossing, if the traffic is
not clear, avoid people pulling out and trying to beat the traffic.
Old Harbor Drive, south side is in the City of La Quinta and the north side is in
the County. All four turning movements are allowed at this intersection;
however, in the future we anticipate that the left turn movement going
westbound on Fred Waring and turning left going south on Dune Palm Road will
probably increase and the turn pocket will have to increase, which will eliminate
the opportunity for a left turn in at this particular intersection, may also
eliminate the opportunity for a left out also.
Deputy Doyle asked if there were plans to put a traffic signal at Dune
Palms Road and Fred Waring Drive.
Mr. Speer stated that yes that contract was awarded by the City Council
at the May 18, 1999 City Council.
Deputy Doyle stated that it will probably be convenient for them to make
a right turn out and then a u-turn at Dune Palms Road.
Port Maria has all four turning movements. th the left turn out 'elpmiate that in h eliminated, or acomodated
would have three moveme future we
ents, w
with acceleration lanes if we find that we can do that in a safe fashion„
Page 4
T:WW DEPTISTAMVERLENG'%TTCMA990520Minvtss.wpd
Harland Avenue has right in, right out.
Coldbrook on the south side, now has three of the four turning movements.
This used to have a right in, right out only. About a year ago, residents
requested that we do something to improve the accessability in the
neighborhood on the southside as well as residents from the Mobile Home Park
on the north side. In looking at improving accessability, we had an opportunity
to include a left turn pocket in and the residents from the Mobile Home Park
could make a right out, come down the street, and make a u-turn back to the
east.
Vista Dunes Mobil Home Park has three roads inside the park and until we
addressed this issue a year ago, all they had was right in and right out
movements, due to a painted median. This was something that was new to
them because Miles Avenue had been a two lane arterial road for years and
years. Then the street got widened, and a painted median was installed to
comply with the City's General Plan. However; with the residents indicating
they were having difficulty in getting in and out of the mobile home park and
the inability to find their way over to Indio without going to much longer
distances, we created a single left turn in pocket for them to enter their center
dirveway, and then the one wanting to leave the mobile home park and go east
to Indio, they would come out, go west on Miles Avenue about 600', make a
u-turn and then head back towards the east.
Patrick Hsu stated that some of the turning movements, we tried to come up with the
best optimal solution for the local residents, but it is really very short term. Whenever
you have substantial increase in through traffic, those intersections will be completely
logged down in traffic. Whenever you give privilege to side street traffic and then
want to take away that privilege later on, there is a big fight.
Patrick Hsu stated he'd like to compliment the City for the kind of willingness to deal
with the major arterial streets. He encourages the City to hit this issue hard, this is
the only opportunity to control the major arterial streets.
pane 5
Discussion of issues regarding removal of an existing 3-way stop configuration at
Avenida Montezuma and Calle Durango.
Mr. Speer stated that we had received a request from a resident to have this 3-way
stop intersection changed to a two way stop. Would like the stop signs on
Montezuma taken out.
Deputy Doyle stated that the problem with Montezuma/Durango northbound, if the
stop sign is removed we may have a visibility problem with pulling out. There is no
other stop between Ensenada and all the way to Obregon (approximatley 1 mile).
Speeds may pickup and with a blind intersection you have the potential for a major
accident.
Mr. Verlengia stated that the property owner who has the shrub on the corner of
Montezuma/Durango north, have been cited and will be removing and/or trimming that
hedge.
Deputy Doyle stated that even with that trimming and/or removing there is still a
sweeping curve that with speed and no stop sign it is almost a blind curve there.
Tom Hartung stated that he agreed with Deputy Doyle and that he did not fee[ it was
a good idea to remove the stop sign.
Deputy Doyle stated he was opposed to removing the stop sign.
Page 6
M
(%N ATER
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
TRIC�
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RUSSELL KITAHARA, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN W. MCFADDEN September 24 1999 OWEN MCCOOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
JOHN P. POWELL, Jr. REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
DOROTHY M. NICHOLS
File: 0106.7COPM
Planning CommissionCity of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
Subject: Development Review Fees
As part of' the community development review process, your city frequently requests that the
district comment on new development applications. Our review and comments are important
to the planning stage allowing us to establish necessary conditions for proper development.
The district will charge the developer a development fee for review of these applications.
This fee is referred to as a flood management review and usually ranges from $400 to $1,200
based on the type of development proposed.
It would be very helpful if the city would notify all applicants of the district's review fee at
the time of application. We also request at least three weeks be allowed for the district to
respond to the development review submittals.
Thank, you for your cooperation.
If you or the applicant have any questions regarding our fee structure, please contact
Joe Cook, planning engineer, extension 292.
JEC. j 1\eng\sw\s ep\devfees
Yours very truly,
Pm)�'? c
a
Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
PH #1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1999
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-
658, AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-388,
PROPERTY OWNER: EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
ARCHITECT: JAMES CIOFFI, ARCHITECT
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT: TKD ASSOCIATES, INC.
LAND PLANNER: DUDEK & ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT
PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR A 6 ACRE MEDICAL
OFFICE COMPLEX (TWO BUILDINGS), AND
ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR A TWO
STORY HIGH MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (PHASE 1)
CONSISTING OF 47,890t SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
48TH AVENUE
GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONINGILAND USES: NORTH: CR / VACANT COMMERCIAL LAND
SOUTH: RL AND G/ GOLF COURSE AND RESIDENCE IN
RANCHO LA QUINTA
COUNTRY CLUB
EAST: RL / RESIDENCES IN LAKE LA QUINTA
WEST: RL / VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND
C:sp 99-038 sdp 99-658 pc rpt.wpd
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-388 WAS PREPARED
FOR PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658 IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED.
THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS
RECOMMENDED THAT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BE
CERTIFIED (ATTACHED TO ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT RESOLUTION)
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is on the north side of 481h Avenue, between Washington Street
and Caleo Bay Drive (Attachment 1) and was created with the subdivision of Lake La
Quinta to the east in 1989. In 1990, curb, gutter, sidewalk (adjacent to curb), and
perimeter landscaping adjacent to Washington Street and 481h Avenue, and curb and
gutter adjacent to Caleo Bay Drive, was installed.
