1996 08 13 PC/ oA uu�w
OF TNT
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
August 13, 1996
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 96-027
Beginning Minute Motion 96-026
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
II. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
III. 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.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of July 23, 1996
B. Department Report
PC/AGENDA
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item .................... CONTINUED - SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027 and CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT 96-028
Applicant ............. Home Depot
Location .............. Northwest corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street
Request ............... Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact, approval of a Specific Plan, and Conditional Use Permit to
allow construction of a 218,300 square foot retail center on
approximately 20 acres, and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to
allow outdoor storage in conjunction with the Home Depot Store
Action ................ Resolution 96- , Resolution 96- , Resolution 96-
2. Item ................... PUBLIC USE PERMIT 96-018
Applicant ............. St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church
Location .............. 47-225 Washington Street
Request ............... Approval to allow construction of a building addition totaling 6,114
square feet of new offices, Parish Hall, and small chapel to an existing
church, and for a greater building height from 28-feet maximum
allowed in the R-1 District to 36-feet
Action ................ Resolution 96-
3. Item .................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-027
Applicant ............ Boston West, L.L.C.
Location ............. Intersection of Simon Drive with Highway 111 (northeast corner)
within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center
Request .............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact; and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3,250
square foot restaurant with a drive -through lane
Action ............... Resolution 96- and Minute Motion 96-
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS
1. Item .................. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-017 (AMENDMENT #1)
Applicant ............ La Quinta Car Wash
Location ............. 78-992 Highway 111
Request .............. Approval of an outdoor shade structure on the north side of the
existing car wash within the One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center
Action ............... Minute Motion 96-
2. Item ................. STREET VACATION 96-032
Applicant .......... Robert & Kelly Jones
Location ........... The easterly ten feet of the westerly twenty feet of Tract 21176
Request ............ Determination of the La Quinta General Plan consistency with the
proposed vacation of a portion of an offer of publc utility and drainage
easement dedication at Tract 21176 - La Quinta Polo Estates
Action .............. Minute Motion 96-
3. Item ................ PLOT PLAN 93-500 (AMENDMENT #1)
Applicant ......... Landall Development
Location .......... North side of Dulce Delmar on Via Orvieto, Via Lorca, Via Antibes
and Via Avanti
Request ........... Compatibility review of three new prototypes within the Lake La
Quinta development
Action ............ Minute Motion 96-
PC/AGENDA
YII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
YIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
1. Commissioner report of the City Council meeting of August 6, 1996
IX. ADJOLRNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Session Room
August 13, 1996
3:30 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
July 23, 1996
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by
Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Woodard to lead the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Abels requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Anderson, Butler,
Gardner, Newkirk, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Abels.
B. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn
Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PRESENTATION:
A. Chairman Abels presented Katie Barrows with a Resolution commending her for six
years of service as a Planning Commissioner. Following the presentation, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Butler to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 96-027. Unanimously approved.
B. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for Chairman. Commissioners
Anderson/Tyler nominated Jacques Abels. There being no further nominations, the
nominations were closed. Commissioner Gardner stated that when the elections were
held last, the discussion was to rotate the Chairmanship to each of the
Commissioners for the experience and he felt this should be followed. There being
no further discussion, Commissioner Abels was elected Chairman with
Commissioner Gardner voting no.
C. Chairman Abels opened the nominations for Vice Chair. Commissioners
Newkirk/Butler nominated Wayne Gardner. Commissioner Gardner declined the
nomination for the reasons stated above. It was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Newkirk to nominate Richard Butler. There being no
further nominations, the nominations were closed. Commissioner Butler was elected
Vice Chairman unanimously.
PC7-23 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Specific Plan 96-027, Conditional Use Permit 96-028 and Environmental Assessment
96-325; a request of Home Depot for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact, approval of a Specific Plan to allow
construction of a 218,300 square foot retail center on approximately 20 acres, and
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage in conjunction with
the Home Depot Store.
2. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. Staff noted the changes in the Conditions of Approval and that
a letter had been received in objection to the project by Malcolm and Annette
Lee. Staff further noted that Condition #57 presently requires the landscaping
to be approved by staff. Staff is recommending this be changed to have the
landscaping come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
2. Commissioner Gardner questioned how many parking spaces would be
required. Staff clarified there were 994 parking spaces for the entire project.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Spanish tile could be used instead of the
flat tile. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated staff considered the "S"
tile roof, but as the building was a contemporary tilt up structure, staff
recommended the roof tile be flat which is a Terra Cotta "S" tile.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked if the sign sizes included the lumber and
nursery signs. Staff stated the 522 square feet included the main Home Depot
sign only. Commissioner Gardner asked if the monument signs were
comparable to what was approved for the Wal-Mart and Von's Shopping
Centers. Staff stated they were comparable to the One Eleven La Quinta
Shopping Center.
5. Commissioner Gardner asked about the additional landscaping. Staff stated
the applicant would be required to meet the 50% parking lot shading
requirement.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked if a perspective rendering was required. Staff
stated it was not always specifically required of a project and this project had
not been asked to submit one.
PC7-23 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
7. Commissioner Tyler asked about the sample board of roof tiles. He felt a red
flat tile would fit in better with the City's Spanish design theme. Staff
pointed out that the tile did come in different colors.
Commissioner Anderson stated his questions were pertaining to traffic and
circulation flow. In particular, the number of entries leading into the project
located so close to the Jefferson Street and Highway 111 intersection and
their proximity to each other; what was staff s reasoning for this? Senior
Engineer Steve Speer clarified that on Highway I I I the City is required to
meet the minimum distance between access drives as allowed by the General
Plan, which is 250 feet from an intersection. This being a large site, the
spacing of the driveways was designed in accordance with those
specifications. The Jefferson Street entries are close, but within the required
distance. Staff clarified that the median on Jefferson Street is a shared
median with the City of Indio. Since its installation, the median has created
some criticism by the adjacent residents. The project is conditioned to have
a long throat extending the median for the middle entrance coming into Home
Depot off Jefferson Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain
the egress and ingress circulation of the entrances off Jefferson Street. He
further noted there would be three northbound lanes of traffic on Jefferson
Street and the northerly access, Vista Grande, would be signalized when
warranted.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked if retaining the median break was to allow the
southbound traffic to turn into existing businesses on Jefferson Street. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain the purpose for maintaining the
median break.
10. Commissioner Butler asked about the signal at Vista Grande. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer explained that when Phase I was constructed, it would
probably not meet the traffic warrants to require a signal at Vista Grande.
The current traffic load will increase as the Center develops thus increasing
the potential that warrants will be met. Commissioner Butler asked if this
was a shared expense with the City of Indio. Staff stated it was not, it would
be the complete responsibility of Home Depot. Commissioners discussed the
traffic circulation with staff.
11. Commissioner Anderson asked about deliveries and truck traffic in regards
to the loading docks. Was the truck traffic designed to be circulated to the
north side of the building with most of the traffic being directed south on
Jefferson Street? Was staff concerned about the truck traffic on Jefferson
Street? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Jefferson Street is a Regional
PC7-23 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
Arterial street by both La Quinta, Indio, and the Coachella Valley Association
of Governments, therefore it can handle the load. He went on to explain the
traffic pattern for the truck deliveries.
12. Commissioner Woodard asked what the function was for the parking lot on
the east side in the rear of the building in Phase II. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa stated it would primarily be employee parking.
13. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Mark Shenouda, representing the applicant Home Depot,
addressed his concerns to the Commission regarding the following
Conditions of Approval:
a. "Revised" Conditions #2 - He requested increasing the parking lot
light standards to 35-feet and allow the Garden Center lights as
proposed.
b. "Revised" Condition #20 - He requested shifting all of the
handicapped spaces one aisle to the east and closer to the entrance.
This should alleviate staff s concern regarding maneuvering in these
spaces if in the main drive aisle.
C. "Revised" Condition #22 - He requested one side split face block on
the Channel side only, instead of both sides. The south side of the
wall would be landscaped with box size trees and face the interior.
d. "Original" Condition #23 - He explained that the cart corrals would
be limited to two locations. They will have an employee on site who
will be continually picking up the carts and returning them to the
store.
e. "Original" Condition #26 - He stated there is no need for a six foot
wall around the trash compactor area as the compactor is about eight
feet high and recessed in the loading dock four feet below grade. A
three foot high tilt up wall screens one side. They request this
condition be deleted.
"Revised" Condition #42 - He requested the option of constructing
the Channel lining in phases.
PC7-23 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
g. "Revised" Condition #61 - He requested the landscaping condition be
deleted as they would move the handicapped spaces and didn't have
the space to accommodate the planters.
h. "Original"Condition #63 - He stated that the trees required in front of
the store are an operational nightmare and it is the store's policy to
not allow anything in the front of the store. They would recommend
having a couple of tree wells installed between the lumber yard and
the main canopy adjacent to the tilt up wall.
i. "Original"Condition #88.C. - He requested the deletion of this
condition for pop outs as the vertical elements that are being required
would bring more attention to the downspout.
"Original" Condition 88.A., B., C. - He requested deletion of these
sign revision requirements.
k. Condition #90 - He requested deletion of this condition as it would
cause them to lose too much parking.
14. Mr. Drew Purvis, Assistant Planner for the City of Indio, stated he had
submitted a letter to the City regarding the City of Indio's concerns with
respect to the Home Depot project. Indio was pleased to hear that staff had
addressed some of their concerns in the staff report. In addition, they were
pleased to see this type of business moving to the east end of the Valley and
employing so many residents. However, the City of Indio is concerned that
the impacts are regional in character and generally environmental in nature.
He would like to recommend that the Planning Commission continue this
itern to allow staff time to address their concerns and mitigate the negative
impact of this proposal.
15. Mr. Richard J. Smith, Smith Peroni, Planning Consultants in Palm Springs,
stated he was present to address the concerns of his client, the property owner
immediately to the west of the project site. He then stated they were in
support of the project and their only concern was the traffic. He stated the
general engineering rule is to install traffic signals every quarter mile. He
then passed around an exhibit showing the proposed signal locations if this
were followed on Highway 111. Due to this "rule", he was surprised that the
City was not requiring all the signals to be installed. As shown on the Home
Depot plans, the traffic signal on Highway 111 was to be installed entirely
on the Home Depot property. This would prohibit his client from using the
PC7-23
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
driveway and not allowing their property a left turn access onto Highway 111.
They would like to recommend having a common driveway. If Home Depot
was agreeable, his client would be willing to grant an easement to allow a
reciprocal driveway that would accommodate both sites. Regardless, the need
to have the signal installed remains. Currently his client's frontage on
Highway I I I is 500 feet and with there being another piece of property
between his client's property and Dune Palms Road, there would be no means
of having a left turn onto Highway 111. A shared signal at this location
would allow both property owners a left turn access.
16. Ms. Dorothy Taul, 80-140 Vista Grande, stated her concern was that the
signal for Vista Grande was being postponed. She went on to clarify that
with the installation of a larger facility for the veterinarian proposed by the
City of Indio for the east side of Jefferson Street, the existing commercial
facilities on the east side of Jefferson Street, and now this development, there
would be major changes to the traffic conditions for the residents on Vista
Grande. If the Highway 111 signal is green, traffic travels north on Jefferson
Street at speeds of 45-50 miles per hour making a left turn on to, or off of,
Jefferson Street very difficult.
17. Mr. John Seevers, 80125 Vista Grande stated he too was concerned about
traffic. In the traffic analysis report, the traffic signal is shown to be
warranted at Vista Grande at the time of the project's opening. With the
discussion thus far at this meeting, he would like clarification as to whether
or not the signal was warranted and if it would be installed. In addition, the
16 residents on Vista Grande are concerned about the view from Vista
Grande when traveling west, into the loading dock area behind Home Depot.
They would like to have the view shielded. He suggested moving the traffic
island to hide the view. They also had a concern about the sign on the east
side of the building, as it appears the letters on the sign will be five feet high.
They would request the Commission reduce the size of the sign. They would
like to request that the light standards be 25-feet instead of 35-feet as this
would be too excessive. The nursery lights should also be kept as low as
possible. Lastly, the City should not compromise on any landscaping
requirements.
18. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
hearing.
19. Chairman Abels asked staff to address the traffic light concerns that had been
raised. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the traffic study indicates that the
Jefferson Street traffic light is needed based on the build out of Phase I and
II. However, Phase II will not be opening at the same time as Phase I,
therefore, only half the traffic will be present at the time of the store opening
and the signal would not be warranted to mitigate the impact at that time.
PC7-23 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
20. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated that the concerns from the residents are not caused by the construction
of this project. Only those issues that are created by the construction of this
project can be required to be mitigated. Discussion followed regarding the
traffic concerns. Staff stated that warrant study policies are put together by
Cal cans and have been utilized by the City.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated that the traffic study did not address the Heritage
Palms project further north on Jefferson Street in the City of Indio, or the
other projects planned for this area. He was concerned that the traffic study
should be restudied to include potential projects as it is inviting a potential
disaster.
22. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the study was based on both
Phases being built out, but the majority of the traffic on Jefferson Street will
come from Home Depot and not the other retail businesses proposed to be
constructed along with Home Depot. He too was concerned about the traffic
congestion at the Vista Grande intersection.
23. Commissioner Woodard asked why the Valley population that would increase
during the "season" was not considered in the traffic study. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated the traffic study was done in May, and seasonal traffic
only increases the amount of traffic by 25%.
24. Chairman Abels also questioned the traffic increase during the seasonal
months. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the figures contained in the
traffic report and referred to the study results. He stated that if the traffic
increased by 25%, it would still fall below the number needed for a warrant.
He went on to explain the warrant process to determine the need for a signal.
He further stated that signals are not the only solution for traffic problems.
They can also be the cause of a traffic problem.
2.5. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the impact of the
USA Homes project in Indio, along with the other projects proposed for the
north section of Jefferson Street, would increase the warrants to require a
signal; if so, what period of time is anticipated for the traffic signal
installation? Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this warrant was a function
of the cross -traffic flow (i.e., project exit) not arterial street volume. Once
the project volume increases to the levels required by the warrant, a signal is
installed.
26. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had investigated the common driveway
proposed between the two property owners. Staff stated they had not.
PC7-23 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
27. Mr. Mark Shenouda spoke regarding the shared access with the property
owner to the west and stated they would look into the issue. Regarding the
issue of signals, the plans are to install the signal on Highway I I I as part of
the Phase I construction.
28. Chairman Abels asked if the nursery lights would be shielded. Mr. Shenouda
stated they would be shielded. Chairman Abels asked if the loading dock
area could be shielded from the Vista Grande residents traveling west. Mr.
Shenouda stated the people traveling west on Vista Grande would not be able
to see the loading dock as the building is to be constructed at an angle to
block the view. It would be set back 300 feet and depressed so as not to be
seen.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked when the trucks made their deliveries. Mr.
Shenouda stated they are usually made during the day, but could be scheduled
for night time.
30. Commissioner Gardner asked if the circulation pattern for the delivery trucks
was to have them travel down Highway 111 entering and exiting the parking
lot off of Highway 111, and driving to the rear of the building for their
deliveries. If this was to be the circulation pattern, why not close off the
Jefferson Street entrance and landscape it to hide the rear of the building?
Mr. Shenouda stated the Jefferson Street entrance would have a lot of use by
all kinds and sizes of trucks.
31. Commissioner Butler asked if any trucks would be entering off of Jefferson
Street. Mr. Shenouda stated the large semi -trucks are to enter off of Highway
111, but the smaller trucks would use both.
32. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about the applicant's request to
increase the height of the light standards to 35 feet. He could not accept the
increase in height from 25 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Shenouda stated that by using
the 35 foot high light standards, it would allow them to decrease the number
of poles needed. The nursery area would be a problem without the higher
poles. If the lights are shielded it should take care of the problem.
33. Commissioner Anderson stated that rather than negotiating these issues, he
would like to address a primary area of concern, that is the percentage of
landscaping in the parking area. The City standard is 5%, and the potential
exists to take the building pad on the corner and change it into parking. Five
percent must be maintained whether this corner pad is used or not. He was
also concerned about the physical appearance and noise from the loading
dock at the rear of the building due to loading and unloading of trucks. A six
foot wall is good, but eight feet would be better. Staff s recommendations
PC7-23 8
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
regarding the landscaping are good, and he has no objection to the single
sided split face block for the rear wall. The monument signs requested must
be reduced in size. Final landscape plans including the monument signs,
should be reviewed by the Commission. He sees no reason why a blended
"S" the could not be used on the mansards. The five foot ADA pedestrian
aisle for the handicapped spaces should be shaded.
34. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with the look of the entire length
of Highway 111 beginning to be a mass of straight walls with no sense of
character or scale. Even though he understands the economics, he has a
concern for the image of La Quinta with these mammoth structures on
Highway 111 and no relief. There is a need to focus on the entire streetscape
and not just the Home Depot site. Home Depot is requesting a reduction of
parking spaces as well as a reduction in the amount of the landscaping. He
understands the economics of Home Depot to require a certain amount of
parking, and the City can live with this, but it is Home Depot's property and
what he sees is Home Depot maximizing the entire site at the expense of the
proper parking requirements. He is opposed to the complete deterioration of
the landscaping of the overall project when the City has given the benefit of
reducing the overall parking requirement. The five percent requirement is an
absolute minimum. Home Depot has maximized the entire site at the
expense of landscaping. The second issue is the front wall of Home Depot
being a straight line. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood the
economics of this, but the second phase is also a straight line and this is a
maximizing of the site. The employee parking behind the building on the
east side of the second phase, could be eliminated as there is an over
abundance of parking. This would allow the building to be moved back and
give some variation to the front wall. As it is, with no variation in the front
setbacks, the minimum distance between the driveways, and the front of the
buildings La Quinta is left with a solid wall of buildings. Unless Home
Depot is willing to review the second phase in a more sensitive way, he
would be concerned about what his vote would be. He supports staff
regarding the relocation of the handicapped parking to provide a better
situation in terms of the entrance. They could eliminate some of the parking
requirements for Phase II and increase the site of Phase I to accommodate
landscaping on both sides of the entry road into the project. This would give
some sense of landscaping to minimize the impact of the parking area from
those driving by. In regard to these two areas of building scale and the
setback combined with landscaping, he agrees that there should be a walk and
landscaping provided at the main road into the site even if they have to
expand the site to accommodate this. As it now stands, he would recommend
the trees be mature and the shading position be there when the store opens up.
In addition, the landscaping should be increased throughout the entire project
even if it requires a readjustment of the site plan and the size of the first
parcel. The rear wall should be eight feet rather than six. The applicant
PC7-23 9
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
needs to look at the amount of distance between the front of the lower
element of the elevation to the high element as it is very minimal at best, and
to facade it in a way to make it look Spanish, does two things that are wrong:
1) it looks superficial; and 2) hopefully, he would like to see La Quinta be a
City that does not have to be all tile roofs as he would like to see a variation
in architecture. It is an economic issue, but he would like to see some way
that it can be solved to soften this huge building. He would suggest that there
are ways to deal with the upper level wall in the front that are more
imaginative, so not to ruin the area that is needed for economics, but reduces
the impact of this huge wall along Highway 111. The applicant also needs to
look at a variation of materials for the rear wall, on the side that faces the
channel, and not have one continuous wall of one material, but use some
imagination with different types of material, at least two, to break up the
look. He agreed there are too many monument signs on Highway 111, as
well as the size needed to be decreased. Lastly, he is concerned with the
amount of traffic that will be traveling in this area and the lights standards
should be left at 25-feet.
35. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with the minimum of 5% landscaping.
He would accept the 30 foot lights if they were shielded and if it would cut
down the number of light standards. He agreed with the relocation of the
handicapped parking, as it would add to the appearance of the front of the
building as the wall mass could be broken up by adding trees on both sides
of the building. He agrees with the eight foot wall at the rear as it will
address the concerns of the residents to the north. He is concerned that the
entire Channel be lined at one time due to its expense. Splitting the cost into
two phases, does not seem to be economical. He is not concerned with the
landscaping and parking at this time as it will come back to the Planning
Commission in the future for review. He has no problem with deleting the
trees in front of the building as he feels it will accommodate the business.
However he is concerned about the size of the signs as this has been an issue
with him since he has been on the Commission. Highway I I I is an image
that the Commission has tried to softened. He agrees that if the signs were
smaller you lose the impact, but there must be some compromise that can be
reached.
36. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the loading dock and trash
compactor and its visibility to the Vista Grande residents. The residents need
to have some screening from the trash compactor. He is very firm about the
light standards being 25-feet and that Home Depot do something about the
front of the building architecturally, or provide the trees.
37. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern about the cart storage and the lack
PC7-23 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
of customers putting them in the storage area. There needs to be some
storage area provided. Mr. Shenouda stated he would like to keep them to a
limit of two storage areas as well as having employees continually bringing
the carts back inside. Commissioner Newkirk stated he would agree with a
30-foot high light standard, but would like to have an eight foot wall on the
rear wall with no split face block on the north side.
38. Commissioner Tyler stated he thought Home Depot used three different styles
of cart. The problem was that when a customer is parking he cannot see the
flat lumber carts and usually ends up running over them. They do not need
a cart corral on every row, but the employees are not going to be picking up
carts as often as it will be necessary. It is essential to have the cart corrals as
well as a holding area at the entrance. It is mandatory that both be provided.
He is excited to have them in the community, but they need to fit into the
community. He is concerned about the increase in traffic, especially for the
residents on Vista Grande. The view of an eight foot wall for the north side
residents should be considered as well as the need to resolve the signal at
Vista Grande. He is concerned that they keep the nursery lights down below
the height of the wall. There is no sign on the east elevation at the Rancho
Mirage store and he does not see the need for the east side sign on this store.
It would cast too much light to the residents on the east side. Mr. Shenouda
stated that Jefferson Street is an important corridor to them, but they do
understand that the five foot sign on the east side might be intrusive and they
would be willing to reduce it to four foot high letters if necessary.
39. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with the comments already made. He
agreed with Commissioner Woodard that the south elevation could be
softened. The Conditions of Approval require the landscaping to come back
to the Planning Commission; maybe the signs should as well. Mr. Shenouda
commented that they could achieve the 5% landscaping requirement. As the
signs will be brought back to the Planning Commission it will allow them
time to review their Rancho Mirage store signs. Regarding the Phase II
layout, it is a preliminary drawing and as they do not have tenants the
configurations could change. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was
that if the Commission were to approve the site plan as it is being submitted,
then whenever Home Depot comes back to build the second phase, the record
will show that the site plan was approved and he does not approve of this
configuration as it is being submitted.
40. Commissioner Woodard asked if Phase I could be approved requiring Phase
II to be resubmitted for approval. Community Development Director Jerry
Herman stated a condition could be added requiring Phase I1 to come back for
final approval.
PCB-23 11
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Chairman Abels asked staff to prepare an alternate attendance form for the
Commissioners to attend future City Council meetings. Commissioner Tyler
reported on the City Council meeting of July 22, 1996.
B. Department update - None
IX. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, it was moved by Chairman Abels to adjourn this meeting of the
Planning Commission to a regular meeting on August 13, 1996. This regular meeting of the
Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:33 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PCB-23 13
PH #1
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
ARCHITECT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ZONING:
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AUGUST 13, 1996, CONTINUED FROM JULY 23, 1996
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-028
HOME DEPOT, USA, INC.
GREENBERG FARROW, ARCHITECTS (DOUG COUPER,
ARCHITECT)
1). CERTIFICATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENT IMPACT;
2). APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF 218,300 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL
CENTER ON APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES; AND,
3). APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN CONJUNCTION
WITH HOME DEPOT STORE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON
STREET
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 96-325 FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED
UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED
THAT THIS SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR
CERTIFICATION.
M/RC WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY - MIXED
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY.
C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
PCSS.209
BACKGROUND:
July 23, 1996 Hearing
This request was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission at the meeting of July 23, 1996.
There was extensive discussion regarding the project (Attachment 1). The applicant requested
modification and/or deletion of 11 of the staff recommended conditions. Four members of the public
including a representative from the City of Indio spoke regarding the project. Due to the concerns
raised by both the public and the Planning Commission, the project was continued to this meeting in
order for revisions to be made to landscaping, parking, building design, signs, lighting and traffic.
Since the last meeting, staff has meet with the applicants several times in order to review concerns
regarding the project. As a result of these meetings, the following changes have been made by the
applicants:
The parking lot has been modified as follows:
A. Increased the total number of parking spaces from 994 spaces to 1,005 spaces. The
Home Depot proposes 440 spaces in front of the store, 107 to the east and 26 spaces
along the west elevation, for a total of 673 spaces. This does not include an
additional 52 parking spaces on the gas station pad if it is used entirely for parking as
shown on the plans.
B. The handicapped parking was moved one aisle to the east and provided the Americans
With Disabilities Act required access between the building and sidewalk along
Highway 111.
C. Modified the parking aisle design immediately east of the outdoor garden center
increasing the amount of landscaping.
2. Rather than six feet an eight foot high masonry screen wall has been provided along the
norther property line.
Two cart storage corrals have been provided. One is shown near the service station site with
the other at the southwest corner of the parking lot. The Specific Plan text indicates that there
will be a centrally designated area provided in addition to the two cart corrals. This
designated area is not indicated on the plans.
4. Building a screen wall on the north side of the trash compactor will be provided equal to its
top height.
The median island in the middle driveway on Jefferson Street has been extended to prevent
illegal left-hand turns onto the site.
6. The sign program has been modified as follows:
PCSS.209
A. The main sign facing Highway 111 consisting of individually illuminated channel
letters reading "The Home Depot" has been reduced in size from five feet in height
and 58 feet in length (290 square feet) to four feet in height by 48 feet in length (192
square feet). The can sign below this sign which reads "California's Home
Improvement Warehouse" has been reduced from three feet in height by 58 feet in
length (174 square feet) to two feet six inches in height by 48 feet in length (120
square feet).
B. "The Home Depot" sign facing Jefferson Street has been changed from individually
mounted illuminated channel letters five feet in height by 58 feet in length (290 square
feet) to painted letters four feet in height by 48 feet in length (192 square feet). This
painted sign will be safety orange to match their corporate colors.
C. The free-standing monument signs. The size of the monument on Jefferson Street has
been reduced from 12' to 6' 8" in height, and increased in width from 6' to 15'.
7. The following landscaping changes from 12' in heighthave been made:
A. The amount of parking lot landscaping for the Phase I site has been increased to
7.07%, 2.0% more than the minimum 5% required by Code. The applicant has
provided further information to indicate that of the total site, including public
parkway, 12.61% of the site will be in landscaping.
B. The number of parking lot tree wells has been increased with the Specific Plan text
indicating that the Code required 50% shading of the parking lot area will be
provided. These parking lot trees are indicated as 24 inch box size canopy trees.
C. Additional information regarding landscaping materials and their locations has been
provided on the preliminary landscaping plan. Three Mexican Fan palm trees are
shown (15 to 18 feet trunk height) in front of the Home Depot building between the
two canopy areas. These trees are depicted on the colored elevation plans submitted.
8. Along the rear property line, 24 inch box size Bottle trees spaced 50 feet on center in a
planter 5' clear in width adjacent to the inside of the screen wall have been added to landscape
plan.
9. A large triangular planter has been provided east of the outdoor garden center adjacent to
parking spaces. This planter is provided with shrub and tree planting.
10. A computer -generated view of the outdoor garden/ loading area as viewed from the
intersection of Vista Grande showing the view into the loading dock area.
11. The exterior architectural change is the elimination of the block pattern on the tilt -up panels
behind the entry area. This change was recommended by the Community Development
Department at the last hearing.
PCSS 209
12. The applicants have shown in the elevation plan the location and size of the roof -mounted
satellite dish. The plan indicates that the dish will be below the height of the parapet walls
and not visible.
13. Manufacturers brochures indicating the type of parking lot and garden center fixtures lighting.
The lighting is a shoe box type down -shining light which can be provided with sight screens
or shields if necessary. The height of the garden center lighting has not changed and remains
at approximately 24 feet.
The applicant has submitted a lighting photometric study which indicates that at 25 feet 53
light posts will be necessary. At 35 feet in height 28 light posts will be required.
14. A condition to be added will require joint usage of the signalized driveway on Highway 111.
This condition allows sharing of the cost and maintenance of these improvements.
15. The applicant has submitted a revised traffic study primarily aimed at a re -study of the
Jefferson Street/Vista Grande intersection. The initial report indicated that a signal would be
warranted at this intersection upon project opening. The revised study states that based on
project traffic warrants would be met upon completion of buildout of the entire project. The
report indicates that over time as volumes increase on Jefferson Street, the major street traffic
increases to the point that coupled with small volumes on the cross street triggers the need
for a signal. Assuming a 7% growth rate, the report states the signal would need to be
installed around the year 1997, which is the year Home Depot is scheduled to open
(Attachment 2).
Public Input
Since the last Planning Commission meeting staff has received a letter signed by 19 individual
property owners on Vista Grande (Attachment 3). In summary, the project would be acceptable
provided their concerns regarding sign size, signalization, lighting and screening of the loading dock
are addressed.
STATEMENT OF ISSIJES:
Specific Plan Issues
Issue #1 - General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as mixed regional commercial with a non-
residential overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including retail uses and
restaurants, as is proposed. Additionally, this project is consistent with the other applicable elements
such as the Circulation Element, Environmental Conservation (Archaeological, Water Conservation
and Arts in Public Places policies), Infrastructure and Public Services Element, Environmental
Hazards Element, and Air Quality Element.
Land Use Element Policy 2-3.1 provides for primary uses being major retail businesses with ancillary
uses including other commercial uses.