The applicants obtained approval of Conditional Use Permit 92-003 in June, 1992, for
a three story medical building with 74,500 square feet of floor space and 325 parking
spaces on 4.5 acres of the site, adjacent to 48th Avenue. The project was intended
to be: the first phase of the development of 12 acres of land. That approval has since
expired with no construction occurring. Parcel Map 27892 was approved in late
1993, and recorded in February, 1994, dividing the original 12 acres into four parcels.
The current project is proposed on the southern two parcels.
The site finish grade contains fill and varies from approximately two to four feet above
the adjacent streets. The site is vacant except for some scattered desert shrubs.
Perimeter landscaping consist primarily of palm trees, canopy trees, and lawn. Most
of the lawn area is depressed and designed for storm water retention.
Specific Plan Project Request
Applications for a specific plan and site development permit have been submitted for
a 76,669 square foot medical center complex consisting of two buildings. The
specific plan provides principals and guidelines for the development of the two building
complex. As well as containing proposed plans, the specific plan includes principals,
guidelines, and statements for utilities, architecture, landscaping, and operation of the
use (Attachment 2).
As part of the specific plan, two deviations to Zoning Code requirements are
requested. Section 9.90.040, Table 901, requires that within 150 feet of
C:sp 99-03I3 sdp 99-658 pc rpt.wpd
Washington Street, buildings cannot exceed 22 feet in height (See Page 12 of specific
plan text). The west end of the building is stepped with the two story element of the
Phase One building setback 131.6 feet from curb. This 18.4 foot deviation is for the
southern half of the building only. The northern half is only 10 inches short of the
requirement. The Phase Two building will exceed the 150 foot setback requirement
frorri the curbline. The 16 foot high one story portion is approximately 1 17.6 feet
from curb.
The Zoning Code requires 435 parking spaces for the entire project. 422 spaces are
provided, a reduction of 3% from the required number (see Page 15 of specific plan
text). 435 spaces can be provided in the plan. The reduction is to provide additional
landscaping around the building and walkways between the covered parking aisles.
The specific plan has provided standards more restrictive than allowed by the Zoning
Code. The building height is restricted to 36 feet within two stories rather than the
50 feet and four stories allowed. Permitted uses are restricted to medical and general
office uses, and limited retail uses common to medical offices.
Site Development Permit Project Request
The initial Phase One construction proposed by the site development permit will be on
the southern four acres of the six acre site and consist of a two story structure with
47,894 square feet of floor space and 262 parking spaces. The placement of the long
side of the building is on a east -west axis and combination of one and two story
elements on the west end of the building is to reduce the visual impact on the
residences in Lake La Quinta.
Access to the project will be from Caleo Bay Drive (full turns) and 48th Avenue (right
in and out only). The rectangular building will be laid out on a east -west axis with
minimum setbacks from street curb approximately 118 feet from Washington Street,
182 feet from 48th Avenue, and 154 feet from Caleo Bay Drive.
The trash, delivery/loading space, and screened outdoor mechanical area are located
on the west end of the building away from the closest residences in Lake La Quinta.
The mechanical area is behind a plaster wall and trellis, while the loading and trash
area is to the south behind a solid gate.
Exterior parking lot lighting is stated in the specific plan to be compatible in design
with excessive brightness avoided. The plan proposes a maximum 24 foot high light
standard with flush mounted lenses. The plans do not indicate specific pole locations
or light specifications.
The two story, 33 foot high building will primarily have a mansard roof covered with
red blend two piece clay tile. The building walls will be clad with an off-white smooth
trowel mission plaster and use bullnosed (rounded) corners. An arched plaster arcade
C:sp 99-038 sdp 99-658 pc rpt.wpd
extends along most of the north and south building elevations. A matching false
arcade will be provided along portions of the east and west building sides. The
windows are steel sash multi -pane and inset 8" from the exterior wall. Stucco
surrounds are provided around the windows with the exception of the bottom of the
first floor windows which align with the top of a three foot high beige plaster building
base.
The east and west ends of the building will be stepped with the first story portion
having a parapet wall at approximately 16 feet high. There will be some use of trellis'
on the first floor roof, although there will be no access for tenants to this area.
The main building entries, located in the center of the north and south sides, includes
a 35, foot high gable roof tower with two shorter flanking hipped towers. These
towers will be approximately 32 feet in height. The entry tower includes the use of
a brown wood lintel above the first floor entry and a wood sill on the second floor
balcony.
Carports will be provided for portions of the parking lot with the design compatible
with the building. Materials will consist of steel beam supports with wood covering
with colors matching those used in the building.
The landscaping proposed utilizes a plant palette consisting of citrus, palm, and canopy
trees, bougainvillea vines, and flowering shrubs. The existing perimeter landscaping
will be retained and enhanced with new planting. 15 foot high date palm trees will be
used at the driveways and between the two building, and at the building entries. The
specific plan states citrus trees in a grove pattern similar to Rancho La Quinta will be
provided on Washington Street. A temporary five foot high hedge will be planted on
the north edge of the Phase One construction. The street perimeter will be screened
with a 42 inch high plaster wall with a brick cap to match the building. This wall will
be accented with bougainvillea.
Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALRCI Action: The ALRC reviewed
this request at its meeting of October 7, 1999, (Attachment 3) and recommended
approval of the Phase One construction proposed by Site Development Permit 99-658,
subject to conditions of approval recommended by Staff (Condition #54). Additionally,
a condition is recommended that the use of date palms in pedestrian areas and Ash
trees in the parking lot be restudied (Condition #27).
Public: Notice: This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on September
20, 1999, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project
boundaries. To date, no correspondence has been received. Any comments received
will be handed out at the meeting.
C:sp 99-038 sdp 99-658 pc rpt.wpd
Public Agency Review• The request was sent out for comment and pertinent
comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS•
Three of the four findings necessary to recommend approval of the specific plan can
be made, as noted in the attached resolution. Those findings being that the project
is consistent with the General Plan, compatible with zoning on adjacent properties, and
is suitable and appropriate for the property.