13CSS.209
The construction of this project will implement Policy 3-2. I.7 of the Circulation Element which
pertains to the widening and improvement of Highway 111. As such, this Specific Plan is consistent
with the General Plan.
The environmental review process indicated that the circulation layout should be discussed and
resolved as part of the design review process to minimize on -site traffic conflicts and help in reducing
air quality impacts. In accordance with the Air Quality Element of the Genereal Plan Home Depot
has determined that for a store of the size proposed, a minimun of 500 spaces is needed in the area
directly in front of the facility. The site design shows 440 spaces at the front area of the building 106
to the east, ar„d 26 to the west; staffs request to redesign the parking to provide a through traffic
aisle, originating from the southern access off Jefferson Street, would result in a reduction of 16-20
spaces.
Home Depot is reluctant to redesign the circulation, as it will require a reduction, albeit minimal, in
the current number of parking spaces provided relative to their stated need for storefront parking.
Home Depot claims that maximization of storefront parking would help to mitigate impacts to air
quality, in that it would reduce automotible idling times due to waiting and/or circling for available
spaces. While a reduction in spaces could be argued to force a shift from auto to transit or carpool
(associate more with office uses), the nature of the retailers (home improvement products, gas station,
drive through, etc.) Perpetuates the need for individual mobility. A condition has been prepared to
require the applicant to submit information which will quantify the air quality impact associated with
each scenario, relative to the air quality impact of the entire site. This information will be reviewed
by the Community Development Director to determine if air quality impacts can be reduced by
implementing one scenario over another. A determination shall be made prior to any site
development permits being issued.
Issue #2 - Public Welfare
The subject site is vacant at this time. The proposed project, with the uses as proposed, will not
create any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare
of the City's citizens. The project design along with the recommended conditions will assure this by
requiring shielded lighting, additional landscaping, buffering, architectural treatment, traffic and street
improvements The Mitigated 'Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended for
certification indicates that no detrimental impacts will occur.
Staff is recommending lighting plans be submitted in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance to
insure no negative impacts to the adjacent properties. Staff is recommending that the parking lot
lights in front of the Home Depot be a maximum 25 feet high with shields facing the residential
properties. Though this increases the number of poles, the lower height will be less visible when the
trees mature.
Issue #3 - Land Use Compatibility
The subject property as well as property to the south west and partially to the east are zoned for
commercial uses. To the north is the Whitewater Storm Channel which provides a buffer from the
I'Css.2o9
residentially -zoned properties beyond the Channel. Therefore, development of the subject property
with commercial uses will be compatible with adjacent properties provided the applicable conditions,
as recommended by staff', are complied with.
Issue #4 - Property Suitability
As noted, the property is zoned for commercial use and designated Commercial in the General Plan.
The property is relatively flat and therefore the proposed uses are suitable for the proposed
commercial development.
The proposed architectural design recognizes the functional design requirements imposed by this large
scale building. Though it is a contemporary tilt -up concrete structure, design elements in keeping
with the desert environment and Mediterranean period are proposed such as, muted earth tone colors,
arched entry, tiled arcade and columns.
Conditional Use Permit Issues
fvayre 1 - Consistency with General Ilan
The subject property is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as commercial and
zoned for commercial uses. Therefore, the use of the site for outdoor commercial storage is
consistent with the General Plan.
I.vsue 2 - ('onsistency with Zonhig Code
This Conditional Use Permit is required because the shopping center proposes more than 200 square
feet of outdoor storage in conjunction with Home Depot. The project, with conditions as
recommended, and the Specific Plan for the property will comply with the Zoning Code.
I sue 3 - Complicince with the California Fnvir onmental Quality Act (('F'QA)
As required by CEQA, an environmental assessment was prepared. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration of ]Environmental Impact is recommended for certification, the Community Development
Director has determined that by incorporating conditions as specified in the mitigation monitoring
plan, the said Specific Plan will not have any significant adverse effects, or that any such effects have
been mitigated to the extent feaasible, under development policies adopted for the La Quinta General
Plan and in accordance with the General Plan EIR as certified to a level of insignificance on the
environment.
Issue 4 - Surr winditig Uses
The use of outdoor storage will be enclosed by a steel and block fence. Additionally, landscaping will
be provided adjacent to the outdoor storage area. Nursery lighting will be shielded. And as such,
impact on the public health, safety and general welfare with properties in the vicinity will not be
detrimental.
11Css?o9
Sian Program Issues
The staff report for July 23, 1996 (Attachment 4), provides information on requirements of the Sign
Ordinance and comparisons with other similar signs. The applicants have revised their main signs
from 200 square feet to be four feet high and 48 feet long (192 square feet) with an ancillary
"California's Home Improvement Warehouse" sign facing Highway 111 reduced from three feet high
by 58 feet long to two foot six inches high and 48 feet long (120 square feet). The total square
footage of these revised signs together is 360 square feet compared to 522 square feet proposed in
July. The sign facing Jefferson Street has been reduced from five feet high to 58 feet long (290
square feet) to four feet high by 48 feet long (192 square feet) and will be painted instead of internally
illuminated. The proposed sign colors which utilizes orange letter faces has not changed.
The 97 square foot "Indoor Lumberyard" sign over the lumber entry near the west end of the building
and the cabinet sign reading "Nursery", at the east end two feet high by 14 feet six inches long, has
not changed.
The free-standing sign facing Jefferson Street has been revised to be a maximum six foot eight inches
high and 15' long for a total of 99 square feet. This reduces the size from approximately 114 square
feet to approxi nately 99 square feet. Though the height has been reduced, its mass and scale remains
the same. Staff is recommending the width be reduced not to exceed eight feet.
CONCLUSION:
As discussed above, there are several revisions that are necessary for this project. Provided the
recommended Conditions of Approval are imposed, the project is acceptable. The findings necessary
to approve the Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit for this project can be made as noted in the
report. The Conditions of Approval insure that the project will be compatible with surrounding land
uses and be an attractive, well designed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to the City Council, and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending approval of Specific Plan
96-027 to the City Council, subject to conditions.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ recommending approval of Conditional Use
Permit 96-028 to the City Council, subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Minutes of Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1996
2. Traffic Study (Revised)
3. Letter from Vista Grande Homeowners
4. Staff Report dated July 23, 1996 (Excerpt)
5. Revised Specific Plan, Plans and Exhibits (for Planning Commission only)
11Css.209
Prepared by:
STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISUNE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
PCSS.209
PLANNING COMI USSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF I.A QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325
PREPARED FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-028
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325
HOME DEPOT, USA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
23rd day of July and the 13th day of August, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 96-325, prepared for Specific Plan 96-027 and Conditional Use Permit
96-028; and,
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to
Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68
adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has
prepared an Initial Study (EA 96-325); and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that by
incorporating conditions as specified in the mitigation monitoring plan, the said Specific Plan will not
have any significant adverse effects, or that any such effects have been mitigated to the extent
feasible, under development policies adopted for the La Quinta General Plan and in accordance with
the General Plan EIR as certified, to a level of insignificance on the environment, and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts,
findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation to certify said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare
of the community, either directly or indirectly, in that no significant impacts have been
identified which cannot be mitigated to the extent feasible, recognizing the overriding
considerations made to allow implementation and development pursuant to the La Quinta
General Plan in accordance with its adopted objectives and policies.
2. The proposed Specific Plan does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the lack of any such factors
existing on the shopping center site.
resopc.209
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
3. The proposed Specific Plan does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, in that development of the
project will provide more efficient and safe area circulation patterns and achieve land use
development as set forth in the General Plan, without significantly impacting public service
and utility provisions or substantially degrading the physical environment, provided that
mitigation measures are imposed on the project.
4. The proposed Specific Plan will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, as the General Plan EIR considered these impacts, adopted mitigating
measures and identified impacts which could not be fully mitigated through a Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
The proposed Specific Plan will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the proposed development is consistent
with the designated land use and policy guidance adopted for the La Quinta General Plan, for
which mitigation measures were adopted to assure that future development in accordance
with said Plan would not have detrimental effects on the environment beyond those identified
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the La Quinta General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California as follows:
That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend Certification of Environmental Assessment 96-325 for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist
and Addendum, staff report and as stated at the Public Hearing, attached hereto, and on file
in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13th day of August, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
resope.2o9
JACQUES ABLES, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY ]HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No. 96-325
Case No.: SP 96-027
CLIP 96-028
L
Name of Proponent: Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
Date: July 11,1996
Address: 601 S. Placentia, Fullerton, CA 92631
Phone: 714-738-5200 (Greg George, Rep.)
Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
Project Name (if applicable):
Specific Plan 96-027 and Conditional Use Permit 96-028, construction of an approximately 130,000
square foot retail home improvement center, specified as part of an overall proposed 218,000 square
foot retail development, at the northwest corner of Highway 111 and Jefferson Street.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
cklst.325
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning X Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities
X Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources
X Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
IIL DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL HAPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect
is a `potentially significant impact" or `potentially significant unless mitigated".
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature lj✓, ff . /t/,.�C.- Date July 11, 1996
Printed Name and Title Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
For: City of La Ouinta, Community Development Department
Potentially
Potentially Significant Leas Then
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(source #(s): X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?
c) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
unpact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? X
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? X
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture`?
b) Seismic ground shaking
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill?:
g) Subsidence of the land? X
Hi
Potentially
Potentially Significant Leas Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
h)
Expansive soils?
n
Unique geologic or physical features?
3.4. WATER. Would the project result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
X
c)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water, quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
X .
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body?
X
e)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
f)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability?
g)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
X
h)
Impacts to groundwater quality?
X
3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project.
a) Violate any air quality standard, or contribute to any
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? X
d) Create objectionable odors? X
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lean Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
x
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
x
d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
x
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
3.7. EIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities, (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? x
v
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Leap Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X.
3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH.
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? K
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? K
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
Potentially
Potentially Significant Lean Than
Significant UnIla] Significant
Impact Mitigated Impact
No
Impact
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
X
e) Other governmental services?
X
3.12. UTILITIES.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alternations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect histonlcal resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
vii
3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the
quality of the; environmental, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable futuxe projects).
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-325
Prepared for:
JEFFERSON PLAZA
SPECIFIC PLAN #96-027
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #96-028
DOME DEPOT, USA INC.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
July 11,1996
Amended Augus3 8, 1996
EA96325
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1 PURODUC"TION
3
1.1 Project Overview
3
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study
3
1.3 Background of Environmental Review
3
1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review
4
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4
2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting
4
2.2 Physical Characteristics
4
2.3 Operational Characteristics
4
2.4 Objectives
5
2.5 Discretionary Actions
5
2.6 Related Projects
5
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5
3.1 Land Use and Planning
5
3.2 Population and Housing
6
3.3 Earth Resources
6
3.4 Water
7
3.5 Air Quality
g
3.6 Transportatiorv'Circulation
10
3.7 Biological Resources
11
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
11
3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health
12
3.10 Noise
12
3.11 Public Services
13
3.12 Utilities
13
3.13 Aesthetics
13
3.14 Cultural Resources
14
3.15 Recreation
14
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
15
5 EARLIER ANALYSIS
15
EA96325
3
SECTION 1• INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility
for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of
La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to make a decision
on the proposal.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE E TTIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed project, the City of La Quinta Community Development
Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope
of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project;
To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse impacts before
an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration of
environmental impact;
To assist in the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues
that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project;
To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project;
To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not have a
significant effect on the environment;
To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Home Depot project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA in
light of the potential project impacts. The Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department
prepared this Initial Study and addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission and City
Council for the City of La Quinta.
EA96325
4
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELBUNARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study checklist indicates certain potential for significant environmental impacts. As a result, specific
mitigation measures have been incorporated, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will
be recommended for this project. Mitigation measures pr nosed for each issue area are underlined within the
discussion and are summarized in the Mitigation Monitoring Program attached to thss addendum Any changes
made by the applicant to the project as a result of this assessment, design review or other reason, which
would necessitate changes to this addendum, are shown in italics as part of the issue area which any such
changes may affect.
The Home Depot project was reviewed by the La Quinta Planning Commission on July 23, 1996. At the public
hearing, significant testimony was heard relative to design of the project, circulation and traffic impacts. As
a result of this testimony, the Planning Commission referred the matter back to staff in order to work with the
applicant to address those issues identified. As a result, some of this addendum has been revised in response
to changes agreed to or made by the applicant for the project.
SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella
Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and
Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and county lands to the south. The City of La
Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982.
The subject site consists of approximately 22 acres, at the corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111. The site
is current vacant, but was previously approved for a 251,000 square foot retail development project in 1993 (Plot
Plan 92-490). The site is relatively flat, with minimal vegetation due to previous rough grading having occurred.
A traffic study and cultural resources survey have been submitted with the proposed project.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposal involves a two-phase development of retail uses, consisting of a total of 218,000 square feet. The
Home Depot will be developed as the first phase of the project in the northeasterly portion of the site, consisting
of 129,800 square feet (approx..), which includes a 24,000 square foot outdoor garden center. A 1,500 square
foot gas station site is also part of Phase 1.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
A specific plan document has been prepared for this project; the Home Depot will comprise almost 130,000
square feet, or approximately 60% of the total proposed floor area. No specific information is available regarding
the uses proposed under Phase 2 of the project, but conceptual plans submitted indicate three retail shell
buildings and two restaurant pads, one of which is a drive through design.
EA96325
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of this project is to develop a commercial center oriented around a big box home improvement
based retailer, and maintain a flexible land use concept layout for potential future tenants, dependant upon market
demand for retailers.
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government agency is the
City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed
Home Depot project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and City Council for the
following:
• Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project;
• Approval of the Specific Plan and Use Permit applications;
• Approval of Site Development Permit(s) for the Phase 2 uses.
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present. A previous application for a retail center,
also called Jefferson Square (Specific Plan 92-022; Plot Plan 92-490), was approved by the City Council on
February 2,1993 with a total of 251,000 square feet proposed for development of an off -price retail outlet center.
This project received two one-year time extensions, but the approval lapsed on February 2, 1996. Previous
environmental documentation consists of a Negative Declaration adopted for the project (EA 92-241).
SECTION 3s ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue areas
are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist item, the
environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as the presently exist within the City
and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted
by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA, Appendix G.
3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The Valley
is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from 237 feet below mean sea level (msl)
to about 2,000 feet above msl. The Valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa
Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain Range. The San Andreas fault transects
the northeastern edge of the Valley.
,Local Environmental Setting
The subject site is vacant, but has been partially disturbed in the past. The Overall project uses as proposed are
consistent with the General Plan and zoning currently in effect; however, a conditional use permit is required
by the zoning, as more than 200 square feet of outdoor display/storage is proposed.
EA96325
Z
A - Less Than Significant ;Impact. The project does not propose uses inconsistent with the current or future
land uses contemplated for the project area However, the project is in close proximity to residential uses, located
500 feet north of the Whitewater Channel and 200 feet east across Jefferson. A conditional use permit is required
to ensure that the project maintains compatibility with adjacent and surrounding land uses. Specific conditions
related to the establishment: and operation of the project will be incorporated into the approval conditions to
ensure compatibility with surrounding uses.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City's population as of January,1996 is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 18,046 persons.
In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six
months in the City (WDL Economic Overview; 1996 Ed.). It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the
City are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit (1990 Census).
Local Environmental Setting
The site is designated Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC) on the City's General Plan Land Use Policy
Diagram. The area to the north is designated residential; to the east lies the City of Indio, which designates
Neighborhood Commercial in their General Plan along Highway I I I (Indio General Plan 2020. October 1993).
A - No Impact. The project does not involve a housing component. Development of the project site as proposed
is consistent with the land use designation set forth in the La Quinta General Plan. The proposal will not exceed
any current growth forecasts currently available to or used by the City, based on the buildout scenarios in the
General Plan.
B, C - Less Than Significant Impact. The project development may induce growth in the 111 corridor area,
due to extension and upgrade of existing infrastructure in the site vicinity. It is not anticipated to stimulate
residential development significantly, as the commercial nature of the project would indicate that an adequate
population base exists to support this use. There may be some limited effects on affordable housing demand as
employees attempt to locate in proximity to the site. Commercial development has been slow to occur along the
corridor, and there is a significant amount of vacant land designated for residential development which will be
more than adequate to supply any housing demand increase. 'There is also substantial residential inventory in the
northerly residential areas of the City and more affordable single family units in the Cove area (Source: EA 92-
241; LQGP). Additionally, the City has acquired three sites specifically targeted for affordable housing
development, one of which is an approximately 40 acre site at the northwest corner of Jefferson and 48th Avenue.
This site is less than '/2 mile from the project area, and the City is currently entering into a development
agreement with a potential developer.
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans, steep hillside, to relatively flat
desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by igneous -metamorphic
rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the Valley floor
are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands.
EA96325
Local Environmental Setting
The site is approximately 60 feet above sea level, and consists of Myoma series soils. This soil type has rapid
permeability is commonly used for homesites and other urban uses. While it can be used in development of
croplands, it is not considered as prime agricultural soil as classified by the State. The site is located within a
Grounshaking Zone 4, referenced as a moderate level of shaking activity. There are no active faults in the area
(EA 92-241; L% EA).
A - No Impact The project will not present any additional exposure to geologic hazards associated with fault
rupture, as no faults have been identified on or in proximity to the site. The existing physical conditions in the
area will not be changed in a manner which would create any impacts beyond those associated with development
of the site in accordance with the General Plan.
B - Potentially Significant Unless Mtigated. The project will be located in a Groundshaking Zone 4, associated
with moderate impacts from seismic activity. The project will be required to adhere to seismic reinforcement and
other requirements as called for by the UBC.
CAE - No Impact Although the site is identified as susceptible to moderate groundshaking impact, the soil
characteristics indicate that ground failure due to such activity is negligible, based on its use in urbanized
development. The site is not identified as subject to liquefaction potential, and there is no potential for seiche,
tsunami or volcanic activity. The site is level and not subject to slide or mudflow impacts. The Whitewater
Channel does not significantly affect the property during drainage flows (LQMEA; EA 92-241; site history).
F - Less Than Significant Impact There will be some change in surface features due to project grading. Such
changes will affect stability of the site as the natural substructure is modified. Soil erosion potential will be
affected due to loosening and movement of soil material during development. Standard erosion control and soil
management methods as identified in soil reports and addressed in grading plans required for the site will ensure
that such impacts will not be significant. CVWD will require the Whitewater Channel be lined in accordance
with their standards, mitigating potential long term erosion impacts. Submittal of a dust control plan as required
(see Air Quality) will aid in wind erosion reduction.
G,HJ - No Impact The site is not identified as being subject to subsidence or having soils which are expansive.
There are no unique geologic or physical features on the site with respect to Earth issues (LQMEA; site survey).
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock material)
and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. Water supplies
are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal and stored
at Lake Cahuilla.
Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains
provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be a
requirement in the near future.
EA96325
8
Local Environmental Setting
The vicinity of the proposed project is protected from design storms by the Whitewater Channel flood control
facility and other improvements. The site is level and incorporates well drained soils. The site is designated Zone
X on the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps in effect for the area, subject to 500 year flood events and 100 year
events with average depths of less than 1 foot.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. Current runoff rates will be increased due to pad, building and hardscape
area development. The runoff produced by development of this site will be directed to the Whitewater Channel,
along the north boundary of the site. The Channel will be concrete lined along the project boundary, and is
capable of accommodating the increased flows. The project will be required to prepare a drainage plan and
comply with NPDES permit requirements as enforced by the Public Works Dew ent,
B through H - No Impact. The area is currently protected from flood impacts by existing flood control facilities,
specifically the Whitewater Channel. Surface waters and streams will not be affected, and ground water resource
quantity and quality will not be significantly impacted. Compliance with the NPDES requirements attached to
the project permitting will ensure that storm water runoff associated with the projects development will not create
any measurable impact to water quality, quantity or hazards.
3.5 AIR QUALITY
Regional Environmental Setting
The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution
problem than the South Coast: Air Basin (SOCAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for
ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter.
Local Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild
winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized
winds occur throughout the Valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are
closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM 10 are frequently
exceeded. PM10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that become suspended in the air primarily
due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads. The Valley is currently designated by the EPA
as a serious non -attainment area for PM10, however SCAQMD anticipates that recent data will show that the
Valley has been in attainment over the last three years. Based on this, SCAQMD is in the process of preparing
a PM10 Maintenance Plan in order to have the area redesignated to attainment status.
A - Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Based on the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the
project will have a potentially, significant air quality impact. The traffic study for Jefferson Plaza indicates that
11,502 daily vehicle trips will be generated by the overall project (Traffic Impact Analysis; Jefferson Plaza,
O'Rourke Engineering, June 11,1996). Air quality analysis conducted for the proposal indicates that long term
emissions exceed SEDAB thresholds for reactive organic gases (ROG) by 550% and carbon monoxide (CO) by
590% (SCREENYLS; SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook). These emission exceedences are directly
related to mobile (vehicular) sources. The La Quinta General Plan's "Statement of Overriding Considerations",
adopted by Council Resolution 92-80, identified that impacts to air quality cannot be fully mitigated under long
tern development of the General Plan. This project is consistent with the General Plan in that the proposed land
use and project intensity is consistent with the designation of the property as Mixed/Regional Commercial.
EA96325
6
However, to be in conformance with the General Plan, the project must also comply with General Plan policies
regarding its development in order to mitigate these impacts to the full extent feasible. This would make the
project consistent with the General Plan, for which overriding considerations have been adopted.
The City has adopted a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (TDM), which is applicable to all new
development projects projected to employ 100 or more persons; based on the ordinance, this project will employ
437 persons. In order to reduce vehicular emissions, the Mplicant shall be required to ,prepare and submit a TDM
Plan in accordance with the provisions of the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance The Plan
shall address capital improvement and operational standards as listed in the Ordinance Anv transit related
improvemeIts required bySunline as a condition to development will not constitute compliance with the plan
submittal requirement.
Several policies promote the concept of pedestrian accesibility and alternative travel modes, which assist in both
air quality and circulation impact mitigation (Policies 9-2.1.2, 9-2.1.3, 94.1.4). Policy 9-2.1.4 requires the City
to discourage design in retail/commercial uses which aggravate air quality, such as drive -through windows and
circuitous circulation. Conditions attached to the project will prohibit any drive through uses. unless adequate
documentation can be presented at the time anv such use may beyronosed. that the use will not increase air
query impacts beyond anv similar non -drive through use. As part of the design review process, staff directed
Home Depot to minimize on -site traffic conflicts, specifically the parking and circulation layout, to help
reduce air quality impacts. At the Planning Commission meeting of July 23, 1996, this issue was reviewed and
referred back to staff for resolution. As a result, Home Depot indicates their corporate standard requires a
minimum of 500 spaces along the front of the store. The site design shows 440 spaces at the front area of the
building; staffs request to redesign the parking to provide a through traffic aisle, originating from the
southerly access off Jefferson Street, would result in a reduction of 16-20 spaces. Home Depot is reluctant
to redesign the circulation, as it will require a reduction, albeit minimal, in the current number ofparking
spaces provided relative to their stated needs. Home Depot's parking information indicates that maximization
ofparking would help to mitigate impacts to air quality, in that it would reduce automobile idling times due
to waiting and/or circling for available spaces. While a reduction in spaces could be argued to force a shift
from auto to transit or carpool (associated more with office uses), the nature of the retailers (home
improvement products, gas station, drive through, etc) perpetuates the need for individual mobility. The
applicant shall submit empirical documentation to adequatelrquanti& and address the air quality and
circulation impacts associated with the circulation layout as it relates to the impacts from the entire site The
documentation shall address both staffs redesign request. and the configuration as currentlkproposed and
shall pantj& any air clucrlitXbenefits associated with either alternative The final parking lot layout shall be
determined by the Communi Development Director based upon the findings contained in and submitted as
documentation, prior to any site development permits being issued for any portion of the site including
grading or site clearing requests.
Short term (construction -related) impacts will result primarily from grading activities, which will generate
fugitive dust. Prior to any soil disturbance or grading acti' ies), the developer shall secure approval of a
Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP). The plan shall address all reposed development areas. as well as those areas
which may be disturbed by activily but scheduled for later development The FRCP shall be submitted with any
clearing, grading, or other site activity request which will disturb, or is related to development of the site
Although these measures will not fully mitigate the air quality impacts from this project below significance
thresholds, inclusion of them will render the proposal consistent with the General Plan, for which a "Statement
of Overriding Considerations" was adopted.
B,C,D - No Impact The proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. The La Quinta High
School is the nearest non-residential sensitive receptor, and is located over 1/2 mile from the site. Residential
receptor areas exist to the north and east of the site. Construction -related air quality impacts will occur primarily
from grading activities and other soil disturbances. The required FDCP will address these short-term construction
FA96325
10
impacts. Long term impacts from roadway emissions due to cumulative impacts of growth in accordance with
the La Quinta General Plan were considered in the EIR document.
The project has no potential to effect any climatological change, and should not create any objectionable odor(s).
The proposed uses are commercial/retail in nature, and the Home Depot will have no known manufacturing or
processing on the site, beyond minor operations such as paint mixing or color matching, which could be
considered odor producing.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/Cl RCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and new
and resurfaced roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111,
Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, Miles Avenue and 50th Avenue. Traffic volumes in La
Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late winter/early spring months representing the
peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes.
Local Environmental Setting
The project is bounded by two major City thoroughfares; Highway 111 and Jefferson Street, the traffic study
prepared for Jefferson Plaza indicates that existing average daily traffic (ADT) counts on these roadways are
34,941 and 10,036 respectively. Current geometrics for Highway 111 along the project frontage consists of four
travel lanes with painted median and no curb/gutter; Jefferson Street is a two-lane road with raised medians and
two north and three southbound left turn pockets (Traffic Impact Analysis; Jefferson Plaza, O'Rourke
Engineering, June 11, 1996; Site Survey).
The La Quinta General Plan Establishes a minimum Level of Service (LOS) "D" for all intersections during A.M.
or P.M. peak hours without adequate mitigation. LOS is a hierarchical classification of qualitative measures of
traffic flow, ranging from A (free flow) to F (unacceptable saturation).
A - Potentially Significant Unless NEtigated. The project will unquestionably create increased trips and
congestion. The traffic study prepared for Jefferson Plaza indicates that 11,502 daily vehicle trips will be
generated by the overall project (Traffic Impact Analysis; Jefferson Plaza, O'Rourke Engineering, June 11, 1996).
The study contains several recommendations for intersection and roadway geometric improvements which are
represented as mitigating the impacts of increased traffic. The applicant shall dedicate and install all
improvements as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department in accordance with the conditions of
approval for the project and my development agr ement
Due to air quality impacts identified, this project is required to submit a Transportation Demand Management
Plan (TDM), which will include provisions to reduce vehicle trips and provide facilities to encourage and
accommodate alternative modes of transportation. State law currently pending would preclude air districts from
enforcing trip reduction strategies; in the SCAQMD subregions, this relates to Regulation XV, or Rule 1501,
which required any employer of 100 or more persons to prepare a ridesharing strategy plan for that worksite. The
City's ordinance is modeled upon the SCAQMD rule, and was adopted in 1992 in order to implement the
Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CMP).
B - Less Than Significant Impact. The project incorporates several driveway locations along Jefferson Street
and Highway 111. Proposed signal locations at Vista Grande and Jefferson Street and the westerly access along
Highway 111, as proposed in the traffic study for existing conditions plus the project, will reduce traffic safety
impacts significantly. Additionally, the easterly access along Highway 111 (at the proposed gas station location)
could present a hazard from traffic turning west onto Highway 111 from northbound Jefferson Street. Traffic
from this approach attempting to enter that point may conflict with other traffic as it crosses travel lanes. The site
EA96325
11
plan shows less than 200 feet available to accomplish this maneuver. However, this access point can be
appropriately modified and is not anticipated to create intersection congestion, as it will not cause upstream
traffic (i.e., traffic heading into the intersection as opposed to heading out) to be affected. Traffic safety
improvements as typically required of new development will also provide reductions in traffic hazard impacts,
commensurate with development of the site, and should improve the overall safety level of the intersection in
general.
C Thorough G - No Impact The project as mitigated will not impede or restrict emergency access requirements,
and provides for adequate access to surrounding uses. The project provides for parking areas which exceed the
City's parking requirements by 28%; therefore, no parking impacts will be created by the proposal which were
not addressed and provided for in the specific plan. The project will be conditioned to provide for alternative
transportation infrastructure, which will be identified through the submittal of a TDM Plan as conditioned. Any
transit improvements determined necessary by Sunline Transit will be conditioned as part of the project's
approval. The site is not proximate to, nor is it affected by water, air or rail traffic.
3.7 EIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the Sonoran
Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as urban or
agricultural. Adiscussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is vacant, with fairly level terrain and minimal vegetation. The native vegetation is desert scrub,
but the majority of the site has been disturbed by clearing and leveling in recent history. A sandy dune along the
northerly edge of the project site (along the project boundary) is the only remaining feature which is largely
undisturbed (Cultural Resources Survey; The Home Depot, Keith Companies, April 1996). The LQMEA
identifies the entire site as within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard habitat area, for which a federal 10A
permit was obtained pursuant to adoption of the CVFTL Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
A through E - No Impact The site has been predominantly disturbed by previous leveling activities, primarily
related to maintenance activities associated with CVWD operations along the Whitewater Channel. There is
negligible potential for wildlife habitat to exist on the site. Mitigation fees will be conditioned to be paid for the
CVFTL prior to any land disturbance or grading permits being issued for the site. There are no significant or
otherwise- predominant tree stands or other vegetation on the site. No wetland areas are shown to be on or
traverse the site, and the location of the site adjacent to two major roads and a flood control facility precludes any
potential migration of wildlife.