The fourth finding that the project will not be materially detrimental to the public
health, safety and general welfare cannot be made with 24 foot high light poles
proposed due to possible glare and light spillage to the adjacent neighbors. Due to the
proximity of the adjacent residential uses, Staff recommends within 100 feet of Caleo
Bay Drive the light fixtures be recessed and shielded on poles not exceeding 15 feet
Condition #52 of Site Development Permit)
The findings for the site development permit can be made except as follows:
"Architectural Design- The architectural design of the project, including but not limited
to the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, architectural details,
roof style, and other architectural elements are compatible with the surrounding
development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city". The tile eyebrow
awning over the flanking towers appears redundant with the tile hip roof above. The
ALRC: recommends extending the hip roof overhang and removing the eyebrow
awning. This will help provide variation to the roofline
The window placement is repetitive and off balance. Most windows are the same size
and aligned vertically regardless of their placement within the arch of the arcade. The
ALB C recommends window placement size and shape be studied and revised to
balance the architectural features Wood lintels shall also be used above windows in
a manner compatible with its uses above the arched entrance on the north and south
sides of the building.
On the south side of the building at the one story high parapet wall, near the east and
west ends (left and right side on elevation plan), there is one horizontal window above
the base on this wall plane. This wall elements lack articulation and character defining
features. Therefore, the ALRC is recommending additional architectural treatment be
rovidled compatible with the building These items are recommended for revisions in
Condition # 4.
C:sp 99-038 sdp 99-658 pc rpt.wpd
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- , recommending to the City
Council, certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental
Assessment 99-388) for Specific Plan 99-038 and Site Development Permit 99-
658, subject to all mitigation measures.
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- , recommending to the City
Council, approval of Specific Plan 99-038, subject to conditions.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 99- , recommending to the City
Council, approval of Site Development Permit 99-658, subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Specific PDan 99-038 text
3. ALRC minutes for the meeting of October 7, 1999
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
i
Christine di lorio, Plamning Manager
C:sp 99-038 sdp 99-658 pc rpt.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
99-658
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 99-388
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 12'h day of October, 1999, hold a duly -noticed Public Hearing as requested
by EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
on the Environmental Analysis for Specific Plan 99-038, and Site Development Permit
99-658, located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and 48" Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended, Resolution 83-63, in that the Community Development Director
has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 99-388) 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 are being made conditions of approval for
Environmental Assessment 99-388, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing, said recommendation for certification
was Ioased on findings and subject to certain mitigation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the La Quinta Planning Commission did find the following
facts to justify recommendation for certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have the
potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of
mitigation measures.
2. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have the
potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals,
with the implementation of mitigation measures.
CAMydata\WPDOCS\pc res ea 99-388.wpd (stan)
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
Environmental Assessment 99-388
3. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have impacts
which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering
planned for proposed development in the immediate vicinity.
4. The proposed Specific Plan and Site Development Permit will not have
environmental effects that will adversely affect human health, safety, and
welfare, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation
measures.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby concur with the environmental determination and
certification of Environmental Assessment 99-388 for proposed Specific Plan
99-038 and Site Development Permit 99-658, provided all mitigation measures
are complied with, per the attached Initial Study.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 12t' day of October, 1999, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
C:\IVlydataMPDOCS\pc res ea 99-388.wpd (stan)
Environmental Checklist Form (EA 99-388)
Project Title: La Quinta Family Medicine Center Specific Plan (SP 99-038)
Site Development Permit 99-658
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan Sawa
760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Avenue 48.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: La Quinta Family Medicine Center
c/o Dudek & Associates
73-150 Sheryl Ave., Suite C
Palm Desert, CA 92211
6. General Plan Designation: Mixed/Regional 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.)
Specific Plan establishing development standards for a 6f acre site. The first phase of
development will include 47,894 square feet of medical office space in one two-story
structure. The second phase allows the construction of another two-story building
totaling 28,775 square feet.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The project occurs on the western boundary of the Lake La Quinta Project. Lands to the
east: have developed as single family residential; lands to the south are developed as golf
course and single family residential. Lands to the west and across Washington Street, and
to the north are vacant desert.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation
agreement.)
EA 99-388/Envb•onmental Checklist Form.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.
Lend Use and Planning
X
Transportation/Circulation
Public Services
Population and Housing
Biological Resources
Utilities and Service Systems
X
Geological Problems
and Mineral Resources
Aesthetics
V Iater
-Energy
Hazards
Cultural Resources
X
Air Quality
Noise
Recreation
Mandatory Finds of Significance
Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures
described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
lbut 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, if the effect is a potentially significant impact
or potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
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 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.
Signature
Printed Name
Date
For
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.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) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and
briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyzes," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyzes 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 analyzes are discussed in Section XVII 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. See the sample question below. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be
cited in the discussion.
7. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones.
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
3
Sample question.
I.
11.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
Landslides or mudslides? (1,6)
(Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan, and 6 is a USGS
topo snap. This answer would probably not need further explanation.)
LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation of zoning? (General Plan
Land Use Map)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
mmm
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by X
agencies with jurisdiction over the project` (General Plan EIR, p. 4-1
f)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (General Plan X
Land Use Map, Figure 4, Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or X
farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? (General Plan EIR,
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established X
community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Figure
4, Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? X
(General Plan Master Environmental Assessment, p. 2-32 ff.)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. X
through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major
infrastructure)? (General Plan Goal 2-3, Objective 2-3.1, and policies
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (Figure 4, X
Existing Site Conditions of Specific Plan)
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose
people; to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35) X
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
b) Seismic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (General Plan EIR, X
Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35 and page 4-30 ff.)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 X
ff.)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading, or fill? (General Plan EIR, page 4-41)
g) Subsidence of the land? (General Plan EIR, page 4-43)
h) Expansive soils? (General Plan EIR, page 4-40 to 43)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (General Plan, page 8-7)
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount X
of surface runoff? (Specific Plan p. 16 ff. and Exhibit 10)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as X
flooding? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.3-1, page 4-53)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water X
quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Specific
Plan document, p. 16 ff.)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? (Specific X
Plan document, p. 21; letter from CVWD dated June 3, 1999)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? X
(General Plan EIR, page 4-51 ff.)
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Infformation Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
V.