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources Areas
(SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City.
Major energy resources used in the City come form the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), Southern California Gas
Company, and gasoline companies.
Local Environmental Setting
The site does not he within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist of
Myoma fine sand; these soils are well -drained and permeable, and can be used for agricultural uses.
- BA96325
12
A, B - No Impact. The proposed project has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources in any manner
which could be considered wasteful. Construction of the project will be required to meet State energy standards
as typically enforced by the Building and Safety Department, and to comply with conservation policies as
established in the La Quinta General Plan.
3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not yet located within La Quinta, the existence
of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape
irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may post significant threats to various sectors of the
population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County; transportation
of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
Local Environmental Setting
The project site is vacant and has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the past.
A - Less Than Significant Impact. There is negligible potential for additional risk or health hazard due to the
project, or any effect on emergency response or potential fire hazard. The Home Depot will have on -site storage
and sales of certain amounts of chemical compounds in various packaging (i.e., pool supplies, fertilizers, insect
and gardening products), and other household chemical constituents. Storage and inventory of potentially
hazardous products are regulated by State and Federal legislation, and will also be subject to Fire and Health
Department standards as in effect and applicable at the time.
B Through E - No Impact. The project does not have any potential to interfere with emergency response or
create any health hazards. The site is not susceptible to increased fire hazards form the project, related to brush,
grass or trees.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include
vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise levels
are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials.
Local Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic, and various short-term noise sources
associated with urbanized residential and commercial uses. The property is vacant and therefore not a current
source of noise impact.
AM - Less Than Significant Impact. Increases in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal. Roadway
noise will increase as traffic volumes increase. Most of the on -site uses will be operational during daytime and
early evening hours. The maiority of residential areas are not proximate to the project. An existing apartment
complex across Jefferson Street will likely be the most impacted from this development, primarily from traffic
noise. However, the complex is currently proximate to a convenience store and other commercial uses, and as
a higher density residential use is typically sited to serve as a transition between commercial and lower density
land uses. The residences along Vista Grande will absorb a measurable amount of noise from Jefferson Street
traffic, but it is not anticipated to be significant in consideration of the traffic volumes which already exist. The
project will be reguired to Dare an acoustical study, which shall make specific recommendations concerning
mitigation of noise impacts from the entire sites ecificaliv along the CVWD Channel frontage subject to
functional and aesthetic design review by the City for any recommended method(s) of mitigation
- EA96325
13
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's
Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire
Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station #70, at the
intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs Ambulance Service.
Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower
Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
Local Environmental Setting .
Station #32 and Station #70 are located approximately 4 I/2 miles south of the project site. Governmental services
in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center.
A through E - No Impact. The project will not measurably impact public services, based upon comments
received on the project. All necessary public services can be provided to the project without compromising any
existing levels of public service. The proponents will have to pay school fees as established by Desert Sands
Unified School District for commercial projects.
3.12 UTILITIES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (lID) for electrical power supply and the
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides
telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision services the area for cable television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its
water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater drainage system is
administered by CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows
through the City
The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal
solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject site is undeveloped at present. Street and flood control improvements have been partially completed,
along with sewer and water line extensions being in place. Some utility trunk extensions and connections will
be necessary to develop the property.
A through F - Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require some degree of alteration to
existing facilities; however, the responses received from the responsible purveyors do not present any significant
concerns.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and south
of the City. Views of the desert: and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City.
Views of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west.
EA96325
14
A, B. Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have limited impact on scenic vistas, as there are no
scenic viewsheds, identified in the LQMEA. The height of the proposed structures may block some view lines,
but the impact will be lessened as most residential views in the area do not originate within a close proximity
of the project and therefore have extended line of sight perspectives. The primary concern is with impact due to
the building's visibility from the residential units to the north and across Jefferson at Vista Grande. These are
views into the rear portions of the complex, which are not designed with any consideration to "soften" the
aesthetic impact. The project will be required to provide additional design treatments and to establish an adequate
landscape buffer to mitigate view impacts associated with a blank structure and rear service areas
C - Potentially Significant Unless Mtigated. As a commercial project the proposal will create additional light
and glare. The City has adopted a "Dark Sky" ordinance which regulates lighting types and shielding
characteristics. The devev lamer shallsubmit a lighting plan, in compliance with the provisions of the Outdoor
Light Control ordinance.
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills. The
settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several publications and
museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on the California Historic
Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposal is located along Highway 111, a developing urbanized commercial area; there is little likelihood
that any cultural resources exist in the area. No historic structures exist in the immediate area.
A,B - Less Than Significant Impact. There are no potential impacts to cultural resources due to the proposal.
A sandy dune along the northerly edge of the project site (along the project boundary) is the only remaining
feature which is largely undisturbed. A cultural resources assessment was prepared for the project site and
portions of the surrounding area. The report indicates that the area has a high degree of archaeologic sensitivity,
with a total of 41 sites recorded within one mile of the property (Cultural Resources Survey; The Home Depot,
Keith Companies, April, 1996). However, on the site itself, no significant artifacts were discovered. The report
concluded that no fiuther mitigation is necessary for this site. The City shall adhere to its standard requirement
for a trained archaeological monitor to be present during grading gperations to coordinate recovery of any
potential artifacts which mky be uncovered.
C Through E - The cultural resources survey did not identify any historic resources on the site beyond some
mid-20th century foundation remnants. Development of the project has no potential to affect cultural values, and
no existing religious uses are associated with the site.
3.15 RECREATION
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and
facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for
Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails within the City and designated
pedestrian hiking trails.
EA96325
15
A,B - No Impact. The proposed project will not affect demand for recreational facilities or existing recreation.
While the project will attract additional customer base from within La Quinta and other communities, it is not
likely that the project will attract a significant number of new residents beyond those which may relocate for
employment purposes.
SECTION 4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Initial Study for the Specific Plan/Use Permit identified potentially significant impacts associated with the
project, as summarized in the areas of Earth Resources, Air Quality, Transportation/Circulation and Aesthetics.
The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065
of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment:
a) The proposed Specific Plan/Use Permit will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner inconsistent with
the General Plan and other current City standards,
b) The proposed Specific Plan/Use Permit will not have the potential to achieve short term goals,
to the disadvantage of long term environmental goals, as the proposed project will not alter the
types or intensity of the commercial uses already contemplated in the General Plan,
c) The proposed Specific Plan/Use Permit will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate
vicinity, in that the proposed project, whether approved or not, is a consistent representation
of the project type to be proposed for the site as long as the current General Plan land use and
zoning designations are applicable, and the impacts as identified in the Initial Study will remain
similar.
d) The proposed Specific Plan/Use Permit will not have environmental effects that will adversely
affect humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates uses similar to those
already assessed under ultimate development of the La Quinta General Plan, and which were
addressed in the EIR previously certified for the General Plan.
SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation of
this assessment:
• La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992
• La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992
• SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993
0 Cultural Resources Survey; The Home Depot, Keith Companies, April, 1996
• Traffic Impact Analysis; Jefferson Plaza, O'Rourke Engineering, June 11, 1996
• Environmental Assessment 92-241; prepared for Specific Plan 92-022 and Plot Plan 92-490..
These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in the
preparation of this Initial Study.
EA96325
16
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed. The following potentially significant impacts identified in the
checklist were determined as adequately addressed by the previously listed documents
♦ Earth Resources
♦ Air Quality
♦ Transportation/Circulation
♦ Aesthetics
C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum where underlined. A
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) has been prepared for the project that will become a part of the
conditions of approval attached to the project approvals and permits.
Prepared by:
Wallace H. Nesbit
Associate Planner
Date:
r -
r
EA96325
W
E--�
�
z
Q Q
� U
W
U
U
W
E�
C�J
z
C7
zo
®z
w�
c�i
a
o
U
U�
►� LV
W
.Vn
�
W
N •�
�tm
V
c�
Mz
o
za
N N
a a.
c�
v
W
Q
Q
z
aA
Q^ U
U
U
W
E-�
U
z
0
�o
z
0 0
w�
x�
O
>4
f' z
z CO
W
Q
Q
z
¢Q
a�
w
Ou
W
~
b
Co
.t
bmo l
ed
a
0
c7
wz
a�
A
A
®
U
® ®
o
o
W�
�ted
v
PC
cd
o
�
ao
0.
cl
ri0.0
0N
�
r-00
00
�o Oo
rnrn
as
c�
U
W
d
Q
z�
� Q
�U
U
U
o
°O
v Cc
'° > a
>
U cl
U
00
C9
z
09 V
as
C7
as
�?O
a
A
a�
qA
p®
cc
U, 44
4U
Cc
94
>,
p'
by
'Li c
cl
o
a
o
P
�
U b°'io
@•°
co
`�
®•
cl
r-00
00
110 \o
rnrn
a, as
cn�:)
U
F
A
z
u
Om
UU
•w
t`I
L
U @ U
Cc! o
u
a
4
•°c
cc
5 ;,
o
G7
�'
a
ch
0
�
a
a
pG�
A°a
A
A
A
®
U
U
U
A
�
v
•
A
cc
°
•�
0
IL
r-00
00
,,6 ,6
rA a
u
w
Q
z
¢Q
av
O
UU
¢
a
U
�
o
a
C)
U
u
O
®
o
0
A
�
o
w
�
°
'
`' °'
'ti
F
/dN►�/1
U
�/�
,o V
.�
E�
A
U
pq
�A
U
O�
UV
i.
W
�ao
C7
0
c� a
c7
a
cis
�®
4
En
� �
A
p4®
W
A�
�
r
�
o
oG 4.5
ti
s
a
co
ed
a�
a�
oa=•w��
�cl
oQ�
aaU
42
�
c
M ®•
oSea
�N.Erp
C3-N*c
w.4
as
r00
rn(ON
as
C/)a
U
F
A
U pq
�A
a�
V
O�
VU
67
c�
W
� a
®
U
rA
0 0
rn rn
a. a.
C4�D
u
F
A
�U
O�
UU
U
.
G7
E+
67
r®
O
z
Q
a
o
U
0.4
M z
o
�za
as a*,
as a.
CA�D
u
E�
A
U
pq
�A
�W
►� x
U�
O�
UU
�
b o
x
U
� o
u
d s�
E
o
0
67
a �
�
U ri
�
o
PO
d
Po
a
c.
:�
a,
OF�.9U
F�
A
Q�
a
U
O�
UU
o
W�
F
�
ao
0
a
o �
� �
a
a®
c�
d
> .a
avy1w.
Lr��
ao
U
CIO o
rA b
MZ�
Ova
CD 0
rnrn
as
��D
U
A
U pq
U
O�
U
as
o�
o
U
Mz ®
zco
E�
A
U
pq
�WA
ax
U
OU
v
a
co
da'
da' U
4.6
A co
G7
cc
O
•�,i0.a
°u
cl
cico
�
co
Asa
44
�
�
•b
tin �
el
cl
A
0
rA
ra 0A
O E•� A
4-0
04
�'
a
.�
F
a
U p�q
�A
U
OU
� do
� o
a�
xt
�o
�o
�+
a
U
d
W�
o
clIL
4z�-ns0
0
00
ONrn
a. A.
r.o �:)
U
E�
4
p,
a
4-4
�
�
b
,n
Mz
o
za
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT OF A
COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW 218,300
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER AT THE NORTH WEST
CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON STREET
CASE NO. SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
HOME DEPOT, USA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on
the 23rd day of July, 1996, and the 13th day of August, 1996, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to
consider the request of Home Depot, USA, Inc., for a 218,300 square foot retail center in the C-P-S
Zone on a 20=L acre site, more particularly described as:
APN: 649-020-022 and 649-020-023
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan Amendment request has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended by Resolution 83-68, in that a Negative Declaration has been recommended for
certification; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts,
findings, and reasons to justify a recommendation for approval of said Specific Plan:
1. The General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as mixed regional commercial with
a non-residential overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including retail
uses and restaurants as is proposed. Additionally, this project is consistent with the other
applicable elements such as the Circulation Element, Environmental Conservation
(Archaeological, Water Conservation and Arts in Public Places policies), Infrastructure and
Public Services Element, Environmental Hazards Element, and Air Quality Element as
conditioned.
a. Land Use Element Policy 2-3.1 provides for primary uses being major retail
businesses with ancillary uses including other commercial uses.
b. The construction of this project will implement Policy 3-2.1.7 of the Circulation
Element which pertains to widening and improvement of Highway 111. As such, this
Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan.
2. The subject site is vacant at this time. The proposed Mixed -Use development as
conditioned, will benefit the overall welfare of the community, as it is located in a Major
Transportation Corridor for accessibility and limit the number of vehicle trips. The project
design characteristics are conditioned to assure that lighting is shielded, additional
resopc.210
landscaping, buffering, architectural treatment, and traffic and street improvements are
imposed. The Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended for
certification indicates that no detrimental impacts will occur.
3. The subject property as well as property to the southwest and partially to the east are zoned
for commercial uses. To the north is the Whitewater Storm Channel which provides a buffer
from the residentially -zoned properties beyond the Channel. Therefore, development of the
subject property with commercial uses will be compatible with adjacent properties provided
the applicable conditions, as recommended by staff, are complied with.
4. As noted, the property is zoned for commercial use and designated commercial in the
General Plan. The property is relatively flat and therefore the proposed uses are suitable for
the proposed commercial development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, as follows:
l . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of
Specific Plan 96-027.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
resopc.210
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96- EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The development shall comply with Exhibit 1, the Specific Plan for Specific Plan 96-027,
the approved exhibits and the following conditions, which shall take precedence in the event
of any conflicts with the provisions of the Specific Plan.
2. Exterior lighting for the project shall comply with the "Dark Sky" Lighting Ordinance. Plans
shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building
permits. All exterior lighting shall be down shining and provided with shielding to screen
glare from adjacent streets and residential property to the north and east to the satisfaction
of the Community Development Department. Parking lot light standards shall be a
maximum 30-feet in height. Lights in the garden center shall not extend above the height of
the block columns.
3. Plan for adequate trash recycling provisions for each phase as constructed shall be approved
by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. Plan to
be reviewed for acceptability by applicable trash company prior to City review.
4. Comprehensive sign program for Phase 2 (business identification, directional, and monument
signs, etc.) shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of any building
permit for Phase 2. Included in approvals shall be applications for any adjustments to sign
provisions required.
Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, or ground disturbance, mitigation
measures as recommended by the Archaeological Assessment for the site shall be completed
at the applicant/developer's expense. This consists of having an archaeological monitor on
site during grading and earth disturbance operations.
6. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions
of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to
which they apply.
7. Prior to the issuance of a grading, improvement 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
CONAPRVL.407 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
• Riverside County Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Imperial Irrigation District
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the
application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to
issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an
approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan.
8. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee :program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
9. Handicap access, facilities and parking shall be provided per State and local requirements.
10. Bus waiting shelters shall be provided when the street improvements are installed, as
approved by Sunline Transit and the Public Works Director.
11. "Prior to any site disturbance being permitted, including construction, preliminary site work
and/or archaeological investigation, the project developer shall submit and have approved
a Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP), in accordance with Chapter 6.16 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code. The plan shall define all areas proposed for development and shall indicate
time lines for any phasing of the project, and shall establish standards for comprehensive
control of both anthropogenic and natural creation of airborne dust due to development
activities on site. Phased projects must prepare a plan that addresses control measures over
the entire build out of the project such as for disturbed lands pending future development.
12. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements as determined
by the Building and Safety Director.
13. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the applicant shall pay the required
mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program,
as adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land.
14. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written
report to the Community Development Director demonstrating compliance with those
Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of SP 96-027 and EA 96-325 which must
be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building
CONAPRVL.407 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to he Community
Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and
mitigation measures of EA 96-325 and SP 96-027 which must be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the applicant shall
prepare and submit: a written report to the Community Development Director demonstrating
compliance with all remaining Conditions of Approval and mitigation measures of EA 96-
325 and SP 96-325. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other
monitoring to assure such compliance.
15. All Conditions of" Approval shall be incorporated into the Specific Plan text in the
appropriate section. Text shall be revised prior to issuance of a grading or building permit,
whichever occurs first.
16. Phase II construction and construction of the service station in Phase 1 shall be subject to
approval of a site development permit by the Planning Commission.
17. That all requirements of Coachella Valley Water District shall be met.
18. For all driveways leading from streets, the adjacent perpendicular drive aisle closest to the
street shall be provided with stop signs. Additionally, traffic aisles leading to the street shall
also be provided with stop signs to insure inbound traffic a continuous, uninterrupted flow
into the parking lot.
19. Any utility enclosures including pallet enclosures, propane/generator enclosures shall consist
of masonry materials sufficient in height to screen all storage with solid painted gates
provided, subject to approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance
of a building permit.
20. Prior to issuance of a building permit the site plan shall show that the eight foot block wall
provided at the north property line, shall be one sided split face block with a two inch cap.
This wall may be phased as shown on the submitted plans.
21. The two cart storage areas (Section 3.3.4 of the Specific Plan) design and central locations
shall be approved by the Community Development, prior to issuance of a building permit.
Designated area shall be permanent and provided with screen walls and landscaping.
22. Drive through restaurant shown in Phase 2 shall be provided with screening by a combination
of berms, walls, and landscaping so that the cars using the drive through facilities will not
be visible by pedestrians and cars on the perimeter sidewalk and street as approved by the
site development permit. Adequate information shall be submitted to show that air quality
impacts will not increase when compared to non -drive -through uses.
CONAPRVL.407 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
23. All roof and wall mounted mechanical -type equipment shall be installed or screened with
architecturally compatible material so as not to be visible from surrounding properties and
streets to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and/or Planning
Commission. Working drawings showing all proposed equipment and how they will be
screened shall be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.
PROPERTY RIGHTS
24. All required easements, rights -of -way and other property rights shall be granted prior to
issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit for this development.
25. The applicant shall grant public and private street right-of-way utility easements in
conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and
as required by the Public Works Director.
Property rights required of this development include:
A. State Route 111 - 86' half of a 172' right-of-way
B. Jefferson Street - 62' half right-of-way transitioning to 81' half right-of-way on the
southerly portion as required for dual left turn lanes and dedicated right turn lane.
The applicant may reduce the above right-of-way widths by two feet by
reconstructing the west side of the existing Jefferson Street median two feet easterly
of the existing location.
Right-of-way grants shall include additional widths as necessary to accommodate additional -
width improvements shown on the approved improvement plans.
26. The applicant shall grant any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines
and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, park lands, and common areas.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
27. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36"
media. On -site plans shall be submitted in the categories of "Grading, Paving and Drainage"
and "Precise Grading and Plot Plan." Off -site improvements shall be submitted in the
categories of "Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." The "Precise Grading
and Plot Plan" shall have signature blocks for the Community Development Director and the
Building Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the Public Works Director.
Plans are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and
entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and drainage
CONAPRVL.407 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley Water
District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their submittal
for the Public Works Director's signature.
"Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and
perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the Public Works
Director.
28. 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.
29. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to issuance of grading, improvement
or building permits, the applicant shall furnish accurate computer files of the complete,
approved off -site improvement plans on storage medial and in a program format acceptable
to the Public Works Director. At the completion of construction and prior to final acceptance
of improvements, the applicant shall update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions
including approved revisions to the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
30. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or enter into a secured
agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations required by the City prior
to issuance of a grading, improvement or building permit. For secured agreements, security
provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or
obstructions which. are not part of the proposed improvements.
31. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of improvement
costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City resolution or
ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet the approval of
the City Engineer.
32. If the applicant desires to phase improvements and obligations required by the conditions of
approval and secure those phases separately, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.407 5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
The applicant shall complete required improvements and satisfy obligations as set forth in
the approved phasing plan. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be
completed and satisfied prior to occupancy of permanent buildings within the phase unless
a construction sequencing plan for that phase is approved by the City Engineer.
33. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for applicant's
required share of improvements which have been or will be constructed by others
(participatory improvements).
This development is responsible for the following participatory improvements:
a. Underground installation of existing overhead utilities.
b. Raised landscape median on S.R. 111, and
C. Traffic signal at Jefferson Street and Vista Grande. If traffic conditions
warrant installation of this signal prior to or with the opening of Phase 2 of
this development, the City may require that the applicant construct this signal.
The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may, at the
City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program if
this development becomes subject to such a program.
GRADING
34. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances. The
land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion
control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works Departments.
35. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
36. The applicant shall conduct a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering
investigation and shall submit the report of the investigation ("the soils report") with the
grading plan.
37. A grading plan, which may be combined with the on -site paving and drainage plan, shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior
to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations
of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering
geologist.
CONAPRVL.407 6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
38. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document,
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that lists
actual building pad elevations. The document shall list the pad elevation approved on the
grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between the two, if any.
DRAINAGE
39. The applicant shall provide channel lining along the south bank of the Whitewater Storm
Channel adjacent to the project site. The Channel lining shall be designed and constructed
in accordance with the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District and the Director
of Public Works.
40. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be
retained within the development unless drainage to the Whitewater Storm Channel is
approved by CVWD. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of public
streets adjacent to the development.
41. Nuisance water (and storm water if drainage to the Whitewater Channel is not approved)
shall be retained in retention basin(s) or other approved retention/infiltration system(s). In
design of retention. facilities, the soil percolation rate shall be considered to be zero unless
the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise.
42. If retention is in an open basin, a trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by
the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach
field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area.
43. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and depth shall not exceed six feet.
44. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the
Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
45. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained
or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
UTILITIES
46. All existing and proposed utilities within or adjacent to the proposed development shall be
installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not accept
underground are exempt from this requirement.
47. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be
installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified
reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.407 7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
48. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. Jefferson Street - Major Arterial:
1). Street Improvements - Forty-one feet of southbound travel improvements
(accommodating three 12-foot travel lanes, a 5-foot bike lane) plus sidewalk.
At the south end, improvements shall transition into 75 feet of southbound
travel improvements to accommodate two dedicated 11-foot-wide left -turn
lanes and one dedicated 12-foot-wide right -turn lane.
2). Traffic Signal at entrance opposite Vista Grande - Secure 100% of the
estimated cost of the improvement. The applicant is responsible for the cost
of the signal at the time warrants are met for its installation and may be
required to construct the signal prior to or concurrently with construction of
Phase 2 of the development. The signal shall be interconnected and
coordinated with the signal on Jefferson Street at Highway 111.
3). Traffic Signal at S.R. I I I - Construct modifications required due to street
improvements required of this development and bear the full cost thereof.
Improvements shall include left turn signals for southbound and northbound
traffic.
4). Reconstruct the north median island on Jefferson Street adjacent to the site
to provide a 125-foot long left turn pocket for north -to -west traffic, and a 50-
foot: long left turn pocket for south -to -east traffic.
B. State Route; I I I - Major Arterial:
1). Street Improvements - Construct ultimate improvement on north half of street
as required by Caltrans. Median island construction is a participatory
improvement which may be constructed by others.
2). Traffic Signal at West Entry Drive - Install signal prior to opening any retail
outlet in the Specific Plan area that generates sufficient traffic to warrant
installation. Applicant shall bear 100% of the initial cost of the signal, but
may seek up to 75% reimbursement from nearby benefitting property owners
subject to the City's reimbursement policy.
CONAPRVL.407 8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
Prior to final inspection and occupancy of any permanent building within the
development, the applicant shall grant an access easement over the most
westerly (signalized) driveway to the owner of the abutting property to the
west. The applicant may propose easement provisions which delay the
effective date of the easement until the abutting property owner enters into
an agreement with the applicant to grant a similar easement, as necessary, and
pay a prorata share of the commercially reasonable costs of construction and
maintenance of the shared access facility.
C. Site Access Improvements:
For Phase 1 construction as depicted in the revised Phase 1 Site Plan received by the
City on 7/12/1996, the applicant shall:
1). Construct the signalized intersection on S.R. I I I at the west end of Phase 2
and install connecting drives to Phase 1 as approved by the City Engineer.
2). Construct the full width of the most westerly right-in/right/out drive on S.R.
111 and the full 26'-width of the north/south parking aisle at that drive, and
3). Enlarge and lengthen the triangular center island on the northerly right-
in/right-out and make corresponding increases in the entry radii, all as
approved by the City Engineer. This revision may result in the loss of two to
three parking spaces.
Bus turnouts, acceleration/deceleration lanes, and/or other features contained in the approved
construction plans may warrant additional street widths, raised medians or other mitigation
measures as determined by the City Engineer.
The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries
such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other
incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely integrated
with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices.
49. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. State Route 111 - Three 30'-wide right-in/right-out drives centered 250' and
approximately 435' and 765' west of the centerline of Jefferson Street. One 40'-wide
full -access drive at the signalized intersection to be constructed at the west end of the
development.
CONAPRVI,.407 9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
B. Jefferson Street - Two 30' right-in/right-out drives centered approximately 315' and
470' north of the centerline of S.R. 111. One 40' full -access drive matching up with
Vista Grande. The northerly right-in/right-out drive shall be constructed with a
triangular center island or other approved device to discourage left turns into this
drive from Jefferson Street.
50. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings
and street name signs.
51. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall
consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building construction
traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5 "/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
The applicant shall submit mix designs for road base, Portland cement concrete and asphalt
concrete, including complete mix design lab results, for review and approval by the City.
Construction operations shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved.
LANDSCAPING
52. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas along
Jefferson Street and S.R. 111.
53. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians, and
retention basins shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not approved
for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer, the Coachella
Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
54. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside the
right of way.
55. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of
the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-
feet of curbs along public streets.
CONAPRVL.407 10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
56. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide
visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
57. Parking lot shading as required by Municipal Code shall be provided. Number and location
of trees shown on submitted landscape plan does not constitute final approval. Plans showing
compliance with shading requirements shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building
permit to verify compliance.
58. Landscape improvements adjacent to Highway I I I and Jefferson Street adjacent to the service
station site shall be installed as a part of the Home Depot improvements.
59. Landscape materials shall be maintained as planted in perpetuity. Any dead or missing
landscaping shall be replaced within 30 days.
60. Landscaping within the shopping center (Phase 1 and Phase 2) shall be commonly maintained
under a single maintenance contract. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 2, a
common area maintenance association or other similar body shall be established to insure
compliance with this requirement. Required agreement or CC & R's shall be reviewed for this
purpose by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
61. Prior to issuances of any building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following:
a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation system for
all landscape areas. Desert or native plant species and drought resistant planting
materials shall be incorporated into the landscape plan.
b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls.
Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to
surrounding properties.
62. Screening of parking lot surface shall be provided from all adjacent streets through use of
berming, landscaping and/or short decorative walls, except he driveway view corridors.
QUALITY ASSURANCE:
63. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval
of the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.407 11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
64. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide,
sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign
accurate record drawings.
65. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings
shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on
each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy
of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the improvement plan computer files previously
submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
66. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for plan checking and permits.
FIRE MARSHAL
67. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 gpm for a 2 hour
duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible
material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based on type V-1 HR construction and building
being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
68. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2-
1/2") will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the buildings as
measured along approved vehicular travel ways. The required fire flow shall be available from
any adjacent hydrants in the system.
69. Blue retro-reflective pavement markets 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.
70. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blue line copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review. Plans shall conform to the fire
hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements.
Plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer and the local water company with the
following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with
the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department".
CONAPRVL.407 12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
71. 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.
72. If the building is used for high piled/rack storage, the building construction and fire sprinkler
system must meet NFPA 231 C and Article 81 of the 1994 UFC.
73. Install a manual pull, smoke detection and voice evacuation fire alarm system as required by
the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection
Association Standards 72.
74. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code.
75. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in
rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
Buildings/facilities
76. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200 or 1300, mounted per recommended
standard of the Knox. Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this
office for the ordering of the Key Switch, this form must be authorized and signed by this
office for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
77. If the building/facility is protected with a fire alarm system or burglar alarm system, the lock
boxes will require "tamper" monitoring.
78. If the facility requires Hazardous Materials Reporting (Material Safety Data sheets) the Knox
Haz Mat Data and Key Storage Cabinet, Model 1220 or 1300 with tamper switches shall be
used.
79. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must
be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire
Department Planning and Engineering staff at (619) 863-8886.
ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS
80. Prior to issuance of a building permit for Home Depot, the building elevation shall be
modified as follows:
CONAPRVI..407 13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
A. All metal roll up doors and the overhead metal canopy over the loading dock area shall
be painted to match the adjacent building wall.
B. The color of the rib metal canopy within the outdoor garden center shall be paint to
match the adjacent walls.
C. The rear of all parapet walls and tower structures higher than 32 feet from finished grade
shall be painted with the same color on the exterior of the building.
SIGNS
81. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the sign plan shall be modified as follows:
A. All orange background used in the cabinet signs shall be opaque.
B. The "nursery" and "indoor lumber yard" signs shall both be of the same type of
construction (i.e., cabinet or individual channel letters).
C. The Jefferson Street monument sign shall be six foot eight inches high and eight feet in
length.
MISCELLANEOUS
82. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a Transportation Demand
Management Plan (TDM Plan) to the Public Works and Community Development
Departments. The Plan shall address capital improvement and operational standards as
established in the City's TDM Ordinance. Any transit related improvements required by the
Sunline Transit Agency as a condition to development will not constitute compliance with the
plan submittal requirement.
83. An easement shall be granted to the City at the northwest intersection of Highway 111 and
Jefferson Street. Said easement shall be for the purpose of installing the City "Entry Sign".
Specific location and size of easement shall be approved by the City and recorded prior to final
occupancy of the Home Depot.
84. The applicant shall submit empirical documentation to adequately quantify and address the air
quality and circulation impacts associated with the circulation layout as it relates to the impact
from the entire site. The documentation shall address both staff s redesign requirements to
modify the site plan to show a continuous drive aisle from the middle driveway on Jefferson
Street through the first two long double rows of parking and the configuration as currently
proposed, and shall quantify any air quality benefits associated with either alternative. The
CONAPRVL.407 14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027
AUGUST 13, 1996
final parking lot layout shall be determined by the Community Development Director, based
upon the findings contained in and submitted as documentation, prior to an site development
permits being issued for any portion of the site, including gradin or site clearing requests.
CONAPRVL.407 15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL, OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO ALLOW MORE THAN 200 SQUARE FEET OF
OUTDOOR STORAGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RETAIL
CENTER
CASE NO.: CUP 96-028
HOME DEPOT USA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
23rd day of July, and the 13th day of August, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
the request of Home Depot USA, Inc. to allow more than two hundred square feet of outdoor
storage in conjunction with a retail center in the C-P-S Zone on 20+ acres at the northwest corner
of Highway I I I and Jefferson Street, more particularly described as:
APN 649-020-022 AND 649-020-023
WHEREAS, said conditional use permit request has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended by
Resolution 83-68, in that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been recommended for certification;
and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts,
findings and reasons to justify a recommendation for approval of said conditional use permit:
The conditional use permit is deemed consistent with the City's General Plan in that the site
is designated commercial and proposed for retail use.
2. The approval of this conditional use permit for outdoor storage insures consistency with the
Zoning Code since it is required.
An Environmental Assessment has been prepared and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
recommended for this project.
4. The outdoor storage area is to be enclosed by a steel and block fence which insures that the
impact on the public health, safety, and general welfare will not be detrimental.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California as follows:
Planning Commission Resolution 96-
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of
Conditional Use Permit 96-028 to allow more than 200 square foot of outdoor storage in
conjunction with a retail center subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, attached
hereto and made a part of as Exhibit "A".
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quints
Planning Commission, held on this 13th day of August, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.173
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-028
AUGUST 13, 1996
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The development shall comply with Specific Plan 96-027, and all applicable Conditions of
Approval.
2. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit shall run concurrently with Specific Plan 96-027.
RF.soPC.173
PC 8-13-96 ATTACHMENT 1
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Specific Plan 96-027. Conditional Use Permit 96-028 and Environmental Assessment
96-325; a request of Home Depot for certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact, approval of a Specific Plan to allow
construction of a 218,300 square foot retail center on approximately 20 acres, and
approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow outdoor storage in conjunction with
the Home :Depot Store.
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. Staff noted the changes in the Conditions of Approval and that
a letter had been received in objection to the project by Malcolm and Annette
Lee. Staff further noted that Condition #57 presently requires the landscaping
to be approved by staff. Staff is recommending this be changed to have the
landscaping come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval.
2. Commissioner Gardner questioned how many parking spaces would be
required. Staff clarified there were 994 parking spaces for the entire project.
3. Commissioner Gardner asked if the Spanish tile could be used instead of the
flat tile. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated there was consideration
made to require an "S" the roof, but as the building was a contemporary tilt
up structure, staff recommended the roof tile be flat which is a Terra Cotta
"S" tile.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked if the sign sizes included the lumber and
nursery signs. Staff stated the 522 square feet included the main Home Depot
sign only. Commissioner Gardner asked if the monument signs were
comparable to what was approved for the Wal-Mart and Von's Shopping
Centers. Staff stated they were comparable to the Highway 111 shopping
center.
5. Commissioner Gardner asked about the additional landscaping. Staff stated
the applicant would be required to meet the 50% parking lot shading
requirement.
6. Commissioner Woodard asked if a perspective rendering was required. Staff
started it was not always specifically required of a project and this project had
not: been asked to submit one.
PC7-23 2
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
7. Commissioner Tyler asked about the sample board of roof tiles. He felt a red
flat tile would fit in better with the City's Spanish design theme. Staff
pointed out that the tile did come in different colors.
8. Commissioner Anderson stated his questions were pertaining to traffic and
circulation flow. In particular, the number of entries leading into the project
located so close to the Jefferson Street and Highway 111 intersection and
their proximity to each other; what was staff s reasoning for this? Senior
Engineer Steve Speer clarified that on Highway 111 the City is required to
meet the minimum distance between access drives as allowed by the General
Plan, which is 250 feet from an intersection. This being a large site, the
spacing of the driveways were designed in accordance with those
specifications. The Jefferson Street entries are close, but within the required
distance. Staff clarified that the median on Jefferson Street is a shared
median with the City of Indio. Since its installation, the median has created
some criticism by the adjacent residents. The project is conditioned to have
a long throat extending the median for the middle entrance coming into Home
Depot off Jefferson Street. Senior Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain
the egress and ingress circulation of the entrances off Jefferson Street. He
further noted there would be three northbound lanes of traffic on Jefferson
Street and the northerly access, Vista Grande, would be signalized when
warranted.
9. Commissioner Anderson asked if retaining the median break was to allow the
southbound traffic to turn into existing businesses on Jefferson Street. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer went on to explain the purpose for maintaining the
median break.
10. Commissioner Butler asked about the signal at Vista Grande. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer explained that when Phase I was constructed, it would
probably not meet the traffic warrants to require a signal at Vista Grande.
The current traffic load will increase as the Center develops thus increasing
the potential that warrants will be met. Commissioner Butler asked if this
was a shared expense with the City of Indio. Staff stated it was not, it would
be the complete responsibility of Home Depot. Commissioners discussed the
traffic circulation with staff.
11. Commissioner Anderson asked about deliveries and truck traffic in regards
to the loading docks. Was the truck traffic designed to be circulated to the
north side of the building with most of the traffic being directed south on
Jefferson Street? Was staff concerned about the truck traffic on Jefferson
PC7-23 3
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
Street?. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated Jefferson Street is a Regional
Arterial street by both La Quinta, Indio, and the Coachella Valley Association
of Governments, therefore it can handle the load. He went on to explain the
traffic pattern for the truck deliveries.
12. Commissioner Woodard asked what the function was for the parking lot on
the east side in the rear of the building in Phase II. Principal Planner Stan
Sawa stated it would primarily be employee parking.
13. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Abels opened the public
hearing. Mr. Mark Shenouda and Mr. Doug Couper, the architect, spoke on
behalf of the applicant, Home Depot. Mr. Mark Shenouda addressed his
concerns to the Commission regarding the following Conditions of Approval:
a. "Revised" Conditions #2 - He requested increasing the parking lot
light standards to 35-feet and allow the Garden Center lights as
proposed.
b. "Revised" Condition #20 - He requested shifting all of the
handicapped aisle one aisle to the east, closer to the entrance to
alleviate staff s concern regarding maneuvering in these spaces if in
the main drive aisle.
C. "Revised" Condition #22 - He requested one side split face block on
the Channel side only, instead of both sides. The south side of the
wall would be landscaped with box size trees and face the interior.
d. "Original" Condition #23 - He explained that the cart corrals would
be limited to two locations. They will have an employee on site who
will be continually picking up the carts and returning them to the
store.
e. "Original" Condition #26 - He stated there is no need for a six foot
wall around the trash compactor area as the compactor is about eight
feet high and recessed in the loading dock four feet below grade. A
three foot high tilt up wall screens one side. They request this
condition be deleted.
f. "Revised" Condition #42 - He requested the option of constructing
the Channel lining in phases.
PC7-23 4
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
g. "Revised" Condition #61- He requested the landscaping condition be
deleted as they would move the handicapped spaces and didn't have
the space to accommodate the planters.
h. "Original"Condition #63 - He stated that the trees required in front of
the store are an operational nightmare and it is the store's policy to
not allow anything in the front of the store. They would recommend
having a couple of tree wells installed between the lumber yard and
the main canopy adjacent to the tilt up wall.
I. "Original"Condition #88.C. - He requested the deletion of this
condition for pop outs as the vertical elements that are being required
would bring more attention to the downspout.
"Original" Condition 88.A., B., C. - He requested deletion of these
sign revision requirements.
k. Condition #90 - He requested deletion of this condition as it would
cause them to lose too much parking.
14. Mr. Drew Purvis, Assistant Planner for the City of Indio, stated he had
submitted a letter to the City regarding the City of Indio's concerns with
respect to the Home Depot project. Indio was pleased to hear that staff had
addressed some of their concerns in the staff report. In addition, they were
pleased to see this type of business moving to the east end of the Valley and
employing so many residents. However, the City of Indio is concerned that
the impacts are regional in character and generally environmental in nature.
He would like to recommend that the Planning Commission continue this
item to allow staff time to address their concerns and mitigate the negative
impact of this proposal.
15. Mr. Richard J. Smith, Smith Peroni, Planning Consultants in Palm Springs,
stated he was present to address the concerns of his client, the property owner
immediately to the west of the project site. He then stated they were in
support of the project and their only concern was the traffic. He stated the
general engineering rule is to install traffic signals every quarter mile. He
then passed around an exhibit showing the proposed signal locations if this
were followed on Highway 111. Due to this "rule", he was surprised that the
City was not requiring all the signals to be installed. As shown on the Home
Depot plans, the traffic signal on Highway 111 was to be installed entirely
on the Home Depot property. This would prohibit his client from using the
PC7-23 5
Planning Commission Meeting,
July 23, 1996
driveway and not allowing their property a left turn access onto Highway 111.
They would like to recommend having a common driveway. If Home Depot
was agreeable, his client would be willing to grant an easement to allow a
reciprocal driveway that would accommodate both sites. Regardless, the need
to have the signal installed remains. Currently his client's frontage on
Highway 111 is 500 feet and with there being another piece of property
between his client's property and Dune Palms Road, there would be no means
of having a left turn onto Highway 111. A shared signal at this location
would allow both property owners a left turn access.
16. Ms. Dorothy Taul, 80-140 Vista Grande, stated her concerned was that the
signal for Vista Grande was being postponed. She went on to clarify that
with the installation of a larger facility for the veterinarian proposed by the
City of Indio for the east side of Jefferson Street, the existing commercial
facilities on the east side of Jefferson Street, and now this development, there
would be major changes to the traffic conditions for the residents on Vista
Grande. If the Highway 111 signal is green, traffic travels north on Jefferson
Street at speeds of 45-50 miles per hour making a left turn onto, or off of,
Jefferson Street very difficult.
17. Mr. John Seevers, 80125 Vista Grande stated he too was concerned about
traffic. In the traffic analysis report, the traffic signal is shown to be
warranted at Vista Grande at the time of the project's opening. With the
discussion thus far at this meeting, he would like clarification as to whether
or not the signal was warranted and if it would be installed. In addition, the
16 residents on Vista Grande are concerned about the view from Vista
Grande when traveling west, into the loading dock area behind Home Depot.
They would like to have the view shielded. He suggested moving the traffic
island to hide the view. They also had a concern about the sign on the east
side of the building, as it appears the letters on the sign will be five feet high.
They would request the Commission reduce the size of the sign. They would
like to request that the light standards be 25-feet instead of 35-feet as this
would be too excessive. The nursery lights should also be kept as low as
possible. Lastly, the City should not compromise on any landscaping
requirements.
18. There being no further public comment, Chairman Abels closed the public
F hearing.
19. Chairman Abels asked staff to address the traffic light concerns that had been
raised. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the traffic study indicates that the
Jefferson Street traffic light is needed based on the build out of Phase I and
II. However, Phase II will not be opening at the same time as Phase I,
therefore, only half the traffic will be present at the time of the store opening
and the signal would not be warranted to mitigate the impact at that time.
PC7-23 6
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
20. Commissioner Woodard asked for clarification. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated that the concerns from the residents are not caused by the construction
of this project. Only those issues that are created by the construction of this
project can be required to be mitigated. Discussion followed regarding the
traffic concerns. Staff stated that warrant study policies are put together by
Caltrans and have been utilized by the City.
21. Commissioner Tyler stated that the traffic study did not address the Heritage
Palms project further north on Jefferson Street in the City of Indio, or the
other projects planned for this area. He was concerned that the traffic study
should be restudied to include potential projects as it is inviting a potential
disaster.
22. Commissioner Anderson stated he understood the study was based on both
Phases being built out, but the majority of the traffic on Jefferson Street will
come from Home Depot and not the other retail businesses proposed to be
constructed along with Home Depot. He too was concerned about the traffic
congestion at the Vista Grande intersection.
23. Commissioner Woodard asked why the Valley population that would increase
during the "season" was not considered in the traffic study. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated the traffic study was done in May, and seasonal traffic
only increases the amount of traffic by 25%.
24. Chairman Abels also questioned the traffic increase during the seasonal
months. Senior Engineer Steve Speer explained the figures contained in the
traffic report and referred to the study results. He stated that if the traffic
increased by 25%, it would still fall below the number needed for a warrant.
He went on to explain the warrant process to determine the need for a signal.
He further stated that signals are not the only solution for traffic problems.
They can also be the cause of a traffic problem.
25. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the impact of the
USA Homes project in Indio, along with the other projects proposed for the
north section of Jefferson Street, would increase the warrants to require a
signal; if so, what period of time is anticipated for the traffic signal
installation. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated this warrant was a function
of the cross -traffic flow (i.e., project exit) not arterial street volume. Once
the: project volume increases to the levels required by the warrant, a signal is
installed.
26. Commissioner Tyler asked if staff had investigated the common driveway
proposed between the two property owners. Staff stated they had not.
PC7-23 7
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
27. Mr. Mark Shenouda spoke regarding the shared access with the property
owner to the west and stated they would look into the issue. Regarding the
issue of signals, the plans are to install the signal on Highway I I I as part of
the Phase I construction.
28. Chairman Abels asked if the nursery lights would be shielded. Mr. Shenouda
stated they would be shielded. Chairman Abels asked if the loading dock
area could be shielded from the Vista Grande residents traveling west. Mr.
Shenouda stated the people traveling west on Vista Grande would not be able
to see the loading dock as the building is to be constructed at an angle to
block the view. It would be setback 300 feet and depressed so as not to be
seen.
29. Commissioner Tyler asked when the delivery trucks made their deliveries.
Mr. Shenouda stated they are usually made during the day, but could be
scheduled for night time.
30. Commissioner Gardner asked if the circulation pattern for the delivery trucks
was to have them travel down Highway 111 entering and exiting the parking
lot off of Highway 111, and driving to the rear of the building for their
deliveries. If this was to be the circulation pattern, why not close off the
Jefferson Street entrance and landscape it to hide the rear of the building?
Mr. Shenouda stated the Jefferson Street entrance would have a lot of use by
all kinds and sizes of trucks.
31. Commissioner Butler asked if any trucks would be entering off of Jefferson
Street. Mr. Shenouda stated the large semi -trucks are to enter off of Highway
111, but the smaller truck deliveries would use both.
32. Commissioner Butler stated his concern about the applicant's request to
increase the height of the light standards to 35 feet. He could not accept the
increase in height from 25 feet to 35 feet. Mr. Shenouda stated that by using
the; 35 foot high light standards, it would allow them to decrease the number
of poles needed. The nursery area would be a problem without the higher
poles. If the lights are shielded it should take care of the problem.
33. Commissioner Anderson stated that rather than negotiating these issues, he
would like to address a primary area of concern, that is the percentage of
landscaping in the parking area. The City standard is 5%, and the potential
exists to take the building pad on the corner and change it into parking. Five
percent must be maintained whether this corner pad is used or not. He was
also concerned about the physical appearance and noise from the loading
dock at the rear of the building due to loading and unloading of trucks. A six
foot wall is good, but eight feet would be better. Staffs recommendations
PC7-23
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
regarding the landscaping are good, and he has no objection to the single
sided split face block for the rear wall. The monument signs requested must
be reduced in size. Final landscape plans including the monument signs,
should be reviewed by the Commission. He sees no reason why a blended
"S" the could not be used on the mansards. The five foot ADA pedestrian
aisle for the handicapped spaces should be shaded.
34. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern with the look of the entire length
of Highway 111 beginning to be a mass of straight walls with no sense of
character or scale. Even though he understands the economics, he has a
concern for the image of La Quints with these mammoth structures on
Highway 111 and no relief. There is a need to focus on the entire streetscape
and not just the Home Depot site. Home Depot is requesting a reduction of
parking spaces as well as a reduction in the amount of the landscaping.. He
understandings the economics of Home Depot to require a certain amount of
parking, and the City can live with this, but it is Home Depot's property and
what he sees is Home Depot maximizing the entire site at the expense of the
property parking requirements. He is opposed to the complete deterioration
of the landscaping of the overall project when the City has given the benefit
of reducing the overall parking requirement. The five percent is an absolute
minimum. Home Depot has maximized the entire site at the expense of
landscaping. The second issue is the front wall of Home Depot being a
straight line. Commissioner Woodard stated he understood the economics of
this, but the second phase is also a straight line and this is a maximizing of
the; site. The employee parking behind the building on the east side of the
second phase, could be eliminated as there is an over abundance of parking.
This would allow the building to be moved back and give some variation to
the front wall. As it is, with no variation in the front setbacks, the minimum
distance between the driveways, and the front of the buildings La Quinta is
left with a solid wall of buildings. Unless Home Depot is willing to review
the second phase in a more sensitive way, he would be concerned about what
his vote would be. He supports staff regarding the relocation of the
handicapped parking to provide a better situation in terms of the entrance.
They could eliminate some of the parking requirements for Phase II and
increase the site of Phase I. to accommodate landscaping on both sides of the
entry road into the project. This would give some sense of landscaping to
minimize the impact of the parking area from those driving by. In regard to
F these two areas of building scale and the setback combined with landscaping,
he agrees that there should be a walk and landscaping provided at the main
road into the site even if they have to expand the site to accommodate this.
As it now stands, he would recommend the trees be mature and the shading
position be there when the store opens up. In addition, the landscaping
should be increased throughout the entire project even if it requires a
readjustment of the site plan and the size of the first parcel. The rear wall
should be eight feet rather than six. The applicant needs to look at the
PC7-23 9
Planning Commission Meeting;
July 23, 1996
amount of distance between the front of the lower element of the elevation
to the high element as it is very minimal at best, and to facade it in a way to
make it look Spanish, does two things that are wrong: 1) it looks superficial;
and 2) hopefully, he would like to see La Quinta be a City that does not have
to be all tile roofs as he would like to see a variation in architecture. It is an
economic issue, but he would like to see some way that it can be solved to
soften this huge building. He would suggest that there are ways to deal with
the upper level wall in the front that are more imaginative, so not to ruin the
area that is needed for economics, but reduces the impact of this huge wall
along Highway 111. The applicant also needs to look at a variation of
materials for the rear wall, on the side that faces the channel and not have one
continuous wall of one material, but use some imagination with different
types of material, at lease two, to break up the look. He agreed there are too
many monument signs on Highway 111, as well as the size needed to be
decreased. Lastly, he is concerned with the amount of traffic that will be
traveling in this area and the lights standards should be left at 25-feet.
35. Commissioner Butler stated he agreed with the minimum of 5% landscaping.
He would accept the 30 foot lights if they were shielded and if it would cut
down the number of light standards. He agreed with the relocation of the
handicapped parking, as it would add to the appearance of the front of the
building as the wall mass could be broken up by adding trees on both sides
of the building. He agrees with the eight foot wall at the rear as it will
address the concerns of the residents to the north. He is concerned that the
entire Channel be lined at one time due to its expense. Splitting the cost into
two phases, does not seem to be economical. He is not concerned with the
landscaping and parking at this time as it will come back to the Planning
Commission in the fixture for review. He has no problem with deleting the
trees in front of the building as he feels it will accommodate the business.
However he is concerned about the size of the signs as this has been an issue
with him since he has been on the Commission. Highway 111 is an image
that the Commission has tried to softened. He agrees that if the signs were
smaller you lose the impact, but there must be some compromise that can be
reached.
36. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern about the loading dock and trash
compactor and its visibility to the Vista Grande residents. The residents need
to have some screening from the trash compactor. He is very firm about the
light standards being 25-feet and that Home Depot do something about the
front of the building architecturally, or provide the trees.
37. Commissioner Newkirk stated his concern about the cart storage and the lack
of customers putting them in the storage area. There needs to be some
PC7-23 10
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
storage area provided. Mr. Shenouda stated he would like to keep them to a
limit of two storage areas as well as having employees continually bringing
the carts back inside. Commissioner Newkirk stated he would agree with a
30-foot high light standard, but would like to have an eight foot wall on the
rear wall with no split face block on the north side.
38. Commissioner Tyler stated he thought Home Depot used three different styles
of cart. The problem was that when a customer is parking he cannot see the
flat lumber carts and usually ends of running over them. They do not need
a cart corral on every row, but the employees are not going to be picking up
carts as often as it will be necessary. It is essential to have the cart corrals as
well as a holding area at the entrance. It is mandatory that both be provided.
He is excited to have them in the community, but they need to fit into the
community. He is concerned about the increase in traffic, especially for the
residents on Vista Grande. The view of an eight foot wall for the north side
residents should be considered as well as the need to resolve the signal at
Vista Grande. He is concerned that they keep the nursery lights down below
the height of the wall. There is no sign on the east elevation at the Rancho
Mirage store and he does not see the need for the east side sign on this store.
It would cast too much light to the residents on the east side. Mr. Shenouda
stated that Jefferson Street is an important corridor to them, but they do
understand that the five foot sign on the east side might be intrusive and they
would be willing to reduce it to four feet high letters if necessary.
39. Chairman Abels stated he concurred with the comments already made. He
agreed with Commissioner Woodard that the south elevation could be
softened. The Conditions of Approval require the landscaping to come back
to the Planning Commission; maybe the signs should as well. Mr. Shenouda
commented that they could achieve the 5% landscaping requirement. As the
signs will be brought back to the Planning Commission it will allow them
time to review their Rancho Mirage store signs. Regarding the Phase II
layout, it is a preliminary drawing and 'as they do not have tenants the
configurations could change. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern was
that if the Commission were to approve the site plan as it is being submitted,
then whenever Home Depot comes back to build the second phase, the record
will show that the site plan was approved and he does not approve of this
configuration as it is being submitted.
40. Commissioner Woodard asked if phase one could be approved requiring
phase two to be resubmitted for approval. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman stated a condition could be added requiring phase two to come
back for final approval.
PC7-23 11
Planning Commission Meeting;
July 23, 1996
41. Commissioner Anderson stated that due to the comments that had been made
he would like to see the project continued to give the applicant an opportunity
to restudy their design. There had been enough concerns expressed that he
would like to see the applicant come back with a design that is more in line
with what the community would like to have.
42. Commissioner Woodard stated that in order to increase something, it means
decreasing something. He stated the applicant is sacrificing landscaping to
gain optimum coverage for his project. Discussion followed regarding the
landscaping and site plans.
43. Commissioner Gardner stated that due to the concerns that had been raised,
he would move to continue this item to August 13,1996, to give the applicant
time to revise the plans. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion and
it was approved unanimously.
44. Mr. Shenouda reviewed the issues they would be addressing that were of
concern to the Commission: an eight foot wall, additional landscaping, the
option to line the channel in phases, cart storage, architectural treatment to
the building, signs, lighting, and traffic study.
46. Commissioner Anderson stated he would like Home Depot to not just address
the issues that had been raised, but stand back and look at the entire site.
Create an entry scenario and statement with their building for themselves as
well as the City of La Quinta. Mr. Shenouda stated they would look at the
site plan again. Discussion followed as to the concerns of the Commission
regarding the overall look of the project.
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Chairman Abels asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of July 9, 1996.
Commissioners Tyler asked that the Minutes be corrected on Page 3, Item 14 to read:
"Commissioner Tyler questioned the right-in/right-out requirement for the driveways
of the proposed project (Condition 25). Between Darby Road and Fred Waring Drive
Washington Street currently has a left turn center lane, which allows left turns onto
or off of 'Washington Street for both north -bound and south -bound traffic. The
proposed right-in/right-out restriction cannot be enforced until some future time
when the center lane of Washington Street has been converted to either a raised
median or a painted divider barrier." There being no further corrections, it was
moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Butler to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
PC7-23 12
Planning Commission Meeting
July 23, 1996
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Chairman Abels asked staff to prepare an alternate attendance form for the
Commissioners to attend future City Council meetings. Commissioner Tyler
reported on the City Council meeting of July 22, 1996.
B. Department update - None
IE�.il lit. �1�1iI�
There being no further business, it was moved by Chairman Abels to adjourn this meeting of the
Planning Commission to a regular meeting on August 13, 1996. This regular meeting of the
Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:33 P.M. Unanimously approved.
PC7-23 13
r�o'r��'» 11 4✓J � p � ���
8-13-96 ATTACHMENT
O'RGU8KE E N G I N E I R I N G DECE��V 7,
AUG - 6 1996
CITY OF IAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMEN1"
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
'IN/ I o... MIV
Avllnull
I .ul�.ba.t
I uu.rnl,lpltul
1,11141l IM1.1
IAX I. IV 4:111Vi/''
411. N V'.n.y.. I
Ar, .n
•�11111• �!f lil
r JIMpW
1KYI.µ,r
[A)( 'RP.. 4r t rn III
14. t,'N 4A.,n
10
JEFFERSON PLAZA
IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
Prepared For.
GREENBERG FARROW
15101 Red Mill Avenue, Suite 200
Tustin, CA 92680
Prepared By:
01ROURKE ENGINEERING
415 North Vineyard Avenue, Suite 200
Ontario, CA 92069
(909) 467-0221
June 11, 19%
Revived August S, 1"6 for Phasing Analysis
vu w )a llI*TV
CP 443
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
STUDY AREA
EXISTING ROADWAYS AND INTFkSECTIONS
PROJECT IMPACT'
Land Uye/Trip Generation
Trip Distribution and Assignment
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Existing Volumes
Phase I - Year 1997 Traffic Volumes
Phase 11 - Year 2001 Traffic Volumes
Buildout
ANALYSIS
Signal Warrant
Level of Service
FUTURE GEOMETRICS AND RE COMMENDATIONS
Phase I
Phase 11
Buildout
CONCLUSION
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Signal Warrant Worksheets
Appendix B: NC'M Worksheets
lu
1
4
6
6
7
8
S
x
K
8
16
16
16
18
18
18
18
21
UQ-UQ-7D 11' ` 1
a 064
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure l:
Project Location
3
Figure 2:
Existing Lane Geometries
5
Figure 3A:
Existing Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes
10
Figure 30:
Existing PM Peak Hour Volumes
11
Figure 4A:
Phase I - 1997 Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes
12
Figure 411:
Phase I - 1997 PM Peak Hour Volumes
13
Figure 5A:
Phase 1I - 2001 Afternoon Peak Hour Volumes
14
Figure 513:
Phase If - 2001 PM Peak Hour Volumes
15
Figure 6:
Future Roadway Needs
20
LIST OF TABLES
'fable 1: Jefferson Plaza Square Footage 6
Table 2a: Trip Generation - Phase 1 7
'fable 2b: Trip Generation - Phase II 7
Table 3: Level Of Service Analysis 20
V.
6d-JCJ-Vn 11; 44 0 CY dos
INTRODUCTION
The construction of it Home Depot and related shopping center, herein referred to
as the Jefferson Plaza, is proposed to be located in I.a Quinta on the northwest
corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111. O'Rourke Engineering was retained to
prepare a traffic analysis report to address and evaluate the impact of the project at
the intersection of Jefferson Street/Highway 111 and the proposed project driveways
for the existing and future conditions.
'I'he project is to be developed in two phases. Phase I includes the Home Depot
opening in July 1997. Phase II includes the opening of the remaining retail and
restaurant uses. Although there is currently no planned opening date, it has been
assumed for analytical purposes that Phase Il will open in 2001. The traffic analysis
includes nn overview of the project, a review of cxisting conditions, an assessment of
project impacts, level of service for cxisting and future conditions, and an acvessment
of roadway improvements. Each of the components is discussed herein.
uo-J6-It) 11;qe 2
STUI)Y AREA
Jefferson Plaza is currently being considered for location in the City of La Quinta at
the northwest corner of Jefferson Street and Highway 111. Currently, the lot is
vacant. The project site is designated as Non -Residential Overlay in the City's
General Plan,
Access to the project would be from three new driveways on Jefferson Street north
of the intersection of Jefferson/Highway, 111 and four driveways on the north side of
Highway I I l west of Jefferson Street. The northern most driveway on Jefferson is
to be aligned with Vista Grande with full access. The western most driveway on
Highway II I will also be full access. The full access driveways would serve as the
primary entrances for Jefferson Plaza. The remaining driveways would be restricted
to right -turn -in and right -turn -out movements.
The traffic analysis included the intersections of: Jefferson Street/Highway 111,
Jefferson Street/Vista Grande with the proposed driveway, Highway I I 1/the western
most driveway on Highway 111, and the remaining project driveways.
Figure I shows the project and driveway locations.
dd-dd-:b 11;43 n 15 007
1.i I
f I
L
-r.
(x
C7
�l•
r
It
a LOP
II
IT
t
it
II
t
1
t
I
I
a
z
G
I
I
I
II
I
I
X3
EXISTING; ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS
The project is bounded by two major roadways, Highway 111 and Jefferson Street.
Jefferson Street runs north -south and is a 2-1ane divided arterial. Six lanes are
proposed in the future. 1Presently, Jefferson Street has a raised concrete median with
a northbound loft turn pocket lane for U-turns approximately 300 feet north of the
intersection with Highway 111, and a northbound left turn lane at Vista Grande, The
City recommended that the left turn 300 feet north of Highway 111 be eliminated
when the project develops due to its proximity to Highway 111.