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct X
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (General Plan EIR, page 4-55 ff.)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (General Plan EIR, X
page 4-55 i£)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.) X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise X
available for public water supplies? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
AIR QUALITY Would the proposal:
a) Violate zny air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (General Plan EIR, page 4-171 ff.)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Project Description,
Specific Plan document)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in
climate? (General Plan MEA, page 5-33 ff.)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Project Description, Specific Plan
document)
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (Endo Engineering,
"Traffic Impact Study," June, 1999)
mmm
mmm
mmm
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or X
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(Endo Engineering, "Traffic Impact Study," June, 1999)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (Specific X
Plan Site Plan)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? (Specific Plan Site I I I I X
Plan)
EA 99-3H/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
VII.
VIII.
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (Specific Plan Site X
Plan)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation X
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Specific Plan Site Plan, Exhibit 5)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (General Plan MEA) X
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including X
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (General
Plan 1:IR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69, and page 4-71 ff.)
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? (Dudek & X
Associates, Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment, September
1999)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal X
habitat, etc.)? (Dudek & Associates, Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat
Assessment, September 1999)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? (General X
Plan FIR, Exhibit 4.4-1, page 4-69)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (General Plan EIR, page 4- X
71 ff.)
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (General Plan
MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
b) Use non. -renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner?
(General Plan MEA, page 5-26 ff.)
c) Result in. the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that X
would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State?
EA 99-338/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
IX.
X.
XI.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances X
(including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
(Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency X
evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA, page 6-27 ff.)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X
(Specific Plan Project Description)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X
(Specific Ran Project Description)
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X
(Specific Plan Project Description)
NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Endo Engineering, Noise Impact X
Study, June 1999)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (General Plan MEA, page X
6-15 f[, Endo Engineering, Noise Impact Study, June 1999)
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the
following areas:
a) Fire: protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
b) Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff.)
c) Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (General Plan
MEA, pages 3-3, 4-7)
e) Other governmental services? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff.)
M�m
mmm
EA 99-388/Envtronmental Checklist Form.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result
in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (General Plan MEA, page 4-26)
b) Communications systems? (General Plan MEA, page 4-29)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
M�m
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? (General X
Plan MEA, page 4-20)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24)
e) Storm water drainage? (General Plan MEA, page 4-27)
f) Solid waste disposal? (General Plan MEA, page 4-28)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
0
M�=
M�m
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (General Plan Exhibit CIR- X
5)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (General Plan EIR, X
page 5-12 ff.)
c) Create light or glare? (Specific Plan Project Description)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Paleontological Lakebed
Determination Study, Community Development Department)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (General Plan MEA, Aerial
Photograph)
mmm
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Fonn.wpd
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
c) Affect historical resources? (General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph) X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect X
unique ethnic cultural values? (General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact X
area? (General Plan MEA, Aerial Photograph)
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other X
recreational facilities? (Specific Plan Project Description)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (General Plan, Exhibit X
PR -I)
XVI. 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 to 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
MMM
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or
indirectly?
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
10
XVII.
EARILIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program
EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation 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.
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
IF
Addendum to Environmental Checklist, EA 99-388
III.a),b) & c)
III. g) & h)
IV.a),b) & c)
IV 0, g)
h)&i)
The City is located in a seismically active area. The proposed Specific Plan is located in a
Zone III groundshaking zone, within one mile of an inferred and inactive fault. The City
has implemented provisions in the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas.
The project will be required to conform to these standards. This mitigation measure will
ensure that impact from seismic activity will be reduced to a less than significant level.
Construction of the proposed project will have the potential to create unstable soil
conditions during earth moving activities. At such time as any phase of the project is
proposed for development, the project proponent will be required to submit soils analysis
to the City Engineer for review and approval. The recommendations contained in this
study will reduce the potential impact from erosion of soils to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project does not occur in an area susceptible to subsidence or expansive
soils. In addition, the provisions of item III.f), above, will ensure that potential impacts
are reduced to a less than significant level.
Construction of the proposed project will reduce the amount of land available for
absorption of water into the ground, and has the potential to increase surface runoff, as
well as degrade the quality of such runoff. Leakage from automobiles onto parking lots
can cause surface water pollution. It is not expected that the quantity of leakage at the
project site will represent a significant impact.
The Specific Plan is part of the Lake La Quinta Master Drainage Plan, previously
approved for this area. A storm drainage inlet occurs at the intersection of Caleo Bay and
Via Florence. The project site will enter the storm drain system at this location, and flows
will be carried to Lake La Quinta. In addition, two dry wells are proposed for the
southwest portion of the site, to infiltrate in the retention swales located along
Washington Street. The City Engineer shall review all drainage improvements to insure
that their capacity is sufficient to accommodate on -site flows during a 24 hour, 100 year
storm. In addition, the City maintains standards for the installation of additional devices
to reduce the potential impacts of oil or other chemicals which may occur at the site. The
project proponent shall secure approval from the City engineer for all drainage facilities
prior to the issuance of a grading permit. This will reduce the potential hazard associated
with increased runoff to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project will construct medical office space, which has a low consumption
rate of domestic water. In addition, the impacts of the project were previously analyzed
under the 1992 General Plan EIR. Impacts to water resources were determined at that
time to be mitigated for the proposed project. The City also implements water conserving
and, as discussed above, water protection measures. Such measures shall reduce the
potential impacts to groundwater quality and quantity to a less than significant level.
EA 99-388/EnNironmental Checklist Form.wpd
12
V.a)&b)
VI. a) &b)
The implementation of commercial land uses on the project site was analyzed under the
1992 General Plan EIR. City-wide, impacts to air quality are expected to continue as
buildout occurs. Improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts,
particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future have the
potential to reduce impacts. The City determined at the time of certification of the
General Plan EIR that air quality impacts required a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, which determined, as regarded air quality, that the impacts to air quality
of development of the Plan would be cumulative only when considered in conjunction
with regional development, and that the City would implement all feasible measures to
reduce emissions within its boundaries. The implementation of the proposed project,
therefore, is not expected to have a significant impact on air quality resources.
A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed Specific Plan'. The analysis
included existing conditions analysis, trip generation forecasts, and future traffic
volumes. The proposed project will not take access from Washington Street, but from
Caleo Bay and Avenue 48. The total estimated traffic generation is estimated to be 2,770
daily trips, of which 186 are expected during the morning peak hour, and 280 during the
evening peak hour. The improvements required with or without project implementation
include the signalization of Caleo Bay and Avenue 48 under year 2020 conditions. The
type of development proposed in the Specific Plan was also considered during review of
the City's General Plan in 1992, and traffic generated by the site was incorporated into
that analysis. The traffic impact analysis includes the following mitigation measures,
which shall be implemented as part of the development of the project site:
1.
2.
3.
9
The proposed internal circulation layout shall be subject to the review and approval of
the City Engineer to insure compliance with City minimum access and design
standards.
Off-street parking shall be provided in conformance with the requirements of the La
Quinta Municipal Code.
Sidewalks and streetlights shall be installed on -site as specified by the City.
A STOP sign will control exiting site traffic and clear unobstructed sight distances
shall be provided at both site driveways.
"La Quinta Family Medical Center Specific Plan Traffic Impact Study," Endo Engineering, June 23, 1999.
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
13
5.
With the construction of Phase I, the project proponent shall provide (at a minimum),
the lane geometrics shown in figure VI-2 of the Traffic Impact Study.
0
7.
The project proponent shall contribute his fair share to the installation of a traffic
signal, when warranted, at the intersection of Avenue 48 and Caleo Bay.
The project proponent shall participate in the City's traffic mitigation fee program.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, and the planned improvements
associated with the implementation of the City's General Plan, all project related
roadways will operate within acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) at project
buildout. The project is therefore not expected to have a significant impact on the
circulation system.
VII. a►
& b)
The site occurs within an area designated as potential habitat for the Black -tailed
Gnatcatcher. A site -specific biological survey for Black -tailed Gnatcatcher was
performed for the proposed site'. The survey found that the site is not appropriate for
gnatcatcher habitat. The site is also within the Habitat Conservation Plan fee area for the
Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard. The mandated $600 fee per acre (now $100 fee per
acre) was paid prior to original grading of the site. This mitigation measure reduced
impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance.
1M1
The Washington Street corridor is an impacted noise commercial street. The proposed
project is not considered a sensitive receptor, and must meet a exterior noise level of 75
dBA CNEL. A noise analysis was performed for the proposed project'. The study found
that noise levels of 72.2 CNEL currently occur at 50 feet from the centerline of Avenue
48 east of Washington Street. Project impacts to noise levels, with proposed mitigation
measures, will not, however, represent a significant increase in noise levels. The primary
noise impacts will occur due to vehicular traffic. In addition, short-term construction
impacts may occur. The study also reviewed the potential impacts to the sensitive
receptors located east of the project (residential land uses), and found that the impacts to
those receptors will not be significant.
"Black -tailed Gnatcatcher Habitat Assessment" Dudek *& Associates, September 27,
1999.
3 "La Quinta Family Medical Center Specific Plan Noise Impact Study." Endo
Engineering, June 25, 1999.
EA 99-388/Bnviromnental Checklist Form.wpd
14
The following mitigation measures included in the noise impact study will be
implemented as part of this project:
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.
During construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
2.
3.
9
Construction activities shall be limited to the hours of 6 a.m. To 7 p.m. (Monday
through Friday) and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. On Saturdays. Construction shall not be allowed
on Sundays and holidays.
All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly
operating and maintained mufflers.
Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from
sensitive noise receptors.
Every effort shall be made to keep the greatest distance possible between sensitive
noise receptors and construction activities.
During operation of the proposed project, the following mitigation measure shall be
implemented:
Refuse receptacle locations and enclosures and air conditioning units shall be
carefully located to minimize potential impacts to sensitive receptors.
All public services were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992
General Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No
significant impact to public services is expected from the proposed project.
All utilities were analyzed for potential impacts during the review of the 1992 General
Plan. Impacts of the proposed project were included in this review. No significant impact
to utilities is expected from the proposed project.
The proposed project occurs along the Washington Street corridor, designated a Primary
Image Corridor in the General Plan. The City has established standards for structural
setbacks within such corridors, which will be met by the proposed project. No significant
impacts are expected to result from the project to the aesthetic environment.
The proposed project site has previously been graded and capped, and is severely
impacted. No significant cultural or historic resources are expected to occur on the site. In
addition, the site occurs outside the traditional boundary of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, as
delineated on the maps available at the Community Development Department. Impacts to
cultural resources are expected to be less than significant.
EA 99-388/Environmental Checklist Form.wpd
15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT
PRINCIPALS AND GUIDELINES FOR A 47,890t
SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL COMPLEX
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the
121h day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request
of EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
for approval of development principals and guidelines for a 47,890t square foot medical
complex for a Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner of Washington Street and
481h Avenue, more particularly described as:
APN 617-200-001 AND 002
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development
Department has conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 99-388), and
determined that the proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is
recommended for certification; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of the Specific Plan:
1. The Specific Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property is designated for mixed regional
commercial uses, including medical and professional offices, and is under the
floor area ratio maximum of .35.
2. The Specific Plan, subject to conditions will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that development
allowed under the Specific Plan is compatible with existing uses and
development standards contained in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality
P:\STAN\sp 99-038 pc res.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 99-
specific; Plan 99-038
development. Adequate parking, even with a 3 + % reduction, will be provided
as well as additional landscaping around the Phase One construction.
3. The Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility with zoning on adjacent
properties in that the project principles and guidelines ensure that the proposed
adjacent residential uses will not be negatively impacted and may service those
uses.
4. The Specific Plan project is suitable and appropriate for the project in that it
easily assessable to surrounding neighborhoods, is adjacent to two arterial
streets, and is designed in a compatible manner.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact be certified for this project.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described specific plan request for the reasons set forth in this Resolution,
subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held on this 121h day of October, 1999, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PASTAMsp 99-038 pc res.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
GENERAL
1. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative
map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting
its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a
grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project
site.
3. Up to four additional parking spaces may be removed, if needed for access to
the delivery/loading space.
4. Prior to issuance of first grading permit or building permit, whichever comes
first, the specific plan shall be revised to incorporate all conditions of approval.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
Conditions shall be placed in applicable section of the text and not just listed.