Highway II I runs cast -west and is currently a 4-lane divided primary arterial. An
expansion to six lanes is proposed for the future. The intersection of Jefferson
Street/Highway I I 1 is currently a signalized intersection. The northwest corner of the
intersection ties within the City of La Quinta while the remaining quadrants are
within the City of Indio. Both cities plan to expand the intersection in the future.
Vista Grande is located north of the Jefferson Street/Highway I I I interscction and
is currently a two lane local road that intersects Jefferson Street.
Figure 2 illustrates the existing roadway and intersection geometries
4
od—dd-�b 11:4D
u
LL
ui
VI
/ K, \ <--br
4
Z
Fj
uo—vo—= 11- 47 &A LY �'J1e1
PROJECT IMPACT
Land Use/Trip Generation
Project traffic was generated based on land use, parcel size, and the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. The project traffic includes
the trips generated by Jefferson Plaza land uses based on the total square footage by
phase, Trips were calculated using rates for a Shopping Center (Code 820) for the
completion of Phase II. However, for the Phase I, Code 816 , which is Hardware
and Paint, was used. Using Code 816 reflects the fact that the Center would not yet
be functioning like a shopping center and trips would not he reduced. "Cable 1
summarizes the proposed land uses and square footage associated with each use.
TABLE I: JEFFERSON PLAZA SQUARE FOOTAGE.
LAND USE
SQtJARE FOOTAGE.
PHASE; I
Home Depot
105,700
Home Depot's Garden Center
24,102
Phase I Subtotal
129,802
PHASE
tI
Retail A
.
'11,440
Retail B
40,969
Retail C
26,900
Restaurant Pad 1
2,668
Restaurant Pad 2
5,000
Gas Station
1,500
Phase II Subtotal
89,477
TOTAL
218,279
The City of La Quinta requested an afternoon (lunch time) peak hour analysis. The
afternoon peak hour trip generation was developed from daily percentage
distributions summarized in the ITE Trip Generation, Fifth Edition. 'Grip generation
for the afternoon peak hour, PM peak hour and average weekday are calculated in
Table ? for each phase of the development.
6
dd_db_yt 11;4b 0 CY i11
TABLE 2a: TRIP GENERATION -Completion of Phase 1
Time Period
Equation/Rate(Code 816)
Total
Trips
1n i 0U1
PM Peak
4.87 per 1,000 Sq, Ft.
632
316/316
Daily
53.21 per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
6,907
3,453/3,353
Afternoon Peak
Entering: 9,5"/ of 6907/2
Exiting: 7.917,, of 6907/2
601
328/273
lit l ISF3 llclivia C:
X = Thousands of Square Feet
TABLF 2b: TRIP GENERATION, -Completion of Phase II
Time Period
Equation (Land Use
Code 820)
Total
Trips
In /Out
PM Peak
Ln (T) = .637 Ln (X) + 3.553
1,078
5391539
Daily
Ln (T) = .62_5 L.n (X) + 5.985
11,511
5,755/5,756
Afternoon Peak
Entering: 9.5% of 11511/2
Exiting: 7.9% of 11511/2
1,000
546/454
um Ber o rrns
eneratec
X = Thousands of Square Feet
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The distribution of' trips was determined as the likely origin and destinations of
project trips based on existing and proposed band uses within the project vicinity. The
trip distribution by gcneral geographic direction is as follows:
North. 18%
South: 20%
Fast: 25%
West: 371
The project trips were then assigned to the proposed driveways and the intersection
of Jefferson Street/Highway I I I considering the roadway network and its travel time
characteristics, The resultant project trip assignments are shown in Figures 4A and
413 for the afternoon and PNI peak hours, respectively, in the "Traffic Volumes"
section of this report.
7
a]
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes were compiled for the various project conditions: existing, Phase 1,
Phase fi and Buildout.
Existing Volumes
Existing traffic counts were collected in the field on Thursday, May 9 during the
afternoon and PM peak hours at the intersection of Jefferson Street/Highway II I
and Jefferson Street/Vista Grande. The afternoon peak hour occurs between 11:30
am and 12:30 pm, and the PM peak hour occurs between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm.
Existing Average Daily Traffic Volumes (ADTs) were obtained from the City for
Jefferson Street, and from Caltrans for Highway 111. The existing traffic volumes
are shown in Figures 3A and 3B for the afternoon and PM peak hours, respectively.
Existing A171 s are shown in Figure 3B.
Phase 1 - 1997 Traffic Volumes
The 1997 Traffic Volumes were estimated by applying a one year growth factor ton
the existing volumes. The growth rates used were 7%, on Jefferson Street and 41X
on Highway 111. These rates were supplied by the City of I a Quinta and represent
the anticipated development in the area.
The Phase I project traffic volumes were added to the existing plus 7%, growth to
establish the Phase 11997 traffic volumes as shown in figures 5a and Sb.
Phase If o 2001 Traffic Volumes
Traffic. volumes for this scenario were estimated by applying the same yearly growth
rates (7%% on Jefferson, 4%, on Highway 111) for a five year period to represent tine
anticipated growth for the year 2001. The total project volumes (Phase 1 and Phase
11) were then added to establish the Phase II - 2001 traffic volumes as shown in
figure-, 6a and 6b.
Buildout Traffic Volumes
The future buildout year was analyzed to evaluate the impact of the project as a
component of the fixture volumes on the existing roadway network. Buildout
represents a hypothetical scenario when all the General Plan land uses are
developed. The zoning and land use designation of the Jefferson Plaza project was
adequately represented in the Circulation Element model for the General Plan.
Facture volumes were obtained from the General Plan model for buildout. The
model volumes are projected as Average Daily Traffic (AD"I') volumes. The
afternoon and PM peak hour turning movement volumes werc developed by applying
8
dd-,Jd-:�n
reasonable peak hour factors and directional splits. Some "smoothing" of the
numbers then occurred to halance the approaches with the link volumes.
For the PM peak hour a 7�'/r; peak hour factor with a 55/45 eastboundlwestbound split
was applied on Highway 111. On Jefferson a 7.5% peak hour split was applied with
a 60,140 yauthboundhioi-thbound split.
For the afternoon,, a 7.5% peak hour factor was applied on Highway l I with a 60/40
split and a 81%� peak hour factor on Jefferson with a 60/40 split. Figures 4A and 4B
illustrate the buildout volumes in the project study area for the afternoon and PM
peak hours, respectively.
VJ
00'J7-77 11 • 147 p
CM j14
W
a
Z
A
-.•cz 2-im tj
do-,M-:'n 11-1 4y u
CY 015
uj
0
11
LL
Z-QmK
UO-M-= 11•DU A& LF Ulm
Q
12
✓0-0:5" 7t 11; :1 0 0' J1 f
W
O
in
13
00-�Jn-7n 11 • D1
LY Jlo
W
C]
Z
=7
14
Y
t�
t
33-03-35 11:52 _ a dly
9-
is
-� 2-Q t
U 66d
ANALYSIS
Two types of analyses were undertaken, signal warrant analysis and level of service
�rrtriyyia
Signal Warrant Analysis
Signal warrant analyses were undertaken foi the intersections of Ilighway I I I and
the westernmost driveway and fat Jefferson/Vista Grande_ The signal warrant analysis
were conducted for each of the study scenarios. nic signal warrant worksheets are
provided in Appendix A.
Jefferson Strect/Vista Grande- This intersection was analyzed to determine when a
signal would be signalized. For existing conditions, the signal warrant analysis
involved analyzing the existing intersection of Jeff'ersoniGrande vista using the full,
volume warrants for signalization. Tube counts were placed to record 24 hour
volumes approaching the intersection. The results of the warrant analysis show that
none of the signal warrants are met for the existing conditions.
Future scenario, were analyzed using the peak hour• warrant. The peak hour warrant
is used for futiire traffic conditions as the distribution of traffic volumes throughout
the day is not available to conduct a full warrant. The analysis shows that a signal is
not warranted until Huildout conditions are met.
In other words, the minor street traffic coming from the Home Depot and Grande
Vista does not create the need for the signal. However, over time as the volumes
increase on Jefferson Street, the major street traffic increases to a point that coupled
with small volumes on the minor street triggers the need for a signal. Assuming a 7%
growth rate, the signal would need to be installed around Year 1997.
Highway I I I and the Westernmost Driveway -The intersection of Highway 111 and
the westernmost driveway was not analyzed using the full warrants since the
intersection does not exist.
Again, the future scenarios were analyzed using the peak hour warrant. The analysis
shows that the signal is required upon completion of Phase I of the project.
Level or Service
Jefferson Street/Highway 111 and the full access driveways were analyzed to
determine intersection level of service for existing and future conditions using the
1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCtit) :Methodology. The City of La Quinta
requires a level of service D or better during peak hours. The results of the analysis
are summarized in Table 3 for the existing and future conditions. The HCM
worksheets are contained in Appendix B.
16
dd-d�-�b ll::,4 U 15 021
TABLE 3: LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Intersect ait)
Existing
Phase I - 1997
I'llasc 11 2001
liuildtlut(with
improve.)
Aftur-
PM
After-
I'M
After.
I'M
ACtcr-
I'M
ntxttl
nu<ul
nOttll
nixtn
,Ieffurson/
C
C
t'
C
C
('
1)
I)
Ilighway I I I
.Iullerrou/ .
It*
It*
B'
fi•
('*
('•
C
C
Vix1:1 Graindc
Ilighwily I III
ct/a
n/sa
11
H
Ii
It
It
13
Driveway
unsignatrml
The levels of service presented in 'Cable 3 show the results of the analysis of the
existing, Phase I and Phase If scenario using the existing geometries. Signaiization
was assumed for the analysis Lased on the results of the signal warrant analyses. The
Buildout scenario shows the levels of service with future improvements in place.
'rhe Buildout traffic volumes were too high for the existing roadway network at
Jefferson Street/Highway 111 and Jefferson Street/Vista Grande for the afternoon
and PM peak hours, and at highway 111,1%vestern most driveway for the afternoon
peak hour. As a result, the levels of service at those intersections were F.
Recommendations for the intersections that were incorporated into the analysis are
listed in the next section of this report. The intersections were reanalyzed with these
improvements, including improvements in the City's General Plan, and were able to
function at a level of service D or better.
As seen, acceptable levels of service can be achieved at all of the intersections.
17
da-dt-aa l t �» �► ..
FUTURE GEOMIETRICS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Highway II I and Jefferson Street are both planned as six lane facilities. Given this
planned expansion and the results of the signal warrant analysis and level of service
analysis, improvements were recommended for the Phase I, Phase II and buildout
conditions.
Phase I
Highway I 1 I/Western Most Driveway -- As discussed in the analysis section, a traffic
signal is warranted and would need to be installed at the completion of Phase 1 at
the intersection of Highway I I I and the western most project driveway on Highway
1 I1. The geometries proposed at the western most driveway on Highway 11 I when
the project is developed include full access with an eastbound left -turn in, a
westbound shared through -right turn in lane, and exclusive southbound left and right -
turn lanes out.
Jeffcrson Street/Vista Grande -- Full access at the northern most driveway on
Jefferson Street at Vista Grande is also proposed in the existing plus project
condition. The geometries at this driveway include a northbound left -turn in, a
southbound shared through -right in, an eastbound shared left -through out, and an
exclusive eastbound right -turn out.
The proposed geometries for the remaining driveways on I iighway 1 I I and Jefferson
Street consists of a single right -turn -out lane and a shared through right -turn in lane.
Jefferson Street/Highway I I I -- The intersection of Jefferson Street/1lighway 111 a
requires modification to the signal to allow separate northbound and southbound
left -turn phasing.
It was also recommended by the City to eliminate the left turn pocket on Jefferson
Street 300' north of highway I I 1 when the project develops. This elimination would
be necessary given the proximity of the turn pocket to the intersection of Jefferson
Street/flighway I I I and the increased volumes on the network.
Phase I I
Additional improvements beyond those outlined for Phase I are not required.
Buildout
For the future buildout condition, the intersections of Jefferson Street/Ilighway 111,
Jefferson Street/Vista Grande, and Highway I II/western most driveway will require
- geometric rtnprovenients in order for the intersections to operate at an acceptable
level of service. It is logical for the future buildout volumes to require buildout of
18
30
73-23-36 11:56 U E' JeL
the roadway network. Both Jefferson Street and Highway II 1 are included in the
General Plan as a 6-lane divided major arterial. The future improvements are
consistent with those plans.
Jefferson StreeMsta Grande -- At Jefferson Street/Vista Grande recommended
improvements include adding another through lane in both directions on Jefferson
Street. This is consistent with the widening plans for Jefferson Street. With an
additional through lane, this intersection is able to function at an acceptable level of
service.
Jefferson Street/Highway I11 -- In addition to the through lanes, the intersection of
Jefferson Street/Ilighway 111 would need to be fully expanded. This expansion
would consist of a total of two left -turn lanes, three through lanes, and an exclusive
right on all four legs in order to accommodate the buildout volumes.
Highway i l 1/ Westernmost Driveway -- At buildout conditions Highway I I I/western
most driveway on Highway I I I will not require additional improvements other than
the improvements included in the City's General Plan.
'n,c need for widening in the buildout scenario is a function cif General Plan growth
and not the Jefferson Plaza.
Figure 6 illustrates the proposed geometries for the Buildout condition.
19
ao-73-�5 11�r v Lr ur."T
4 j
z a
ko
; 'S
ui
b F�
tt
d O
o a
ix
i
w
a
�
a
Fill
dd-j] -:b 11;�d o ►r W"a
CONCLUSION
The study intersection and the full access driveways function at acceptable levels of
service for the existing and existing plus project scenario with the existing geometries
in place. A level of service D or better is required by the City of La Quinta during
peak hours. The existing volumes plus the additional project traffic generated by
Home Depot and the surrounding businesses utilizing the same driveways should not
have an impact on the existing geometries.
The Home Depot Shopping Center will generate approximately 11,511 daily trips,
1,000 afternoon peak hour trips, and 1,078 PM peak hour trips at the completion of
Phase 11. Fused on analyses, the existing roadway network can accommodate these
volumes with the addition of improvements at the project driveways.
The western most driveway ou Highway I 1 i was analyzed as a full access driveway
with an eastbound left -turn lane, a westbound shared through -right lane, and
exclusive southbound left and right -turn lanes. The proposed geometries for the
retraining driveways on Highway l I I consists of it single right -turn -out lane and a
shared right -turn -in lane.
The northern most driveway on Jefferson Street at Vista Grande was also analyzed
with full :recess movement.-, with signalization required by buildout. The proposed
geometries at that driveway include an eastbound shared left -through lane and
exclusive right turn lane, a southbound shared through -right turn lane, and a single
northbound left turn lane in.
The proposed geometries at the remaining driveways on Jefferson Street include a
single right -turn -out lane and a shared right -turn -in lane.
Both Highway I I I and Jefferson Street are proposed to be widened to six lanes as
a function of the Oxenernl plan Buildout. Given the future widening, the intersection
of Jefferson Street/Highway 111 was analyzed to determine the geometries to be
constructed in that future scenario. 'The future buildout scenario revealed high
volumes on Highway 11 I and Jefferson Street. To accommodate these volumes, the
intersection would need to be fully expanded to include two left -turn lanes with U-
turns, three through lanes. and one right -turn lane on all approaclics. To compensate
those driveways with restricted right -turn in and right -turn out movements, U-turns
are recommended at the intersection. The exact timing of the full expansion should
be tied to planned„ future growth.
The widening at buildout conditions is is function of General Plan growth and not a
function of Jefferson Plaza.
"- Given the analyses, the impacts of Jefferson Plaza can be fully mitigated.
UL
21
PC 8-13-96 ATTACHMENT
July 29, 1996
Mr. Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of La Quints
79-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
�ECMVE
"I'll", 0
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Re: Home Depot, USA, Inc., Specific Plan 96-027, Conditional Use Permit 96-028
Dear Mr. Sawa:
We are residents and property owners on Vista Grande, and we would like to express the
following concerns and comments pertaining to the Jefferson Plaza (Home Depot)
Specific Plan.
1) The northeast entry to the project site on Jefferson Street opposing Vista Grande
should be signalized at project opening. As is, the intersection of Vista Grande
and Jefferson Street is very dangerous due to heavy traffic, limited visibility and
high vehicle speeds on Jefferson Street. The southeast corner of the intersection
also serves a school bus stop. The Home Depot retail operation will cause a
significant increase in traffic. Signalizing this intersection was supported by the
Traffic Impact Analysis conducted by O'Rourke Engineering and also was
recommended by the City of Indio.
2) The northeast entry on the project site should be redesigned to shield the view of
the loading dock from the residents of Vista Grande. As currently designed, the
residents of Vista Grande will have an unobstructed view of the loading dock,
delivery trucks and noisy unloading activities. The negative visual or negative
aesthetic effect should be mitigated by walls and landscaping within the project
site.
3) The "Home Depot" sign facing Jefferson Street should be reduced in size from the
planned 5 feet high letters to 3-4 feet high to minimize the negative visual effect
or negative aesthetic effect for residents adjacent to the project on the east side of
Jefferson Street.
4) The Planning Commission should not compromise existing recommendations,
guidelines and requirements pertaining to outdoor signs, outdoor lighting and
landscaping.
As property owners on Vista Grande, we are the closest owner -occupied residents to the
project and we will be the most affected by the location, construction and operation of
the project. We feel that if the project is designed with our safety and aesthetic impact
in mind, the project will be a welcome addition to our community as well as a much
needed convenience to this end of the Coachella Valley.
Sincerely, WI,
i—U-47-01V I
lye- A
'1/1111 .:-v�-
eal).S"yi3/-/,t �
l Pvm ao -1 04 0 `1 i� �kgtao
ee
,1cJ41�
V
d V HBO V S-4 CJ vcwCk
PC 8-13-96 ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DULY 23, 1996
CASE NO,: SPECIFIC PLAN 96-027, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-028
APPLICANT: HOME DEPOT, USA, INC.
ARCHITECT: GREENBERG FARROW, ARCHITECTS (MARK SHENOUDA)
REQUEST: 1). CERTIFICATION OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENT IWACT;
2). APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF 218,300 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL
CENTER ON APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES; AND,
3). APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW OUTDOOR STORAGE IN . CONJUNCTION
WITH HOME DEPOT STORE
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND JEFFERSON
STREET (ATTACHMENT 1)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 96-325 FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED
UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED
THAT THIS SPECIFIC PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE
IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. THEREFORE, A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR
CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY - MIXED
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY.
ZONING: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
PCSS.207
BACKGROUND:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
The site is surrounded by the following zoning and land uses:
NORTH: W-1/Whitewater Stormwater Channel with R5 and R1 Zoning beyond the
channel. Land uses beyond the channel consist of undeveloped land and single
family residences. Adjacent to the northeast corner of the site above the Wash
is a Coachella Valley Water District pump station surrounded by a chainlink
fence.
SOUTH: C-P-S/Vacant Commercial land in the City of Indio as well as the City of La
Quinta.
EAST: R-1/Single Family Residences in City of La Quinta. The property south of the
residences in the City of Indio consists of a convenience store with service
station pumps and retail shops, a multifamily apartment complex, and a vacant
lot.
WEST: C-P-S/Vacant Land.
The vacant site is relatively flat with desert shrubbery. Utility poles run adjacent to Highway 111 and
Jefferson Street.
Proie_ ct Request
The applicants are proposing to construct a two-phase commercial project (Jefferson Plaza), when
completed, will consist of approximately 218,300 square feet of floor space on the approximately 20
acre site. The project and phasing is as follows:
PHASE I - The Phase I area consists of approximately 10.77 acres at the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of 1-Eghway 1 I I and Jefferson Street. Proposed is a Home Depot consisting of 105,700
square feet of interior floor space with a 24,102 square foot outdoor garden center. At the southeast
corner of Phase I is a site reserved for a future 1,500 square foot service station with drive through
car wash.
PHASE II - The Phase 11 area consists of approximately 9.1 acres west of Phase I. Approximately
79,300 square feet of retail floor space is proposed along with two restaurant pads, one of which
would have a drive -through lane, consisting of approximately 7,670 square feet of floor space.
Specific Plan
As required by the General Plan, the applicant has prepared a Specific Plan (Attachment 2). The
Specific Plan sets development standards and allows the applicant to request deviations from the
Zoning Ordinance in areas such as parking and landscaping. Following is a summary of the major
sections of the Specific Plan.
PCSS?09
Section 2.4 - Drainage Plan
The drainage plan indicates that stormwater will be picked up in an underground storm drain system
near the southeast comer of the site and drained to the Whitewater Storm Channel to the north. By
utilizing this system, no on --site retention basins will be required.
Section 2.7 - Circulation Plan
Vehicular access is proposed to both Jefferson Street and Highway 111. One full access driveway
would be provided approximately 725 feet north of the Highway I I I/Jefferson Street intersection on
Jefferson Street. This driveway will align with Vista Grande to the east and be signalized when
warranted. Two additional driveways with "right turn in and out" only will be provided on Jefferson
Street to the south of the main access.
On Highway 111, one full access driveway proposed to be signalized is shown approximately 1,450
feet to the west of the Highway 111/Jefferson Street intersection at the west end of the project site
in the Phase II area. The Public Works Department is requiring this signed and an access drive to
Phase I be installed with the first phase of construction. Three additional "right in and out" only
driveways are shown on Highway 111 with within the Phase I (Home Depot) area.
All delivery loading and unloading for the Home Depot and Phase II is proposed to be provided along
the rear or north sides of the buildings adjacent to the Channel.
Section 2.8 - Sims
The Specific Plan provides a general sign program for the overall center and specific signs for the
Home Depot building. The applicant proposes their main sign reading "The Home Depot California's
Home Improvement Warehouse" over the entry area on the building wall facing the parking lot. The
second "Home Depot" sign is shown on the east side of the building on the wall above the outdoor
garden shop. Ancillary signs identifying the lumber yard and nursery entries are proposed facing the
south.
The Specific Plan document provides specific detail for the proposed signs. "The Home Depot" sign
will consist of five-foot high internally illuminated channel letters with a total overall length of 58 feet
(290 square feet in area). This sign will utilize bronze returns and trim cap with orange plexiglas
letter face. Below this sign will be a cabinet sign three feet in height by 58 feet (174 square feet in
area) stating "California's Home Improvement Warehouse". The cabinet sign will have bronze
returns and retainers with an orange background and white copy with a black border around the
letters. The square footage of the two signs will be approximately 522 square feet since the total
square footage is based on the two signs together.
On the east elevation "The Home Depot" sign will consist of the five foot high by 58 foot long
individually illuminated channel letter sign. The lumber entry sign will be a cabinet sign and read
"Indoor Lumber Yard" and be mounted on the fascia over the covered entry. This sign would be
PCSS.207
three foot high by 32 foot four inches long (96.9 square feet in area). This sign will have bronze
returns and retainers with an orange background and white copy. The "Nursery" sign will be
mounted to the four inch by four inch square tube fence posts on either side of the entry and consist
of individually illuminated channel letters with an exposed raceway. This sign will be two feet high
by 14 foot six inches long (29 square feet in area). This sign will utilize bronze returns and trim cap
with an orange plexiglas face. The exposed raceway which is eight inches in height and located
adjacent to the bottom of the letters will be secured to the vertical fence posts.
The applicant is proposing four monument signs adjacent to the streets identifying the shopping
center. One would be on Jefferson Street with the remaining on Highway 111. The Jefferson Street
sign would be located at the middle entrance and the most easterly Highway 111 sign located at the
middle driveway would be 12 feet in height by nine foot six inches in width and finished in stucco with
a cornice treatment at the top. This sign would identify the shopping center as "Jefferson Plaza" and
provide a 49 square foot area reading "The Home Depot". The remaining monument sign, located
just west of the boundary of Phase I is the same size and shape as the Home Depot monument sign
and contains room for the names of four tenants in Phase II.
Section 2.9 - ]Landscape Concept
The landscape concept for the Jefferson Plaza project as stated in the Specific Plan is to "utilize lush
and efficient design principals with a goal of creating an oasis of tropical character." Along Highway
111, mesquite and California Pepper trees will be utilized to meet the theme for the Highway I I I
corridor. The Specific Plan indicates compliance with the 50% tree shading requirement for parking
areas. Meandering sidewalks will be provided along both street frontages. Along the north property
line, which faces existing residential development, the applicant indicates a six foot high block wall
and five foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the inside of the wall.
A preliminary landscaping plan with proposed plant palette has been submitted. While the plan
indicates shrub and tree locations, most specific plant species and their locations are not called out.
The landscape plan indicates that the service station pad site will be partially planted with a temporary
lawn. The balance of the site will provide overflow parking until the service station is constructed.
Along the northern property line, adjacent to the Channel, only shrubs are indicated.
Section 3.2 - Zoning
As permitted by a Specific Plan, applicant is requesting amendment to Code requirements. The
applicant has provided parking spaces which are nine feet by 19 feet as opposed to the 9 feet by 20
feet currently required iPor 90 degree angle parking. Nine feet by 19 feet is the size which was
previously required prior to the current change several years ago.
The Code requires that five percent of the interior parking lot be landscaped. The applicant indicates,
in the Specific Plan, that they do not meet this requirement but are requesting this deviation.
PCSS.207
Section 3.3.2 - Specific Design Features
The Specific Plan indicates that all roof top equipment will be screened from view by means of the
parapet wall around the building. Line of sight drawings will be submitted for review according to
the Specific Plan.
The Specific Plan indicates a central designated area shall be provided for the collection and storage
of carts, hand trucks, and other devices used by shoppers (Section 3.3.3). Presently the location of
this area is not shown on the Site Plan.
Section 1.2.4 - Masster Design Theme
The Specific Plan describes the architecture of the Home Depot building as contemporary utilizing
simplified colonnades and concrete tile roof elements (Section 1.2.4). The structure is at its maximum
height 35 feet on the side facing the parking lot and 32 feet on the rear facing north. An arched tower
element over the front entry will be approximately six feet higher. On each side of the tower element
will be a canopy covered with concrete tile. There will be a tile covered canopy over the lumber yard
entrance near the west end of the building. Their outdoor nursery center will be surrounded by a steel
fence combined with split face concrete columns and a low wall. Adjacent to the building will be a
metal rib canopy for shade plants. On the front of the nursery center will be a hooped canopy.
Exterior lighting is shown on the top of most of the fence columns.
Exterior wall treatment of the tilt -up concrete building panels will consist of a 12 feet of block texture
pattern at the bottom of the panels with the balance of the walls being textured paint. A cornice
treatment will be provided along the top of the parapet wall around the entire building. Exposed
scuppers and down spouts are indicated on the rear elevation of the building facing north. Treatment
around each of the down spouts is shown. This treatment consists of a smooth -textured vertical
treatment to contrast with the tilt -up panel walls.
Exterior colors will consist of gray/green flat concrete roof tiles, salmon columns and cornices,
textured beige tile -up concrete with tan block pattern based walls. A color board will be available
at the meeting.
Public Notice
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun on July 2, 1996, and mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the site. As of the date of the writing of this report, one letter supporting the
project has been received (Attachment 3). Any other correspondence received before the meeting
will be presented to the Commission at that time.
Public Agency Review
A copy of the applicant's request has been sent to all public agencies and City departments. We have
received a letter from the City of Indio regarding the project (Attachment 4). All applicable
conditions and comments have been incorporated into the attached draft Conditions of Approval.
PCSS.209
Environmental Assessment
Environmental Assessment 96-325 has been prepared for this request (Attachment 5). No significant
impacts have been identified which cannot be mitigated. Therefore, a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact is recommended for certification.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Specific Plan Issues
Ismie I - General Plan Consistency:
The General Plan Land Use Element designates this site as mixed regional commercial with a non-
residential overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including retail uses and
restaurants as is proposed. Additionally, this project is consistent with the other applicable elements
such as the Circulation Element, Environmental Conservation (Archaeological, Water Conservation
and Arts in Public Places policies), Infrastructure and Public Services Element, Environmental
Hazards Element, and Air Quality Element.
Policy 9-2.1.2. of the Air Quality Element states that "Parking lot and internal circulation systems of
new development shall be designed so as to minimize internal travel and idling time". In compliance
with this policy staff recommends the following site plan modifications:
Removal of the 12 handicapped stalls, aligning the entry aisle into the Home Depot parking
area. These spaces can be relocated to the east drive aisle opposite the other proposed
handicapped spaces. This will alleviate potential congestion of those maneuvering in and out
of these spaces while remaining in close proximity to the entrance.
2. Adjacent to the east side of the outdoor garden center for the Home Depot, is a long
triangular -shaped landscape planter in the parking lot. As designed, traffic traveling
southward on each side of the planter will be presented with a traffic conflict as they merge.
Staff recommends that the double row of parking to the west be placed parallel and adjacent
to the backup aisle next to Jefferson Street with the excess land provided as a landscape area
between the double row of parking. Staff has on file a sketch which shows how this can be
accomplished.
Providing a continuous aisle from Jefferson Street through the first two long double rows of
parking to provide better circulation through the parking area.
Land Use Element Policy 2-3.1 provides for primary uses being major retail businesses with ancillary
uses including other commercial uses.
The construction of this project will implement Policy 3-2.1.7 of the Circulation Element which
pertains to widening and improvement of Highway 111. As such, this Specific Plan is consistent with
the General Plan.
PCSS.207
Rvie 2 - Public We yare
The subject site is vacant at this time. The proposed project with the uses as proposed will not create
any conditions which are materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of the
City's citizens. The project design along with the recommended conditions assure this by requiring
shielded lighting, additional landscaping, buffering, architectural treatment, traffic and street
improvements. The Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact recommended for certification
indicates that no detrimental impacts will occur.
Issue 2 - Public Wel are
Along the rear property line is a landscape planter approximately five feet in width. In this planter
an evergreen hedge is shown. Staff is recommending heavily planted mature trees along the north
property line to provide a visual buffer of the back of the building and loading areas. This should
extend through the Phase II area as well as the Home Depot area. The planter width should be a
clear five feet to accept a minimum 36 inch box tree.
The rear elevation due to its visibility to the residential neighborhood requires additional design
treatment. Staff is recommending the vertical treatment adjacent to the downspouts be raised to flush
with the downspout.
The facade and side parapet walls are three feet higher than the rear elevation and may be visible
from the existing single family residences across the channel to the north. Therefore, staff is
recommending the back side of this parapet wall be treated with textured paint.
Staff is recommending lighting plans be submitted in conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance to
insure no negative impacts to the adjacent properties.
Issue 3 - Lanus U.ve Compatibility
The subject property as well as property to the south west and partially to the east are zoned for
commercial uses. To the north is the Whitewater Storm Channel which provides a buffer from the
residentially -zoned properties beyond the Channel. Therefore, development of the subject property
with commercial uses will be compatible with adjacent properties provided the applicable conditions
as recommended by staff are complied with.
Issue 4 - Property Suitability
As noted, the property is zoned for commercial use and designated commercial in the General Plan.
The property is relatively flat and therefore the proposed uses are suitable for the proposed
commercial development.
The proposed architectural design recognizes the functional design requirements imposed by this large
scale building. Though it is a contemporary tilt -up concrete structure, design elements in keeping
with the desert environment and Mediterranean period are proposed such as muted earthtone tone
colors, arched entry, tiled arcade and columns.
PCSS.207
Additional design modifications to provide a distinctive entry complementing the tower entry are
recommended as follows:
1. Each of the four entry columns supporting the tower be double columns similar to the column
sizes proposed for the plant nursery.
2. Eliminate the block pattern wall area and replace with textured paint. This design
modification will eliminate the contrast between the actual split face block columns and
poured in place textured panels.
No landscaping is shown adjacent to any sides of the building. At the Rancho Mirage store, there
are planters adjacent to the front of the store which contain palm trees. There is adequate room
between the the covered canopy areas and in front of the metal canopy in the garden center to provide
such planters.
• . • i, 189MMMI
Issue 1- Consistency with General Plan
The subject property is designated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan as commercial and
zoned for commercial uses. Therefore, the use of the site for outdoor commercial storage is
consistent with the General Plan.
Issue 2 - Consistency with Zonin Code
This Conditional Use Permit is required because the shopping center proposes more than 200 square
feet of outdoor storage in conjunction with Home Depot. The project with conditions as
recommended and the Specific Plan for the property will comply with the Zoning Code.
Issue 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEO_)
As required by CEQA, an environmental assessment is being prepared for the property. A Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for certification since there are no adverse
impacts which cannot be mitigated. Therefore, this project is in compliance with CEQA
requirements.
Issue 4 - Surrounding Uses
The use of outdoor storage will be enclosed by a steel and block fence. Additionally, landscaping will
be provided adjacent to the outdoor storage area. And as such, impact on the public health, safety
and general welfare with properties in the vicinity will not be detrimental.
Sien Program Issues
Under the recently adopted Sign Ordinance, the Home Depot building is allowed one building sign
per side of the building with two signs maximum. Permitted is one square foot of sign per linear foot
of building frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet. As part of a Specific Plan, the applicants can
request deviation from this Code requirement.
PCSS.207
As a part of the Specific Plan the applicant's main sign facing south consists of "The Home Depot"
above a second sign which reads "California's Home Improvement Warehouse" is 522 square feet
in size (nine feet tall by 58 feet long). The sign facing Jefferson Street to the east is 290 square feet
(five feet high by 58 feet long) in area. Both of these signs significantly exceed the maximum
permitted size.
The applicants are also proposing a 97 square foot "Indoor Lumber yard" sign over their lumber area
entry near the west end of the building. This sign is a cabinet sign three feet high by 32 feet four
inches long. Over the nursery area at the east end of the building is a 29 square foot (two foot high
by 14 foot six inches long) channel letter sign with exposed raceway which reads "Nursery".
Walmart which is approximately the same size as the Home Depot was permitted a 185 square foot
(five foot high by 37 foot long) sign over their entry. At 522 square feet the Home Depot sign is 337
square feet larger than the Walmart sign. The secondary sign facing Jefferson Street is 290 square
feet or 105 square feet larger than the Walmart sign.
The main signs proposed are too large and out of scale with the sign locations. The main sign facing
Highway 111 nearly covers the entire tower structure and encroaches into the cornice. These signs
should be smaller so that they are in scale with the tower element and comparable to other signs
permitted along Highway 111. The two ancillary signs should be of the same type of construction.
Staff is recommending reduction of each sign to not exceed 185 square feet.
The Sign Ordinance allows one freestanding center ID sign per street frontage. This sign is allowed
to be .25 square foot per linear foot of street frontage to a maximum of 50 square feet per sign and
100 square foot aggregate for all signs. The maximum height permitted is eight feet with minimum
letter height being ten inches.
The applicants are showing one monument sign on Jefferson Street and two monument signs on
Highway 111. These rectangularly shaped signs are 12 feet high by nine foot six inches wide (114
square feet) each. As a part of the Specific Plan approval, the applicants are requesting one additional
sign on Highway 111 and 64 square feet of additional area per sign. For comparison, the One Eleven
La Quinta Shopping Center center ID signs are approximately 150 square feet (average ten feet high
by 15 feet long) in area. These signs were also approved as a part of a Specific Plan. Under the
previous sign requirements, signs of this type were allowed to be a maximum 100 square feet in area.
These signs as indicated are essentially a rectangle with a cornice treatment across the top. These
signs should be redesigned to provide some architectural interest that is compatible with the building.
In anticipation of the outdoor sales, staff is recommending no additional signs including banner be
permitted.
CONCLUSION:
As discussed above, there are revisions necessary for this project. Provided recommended Conditions
of Approval are imposed, the project is acceptable.
The findings necessary to approve the Specific Plan and Conditional Use Permit for this project can
be made as noted in the report. The Conditions of Approval ensure that the project will be
compatible with the surrounding land uses and provide an attractive, well designed project.
PCSS.207
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending certification of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact to the City Council; and,
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96- , recommending approval of Specific Plan
96-027 to the City Council, subject to conditions.
3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ recommending approval of Conditional Use
Permit 96-028 to the City Council, subject to conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Specific Plan (for Planning Commission only)
3. Letter from Daniel Ferguson
4. Letter from the City of Indio
5. Environmental Assessment 96-325
Prepared by:
eA4Ak� b e:::2?aW-KA
STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
i--
CHAISTINE DI IORIO, Pla 'ng Manager
PCSS.207
Rm ATTACHMENT
CASE MAP
CASE No. rP 41�-0207
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
N ummr.
SPECtFtC PLAN TEXT FOR
IF No "M HME
Community Development Department
La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Daniel & Audrey Ferguson
46-414 Roudel Lane
La Quinta, CA 92253
APN 649-052-004
oEC�EOVE
JUL 11 1996
CITY OF LAOUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject: Specific Plan 96-027, Conditional Use Permit
96-028 (Home Depot USA Inc, Greg George)
Dear Members of the Community Development Dept,
We wish to express our support for the subject project. We are
not only pleased at the prospect of having a Home Depot at this
location but also that it will provide some badly needed
competition for the Wal Mart store.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
rz, 4�'- Z—" �' �A 14
Daniel Ferguson
t
07/18/95 THU 12:47 rAb 01b 044 0030 Lilt ur uvuiu WJ Vuc
OWN
No n�
CITY <301F INDIa
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CECENE
July 17,1996 Stan Sawa, Principal Planner City of La Quinta Community Development Department
73 495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: COMMENTS PXRTAMr. TO 3EFFERSON PLAZA SPECMC PLAN
Dear Mr. Sawa:
Upon completing the review of the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan and subsequent 218,300
square foot retail center proposed for th-a northwest corner of State Highway l I i and
Jefferson Street (See Exhibit A), the fundamental question is how can a Negative
Declaration be approved when environmental impacts exist and can not be mitigated to
insignificance (See PRC Sections 21080(d.), 21082.2, 21093 et. seq.). Consequently, the
City of Indio has the following comments and concerns-
1, Table 3: Level of Service Analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for this plan
indicates that a Level of Service (LOS) "F' will be generated with buildout and a LOS
"D" with buiidout and future street improvements (widening and raised median) at the
intersection of State highway 111 and Jefferson Street. The Circulation Element of
the Indio General Plan 2020 considers impacts to circulation to be significant when
producing a LOS of "D" or "F". Therefore, an Environmental Impact Report (FIR)
should be prepared. The ER should analyze and list mitigation measures necessary to
produce a LOS of "C" or better. A LOS of "D" or "F' are unacceptable conditions
for the City of Indio and should be smacceptable to the City of La Quinta. Traffic
movements which are constricted by the bridges over the La Quinta Evacuation
Channel, a branch of the Coachella Valley Storrawater Channel also need to be studied
for their contribution to LOS "D" or "F". This proposed project should pay its fair
share for improvements to State Highway Ill and Jefferson Street, including the
Jefferson Street bridge (See may, quaietz (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359).
2. The north entry to the project site along Jefferson Street should be signalized and
a synchronized with the State Hiighvmy 111 signal to provide safe and efficient
conditions for the proposed northbound egress from the site. This would be
appropriately analyzed with an EiR as requested in the preceding paragraph.
CITY OF IND10 - 100 CMC CENTER MAIL - P.O. DRAWER 1?88 • W 10. CA 92202
DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE rrUMB£RS, ALL IN 619 AREA CODE
CITY CLERK 342.6570 • CITY MANAGER 342.6580 • COMMUNrrY DEVELOPmewAtEDEVELOPMFNT 342-6600
FINANCE 342.6560 • FIRE 347-0756 • HUMAN RLSOURCES 342-6540 • POLICE 347.8522 & FAX 347.4317
PUBLIC 5ERVICFS/EI4GINEERING 342.6530 • CITY HALL FAX 342-6556 • CITY YARD 347.1058
07/18/96 THU 12:48 FAX 819 342 5556 CITY OF INDIO ic003
3. The two south entries along Jefferson Street should be deleted because they create an
unsafe conditions at one of the regions major intersections and will slow or stop
through traffic, as noted in the LOS of "D" or "F". For motorists exiting the project
site onto Jefferson Street, visibility of southbound traffic on Jefferson Street is
restricted due to the street depression at the Coachella Valley Stormwater Chancel.
Less driveways and curb -cuts along major streets and at major intersections will result
in safer traffic conditions and a more desirable LOS. Likewise the east entry along
State Highway 111 should be deleted clue to its close proximity to the Jefferson Street
intersection. This driveway is approximately 210 feet tom a signalized intersection -
Westbound traffic entering the site will impede the flow of traffic, hence LOS `D" or
"F". The City of La Quinta's own po&.y immcdiatcly west at the Albertson Shopping
Center does not allow direct access to drive through restaurants.
4. The applicant should contact Sunline 'rransit Agency to determine the location for a
bus stop along State highway 111. The Indio Draft Muted Use Specific Plan 300
(MUSP-300) encourages large proje;.tts along State Highway III to work with
Sunline Transit Agency to incorporate on -site bus stops or bus turnout. MUSP-300
regulates parcels on the south side of State Howay 111 within the City of Indio.
5. Under CEQA, archaeological field surveys are always required. The Indio General
Plan 2020 designates this site as bung in a High Sensitivity Area for cultural/
archaeological resources. Therefore, findings and recommendations for mitigation
from the archeology study that was prepared for the subject site should be summarized
in the Jefferson Plaza Specific Plan.
6. The site is located in the Active Blowsand Area designation derived from the CVAG
Blowsand Control and Protection Plan; therefore, consideration should be made for
ground disturbance and potential aeoHtL erosion. All graded and undeveloped portioa�
of the site should be stabilized to mitigate the transportation of fugitive dust from the
site. All grading operations should be subject to a PM 10 mitigation plan.
7. This project will slope toward the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, yet there is
no analysis of increased storm runoff' that wM be released from the site into this
regional flood control system. Since the City of Indio is impacted by the grade
crossings at this storm channel and other crossing further down stream, it would seem
appropriate that the impacts on those crossings be analyzed and mitigated.
S. The applicant should contact the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) to
determine if the applicant will be required to "line" the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel and/or provide any other improvements to the channel. All runoff channels
should have a debris basin and filter system. The debris basin should be identified as a
separate mitigation measure to handle runoff during construction. CVWD's written
comments should be included in the Jefferson Plan Specific Plan.
F
117i16, UU 111U 12:4V kAl 01V J4X 0000 %.►►► ur ►.Iu►v WJ-.
9. An aesthetic analysis should evaluate the visual change resulting from the development
of this project on neighboring residetial areas. We recommend that the applicant
provide a landscape screen and buffer along the north and east sides of the site to
mitigate significant negative visual impacts for neighboring residential areas
10 The building pad on the southeast comer of the project site should not incorporate a
drive through business. The City of Indio Draft Mixed Use Specific Plan 300 does not
allow drive through business along State Highway III from Jefferson Street to
Clinton Street. It is our opinion that drive through businesses down -grade the quality
development image. Automobiles using the drive through, being visible from the
public right-of-way, contribute noise, degrade air quality, and increase the possibilities
of conflicts between automobiles and pedestrians or other vehicles
11. The proposed project is regional in =)pe, and any project of this size in the Coachella
Valley falls within the scope of a regional project and should be considered for an
evaluation of regional impact. Therefore, a housing study should be undertaken to
determine the availability of housing affordable to retail employees in the City of La
Quinta. It is anticipated that retail job holders will ultimately reside in communities
other than the City of La Quinta. if this is found to be true, then the City of La Quinta
is exporting its affordable housing problems to neighboring communities. Their is a
clear question of socio-economic and environmental impacts with this project (Sea
Cruzens Association of Sensible Dew-lopment, Bishop Area v County of 11W (4th
Dist. I985) 172 Cal. App. 3rd 151, 169-171 [217 Cal. Rptr. 8931.). This regional
retailer must provide written objectives.
12. Over the past fifteen years a redistribution of sales tax revenues has occurred
throughout the Coachella Valley and tH3 project has the potential to worsen this trend
to the detriment of the City of Indio. Characterization as to the degree of this
potential change and its potential physical effects on the City of Indio or other cities'
commercial areas is a critical issue that does not appear to have bees adequately
addressed. The City of Indio is interested in reviewing such a document to determine
the study area selected and the probable effects to the study area,.
The City of La Quinta should carefully dtfte the proposed projects conformance with
the City's General Plan and its existing zone text. Since the specific plan is the tool which
will implement the goals and policies of the: general plan it should be carefully scrutinized.
In addition, a project proposal of this magnitude requires extensive environmental
evaluation to ensure that significant negative environmental impacts are mitigated, a
simple negative declaration is not sufficient. The City of Indio would also Like to reserve
the right to further comment at a later date:. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
If you have any questions or comments phase do not hesitate to contact me at (619) 342,
6500 Ext. 505 or FAX (619) 342-6556.
07. 18%98 THti 12:50 FAX UIV 34Z *000 t llz ur INV1U kkjUU.2
Sincerely, _
Drew D. Purvis,
Assistant Planner
cc.
Allyn S. Waggle, City Manager
Henry J. Hohenstein, AICP, Community I:evelopment Director
Keith C. Scott Jr., Economic Developmem: i Redevelopment Director
William H. Claire, III, Economic Development Project Manager
Michael I Bracken, Economic Development Specialist
Richard Cota, City Engineer
hmmedp Ldw
07/18/96 THU 12:37 FAX 619 342 6356 CITY OF INDIO tiuui
(t �
CS"1'Y OF UND IO
C13MMM=7
100 C~vic C=r -r -ybA
P.O. Drainer 1783
Indio, C .4 °: O:z
F= Covt' Z47 z
IE \'C'E � V F.
JUL 18 1996
CITY OF LAQUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DREW D. PURVIS
ICld ; '7�i-7 —7 d E Assivani Plane.
100 Mvie Cemr Mall
I738
iCNi: ,,.1.—y � — Indio.. CA CA g210Z
L• (619) 331.4500 VCT. 505 • Prot (619) 342.65.46
CITY OF
IN]DIO
:Itt:tbes Cf �5� igti�:�s::Sc c:evei' 3~'i
41 c1 tin _v,-4- +v �1 �,,cesad m .
>v LLirjj =ter
It
PH #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1996
CASE NO: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 96-018
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A PUBLIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING ADDITIONS TOTALING 6,114
SQUARE FEET OF NEW OFFICE, PARISH HALL, AND SMALL
CHAPEL TO AN EXISTING CHURCH, AND AN APPLICATION
FOR GREATER BUILDING HEIGHT.
APPLICANT: ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CATHOLIC CHURCH
PROPERTY
OWNER: ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF THE SAN BERNARDINO
DIOCESE
REPRESENTATIVE/
ARCHITECT: ROBERT H. RICCIARDI A.I.A. & ASSOCIATES
LOCATION: 47-225 WASHINGTON STREET
ZONING: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) AND HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION (H-C)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LDR) & OPEN SPACE (OS)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USE: NORTH:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1), HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION (H-C)/SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES
SOUTH:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1), HILLSIDE
CONSERVATION (H-C)/VACANT
EAST:
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1),
COMMERCIAL SCENIC (CPS)/VACANT
WEST:
HILLSIDE CONSERVATION (H-C)/VACANT
HILLSIDE
PCLC.105
BACKGROUND:
Property Description
The project is located at 47-225 Washington Street on 5.5 acres of land (Attachment 1). The church
campus consists of an existing main nave, offices, Parish Hall, and related parking which was
approved and built under the County of Riverside jurisdiction in 1982, prior to the City's
incorporation. The property is currently serviced with natural gas, water, electricity, and sewer. The
existing improvements are built on the portion of the parcel that is zoned R-1 with undeveloped
hillsides at the rear of the buildings.
Development Request
The Public Use Permit application is for Phase 2 of the church campus and consists of a one-story
1,200 square foot Parish Hall addition and a 4,914 square foot new Pastoral Center. A total of 6,114
square feet of new floor space is proposed. A small chapel will be included in the new Pastoral
Center for summer services.
Site Plan
The one-story church additions are proposed within an inner patio area along with a small grove of
citrus trees (.Attachment 2). The existing church sits on a shelf 20 feet above Washington Street and
175 feet back from the street property line. The existing buildings are surrounded by a parking lot
with 183 spaces. Parking spaces are determined by the amount of seating in the main nave.
Therefore, no additional parking is required. There are existing handicapped spaces provided close
to building entrances. No modifications are proposed to the existing parking lot.
Architectural Design
The proposed new buildings have been designed to be compatible with the existing church. The same
design of windows, roof lines, columns, materials, and colors are proposed for the new structures as
are present in the existing buildings. The proposed exterior building materials consist of"S" clay roof
tile (EI Camino Blend to match existing); Navajo White paint for sack finish plaster at slump block
veneer and for precast concrete; and Russet colored opaque stain for the exposed wooden beams,
decks, and rafters. The one-story additions will be 36 feet at their highest points. The architecture
is an interpretation of the Romanesque Basilica style.
Landscape Plan
The preliminary landscape plan (Attachment 2) for the new Pastoral Center and Parish Hall addition
will utilize Olive trees (existing), African Sumac trees (15 gal), Juniper trees (5 gal.), and Green Texas
Ranger (1 gal.), Dwarf Xylosma shrubs (1 gal.). annual color and Hybrid Bermuda grass around the
new structures in designated planting areas. Some of the existing sidewalks will be retained. An
exterior lighting plan will be required prior to issuance of building permits. The existing grove of
citrus trees is found in the courtyard area. It will be a condition of approval to retain or relocate as
many of these trees as possible.
PCLC.105
No new signs are being proposed for this project.
Environmental Assessment
An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the original project in 1981, by the County of
Riverside. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was adopted by the County.
This proposal is categorically exempt in accordance with Section 15301 (E) (2) of CEQA, as the
project consists of additions to an existing facility that are less than 10,000 square feet, has all public
services and facilities available to the site, and is not in an environmentally sensitive area.
COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
The project was sent out for comment to City Departments and affected public agencies on June 27,
1996. No major or negative comments were received regarding this project. This correspondence
is on file at the Community Development Department. The applicable comments are also
incorporated into the attached Conditions of Approval.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper and posted on August 1, 1996, for a public
hearing before the Planning Commission. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed
a copy of the public hearing notice.
ANALYSIS AND ISSUES:
The Zoning Ordinance permits churches within any zone with an approved Public Use Permit
providing the development standards of the zone are met. The site plan and building elevations are
consistent with the Zoning Code development standards with regard to setbacks and parking. The
proposed buildings will be compatible with building mass, design, color, materials, and landscaping.
However, the height of the proposed buildings reaches to thirty-six (36) feet, while the R-1 zone
limits height to twenty-eight (28) feet. The Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.192.030) permits the
application for greater height limit for Public Use Permits. The approval of thirty-six (36) feet is
acceptable since this height is lower than the existing 40 foot high church and 47 foot high bell tower.
A condition of approval to permit the proposed building height above, that is allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance, has been added.
The original project has become a local landmark which has been determined to be compatible with
the neighborhood. The addition is in an area which is now a courtyard and will have minimal impacts.
In 1981, an archaeological investigation was conducted for the original church project area. No
prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were located. However, three isolated artifacts were
located during the survey. No mitigation measures were recommended in the survey report. There
are a number of recorded prehistoric sites very near the church, and coupled with recent research
PCI,C.105
results of archaeological studies in the project vicinity, there is a possibility of subsurface cultural
deposits still present on the project site. A condition of approval requires the applicant to retain a
qualified archaeologist to monitor the grading, excavation, and trenching for both on -site and off -site
improvements, Lf grading extends below previously disturbed soils, an archaeologist shall be retained
to monitor grading activities.
The applicant has proposed to plant 15 gallon size African Sumac trees. Staff is concerned that this
size is not adequate to provide shade in a reasonable growing time and that a 24" box size would be
better suited for the project with respect to building scale. A condition of approval requires the 24"
box size African Sumac.
The Community Development Department recommends approval based on the attached information,
subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-_, approving Public Use Permit 96-018 to
allow construction of a new Pastoral Center and the addition to the Parish Hall totaling 6,114
square feet at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church located at 47-225 Washington Street, with
a greater height limit of 36 feet, subject to conditions
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Site and Landscaping Plans and Building Elevations (Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
J
L slie J. Mouri and, A ociatePlan r
Submitted by:
t;
Christine di Iorio, Planning Manager
PCLC.105
c
a
c
.VA12Vcs
ATTACHMENT 1
ST. FRANCIS CHURCH ADDITION
CASE MAP
C`SEEN0. PUP 96-018
LOCATION MAP
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 96-018 TO CONSTRUCT AN
ADDITION TO THE PARISH HALL AND A NEW
PASTORAL BUILDING TOTALING 6,114 SQUARE FEET
AND EXCEEDING THE TWENTY-EIGHT FOOT R-1
HEIGHT TO ALLOW THIRTY-SIX FEET AT ST. FRANCIS
OF ASSISI CHURCH LOCATED AT 74-225 WASHINGTON
STREET
CASE NO. PUP 96-018 ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CHURCH
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
13th day of August, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Public Use Permit
96-018 to construct an addition to the existing Parish Hall and a new Pastoral Center building
with a small chapel totaling 6,114 square feet located at 47-225 Washington Street, 36 feet
south of Highland Palms Drive and north of 48th Avenue, more particularly described as:
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 643-090-006, A PORTION
OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH,
RANGE 7 EAST, S.B.B.M.
WHEREAS, said request is exempt under Section 15301 (E) (2) of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), adopted by City Council Resolution 83-
068, in that the Community Development Director has determined that the proposed project
consists of building additions to an existing facility that are less than 10,000 square feet, has
all public services and facilities available to the site, and is not in an environmentally sensitive
area: and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the
following facts and reasons to justify approval of said Public Use Permit:
The Public Use Permit will not adversely affect the planned development of the City
as specified by the General Plan for the City of La Quinta, in that the project consists
of an addition to an existing church facility.
2. The Public Use Permit will not negatively impact the health, safety, or general
welfare, of the public as there are no potential health or safety risks related to this
project by its design, construction, or intended use as a church facility with worship,
fellowship, office, and administrative functions.
resope.211
Resolution 96-
There will be no significant environmental impacts resulting from the Public Use
Permit as the project site has existing church buildings on it, and the new building
additions will be constructed in an existing patio area that has no remaining
environmental resources located within it other than a small grove of young citrus
trees. It is possible that subsurface archaeological deposits may exist below the
previously disturbed original project area.
4. The Public Use Permit does not comply with the development standards of the R-1
Zoning District with respect to building height. An application for greater height limit
accompanies this Public Use Permit to allow building height to be increased from
twenty-eight (28) feet to thirty-six (36) feet, as allowed by Section 9.192.030 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby approve Public Use Permit 96-018 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to conditions labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission, held this 13th day of August, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
resope211
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 96-018
ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CHURCH
AUGUST 13, 1996
GENERAL:
Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these
Conditions of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the
properties to which they apply.
2. Within one year of the date of this approval, the development of the Parish Hall addition and
new pastoral center shall be completed or be under substantial construction and pursued
diligently to completion. An extension of time may be granted by the City Council upon a
determination that valid reason exists for permittee not using the permit within the required
period of time, in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter 9.176 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Should the church not meet this deadline, and a time extension has not been
approved, this Public Use Permit shall become null and void.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and /or clearances from the
following public agencies:
* Fire Marshal
* Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
* Community Development Department
* Riverside County Environmental Health Department
* Desert Sands Unified School District
* Coachella Valley Water District
* California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from these
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approvals and signatures on the plans.
Evidence of permits or clearances from the above jurisdictions shall be presented to the
Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the
use contemplated herewith.
4. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
conaprvl.409
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
5. A site improvement plan for parking area reconstruction shall be prepared by a registered
civil engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for plan checking. Improvements shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted
Standard Drawing, and as approved by the Public Works Director.
The plan shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media and shall include the grading, hardscape
(curbing, paving and walkways), striping and traffic signs including parking stalls, and
drainage. The plan shall have a signature block for the City Engineer and are not approved
for construction until they are signed.
Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall
consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction
traffic. The minimum pavement section shall be 3.0"/4.5".
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.
GRADING
7. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit
and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with Chapter
6.16, La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish
security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
8. Graded but undeveloped lands shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances.
The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water
erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
9. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer,
or surveyor that lists actual pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad in the
development, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation,
and shall clearly identify the difference, if any.
10. Prior to issuance of Grading Permit the applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to
monitor the grading, excavation, and trenching for both on -site and off -site
improvements, if such activities are to extend below that area previously disturbed by the
construction and grading activities for the original buildings, parking lot, and landscaped
areas of the project site.
conaprvl.409 2
QUALITY ASSURANCE
11. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
12. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for the plan checks and permits.
BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN
13. The requirement of the City's Off -Street Parking Ordinance shall be maintained for all
seating in the main sanctuary building.
14. All lighting facilities shall comply with Outdoor Lighting requirements and be designed to
minimize light and glare impacts to surrounding property. The applicant shall submit plans
for path lighting and exterior building lighting, if any, for review and approval by the
Community Development Department. All outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical
plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval.
15. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened from view at all sides by design of the
structure. All ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from
methods approved by the Community Development Department.
16. Exterior noise levels produced by this permit, including but not limited to any outdoor
public address system, shall not exceed 50 db(A) between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00
A.M. and 60 db(a) at all other times as measured at any residential, hospital, school, library,
nursing home or other similar noise sensitive land use. In the event noise exceeds this
standard, the permittee shall take the necessary steps to remedy the situation, which may
include discontinued operation of the facilities. If the noise consists entirely of impact noise,
simple tone noise, speech or music or any combination thereof, each of the noise levels
specified above shall be reduced by 5 db(A).
LANDSCAPING
17. The existing trees on the site shall be incorporated into the landscape plan, or be relocated,
whenever feasible. A tree retention/relocation plan shall be submitted prior to any site
grading, to the Community Development Department staff as part of the final landscaping
plan.
18. This property is located within the Coachella Valley and all landscape planting shall comply
with the requirements of the State Agriculture Code and the directives of the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioner. All landscaping plans submitted to the Community
Development Department shall include the following notation: "WARNING: Plant material
conaprv1.409
listed may or may not have been approved by the Agricultural Commissioner's office.
Landscape contractor, please contact the developer for status of Agricultural
Commissioner's approval or denial. Plant material is subject to inspection at the discretion
of the Agricultural Commissioner's office. All plant material must be free from Red Scale
(Aonidiella aurantii)."
19. The landscape plans shall be revised to provide 24" box size African Sumac, rather than 15
gallon size prior to issuance of a building permit.
FIRE MARSHAL
20. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Marshal, who may approve
alternate means of compliance where deemed appropriate and equivalent to these standards:
A. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a
2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before
any combustible material is placed on the job site.
B. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building
Code.
C. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than
2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of
equipment.
D. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per
recommended standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire
Department for approval of mounting location/position and operating standards.
Special forms are available from the Planning Section of the Fire Prevention Division
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.