Five copies of the approved revised plan shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department.
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.
5. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets (and Parking Areas) & Drainage," and "Landscaping."
Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development
Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are
signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
6. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
7. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans for public improvements on
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard
AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad
program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of
improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed
conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QU1NTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
8. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels and the status
of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to
construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that
are obligations of this development, to secure the cost of the improvements for
future construction by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City prior to their construction by the Applicant, the Applicant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements prior to issuance of a
grading or construction permit.
9. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. For
secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform
with Chapter 13, LQMC.
10. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project or call upon the security provided for those improvements.
GRADING
11. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a
grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform
with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by
a soils engineer or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear
on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has
been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
12. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights -of -way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
13. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting
properties. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more
than three feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns,
maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade
differential.
14. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
15. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
17. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
plan for Tentative Tract 24230 (Lake La Quinta).
18. Nuisance water shall be disposed of on -site in facilities designed to contain
surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq.
ft.
UTILITIES
19. 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.
20. 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.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
21. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
a. Traffic Signals - Participate in the cost of traffic signals at the Caleo Bay
intersections with Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 proportionate to this
property's share of the Regional Commercial -zoned property abutting
Caleo Bay.
22. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
a. Caleo Bay - One 26-foot drive located approximately 325 feet north of
the north curbline of Avenue 48 - full turn access allowed.
b. Avenue 48 - One 28-foot right -turn -only drive centered approximately
318 feet east of the east curbline of Washington Street.
23. The applicant shall design pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
(20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic
loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as
follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
24. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the
time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete.
The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design
procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include
recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation
test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current
production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix
designs are approved.
p:\stair\sp 99-038 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
LANDSCAPING
25. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
and common areas.
26. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
The applicant shall submit plans for approval by the Community Development
Department prior to plan checking by the Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
City Engineer.
27. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
28. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and/or the City.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
29. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
30. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record
drawings.
31. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with
plans, specifications and applicable regulations.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA O.UINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
32. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed
by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built"
or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or
surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise
the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -
constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
33. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly
released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
34. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
35. Prior to issuance of building permit, the required school mitigation fee shall be
paid.
36. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure
fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
ENVIRONMENTAL
37. All mitigation measures of EA 99-388, on file in the Community Development
Department, shall be complied with as required.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
38. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 gpm
for a 4 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
39. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165'
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOIBER 12, 1999
from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in
the system.
40. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets,
public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to
installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County
Fire Department.
41. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, applicant/developer shall
furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and
the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a
registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following
certification: "1 certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department".
42. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
operational prior to the start of construction.
43. All buildings shall be accessible by an approved all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story. Scaled
drawings shall be submitted fro review and approval by the Fire Department.
44. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve
and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building.
45. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors
should contact the Planning and Engineering Office for submittal requirements.
46. Ins -tall hood/duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be
submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department, for
review.
47. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox Company. Special forms are available from
this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and
signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 99-038
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
48. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A1013C in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement
of equipment.
49. Final conditions will be addressed when the building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
50. Install a supervised water flow fire system as required by the UBC/Riverside
County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Standard 72.
LIGHTING:
51. Within 100 feet of the Caleo Bay Drive curb (west side of the street), all light
standards shall not exceed 18 feet in total height. All lights fixtures shall be
recessed into or be flush with the fixture and be shielded as required by the
Community Development Department.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO
STORY HIGH MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING (PHASE 1)
CONSISTING OF 47,890 ± SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 121h day of October, 1999, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL
DEVELOPMENT, INC. for approval of construction plans for a two story high medical
office: building (Phase One) consisting of 47,890± square feet of floor area in the CR
zone, on the northeast corner of Washington Street and 481h Avenue, more particularly
described as:
APN 643-200-001
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the Community Development
Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 99-388 for proposed Site
Development Permit 99-658 in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development
Director has recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact be certified; and,
WHEREAS, the Architecture and Landscaping Review Committee, on
October 7, 1999, at a regular meeting, recommended approval of the architectural and
landscaping plans, subject to conditions; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify approval of
said Site Development Permit:
pAstarA sdp 99-658 pc res.wpd
Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-658
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code in that the use
is permitted in the CR District and has been designed to comply with the
applicable specific plan, CR District and development standards.
2. Environmental Assessment 99-388 for proposed Site Development Permit 99-
658 has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development
Director has recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact be certified.
3. With the recommended conditions of approval, the architectural design of the
project, including but not limited to the architectural style, scale, building mass,
materials, colors, architectural details, roof style, and other architectural
elements are compatible with the surrounding development and with the quality
of design prevalent in the city in that the proposed construction is Spanish in
nature which is compatible with the surrounding residential design, materials
and colors, subject to conditions of approval.
4. The site design of the project, including but not limited to project entries,
interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site
design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the
quality of design prevalent in the city in that design elements have been
conditioned and coordinated to ensure compatibility between surrounding
residences, proposed buildings and pedestrian elements. This includes
placement of the long side of the building on a east -west axis to reduce visual
impact on residential uses to the east.
5. With the recommended conditions of approval, project landscaping, including
but not limited to the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant
materials, will provide relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize
prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a
harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development
and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence, to enhance the visual
continuity of the project in that proposed landscaping has been designed to
complement surrounding planting while enhancing the project area and ensuring
low maintenance and water use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
p:\star\ sdp 99-658 pc res.wpd
Resolution 99-
Site Development Permit 99-658
1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 99-658 for the reasons
set forth in this Resolution, subject to the Conditions, attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta City Planning Commission, held on the 12" day of October, 1999, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
TOM KIRK, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
U'vei&IS
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
p:\stan\ sdp 99-658 pc res.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
GENERAL_
1. The use of this site shall be in conformance with the approved exhibits
contained in Site Development Permit 99-658, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. The approved Site Development Permit shall be used within one year of the date
of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. A time extension may be granted pursuant to Zoning Code
requirements.
3. The subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this tentative
map or any final map thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting
its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES
construction permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the CWQCB
pAstan\sDp 99-658 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA O,UINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent prior to issuance of a
grading or site construction permit. The applicant shall ensure that the required
Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan is available for inspection at the project
site.