E. Final conditions will be addresses when building plans are reviewed. A plan check
fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
MISCELLANEOUS
21. No signs are approved pursuant to this Public Use Permit. Prior to installation of any on -site
advertising or directional signs, a signing plan shall be submitted for approval by the
Community Development Department pursuant to the requirements of the Sign Regulations.
conaprvl.409 4
PH #3
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1996
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-027
APPLICANT: BOSTON WEST, L.L.C.
ARCHITECT: TARLOS AND ASSOCIATES
REQUEST: 1). CERTIFICATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENT IMPACT;
2). APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT
RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE -THROUGH LANE
LOCATION: INTERSECTION OF SIMON DRIVE WITH HIGHWAY 111
(NORTHEAST CORNER) WITHIN ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA
SHOPPING CENTER
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
ZONING:
THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT 96-324 FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT. BASED
UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL NOT HAVE A
SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HAS BEEN PREPARED AND IS
RECOMMENDED FOR CERTIFICATION.
M/RC WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY - MIXED
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY.
C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
PCSS.208
BACKGROUND:
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
The restaurant site within the shopping center is surrounded by the following zoning and land uses:
NORTH: C-P-S/ parking lot and vacant commercial land. Beyond the shopping center site is
the Whitewater Storm Channel.
SOUTH: C-P-S/vacant land. To the southwest of the site across Highway 111 is Simon
Motors, an automotive dealer.
EAST: C-P-S/ vacant shopping center pad along with future parking.
WEST: C-P-S/vacant commercial pad with the Red Robin Restaurant beyond.
Presently, the rough graded site is vacant and void of any vegetation. Immediately to the west of the
site is a signalized entry driveway from Highway 111 which is an extension of Simon Drive to the
south.
PROJECT REQUEST:
General
The applicants are proposing to construct a Boston Market Restaurant with 3,250 square feet of floor
space within the One Eleven La Quinta shopping center (Attachment 1). The restaurant site contains
approximately 35,800 square feet of area. The site abuts the Highway 111 50-foot wide perimeter
landscape setback.
Site Layout
The restaurant has been laid out on the west part of the property (adjacent to the driveway at Simon
Drive). Most of the parking is on the easterly half of the property. A drive -through lane wraps
around the north, west and south sides of the building. A trash/recycling enclosure is proposed
within the parking lot area.
Circulation/Parking
Thirty three parking spaces are required by Municipal Code for the restaurant. Thirty eight parking
spaces are provided. Parking spaces are provided to the north and east of the building. Access into
the parking area will be from the north side of the site adjacent to the main east/west running aisle.
No access will be provided from Highway 111 or the Simon Drive entry to the west.
Architecture
The proposed building will be 19 feet high with a flat roof surrounded by a parapet wall. The
proposed walls consist of beige colored stucco with a red colored horizontal band extending around
all elevations. All windows have a clear glaze with bronze anodized frames. An illuminated red,
PCSS.208
black and white striped awning extends around the north, south and east elevations. The entry will
be highlighted with a 23 foot high tower capped with a modified "mission" arch. The west elevation,
adjacent to the entry from Highway 111, is proposed to have metal lattice. A porte cochere on the
south elevation has a wood lattice roof and is supported by three stucco columns. The base of the
columns are clad with adoquin tile. Aqua colored tile is also proposed as diamond shaped accents
on the upper portions of the building.
Signs
All elevations are proposed to have a sign. On the front entry tower, the "Boston Market" logo
cabinet sign is proposed. This logo is approximately eight feet long and five feet high with a total
size under 40 square feet. On the west, north and south elevations the applicant is proposing
individually mounted interrially-illuminated channel letters reading "Boston Market". These signs
will utilize capital and lower case letters a maximum of two feet in height by 20 feet in length for
a total of 40 square feet.
The sign colors proposed are a combination of red, white and black. The proposed logo cabinet sign
will have a black and red background with white lettering. The individual channel letters will have
red plexiglass faces with black trim caps and returns.
On the vertical face of the bottom of the awnings, signs indicating sandwiches, rotisserie and home
style meals is proposed.
Landscaping
The applicant submitted a preliminary landscaping and irrigation plan for the project. The plan
includes a variety of low-water using trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Two existing large palm trees
behind the existing entry wall near Highway 111 will be relocated.
Environmental Considerations
The Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 96-324 for the
proposed restaurant (Attachment 2). As a result of that Assessment, it has been determined that the
only potentially significant impact unless mitigated is aesthetics.
Public Notice
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun on July 22, 1996, and mailed to all property owners
within 500 feet of the site. As of the date of the writing of this report, no letters regarding the project
have been received.
PCSS.208
Public Agency Review
A copy of the applicant's request has been sent to all public agencies and City departments.
Comments have been received from a number of agencies and departments and have been
incorporated into the Conditions of Approval where appropriate.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES:
Issue #1 - Public Health. Safety and Welfare
The required finding for the approval of a Conditional Use Permit is that the project will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare of the community. In order to meet this
finding, several modifications are necessary.
The proposed red, white and black striped awning is extensively used on all elevations except the
west elevation. The color of awnings is not compatible with the proposed building colors or those
used in the existing shopping center all consisting of muted pastel colors. Additionally, the awnings
show ancillary product information on the vertical face detracting from the architectural character
of the building.
Request for use of corporate color awnings is similar to the request by Carl's Jr. to use their yellow
and red colored striped awnings. The Planning Commission required that only the awning over the
entry would be allowed to use their corporate color and design with the remainder of the awning
having a solid pastel color. This was required because the corporate color conflicted with not only
the building design and colors, but also the center's design and colors. Staff is recommending the
proposed red, black and white awning be allowed over the entry only with the remainder of the
awning color be a pastel color to complement the building. Also, staff is recommending the deletion
of any sign copy listing products sold. The horizontal band around the building is also recommended
to match the solid awning color for consistency.
The Plant palette within the parking lot area does not match the plant materials in the shopping
center. For compatibility and continuity, staff is recommending the trees and ground covers should
match those used in the shopping center parking lot. Some of the existing perimeter landscaping
adjacent to Highway I I I will need to be removed in order to allow the proposed improvements. The
removal may create bare areas. These areas will need to be replanted even though they are off -site.
This planting will soften the look of the project as well as provide screening for the parking area and
drive -through lanes.
In order to provide adequate trash facilities and recycling facilities, it may be necessary to enlarge
the trash enclosure. This can be done by elimination of one parking space. Presently the applicants
have more parking than required by Municipal Code.
PCSS.208
To eliminate a potential traffic conflict and provide better pedestrian access to the front door, staff
is recommending the parking space northwest of the exit drive -through lane adjacent to the front
door should be eliminated and replaced with a pedestrian ramp.
In order to ensure conformance with the Dark Sky Ordinance and minimize glare, staff is
recommending that exterior lighting plans be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building
permit. Staff is recommending parking lot exterior lighting that matches the shopping center.
Also of concern is that the awnings are proposed to be internally illuminated. This will be in conflict
with the City's Dark Sky Ordinance in that it will create glare. Staff is recommending the awnings
be opaque.
Issue #2 - General Plan Consistency
The General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as Mixed Regional Commercial with a Non -
Residential Overlay. This designation provides for commercial uses including restaurants as
proposed. Additionally, this project is consistent with other applicable elements such as the
Circulation Element, Environmental Conservation (Archeological, Water Conservation and Arts in
Public Places Policy), Infrastructure and Public Services Element, Environmental Hazards Element
and Air Quality Element.
Land Use Element Policy 2-3.1 provides for primary uses being major retail businesses with ancillary
uses including other commercial enterprises. Within the shopping center is Albertson's supermarket
and Wal Mart which are major retail businesses. The proposed restaurant is an ancillary commercial
use.
Issue #3 - Snecifrc Plan/Zonin
Specific Plan 89-014 for the shopping center requires that businesses with drive -through lanes obtain
a Conditional Use Permit. The applicants have applied for a Conditional Use Permit. The Specific
Plan also requires that each business with a drive -through lane have two pick-up windows. The
applicants have designed their project to provide these windows as required.
The current Zoning Code (Section 9.160.050K) provides seven development standards for businesses
with drive -through lanes. These standards pertain to distance from residential uses, traffic
circulation, vehicle stacking, architectural compatibility, shade structures, screening, and exiting.
This project has been designed to comply with these requirements which includes the provision of
a shade structure over the two pick-up windows, and stacking for a minimum of seven vehicles in
this drive -through lane.
As part of the Specific Plan, a sign program for the shopping center has been adopted. The sign
provides for one square foot of sign per linear foot of building area up to a maximum of 50 square
feet per side with letter height being 24 inches. This building has approximately 49 feet on each side
which would allow a 49 square foot sign. The signs proposed by the applicant are approximately
40 square feet in size. Therefore, their proposal is in compliance with applicable sign program.
PCSS.208
Issue #4 - Environmental Determination
As noted in this report, the project will not have any significant impacts on the environment which
cannot be mitigated. Mitigation measures are recommended as Conditions of Approval.
Issue #5 - Compatibility With Surrounding Uses
The project is in the location which is designated commercial and zoned for commercial uses. The
project is located within an existing shopping center. The project has been designed to be
compatible with the surrounding uses.
CONCLUSION:
As noted above, there are minor revisions necessary for this project. Provided the recommended
Conditions of Approval are imposed, the project is acceptable.
The findings necessary to approve this Conditional Use Permit can be made as noted in the report.
The Conditions of Approval ensure that the project will be compatible with the surrounding land
uses and provide an attractive, well -designed project.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 96-_ approving certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, and;
2. Adopt Minute Motion 96- approving Conditional Use Permit 96-027 subject to
conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Environmental Assessment and Draft Negative Declaration
3. Plans and Exhibits (for Planning Commission only)
Prepared by:
STAN B. SAWA, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI IORIO, Planning Manager
PCSS.208
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 96-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-324
PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-
02E
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-324
BOSTON WEST, L.L.C.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 13th day of August, 1996, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 96-324 and Conditional Use Permit 96-027; and,
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended;
Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community
Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 96-324); and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said
Use Permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and that a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact should be filed; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all
interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts,
findings, and reasons to justify certification of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Use Permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community, either indirectly or directly, in that no significant impacts have been identified,
and less than significant or potentially significant impacts can be addressed by the
incorporated mitigation measures.
2. The proposed Use Permit does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples
of the major periods of California history or prehistory, due to the lack of any such factors
existing on or near the site.
3. The proposed Use Permit does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental
goals, to the disadvantage oflong-term environmental goals, as the site has been prepared for
development as part of an existing shopping center which was reviewed subject to CEQA and
incorporates mitigation measures conditioned upon the overall project.
resoea.324
Planning Commission Resolution 96-026
4. The proposed Use Permit will not result in impacts which are individually limited or
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity. The proposed restaurant project is consistent with the designated land use
and policy guidance adopted for the La Quinta General Plan and Specific Plan 89-014, for
which mitigation measures were adopted to assure that future development in accordance
with said Plans would not have detrimental effects on the environment beyond those identified
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted for the La Quinta General Plan.
The proposed Use Permit will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the
human population, either directly or indirectly, in that the site is located on an urbanizing
arterial corridor, with infrastructure to support such development already in place, and is part
of a previously approved shopping center which was reviewed subject to CEQA and is
consistent with the La Quinta General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of La Quanta, California as follows:
That the recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 96-324 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, and on
file in the Community Development Department.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13th day of August, 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JACQUES ABELS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY BERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quanta, California
resoea.324
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-027
BOSTON MARKET (BOSTON WEST, L.L.C)
AUGUST 13, 1996
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits approved and
contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 96-027, unless amended by the following
conditions.
2. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within one year of City approval date of
August 13, 1996; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. `Be
used" means beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not
including grading which has begun within the one year. One year time extensions up to a total
of two extensions may be requested pursuant to City requirements.
3. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and building shall be approved by the
Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Lights shall be
designed not to create glare onto adjacent streets and properties. Parking lot lights shall
match style and height of existing lights.
4. The Arts in Public; Places fee shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. All required trash and recycling bins and shall comply with the requirements of the City and
Waste Management of the Desert (i.e., solid metal doors mounted on steel posts and
imbedded in concrete with an eight inch high curb provided within the enclosure and with a
concrete pad in front of the enclosure). Prior to issuance of a building permit the applicant
shall provide written verification from the trash company that the trash/recycling enclosure
is large enough to accommodate all required bins and that access is acceptable.
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the site plan shall be modified so that the parking space
located northwest of the exit for the drive -through lane adjacent to the front door is removed
and replaced with a ramp for access.
7. All awnings except the awning located on the east elevation of the building underneath the
tower structure shall be of a solid color with no signs. The horizontal stripe around the
building at level of the bottom of the awning shall match color of solid awning. Internal
illumination of the awnings is prohibited. The solid awning color shall complement the
building colors and be approved by the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.
CONAPRVL.408
8. Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is authorized to file these Conditions
of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to
which they apply.
9. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for construction of any building or use
contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances, if
necessary, from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside County Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Imperial Irrigation District
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits of clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
For projects requiring NPDES construction permits, the applicant shall include a copy of the
application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans submitted for plan checking. Prior to
issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the applicant shall submit a copy of an
approved Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan.
10. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee; program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
11. Site improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x
36 media and shall include grading, hardscape (curbing, paving and walkways), striping and
traffic signs including parking stalls, drainage, and landscaping including walls, fencing,
irrigation and lighting. All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not
approved for construction until they are signed.
12. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard plan
and/or detail sheets from the City.
GRADING
13. 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,
CONAPRVLA08 2
La Quinta Municipal Code. In accordance with said Chapter, the Applicant shall furnish
security, in a form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
14. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances.
The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water
erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
15. A grading plan, which may be combined with the on -site paving and drainage plan, shall be
prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval of the City Engineer prior
to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform with the recommendations
of the soils report for the One Eleven -La Quinta Center development and shall be certified
as adequate by a soils engineer or an engineering geologist.
16. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a separate document
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer, geotechnical engineer,
or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building
pad in the development, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built
elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any.
DRAINAGE
17. Site drainage shall comply with the approved drainage plan for P.M. 25865.
18. Nuisance water shall be retained in retention basins or other approved retention/infiltration
systems. In design of retention facilities, the soil percolation rate shall be considered to be
zero unless the applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise.
19. If retention is in an open basin, a trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design approved by
the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand filter and leach field
shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of drainage area.
20. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and depth shall not exceed six feet.
21. No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention basins except as approved by the
Community Development Director and the City Engineer.
UTILITIES
22. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be
installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide
COWMAN 3
certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
23. Improvement plans for all on -site hardscape and drainage improvements shall be prepared by
a registered civil engineer. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance
with the La Quinta Municipal Code, adopted Standard Drawings, and as approved by the City
Engineer.
24. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs and channelization and
parking space markings.
Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall
consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading, including site and building construction
traffic. The minimum pavement section shall be 3.0"/4.5".
QUALITY ASSURANCE
25. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval
of the City Engineer.
MAINTENANCE
26. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual
maintenance of private street and drainage facilities, landscaping, and other improvements
required by these conditions.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
27. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for the plan checks and permits.
28. Within three days after Planning Commission approval, the applicant shall submit to the
Community Development Department a check payable to the County of Riverside for
$1,328.00. This fee shall be forwarded to the Riverside County Clerk's Office for payment
of State -required Fish and Game Fees and administrative handling fee.
LANDSCAPING
29. The final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Emitter or drip irrigation shall
be used whenever possible.
CONAPRVL.408 4
30. The landscaping plan shall show replacement of any existing landscaping to be removed. Any
landscaping which is to be relocated (including two date palm trees) shall be shown on final
landscaping plans. All existing landscaping materials and irrigation shall be retained in place
if not removed or replaced if damaged as part of the construction of this project.
31. The parking lot trees shall be 24 inch box size (two inch minimum diameter trunk) Rhus
lancea with foundation planting to match existing parking lot planters. Only purple fountain
grass shall be used.
32. Garden/retaining walls shall be provided adjacent to Highway 111 and the entry drive on the
west to provide screening of the parking lot, drive -through lane and cars utilizing the drive -
through lane.
33. Parking lot trees shall not be "topped" as part of their maintenance, but shall be allowed to
grow to their natural height.
34. In perpetuity, any landscaping which dies or fails to thrive shall be replaced with the same
plant material within 30 days.
35. In planter area between driveway (Simon Drive) and drive -through lane, a minimum of four
new date palm trees of 15 feet to 18 feet in height shall be planted to match those planted
adjacent to signalized entry near Walmart. Trees shall match the height of existing trees to
the northeast along driveway.
36. Any on -site utility boxes, meters, directional signs, speaker boxes, shall be screened with
landscaping materials and shown on final landscaping plans.
SIGNS
37. Signs on vertical face of awnings shall be eliminated prior to issuance of a sign permit.
38. Drive -through directional signs shall comply with Table 9.9-1 of the Sign Ordinance. Final
sign plans shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department prior to issuance
of a building permit for the signs.
FIRE MARSHAL
39. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1500 gpm for a two hour
duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible
material is placed on the job site.
CONAPRVL.408 5
40. The required fire flow shall be available form a Super hydrant(s) (6x4" x 2-1/2") located not
less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measure along approved
vehicular travel ways.
41. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 10 of the Uniform Building Code.
42. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1OBC in
rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
43. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted,
along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review.
44. Install Knox Key Lock boxes, Models 4400, 32300 or 1300, mounted per recommended
standard of the Knox Company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval
of mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from this
office for the ordering of the Key Switch. This form must be authorized and signed by this
office for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
45. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must
be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
Please contact the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff for final inspection prior to
occupancy.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire
Department Planning & Engineering staff at (619) 863-8886.
CONAPRVL.408 6
ATTACHMENT 1
-U-- ' CASE MAP
CASE No,
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
ATTACHMENT 2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Environmental Assessment No. 96-324
Case No.: CUP 96-027 Date: July 15,1996
L
Name of Proponent: BostonWest, L.L.C.
Address: 222 S. Harbor Blvd. Suite 300, Anaheim, CA 92805
Phone: 714•.518-2782 (John Baker, Rep.)
Agency Requiring Checklist: City of La Quinta
Project Name (if applicable): Conditional Use Permit 96-027, for a 3,200 square foot restaurant
with drive -through facilities, at the Simon Drive entry to the 111 La
Quinta Shopping Center.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
II. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities
Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
Water Risk of Upset and Human Health Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
III. DETERMINATION.
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on
the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the
project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,
and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least, 1) one effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards; and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect
is a `potentially significant impact" or `potentially significant unless mitigated".
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only
the effects that remain to be addressed.
Signature. l/`J 14. / — Date July 15 , 1996
Printed Name and Title Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
For: City of La Ouinta,. Community Development Dgpartment
Potentially
Potentially Significant leas Than
Significant Unleaa Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
(source #(s): X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? X--
C) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses)?
d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped
area or extension of major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? X
3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fall?
X
g) Subsidence of the land?
X
iii
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
h) Expansive soils? X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? X
3.4. WATER. Would the project result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? X
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? X
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? X.
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? X
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any our quality standard, or contribute to any
existing or projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? X
c) Alter air movement, moisture or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
iv
Potentially
Potentially Significant Leas Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the project
result
in:
a)
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
c)
Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
uses?
d)
Insufficient parking capacity on site or off site?
e)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
f)
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g)
Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
3.7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project result in
impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities, (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)?
v
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Tbm
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
3.8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
3.9. RISK OF UPSETARWAN HEALTH.
Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? X
e) . Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
,grass, or trees? K
3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X
3.11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? K
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless significant
No
Impact Mitigated Impact
Impact
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
3.12. UTILITIES.
Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or
substantial alternations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
3.13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historncal resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? X
VU
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? X
b) Affect existing; recreational opportunities?
4. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the Potential to degrade the
quality of the environmental, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects). X
d) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? X
EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed by the earlier document.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "potentially significant" or "potentially significant unless
mitigated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier
document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project.
VM
INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 96-324
Prepared for:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-027
BOSTON MARKET DRIVE -THROUGH RESTAURANT
111 LA QUINTA SHOPPING CENTER
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Prepared by:
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California 92253
July 26,1996
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Project Overview 3
1.2 Purpose of Initial Study 3
1.3 Background of Environmental Review 3
1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review 4
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4
2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting
4
2.2 Physical Characteristics
4
2.3 Operational Characteristics
4
2.4 Objectives
4
2.5 Discretionary Actions
5
2.6 Related Projects
5
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
5
3.1 Land Use and Planning
5
3.2 Population and Housing
5
3.3 Earth Resources
6
3.4 Water
6
3.5 Air Quality
7
3.6 Transportation/Circulation
7
3.7 Biological Resources
8
3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources
8
3.9 Risk of Upset/Human Health
9
3.10 Noise
9
3.11 Public Services
10
3.12 Utilities
10
3.13 Aesthetics
10
3.14 Cultural Resources
11
3.15 Recreation
11
4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
12
5 EARLIER ANALYSIS
12
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which has the
principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon
the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the
environmental review and to approve the proposal.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INITIAL STUDY
As part of the environmental review for the proposed Boston Market restaurant, the City of La Quinta
Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis
for detemuning the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the amendment. The
purposes of the Initial Study, as staters in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
To provide the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an
environmental impact report (EIR) or a negative declaration for a project;
To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts
before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative
declaration of environmental impact;
To assist in the preparation of an EK should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those
issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed project;
To facilitate environmental review early in the design of the project;
To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the project will not
have a significant effect on the environment;
To eliminate unnecessary EIR's; and
To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project.
1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project was deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA. The
Environmental Officer for the Community Development Department prepared this Initial Study and
addendum for review and certification by the Planning Commission and City Council for the City of La
Quinta.
4
1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This Initial Study did not indicate potential for significant environmental impacts. Most impacts are
incremental due to development of the existing shopping center pad. As a result, no specific
environmental mitigation measures directly attributable to this project are recommended, and a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this proposal.
SECTION 2• PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the
Coachella Valley. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City
of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and federal and County lands to the
south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in May, 1982.
The subject site consists of a 0.83 acre pad within a shopping center of approximately 62 acres, bordered
by Washington Street, Highway 111, Adams Street and the Whitewater River Channel. The center is
developed with various retail, office and restaurant uses established under Specific Plan 89-014. All
parking areas have been completed, but there are several pad areas which are undeveloped, one of which
is the subject site. Vacant commercial pad sites he east and west of the site; Simon Motors is located to
the south across Highway 111.
2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposal involves establishment of a 3,200 square foot drive -through Boston Market restaurant. The
original approval for the overall specific plan in April,1990 prohibited drive -through uses. The plan was
amended m 1991 to allovv for three fast food drive throughs, all of which have been completed and are
operating. No additional environmental review was deemed necessary at the time. In June of 1996, a
second amendment was approved to allow two additional drive-throughs, one of which is the subject
site.
2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
A cursory review of the original air quality analysis reveals that the square footage of some established
uses are not consistent with those which were approved. For example, the current restaurant square
footage is more than double that originally considered under the analysis, and the overall project footage
specifically analyzed is less than that actually approved. However, the uses established on the site are
consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations for the shopping center specific plan.
2.4 OBJECTIVES
The objective of the project is to establish a high turnover restaurant with a drive -through facility.
5
2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project, the government
agency is the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve
a project. The proposed project will require discretionary approval from the Planning Commission and
City Council for the following:
* Certification of the Environmental Assessment for the project;
* Approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant.
2.6 RELATED PROJECTS
There are no related projects to this proposal under review at present.
SECTION 3• ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. CEQA issue
areas are evaluated in this addendum as contained in the Initial Study Checklist. Under each checklist
item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist
within the City and the areas affected by the proposed project. Thresholds for significance are defined
either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies or by referring to criteria in CEQA,
Appendix G. Underlined text indicates project specific mitigation which is to be incorporated into the
overall Mitigation Monitoring Pro am M—W).
3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The
valley is abundant with both plant and animal life. Topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below
mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto
Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountain
range. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject site has been disturbed in its entirety, and is one of several vacant pads established within
the shopping center, which is being built out on a market demand basis. The overall project uses,
including this proposal, are consistent with the General Plan and zoning currently in effect.
A through D - No Impact. The amendment does not propose a use that is inconsistent with the current
or future land uses contemplated for the project area.
3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Regional Environmental Setting
The City's population as of January 1, 1996, is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be
18,046 persons. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents
M
who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are
used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.85 persons per occupied unit (1990 Census).
Local Environmental Setting
The immediate area is designated Mixed Regional Commercial (MIRC) on the General Plan Land Use
Policy Diagram. The surrounding area to the north is designated residential and becoming densely
populated, although no growth has occurred directly across the Whitewater Channel to this point.
A through C - No Impact. The amendment will not affect the area development patterns or population
distribution, and will therefore not affect any population increase or area growth. The proposed use is
consistent with those already approved and established for the site.
3.3 EARTH RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has a varied topography, from gently sloping alluvial fans and steep hillsides, to
relatively flat desert floor. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City's soil types are underlain by
igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral reef
Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject site has been disturbed and graded as part of previous development of parking, on -site
access and building improvements for the overall shopping center site.
A, C through I - No Impact; B - Less Than Significant Impact The amendment will not present any
additional exposure to geologic and soil related hazards. The existing physical conditions in the area
will not be changed in a manner which would create any impacts. Short term impacts due to project
development are insignificant and will be addressed through adherence to standard City requirements
and conditions. Seismic impacts due to ground shaking are less than significant, and were identified as
part of development in accordance with the General Plan. Adherence to seismic safety provisions of the
UBC will be required.
3.4 WATER
Regional Environmental Setting
Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layer of rock
material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater.
Water supplies are also augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the
Coachella Canal and stored at Lake Cahuilla.
Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa
Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater
will be a requirement of CVWD for new developments in the near future.
7
Local Environmental Setting
The vicinity of the proposed restaurant is protected from design storms by flood control and other
required project improvements completed for the shopping center. The site is level and well drained, with
existing retail and office uses having been established on other pads within the center.
A through ]H - No Impact. Current runoff rates may be incrementally increased due to pad
development, but the increase will be so negligible that it will constitute no additional impact. The area
is currently protected from flood impacts by existing flood control facilities. Surface waters and streams
will not be affected, and ground water resource quantity and quality will not be impacted.
3.5 AIR QUALITY
Regional Environmental Setting
The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD), and is located in the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). SEDAB has a distinctly
different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Currently, the SEDAB does not
meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. In the Coachella Valley, the
standards for PM 10 are frequently exceeded. PM 10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter
that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles on unpaved roads,
among other causes.
Local Environmental Setting
The City is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers,
mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures,
and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air
quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region.
A through D - No Impact. An air quality analysis was prepared for the original project in February,
1990. In 1992, Amendment 1 to the original specific plan was approved to allow three drive throughs
in the total project area based on information from a California Restaurant Association study on drive
through service lanes, which was submitted by the applicant in response to a proposed AQMD ban on
such lanes. The study indicated that a ban would actually increase ROG emissions by 7 percent over
1991 levels and 17 percent in the year 2000, for a typical restaurant. Based on this information,
Amendment 2 was approved to allow two additional drive-throughs, for a total of five. It was determined
in EA 96-319, prepared for Amendment 2, that air quality impacts associated with two additional drive
through uses are not considered significant, in light of the CRA study submitted for Amendment 1.
Therefore, in relation to the entire project, and the existing and approved uses on site, any potential
increase in emissions from the Boston Market proposal has been previously assessed, and will not pose
a significant impact. Short term emissions from construction, primaries due to finish grading for the site,
will be addressed by submittal of and adherence to the Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) which will
be required prior to grading activities.
3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Regional Environmental Setting
The existing circulation system is a combination of early roadwork constructed by Riverside County and
new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways in the City include State Highway
8
I11, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and 52nd Avenue. Traffic volumes in La
Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early spring months
representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes.
Local Environmental Setting
The overall shopping center project is bounded by three major City thoroughfares; Highway 111,
Washington Street and Adams Street. All on site access ways, parking and driveways have been
installed. The pad in question is located on Highway I I I at its intersection with Simon Drive, on the
northeasterly corner.
A, B - Less Than Significant Impact. No significant traffic increases or hazards to safety are
anticipated due to the proposal, beyond those already contemplated under full development of the
specific plan. Trip generation rates for drive through versus sit down fast food restaurants do not vary
significantly. In consideration of cumulative traffic generation anticipated from the entire center, no
significant trip generation increase is anticipated from the addition of this drive through use. Review of
the project design for adequate auto queuing space and circulation relative to the drive through operation
win address proper standards for the project.
C through G - No Impact Access in the area will not be affected. No parking impacts will be created
by the proposal which were not addressed and provided for in the specific plan. The specific plan
approval for the center required transit related improvements and conditions in effect at the time; these
requirements address the entire shopping center site development. The site is not proximate to, nor is
it affected by water, air or rail traffic.
3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert. Two ecosystems are found within the City; the
Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are
classified as urban or agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the LQMEA.
Local Environmental Setting
The subject area is developed with commercial uses and rough graded pad sites for future commercial
development. The LQME.A identifies the entire site as within the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard
habitat area, for which a federal 10A permit was obtained pursuant to adoption of the CVFTL Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP).
A through E - No Impact. The project site has been disturbed due to overall site grading and
development of commercial structures, paved areas and utility installations. There is no potential for
wildlife habitat to exist on the site. Mitigation fees have been paid for the CVFTL as part of grading
permits originally issued for the site.
3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
E
The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resources
Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil
resources in the City. Major energy resources used in the City come from the Imperial Irrigation District
(ID)), Southern California Gas Company, and gasoline companies.
Local Environmental Setting
The site does not he within an identified area sensitive to mineral resources. Soils within the site consist
of Coachella Sand and loam and Myoma fine sand; these soils are well -drained and permeable.