5. The Phase two building shall be approved by the Planning Commission as an
amendment to this Site Development Permit prior to issuance of a building
permit for the Phase Two building.
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.
6. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets land Parking Areas) & Drainage," and "Landscaping."
Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community Development
Director and the Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until they are
signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the
City Engineer.
7. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
8. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans for public improvements on
storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard
AutoCad menu items so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad
program. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance of
improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed
conditions.
p:\stan\sDp 99-658 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
9. Depending on the timing of development of the lots or parcels and the status
of off -site improvements at that time, the subdivider may be required to
construct improvements, to reimburse others who construct improvements that
are obligations of this development, to secure the cost of the improvements for
future construction by others, or a combination of these methods.
In the event that any of the improvements required herein are constructed by
the City prior to their construction by the Applicant, the Applicant shall
reimburse the City for the cost of those improvements prior to issuance of a
grading or construction permit.
10. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations or furnish
an executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy
obligations required by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. For
secured agreements, security provided, and the release thereof, shall conform
with Chapter 13, LQMC.
11. If the applicant fails to construct improvements or satisfy obligations in a timely
manner or as specified in an approved phasing plan or in an improvement
agreement, the City shall have the right to halt issuance of building permits or
final building inspections, withhold other approvals related to the development
of the project or call upon the security provided for those improvements.
GRADING.
12. The applicant shall furnish a preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report and a
grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer. The grading plan shall conform
with the recommendations of the soils report and be certified as adequate by
a soils engineer or engineering geologist. The plan must be approved by the
City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A statement shall appear
on final maps (if any are required of this development) that a soils report has
been prepared pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
13. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights -of -way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
p:\stan\sDp 99-658 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
14. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at abutting
properties. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more
than three feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical, the City will
consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns,
maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade
differential.
15. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
16. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and
water erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or
provided with other erosion control measures approved by the Community
Development and Public Works Departments.
17. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
18. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
plan for Tentative Tract 24230 (Lake La Quinta).
19. Nuisance water shall be disposed of on -site in facilities designed to contain
surges of 3 gph/1,000 sq. ft. (of landscape area) and infiltrate 5 gpd/1,000 sq.
ft.
UTILITIES
20. 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:\stan\sDp 99-658 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOIBER 12, 1999
21. 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
22. The applicant shall install the following street improvements to conform with
the General Plan street type noted in parentheses. (Public street improvements
shall conform with the City's General Plan in effect at the time of construction.)
a. Traffic Signals - Participate in the cost of traffic signals at the Caleo Bay
intersections with Avenue 47 and Avenue 48 proportionate to this
property's share of the Regional Commercial -zoned property abutting
Caleo Bay.
23. General access points and turning movements of traffic are limited to the
following:
a. Caleo Bay - One 26-foot drive located approximately 325 feet north of
the north curbline of Avenue 48 - full turn access allowed.
b. Avenue 48 - One 28-foot right -turn -only drive centered approximately
318 feet east of the east curbline of Washington Street.
24. The applicant shall design pavement sections using Caltrans' design procedure
(20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic
loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as
follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
25. 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
p:\stan\sDp 99-658 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER '12, 1999
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
26. The applicant shall provide landscaping in required setbacks, retention basins,
and common areas.
27. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians,
retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape
architect.
Preliminary landscaping and final landscaping, hardscape, and irrigation plans,
substantially conforming to this approval shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department for approval prior to submission of plans to the
Building and Safety Department and Public Works Department. When plan
checking is complete, the applicant shall obtain the signatures of CVWD and the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner prior to submitting for signature by
the City Engineer. Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the
City Engineer. The use of Date Palm Trees around pedestrians areas shall be
studied due to crown drop potential, and the use of Ash Trees in the parking lot
shall be studied due to invasive root growth.
28. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
PUBLIC SERVICES
29. The applicant shall provide public transit improvements as required by Sunline
Transit and/or the City.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
30. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
31. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record
drawings.
p:\stan\sDp 99-658 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDIITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
32. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with
plans, specifications and applicable regulations.
33. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City
reproducible record drawings of all public improvement plans which were signed
by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built"
or "As -Constructed" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or
surveyor certifying to the accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise
the CAD or raster -image files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -
constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
34. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of
all on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks.
The applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly
released from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
35. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
36. Prior to issuance of building permit, the required school mitigation fee shall be
paid.
37. The applicant shall comply with the terms and requirements of the infrastructure
fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits
ENVIRONMENTAL
38. All mitigation measures of EA 99-388, on file in the Community Development
Department, shall be complied with as required.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
39. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 gpm
for a 4 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
40. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system
(6" x 4" x 2-1 /2" x 2-1 /2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165'
from any portion of the buildings as measured along approved vehicular travel
ways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrants in
the system.
41. Blue retro-reflective pavement markers shall be mounted on private streets,
public streets and driveways to indicate location of fire hydrants. Prior to
installation, placement of markers must be approved by the Riverside County
Fire Department.
42. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, if any, applicant/developer shall
furnish one blue line copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for
review. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and
the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans must be signed by a
registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the following
certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department".
43. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and
operational prior to the start of construction.
44. All buildings shall be accessible by an approved all-weather roadway extending
to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story. Scaled
drawings shall be submitted fro review and approval by the Fire Department.
45. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve
and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50' of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the building.
46. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must
be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors
should contact the Planning and Engineering Office for submittal requirements.
47. Install hood/duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be
submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department, for
review.
48. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox Company. Special forms are available from
this office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and
signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
pAstar\sp 99-038 pc coampd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 99-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 99-658
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER AND LA QUINTA MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT, INC.
OCTOBER 12, 1999
49. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement
of equipment.
50. Final conditions will be addressed when the building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
51. Install a supervised water flow fire system as required by the UBC/Riverside
County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Standard 72.
LIGHTING
52. Within 100 feet of the Caleo Bay Drive curb (west side of the street), all light
poles shall not exceed 18 feet in total height. Other light poles shall not exceed
24 feet in total height. All lights fixtures shall be recessed into or be flush
with the fixture and be shielded as required. A photometrics parking lot lighting
plan shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of building permit for Phase One construction.