A, B - No Impact. The proposed amendment has no potential to impact energy or mineral resources
in any manner.
3.9 RISK OF UPSIEMHUIMAN HEALTH
Regional Environmental Setting
Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not currently located within La Quinta,
the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen
cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats
to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in
Riverside County, transportation of such materials out of and through La Quinta takes place.
Local Environmental Setting
The project site has not been used for any type of manufacturing in the past.
A through E - No Impact. There is no potential for additional risk or health hazard due to the request,
or any effect on emergency response or potential fire hazard. The site has been assessed for risk impacts
as part of the overall development framework; development of the individual pad sites will be subject
to Fire and Health Department standards as in effect and applicable at the time actual building permits
are applied for.
3.10 NOISE
Regional Environmental Setting
Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources in and near the City. The major sources include
vehicular noise on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noises. The ambient noise
levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials.
Local Environmental Setting
Primary noise sources in the subject area are associated with vehicle traffic, and various short-term noise
sources associated with urbanized commercial uses. There are no residential or other sensitive noise
receptors in the project vicinity.
A, B - No Impact. No increase in noise levels are anticipated due to the proposal. Development of
remaining pad sites will have negligible effects upon noise levels or exposure to noise when considered
with existing development on site and the nature of the uses established for the center.
10
3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES
Regional Environmental Setting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheri$'s
Department. Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The
Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, and Station
#70, at the intersection of ]Madison Street and Avenue 54. Paramedic services are provided by Springs
Ambulance Service. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in
Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Clinic located in the One -Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center.
Local Environmental Setting
The nearest fire station to the area is Station #32 located approximately three miles south of the subject
area. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center.
A through E - No Impact. The amendment will not impact public services. The existing approved
commercial development pattern for the center will not be altered by the development of this drive
through restaurant use.
3.12 UTILITIES
Regional Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power and the
Southern California Gas Company (SCG) for natural gas service. General Telephone Exchange (GTE)
provides telephone services for the City. Continental Cablevision provides cable television service.
The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD
obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. The City's stormwater
drainage system is administered by CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to
collect and transport flows through the City.
The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed
municipal solid waste is taken to three landfills within the Coachella Valley.
Local Environmental Setting
The center is substantially developed at present. Street and flood control improvements have been
completed, along with sewer and water services. Recycling and waste management services have been
established for the center.
A through F - No Impact. The proposed drive through use will not impact existing utility services or
create a need for additional services. All utilities exist to serve the site and are adequate.
3.13 AESTHETICS
Local Environmental Setting
11
The City of La Quinta is partially located within a desert valley cove. There are hillsides to the west and
south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout
most of the City. The project area is a developed, medium density section of the City. Views of the Santa
Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains exist to the south and west.
A and C - Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed restaurant use will not
significantly affect any existing scenic views or highways, or create any additional light or glare which
would be considered significant, as existing area conditions will remain unchanged from that which is
currently approved. Three existing drive -through restaurants are located along Highway 111 to the east
of this proposed site. The City will review the required lighting plan to determine the extent of proposed
lighting facilities and shall require revisions to minimize any perceived lighting impacts to the extent
feasible, given the existing area lighting for the center and surrounding commercial uses
B - Potentially Significant Impact. The Boston Market restaurant chain, like many similar service
corporations, maintains a strict corporate image through specific logos, colors, themes and other design
features. This image may often create a negative impact on scenic resources and existing architecture in
the project area, usually from signs and other conflicts between the corporate image and the preferred or
established image in the area (i.e., specific plan design guidelines). The project shall comply with all
design related conditions as thcy pertain to signs building layout design colors and architecture Overall
design of the project shall incorporate landscaping, berming walls and any other buffering or shielding
rmquirements as determined necessary to minimize any negative view i =acts associated with this use
3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Regional Environmental Setting
The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in the La Quinta area are along the foothills.
The settling of the La Quinta area has been chronicled by the La Quinta Historical Society in several
publications and museum exhibits. There are 13 designated historical structures and sites recorded on
the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan.
Local Environmental Setting
The proposal is located in a developing urbanized commercial shopping center, in a designated regional
commercial corridor; there is little likelihood that any cultural resources exist in the area. No historic
structures exist in the immediate area.
A through E - No Impact. There are no potential impacts to cultural resources identified due to the
proposal. A cultural resources assessment was completed as part of the overall specific plan approval; no
additional review was required of this proposal. Standard archaeological monitoring will be required of
the project through any conditional approval.
3.15 RECREATION
Local Environmental Setting
The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan that assesses the existing
resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City contains approximately 28.7 acres of
developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. There are also bike and equestrian pathways and trails
within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails.
12
A, B - No Impact. The proposed restaurant will not affect demand for recreational facilities or affect
existing recreational opportunities.
SECTION 4• MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Initial Study for the proposed restaurant did not discover any significant impacts associated with the
project beyond potential Aesthetic impacts. The project is consistent with the specific plan as amended
and approved, the General Plan and the present approved zoning for the site. No growth -inducing
impacts will occur beyond those associated with the approved shopping center development.
The following findings can be made regarding the Mandatory Findings of Significance set forth in Section
15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment:
The proposed use permit will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, as the project in question will not be developed in any manner which could
substantially change existing conditions or generally approved uses in the site,
The proposed use permit will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the
disadvantage of long-term goals, as the use proposed will not significantly alter the types
or intensity of the commercial uses already approved or in place on the site,
The proposed use permit will not have impacts which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the
immediate vicinity, in that the original specific plan approval for the 111 La Quinta
Center considered -such cumulative impacts as part of the environmental review, and that
development as currently approved and allowed under the existing specific plan for the
entire site is consistent with the General Plan, for which an EIR was certified.
The proposed use permit will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect
humans, either directly or indirectly, as the project contemplates a use similar to those
already assigned and approved as part of the overall specific plan, and addressed in the
environmental assessment previously adopted for the plan. No significant impacts to
human health were identified in association with the proposed restaurant use.
SECTION 5• EARLIER ANALYSES
A. Earlier Analyses Used. The following documents were used and/or referred to in the preparation
of this assessment:
• La Quinta General Plan Update; October 1992
• La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; October 1992
• Air Quality Analysis of the Proposed I I I La Quinta Center Project; February, 1990
• CRA Study on Drive-Thru Service Lanes; Spring 1991
13
Traffic Impact Analysis: Proposed Transpacific Development Company Commercial Project;
December, 1989
Environmental Assessment 89-150; prepared for Specific Plan 89-014 and Plot Plan 90-434.
Environmental Assessment 96-319; prepared for Specific Plan 89-014, Amendment 2.
These and various other documents on file with the Community Development Department were used in
the preparation of this Initial Study.
B. Impacts Adequately Addressed No significant impacts were identified as part of this analysis.
Potentially significant impacts to Aesthetic issues were identified and associated with the
proposed restaurant use. The previous environmental documentation prepared for the La Quinta
General Plan and Specific Plan 89-014 addressed the remaining impact areas; mitigation
measures relative to site specific development of this project have been incorporated or are
routinely required with any development, regardless of CEQA status.
C. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are proposed to address Aesthetic issues as
identified in this Initial Study. These measures are underlined within this addendum and
incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (NOAP) attached with this document. Routinely
required mitigation is included and identified as such.
Prepared by:
Wallace H. Nesbit
Associate Planner
Date:
July 26. 1996
a�
A
0
U
cca
cp
►�
00 3 .
Fa
�U
oz
ao
�Q
H
O
cn
C)
O
zz
Www
A U w
0
A
U p�q
�A
UM
A�
U
GS
�O
O�
�O
w
o
x�
a�
Q
Mz
oz
u
u0
pip
4
G�
PG
O
z a
®•
,n
�
® •two
U
�
�" �
z
0
co
M
� �
aw
U
�NN
i�
C, p�q
►•a
� �
GG
G.i
G� G�
►-�
�r
F�
'�
�
O
®
�
� .�
U
�
'�
�
°� �.'
�
�
�
•• ��
�
'�
U
� � �
�
� ��
�
� �
�zo�
Mz
o
A
U pQ
U
U
apsp
�r
G�
bar
Gz+
U
Mz
ozco
N N
CD m
a\ O\
(si
U
Y••1
6� pq
E
G,7
O�
a�
a c c
o
�..�
-4.6
a
0.4
b
° o
4.6
A
�
z
C.�
�
pip
z�
0
a�
�
�
a
coo
o
►-4
Co
z
o
z
ci
O�
a�
c�
a
o4-4
0
�
� a
U
o.
0-4
C4z
o
zoo
u
®m
Gs,
a
®
U •
.rs
b
F•
.�
G� p tip
U
d ❑
z
0
co
A
►-a
u
U
E�
G�
cn
L�+
b
a
0
U
.a
A
U C�
G
a�
O�
a�
�
�
�
d
a
d
e�z
®
za
A
u u
C~
pM�
�i
A®p�
PI
®
rA
En
:d
0
rA
con
r�
G7
6�
F�
rA
'�
O
�
LA
U
as
►-b 03
.�
A
u u
U
a o
a .
.r
d �
®
A
o
�+
U u
o
'U]
ci U
•• y �Vl
►•,
�,
�o
E .� •
to wo
N N
O cn
a� (5N
� W
U
U
W
U
0�
G U
Fy
W
►.a 0�
G�
v�
W
�
b
W�
CA
34
an
►..�
.., �,
G�
Cs
d
U
o0
Pk
C�
a
•�
i,
Mz
oza
BI #1
DATE:
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION:
ZONING:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USES:
PCST.215-a
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 13, 1996
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-017 (AMENDMENT #1)
LA QUINTA CARWASH
APPROVAL OF AN OUTDOOR SHADE STRUCTURE ON
THE NORTH SIDE OF EXISTING LA QUINTA CARWASH
78-992 HIGHWAY 111 (IN THE ONE ELEVEN -LA QUINTA
SHOPPING CENTER)
M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 15303(e) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA), THIS
REQUEST IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BECAUSE IT IS AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
NORTH: C-P-S, LUBE SHOP (PART OF SHOPPING
CENTER)
SOUTH: C-P-S, VACANT LAND
EAST: C-P-S, VACANT LAND (PART OF SHOPPING
CENTER)
WEST: C-P-S, VACANT LAND (PART OF SHOPPING
CENTER)
BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW:
On April 25, 1995, the Planning Commission approved the development of the La Quinta Carwash
at 78-992 Highway 111 by adoption of Minute Motion 95-018 (CUP) and Resolution 95-016 (EA).
The property is located immediately south of the recently completed Lube Shop facility on Adams
Street.
The newly built carwash facility consists of approximately 3,135 square feet of enclosed floor space.
The carwash tunnel is on the east side of the building with a waiting area on the west side of the
building. The detail, or auto care, area is to the west of the carwash waiting area. The drying area
is on the north side of the building.
The existing carwash is architecturally compatible with the existing 111 La Quinta Shopping Center.
The structure has a flat roof structure with accenting tower elements. The height of the structure
varies from 21' to 25' (e.g., tower elements). Stucco molding is used extensively on the building with
wooden trellises supported by stucco columns used over the outside patio waiting area at the north
end of the building. Light exterior stucco colors (i.e., beige, etc.) were used to match those used in
the shopping center. Hunter green accent colors are on some areas of the building (i.e., horizontal
reveal band, light sconces and signs).
New Application
On August 1, 1996, staff received an application from Shade Concepts, representing the La Quinta
Carwash, to install a shade structure over the vehicle drying area on the north side of the carwash.
The new shade structure measures 34' wide by 45' long (1,530 sq. ft.) and is I P high and includes a
cantilevered shade flap on the west side of the rectangular structure. The shade structure is
constructed using four steel posts at each corner that provide perimeter support. Secured to the posts
are steel bars forming the hip roof structure covered with shade fabric. The shade fabric is made from
woven strands of polyethylene (known as Knittex Colourshade) and is durable and considered
maintenance free. Samples of the knitted fabric will be provided at the meeting. Many colors are
available for this project, but the applicant is recommending beige or green to complement the
existing building colors.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the request and its relationship to the carwash building and other adjoining
businesses, and has determined that the shade structure will not be highly visible because of its
placement behind the one story building. Staff is recommending a solid beige fabric for the shade
structure to blend in with the existing building colors and be less visible from Highway 111 until
construction occurs on the vacant lot to the east of this site.
PCST.215-a
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 96-_, approving Conditional Use Permit 95-017 (Amendment #1) permitting
an outdoor shade structure for the La Quinta Carwash, subject to the attached Conditions.
Prepared by- 4
l
v
Greg o deg, Associate Planner
Submitted by:
Christine di Iorio, Play 'ng Manager
PCST.215-a
CONDITION OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-017, AMENDMENT #1
AUGUST 13, 1996
The architectural aspects of the shade structure will be compatible and not detrimental to
other existing businesses in the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center based on Conditions.
2. No environmental review is required for this project because the shade structure is considered
an accessory use pursuant to Section 15303 (e) of the California Environmental Quality Act
statutes.
GENERAL:
The shade fabric and poles shall be beige in color (i.e., Acacia or Desert Sand) to match the
architectural colors used on the existing buildings in the shopping center. No accent colors
shall be used for horizonal banding on the shade fabric. The fabric shall be replaced as needed
when it becomes damaged or severely faded as determined by the Community Development
Department. If the shade structure is not maintained in the future, it shall be removed if City
staff sends written notification to the property owner.
2. The applicant shall obtain site plan and architectural approval from the landlord (or leasing
agent) of the One Eleven -La Quinta Shopping Center to build the shade structure before
building permit issuance.
COND017a
BI #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: August 13, 1996
CASE NO.: STREET VACATION 96-032
REQUEST: DETERMINATION OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
WITH PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF AN OFFER OF
PUBLIC UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT DEDICATION AT
TRACT 21 176 — LA QUINTA POLO ESTATES.
LOCATION: THE EASTERLY TEN (10) FEET OF THE WESTERLY TWENTY (20)
FEET OF TRACT 21176.
APPLICANT: ROBERT AND KELLY JONES
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to State law', prior to public easements or rights -of -way being vacated by the
City Council, the "Planning Agency" shall make a finding that the proposed vacation is
consistent with the City's General Plan and Circulation Element. The planning agency in
this case is the Planning Commission.
The proposed area of vacation is the easterly ten feet of the twenty -foot -wide public
utility and drainage easement offered for dedication when Tract 21 176 was approved by
the County of Riverside in 1987. The easement is located along the westerly and
northwesterly boundaries of Tract 21176, also known as the La Quinta Polo Estates.
Although these public utility and drainage easements were not accepted by Riverside
County at the time the map was recorded in March 1987, the offer of dedication is still
valid. According to Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, if at the time a final
map is approved and any easements are rejected, the offer of dedication shall remain
open. This offer of dedication may be terminated and abandoned in the same manner as
`Government Code Section 65402
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032A.WPD Page 1 of 6
prescribed for the summary vacation of streets by Part 3 (commencing with Section
8300) of Division 9 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Of the eleven lots along the west boundary of the tract, four contain residences. These
four homeowners have petitioned this vacation proceeding, as well as the President of
the Homeowners' Association, (see Attachment 2). These petitioners dislike the
intrusion of this easement offered for dedication along the rear property line of those
eleven lots. It is their desire to down -size the offer of easement dedication from twenty
to ten feet so the usable lot sizes will increase.
The Engineering Department supports the petition to vacate a portion of this offer of
easement dedication associated with Tract 21176 with appropriate conditions, as
outlined in Exhibit A, because it provides an opportunity to more effectively plan for
storm water management of the adjacent lots. The original plan to use the west
easement for drainage purposes is not possible due to the topography of that side of the
tract. From the west boundary, the land slopes to the east. Because of this, it is
impossible for drainage from the adjacent lots to utilize the twenty -foot -wide area offered
for drainage easement dedication.
A more effective storm water drainage plan is to require the homeowners of the lots
adjacent to the subject area to be responsible for storm water falling on the lots during
the 24-hour peak period of a 100-year storm. Furthermore, for undeveloped lots, this is
an opportunity to require these lots to provide individual, on -site retention basins
designed by a Civil engineer and inspected by the City, prior to occupancy of any building
on that lot. For storm water volumes greater than the 24-hour, 100-year storm, the
remaining ten -foot -wide offer of easement dedication and/or the onsite streets can be
utilized as relief routes.
The size of the effected lots, ranging in size from 1.73 to 2.16 acres, are large enough
to meet these drainage requirements. In addition, the easement area is not currently
utilized by any public utility agency and lacks any improvements therein.
REVISED LANGUAGE
The Planning Commission originally considered this easement vacation consistency
finding at its June 25, 1996, meeting, (see Attachment 3). At that meeting, the method
of enforcing the new drainage requirements placed on the homeowners was questioned.
The Commission continued this item to give City staff the opportunity to reevaluate the
City's enforcement concept with regard to the Covenants, Codes, and Restrictions
(CC&R's) to be adopted by the homeowners' association.
After reviewing the proposed conditions to be included into the La Quinta Polo Estates
CC&R's, it was determined one additional condition (Condition #1) should be added to
Exhibit A of the proposed vacation resolution. In this way, the Commission's concerns
regarding enforcement of stormwater drainage on the four developed lots, as well as the
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032A.WPD Page 2 of 6
remaining undeveloped lots, are addressed. This condition will more clearly indicate to
the homeowners' association the City's role in enforcing their CC&R's with regard to the
new drainage requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
The proposed vacation is categorically exempt under Section 15305, and not subject to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS:
On June 13, 1996, staff mailed notices to all public agencies, informing them of the
proposed vacation. Continental Cablevision, The Gas Company, and GTE have indicated
that they have no facilities within the proposed closure area, and do not require any
easement reservations. The Imperial Irrigation District has not responded to this vacation
application. The Coachella Valley Water District indicated they already have an easement
for pipeline purposes in the subject area.
FINDINGS:
1. The proposed vacation of a portion of an offer of public utility and drainage
easement dedication to the City will have no environmental effects that adversely
impact the human population, either directly or indirectly, because the offer was
never accepted and the easement area never fully utilized for its purpose; and
secondly, the act of vacating the offer of dedication will have no physical
environmental effect.
2. The vacation of a portion of an offer of public utility and drainage easement
dedication to the City will not impact public utility companies.
3. The portion of the offer of public utility and drainage easement dedication to the
City proposed for vacation is not used as a means of access, and is not identified
as a component of the La Quinta General Plan, its Circulation Element, or any
adopted specific plan.
4. Reducing the drainage easement size will not impact storm water control because
on -site retention basins will be provided in lieu of the reduced easement area.
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032A.WPD Page 3 of 6
RECOMMENDATION:
By minute motion adopt the findings that the vacation of a portion of an offer of public
utility and drainage easement dedication is in compliance with the adopted Circulation
Element of the La Quinta General Plan, and that the City Council consider for inclusion
in the vacation resolution those conditions outlined within Exhibit A.
Prepared by:
i
DAVID M. COSPER, Public Works Director
Submitted by:
CHRISTINE DI 6ORIO, Planning Manager
MF/mf
Attachments:
#1 — Street Vacation Case No. 96-032 - General Vicinity Map
#2 — La Quinta Polo Estates Petition to Vacate PUE/Drainage Easement
#3 — Planning Commission Meeting Minutes: June 25, 1996 (excerpt)
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032A.WPD Page 4 of 6
Exhibit A
Conditions Proposed for Inclusion in Street Vacation 96-032 Resolution
Prior to recordation of the Resolution of Vacation of the easterly ten feet of the twenty -
foot -wide PUE/drainage easements along. the west boundary of Tract 21176, the
homeowners' association (HOA) shall record revisions to the tract's CC&R's (Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions) which:
1. Hold owners of individual lots bordering the west boundary responsible for storm
water falling on the lots during the 24-hour peak period of a 100-year storm.
2. Require that currently -undeveloped lots bordering the west boundary of the
subdivision (Lots No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 ), at the time of their development,
be provided with on -site retainage of all storm water falling on the lots during a
100-year, 24-hour storm. To comply with this provision, the owner of each of
these lots shall, at the time the lot is developed:
a. Construct an individual, on -site retention basin prior to final inspection and
occupancy of any buildings on the lots. The basin shall be designed by a
registered civil engineer and constructed according to plans which are
approved by the City Engineer. The owner shall be responsible for the costs
of City plan checking and of grading permits for construction of the basin
improvements;
b. Maintain the basin in perpetuity or until alternate provisions for drainage,
approved by the City and the HOA, are in place and functional;
C. At the time the basin is constructed, grant the HOA and the City irrevocable
rights to enter and maintain the basin in the event that the individual lot
owner fails to maintain the required capacity; and
d. Reimburse any costs incurred by the HOA or the City in reconstructing
and/or maintaining the basin in the event that the individual lot owner fails
to maintain the required retention capacity.
3. Obligate the HOA to maintain, within the tract, the cumulative retention capacity
of all basins constructed and, if the HOA neglects to maintain the required
capacity despite written notice from the City, to reimburse the City for costs
incurred in restoring or maintaining overall retention capacity or in expanding
downstream facilities to mitigate actual or potential off -site effects of the failure
to maintain the cumulative retention capacity.
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF�FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032A.WPD Page 5 of 6
4. Provide that the City shall be considered a third party beneficiary to the CC&R's
for purposes of enforcing these requirements or any other requirement necessary
to meet City standards.
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\FULLER\STVAC\96-032\96-032A.WPD Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
M
LA QUINTA POLO ESTATES
PETITION TO VACATE PUE/DRAINAGE EASEMENT
E WFILLy t 0 ' +-vj? U
We, the undersigned owners of property known s La Qunita Polo Estates -
'lract 21176 (La Quinta, California), hereby submit this petition to the La
Quinta, California city authorities to vacate th PUE/drainage
easement located on the back portion of owners' property who hold title to
land on the west/northwest side of Vista Bonita Trail. As said easement is
not in use by any PUE and is not used or necessary for drainage on the
west/northwest side of Vista Bonita Trail, the property owners propose that
the PUE easement recorded by the City of La Quinta be offically
(re)located/restricted to the street known as Vista Bonita Trail.
ViS'kka-`fm:�, , �A�'�.au-Ca- azzs 3
4130196 ►.°� �►-�-(�,ta`i�do i.� �w���s-qQa
5-3-C3to
LET -�
X,-e / -r a-c� 4 i / - �
(/.0, /"* - lr'17
Of D SY0
I ,
0 ( ,�. Z Z,, Q (,o 9 ;;?.!�3
� � 7 - 77.5 //7G
80 goo !/ i l iA
�c , i r9 lZ
qza-`
ATTACHMENT 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 1996
B. Street Vacation 96-032; a request from Robert and Kelly Jones for a determination
of the La Quinta General Plan consistency with proposed vacation of a portion of an
offer of public utility and drainage easement dedication.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development
Department. He further informed the Commission that a letter had been
received from the Homeowners' Association stating their agreement with the
proposal as submitted.
2. Chairman Abels asked if this was a request of the applicant or the
Homeowners' Association. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the
Homeowners' Association had submitted a letter to staff stating they were in
support of the application.
Commissioner Gardner asked if the future homeowners of the existing lots
would be required to provide a retention basin for each of their lots. Staff
stated they would and they would be shallow. Commissioner Gardner asked
if there would be any legal responsibility for the homes already built for
runoff from a storm. Staff stated they are responsible for storm water runoff,
but there are not required to construct a retention basin. Its a discretionary
decision to be made by the existing homeowners. Staff stated they had
conveyed this information to the existing homeowners in addition to holding
meetings to explain and answer any questions. On each occasion the
homeowners stated they understood. Staff further stated that the majority of
the water is able to percolate into the sand.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked the City Attorney if the City had any legal
responsibility regarding this issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated
that as long, as we are comfortable with a reasonable engineering plan to solve
the problem to take care of the drainage it does not subject us to any
additional liability than the City would have otherwise.
5. Commissioner Anderson asked if they were private or public streets. Staff
stated they were private streets and currently there is no drainage plan and
this action will create a better situation by placing some type of planinto
place.
6. Commissioner Tyler asked if there were no plans for the easement why not
eliminate the entire 20-feet. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that at one
of the meetings the original developer stated he did not want to relinquish the
easement. Therefore the only other option was to address the easement as
petitioned by the applicant.
PC6-25 6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 25, 1996
7. Commissioner Anderson stated he prefers the situation being worked out on
the good neighbor policy and it would be better if all situations could be
handled this way.
8. Mr. Ed Weiss, contractor for the applicants, spoke on behalf of the applicants
stating they and the Homeowners' Association have accepted the document
as created by the City. The Homeowners' Association By -Laws require a
majority vote of the property members before the applicants can obtain
approval. As most of the residents have left for the summer, this cannot
happen until the residents return. The applicants are therefore requesting a
variance until they are able to get the vote. Staff stated the proposed drainage
regulations require the Homeowners' Association to approve the request
before the street vacation can be recorded. This will require two meetings
before the City Council and the City will not allow the recordation until the
Homeowners' Association approval. Community Development Director
Jerry Herman asked staff how the City got involved enforcing the
Homeowners' Association CC & R's. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the
City does not allow the street vacation to go forward until the CC & R's are
recorded. Without the CC & R's being recorded there are no requirements
in place to require any drainage.
9. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this item may need to be continued to
allow her time to research whether the City can require drainage without
requirement in the CC & R's.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to continue SV 96-032, for four weeks.
Unanimously approved.
C. Plot Plan 96-584; a request TD Desert Development, �^n
Cullinan, for approval
of three single family detached prototype units.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented e information contained in the staff
report, a copy of which is on e in the Community Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Tyler ask if the exterior gates would have an intercom
system with outside lig . Mr. Cullinan stated it had not been addressed at
this time but it woul e a good idea.
3. Commission derson asked if Plan 3 was considered to have a separate
entr/entr
guest room. Mr. Cullinan stated it becomes confusing with the
twoes as to which is the main entrance. It also is a security issue for
the ners as they were concerned about how many entries there would
be thomes.
PC6-25 7
BI #3
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1996
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 93-500 (AMENDMENT 1)
APPLICANT: LANDAU DEVELOPMENT
ARCHITECT: WENDELL W. VEITH
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A THREE PROTOTYPES FOR
CONSTRUCTION
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF DULCE DELMAR, ON VIA ORVIETO, VIA
LORCA, VIA ANTIBES AND VIA AVANTE, WITHIN LAKE
LA QUINTA
Landau Development has purchased 38 lots within the Lake La Quinta Project on the
Avenue 47 side north of the Lake. Three building permits have been issued, in May
and July, for the "Coronado" prototype without Community Development staff or
Planning Commission compatibility review due to an oversight. Two units on Via
Lorca have foundations and the third is framed on Via Avante.
There are currently three single story prototypes, the Avante Series, within this area
approved under Plot Plan 93-500. The square footage of the units range from 1,909
to 2,565 square feet. The units have a variety of facades, Model "A" with three, "B"
with four, and "C" with three designs. The units have a 5.5:12 pitch clip gable main
roof covered with light variegated buff color flat tile. The front portion of the houses
have hipped roofs over the garage, entry and window popout. The stucco walls are
painted off-white or other light colors. Stucco surrounds highlight the windows on
all elevations. The double entry doors have sidelights. The facade of most units have
a popout window with fixed and transom lights. All fascias are stuccoed. The
pilasters flanking the garage have simple bases and caps delineated with scores in the
stucco.
'0 •061
The floor plan design and size of the three prototypes, Avalon, Coronado, and Balboa,
will not substantially change from the design and size of the Avante prototypes. The
proposed units have 4:12 roof patch. The main roof is a clipped gable with the front
portion having hipped elements over the entry, popout window feature and garage.
The "Balboa" has a front facing gable with a quatrefoil. The roof will be covered with
pccd.400
either a flat the or "s" concrete tile. The walls are clad in off-white stucco. The double
entry door has a single or double flanking lights capped with a transom window, or
only a transom window. Stucco surrounds highlight the windows. The garage and
popout window feature have flanking pilasters with stucco molded capitals. The
fascia will be stuccoed.
The three proposed prototypes are designed to be architecturally compatible with the
existing Avante series houses. The architectural features and materials complement
the existing units including the clipped gable and hipped roofs, building colors and
entry and column treatment. Additionally, only 14-18 houses have been constructed
per the original plans, leaving the majority of the development, 38 houses, to be
constructed. Therefore, the proposed changes will not greatly impact the
compatibility of the existing units with the proposed units.
NLVOMI "D.
By adoption of Minute Motion 96- , staff recommends approval of this request,
subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Plan exhibits
Prepared & Submitted By:
i
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
pccd.400
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - APPROVED
PLOT PLAN 93-500(Amendment #1) - LANDAU DEVELOPMENT
AUGUST 13, 1996
1. Approval is granted for Phan 93-500 ( Amendment #1), as noted and on file in
the Community Development Department.
2. The landscaping and irrigation plan shall be submitted to Community
Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building
permit. Additionally, the plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Riverside
County Agricultural Commissioner and Coachella Valley Water District
Management Specialist.
3. All trees shall be double -staked to prevent wind damage, where feasible, all
plant material shall be watered by either emitters or low -flow bubblers.
4. The concrete driveway shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or
better) texture.
5. All provisions of Ordinance 220, regarding water efficient landscaping and
irrigation shall be met. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a
healthy and viable condition, by the developer, and subsequent property
owners.
6. The front yards and exterior side yards shall be landscaped from the residence
or wall to the property lines, edge of curb, or sidewalk, whichever is furthest
from the residence or wall.
7. All applicable conditions of Tract 26152 shall be complied with.
8. All applicable conditions of Ordinance 242 shall be met.
pccd.400