ARCHITECTURAL
53. Final architectural working drawings for all structures, substantially conforming
to this approval, including all revisions required by the permit shall be submitted
to the Community Development Department for approval prior to submission of
plans to the Building and Safety Department.
54. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following revisions shall be made to
the building elevations, subject to the approval of the Community Development
Director:
A. The hoof overhang shall be extended down over the hipped roof elements
on the flanking towers on the north and south sides of the building with
the tile eyebrow awning element removed.
B. Variation in window sizes, shapes, and placement shall be provided.
Wood lintels shall be incorporated above some windows.
C. The south facing parapet wall at the east and west ends shall be provided
with character defining features to provide articulation and architectural
interest.
p:\stan\sp 99-038 pc coa.wpd
•
RI ML
ATTACHMENT C
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
7, 1999
1. C'A�L TO ORDER
10:00 a.m.
A. \his meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called to order
0:06 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di Iorio who led the flag salute.
B. Com ,ttee Members present: Bill Bobbitt, Dennis Cunningham, and Frank
Reynol.
C. Staff presen Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Pl;�er Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: N' e.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE rENDA:
A. Associate Planner Leslie' ouriquand informed the Commission that Mr. Kent
Armstrong, Century -Crowe ommunities, had called to state he was going to be
late and requested that if his i came up before he arrived could the Agenda be
rearranged to take his item last. e Committee agreed.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio askt if there were any changes to the Minutes
of September 15, 1999. There being no c \Ze
ons, it was moved and seconded by
B
Committee Members Cunninghamobapprove the minutes as submitted.
Unanimously approved with Committee er Reynolds abstaining.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 98-658; a request of Eisenhower Medical Center and La
Quinta Medical Group for approval of architectural and landscaping plans for a two
story medical office building (Phase 1).
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\ALRCIO-7-99.wpd I
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
September 15, 1999
2. Committee Member Cunningham stated the building is too plain. He concurs
with staff that the front elevation needs more articulation to bring some
interest. This size of the building makes a statement and it should have more
detail. He asked if the overhang would have exposed rafters. Staff stated it
would. Committee Member Cunningham stated the four by four rafters need
some beefing up.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he agreed and asked if the roof line would
be broken up and would the recommendation be sufficient. The ends of the
building need some help as well. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated
that if the Committee Members recommend a change, it would be up to the
architect to submit changes. Committee Member Bobbitt asked about the
height limitations. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated the Specific Plan has
a height limit of 36 feet and the Code allows 50 feet. Adjacent to residential
uses, lower heights are generally preferred.
4. Committee Member Reynolds stated his concern was the maneuverability of
the trash and delivery trucks. The access needs to be moved to the south or
east side. Staff stated that due to the residential uses being on the east and
south sides, it was suggested the trucks enter from the west due to the noise.
5. Committee Member Bobbitt stated his concern with the Date Palm trees and
the high concentration around the courtyard area. He would prefer to see a
different type of palm that is not as dangerous due to crown drop. In regard
to the other plants, the Ash tree in the parking lot will be messy and has an
invasive root system that will tear up the parking surface. He would
recommend that it be changed. Other than that, he has no problems with the
plant pallet.
6. Mr. Jim Cioffi, architect for the project, stated the windows would be
recessed and staff recommendations will be taken into consideration. The
design was to let the masses and forms play off themselves. In regard to the
roof, it is his impression that it does have a lot of variation and he passed out
a rendering showing the details of the roof. They could articulate the tower,
but the suggestion regarding changing the hip will not gain anything. It is a
two piece tile roof. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio asked Mr. Cioffi to
explain his comment in regard to the hip roof. Mr. Cioffi stated he
understood staff wanted the hip raised, but as shown in the rendering, the roof
did have variations. Staff explained the desire was to raise the roof line with
a parapet design. With regards to the hip roof staff is recommending
extending the roof overhang to eliminate the tile roof awning. Mr. Cioffi
stated they had lowered the roof line and would be using six-inch by six-inch
rafters for extra emphasis. They would however, introduce some articulation
to the ends of the buildings and they will be using a steel sash, recessed
windows. Their concern is that they do not want to put residential detail on
a commercial building.
C:\Mv Documents\WPD0CS\ALRCI0-7-99.wvd 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee
September 15, 1999
7. Committee Member Cunningham stated the roof design as shown by the
rendering looks nice.
8. Mr. Cioffi stated they would review the trash element and if staff would give
them some leverage with the parking they will see what can be done to
remove parking that may be in the way. However, the adjoining residents
were adamant about not having to hear the trucks coming and going.
9. Committee Member Cunningham asked if they concurred with staff's
recommendation. Mr. Cioffi stated yes, but he was questioning the window
treatment. Staff stated that what was wanted was a variety of size and shapes
to bring interest to the building.
10. Committee Member Bobbitt asked what the response was from the Lake La
Quinta residents. Staff stated one property owner had been in to see the
project and they were not overly concerned with the project. Mr. Cioffi
stated they had met with the Homeowners' Association (HOA) who were
pleased with the design, and will meet with the HOA for Rancho La Quinta.
11. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he supported the look as displayed in the
rendering and believed the structure should go along with the look of the
church and the shopping center.
12. Mr. Coiffi stated they would look at the use of lintels, as well as the roof line,
window locations and shapes.
13. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated the only change to the conditions
is removing the recommendation for a parapet roof. The plant palette is fine
except for the use of Date Palm and Ash trees. Discussion followed
regarding the different trees.
14. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Committee
Members Cunningham/Bobbitt to adopt Minute Motion 99-018
recommending approval of Site Development Permit 98-658, subject to
conditions as recommended. Unanimously approved.
B �t,caa tiSS• , request of First School of the Desert for approval
o itectural and landscaping plans for a preschool facility located at the northeast
corner o dams Street and Miles Avenue.
1. Associate*kpner Leslie Mouriquand presented the information contained in
the staff repo"�copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department.
2. Mr. Mark Hastings, repr ting the School, stated the architectural elements
would be the same as thos ontained in the pictures submitted of their
CAM), I)ocurr.ents\WPDOCS\AI,RC10-7-99.wpd 3