1994 10 11 PCOF Ttat
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quints City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
October 11, 1994
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 94-023
Beginning Minute Motion 94-032
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item ................ CONTINUED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-
044
Applicant ......... City of La Quinta
Location .......... City-wide
Request ........... Amendments to Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
and to Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights
Action ............. Request to continue
2. Item ................ PLOT PLAN 94-533 (EA 94-285)
Applicant ......... MCG Architects for Eisenhower Hospital
Location .......... North side of Highway 111 between Simon Drive and Adams
Street in the One Eleven La Quinta Center
Action ............. Resolution 94- , Minute Motion 94-
PC/AGENDA
BUSINESS ITEMS -
Item ................ SUBDIVISION FLAGS
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta
Location ........... City-wide
Request ............ Discussion relative to establishing a policy for the size,
number, and height of temporary flags for use in subdivisions
Action ............. Minute Motion 94-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 27, 1994.
OTHER
1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, October 11, 1994
Study Session Room
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
September 27, 1994
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Barrows fled the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Anderson,
Barrows, Butler, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Commissioner Anderson moved and Commissioner Butler seconded a motion to
excuse Commissioners Abels and Gardner. Unanimously approved.
C. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell,
Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner
Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-044; a request of the City for amendments to
the Hillside Conservation Zone and Chapter 9.146.
1. Staff requested that this item be continued to allow the City Attorney time
to conduct additional research of the issue.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Anderson to
continue ZOA 94-044 to October 11, 1994.
B. Specific Plan 94-024 and 'Tentative Tract 28019; a request of E. G. Williams
Development Corporation for approval of a specific plan which includes 91-unit
senior citizen apartment complex and tentative tract map for a 60-lot single family
subdivision.
1. Commissioner Butler abstained due to a possible conflict of interest and
left the dais.
PC9-27
Planning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
2. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted
that an additional condition is recommended requiring roof eaves to be 18-
inches.
3. Commissioner Adolph asked staff if the retention basin was designed to
hold water from the shopping center as well as the project. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated the basin would collect water from other areas
but not the shopping center. He further stated it would always remain a
retention basin.
4. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public
hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission.
5. Ms. Marty Butler, representing the applicant, thanked the Planning
Commission for their time and energy and asked if there were any
questions.
6. Commissioner Anderson stated he was glad to see the houses were
designed for 24-inch eaves and deep overhangs at the entry.
7. There being no further questions and no other persons wished to speak,
Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing.
8. Commissioners Barrows/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 94-019 approving Specific Plan 94-024, subject to amended
conditions.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows,
Newkirk, Chairman Adolph. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Abels, Gardner.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Butler.
9. Commissioners Barrows/Newkirk moved and seconded a motion to adopt
Resolution 94-022 approving Tentative Tract 28019, subject to amended
conditions.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Anderson, Barrows,
Newkirk, Chairman Adolph. NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commissioners Abels, Gardner.
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Butler.
PC9-27 2
Planning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
Commissioner Butler rejoined the Commission.
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Precise Plan 94-848; a request of Louis and Kathleen Olson for compatibility
review of a two story home in the Acacia subdivision (Phase II).
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. ]Louis Olson thanked the Commission for their patience and he felt
the new design was a much better design.
4. Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Olson to explain the front elevation
as to whether the window was recessed. Mr. Olson explained to the
satisfaction of the Planning Commission.
5. Commissioner Barrows stated her appreciation for all the effort Mr. Olson
put into redesigning the house.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Anderson/Butler to adopt Minute Motion 94-029
approving Precise Plan 94-848, subject to conditions. Unanimously
approved.
B. Sign Application 94-257; a request of Domino's Pizza for a deviation from the
One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center sign program to allow corporate signage.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. Mob Sanford, representing the applicant, stated he was co-owner of
the building and explained the sign.
PC9-27 3
Planning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
4. Chairman Adolph asked the applicant why the sign was so much smaller
than the Blockbuster Video sign. Mr. Sanford stated that since
Blockbuster was the dominant tenant, Domino's felt the smaller sign was
more appropriate. Chairman Adolph stated he did not feel the signs were
in balance. Mr. Sanford explained that with the tower in the middle and
the use of channel letters, he felt the signage would balance out.
5. Mr. Sanford asked staff to clarify Condition #2. Staff stated that the
applicant could paint the returns either color or use a prefinished material
as long as the colors were per the condition.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Anderson to adopt Minute Motion 94-030,
approving Sign Application 94-257, subject to conditions.
C. Tract 23995 House Plan Review; a request of Inco Homes for approval of
modification to Condition #18 regarding rear yard trellis' for a single family tract.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant
wished to address the Commission.
3. Mr. Fred Fan, representing Inco Homes, stated the cost involved were
the reasons for asking for the modification.
4. Commissioner Butler clarified that this condition only applied to the rear
of houses facing west and south. Discussion followed.
5. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if he felt the four foot patio
slab was a valid common sense item. It appears to be the middle ground
as to whether it is really a patio or not. Discussion followed as to the
validity of the concrete slab.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Newkirk to adopt Minute Motion 94-031
approving the Condition #18 modification for Tract 23995 house plan
review. Unanimously approved.
PC9-27 4
Planning Commission Minutes
September 27, 1994
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Commissioner Anderson asked that Page 6, ##12 be modified to read "patio at the
door". There being no further corrections to the Minutes of September 13, 1994,
it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Barrows/Butler to approve the
minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. Commissioner Butler reported on the Council meeting of September 20, 1994.
B. Planning Director Jerry Herman informed the Commissioner of the October 3,
1994 joint meeting with the City Council regarding the Housing Element.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Barrows/Anderson to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a joint
meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council on October 3, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission
was adjourned at 7:47 P.M., September 27, 1994.
PC9-27 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1994
CASE NO. PLOT PLAN 94-533 (EA 94-285)
APPLICANT: MCG ARCHITECTS FOR EISENHOWER HOSPITAL
ARCHITECT: MCG ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF PLANS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION OF A 8,635 SQUARE FOOT IMMEDIATE CARE
FACILITY.
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 BETWEEN SIMON DRIVE AND
ADAMS STREET IN THE ONE ELEVEN LA QUINTA CENTER.
GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE
DESIGNATION: MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-RESIDENTIAL
OVERLAY
ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND
LAND USE:
NORTH: C-P-S - PARKING LOT FOR 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
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-285 HAS BEEN PREPARED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL
STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS WILL OCCUR WHICH CANNOT BE MITIGATED.
THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS
BEEN PREPARED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION.
PCST.191
BACKGROUND:
The site is one of the pad locations approved by Specific ]Plan 89-014 for Transpacific
Development Company. The applicant wishes to construct and operate a one story
immediate care facility on the property which is two pads west of the signalized driveway
adjacent to Taco Bell. Staff's understanding is that this facility will replace the existing
Immediate Care Facility within the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center at the corner of
Highway 111 and Washington Street.
Project Description
The project consists of a one story facility containing 8,635 square feet of floor space. The
facilities within the building would consist of office space, treatment areas, examining rooms,
x-ray room, nurses stations, medical laboratories, etc.
Site Design
The building is an irregularly shaped rectangle shape laid out with its long access parallel to
Highway 111. The public access into the facility would be from the west side of the
building. Parking will be provided on the west, north, and east sides of the building with the
south side adjacent to Highway 111. The building will be set feet 35 feet from the Highway
111 property line.
Architectural Design
The building has been designed in a manner that is architecturally similar to the main
shopping center area. The building utilizes a tile roof, stucco walls, a wood trellis over the
main entry, stucco cornice trim to match the shopping center, matching wall lights, and
column treatments. The corners of the building are angled at a 45' with the parapet above
the area meeting at a 90' angle to provide covering over the window areas at the corners.
The plans indicate that there will be a plaster recess of the window areas. However, the
exact amount of recess is not designated. Although the building is one story in height (22-
feet maximum in the center of the building) the building height at the parapet of the building
is 12-feet high. The tile roof will be provided in the center of the building and is designed to
provide a screen for the roof equipment.
The applicant has submitted a color and material board which matches that used in the
shopping center. The color exhibits indicates the colors will be compatible and similar to the
existing main shop buildings.
Si_gnage
The applicant has shown signage on the building for the west or front side of the building,
the north side facing the shopping center, and the south side facing Highway 111. On the
PCST.191
south and north sides of the building, the signage consists of the Eisenhower logo and
"Eisenhower Immediate Care Center" signage in individual letters. On the front elevation,
or entry into the building, the signage indicates "Eisenhower Immediate Care Center" in
individual letters above the doorway. The signage on the north and south sides of the
building is shown on the stucco parapet area. No signage is indicated on the east elevation
of the building. The exact size, color, and materials for these signs is not indicated.
Landscaping
The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan showing a plant pallet which
consists of plants that are for the most part, utilized throughout the shopping center.
Sidewalks are shown on the west side and north side of the building adjacent to the parking
lot. The existing sidewalk on Highway 111 is shown on the landscape plans. The plans also
show landscaping which is existing adjacent to Highway 111.
Circulation/Parking
The 8,365 square foot medical building requires 44 parking spaces. The site contains 60
parking spaces which exceeds the required parking. The parking and circulation have been
designed to integrate with the rest of the shopping center.
ANALYSIS:
The project is conceptually acceptable and compatible with the existing shopping center. The
colors and materials should match those used in the shopping center.
As noted the glass areas are shown as recessed. However, there is no definitive indication of
how much this recess will be. A recess of 12-inches would provide fairly good shading for
the glass areas.
A bus stop is shown on the plans near the eastern end of the project site. At the present
time, the plans do not indicate any sidewalk access to the building from the existing sidewalk
from along Highway 111. Staff feels it would be desirable to provide a sidewalk access from
the existing sidewalk to the entrance area of the building.
Although conceptual signage is shown, detailed plans will need to be submitted for approval.
The proposed use is subject to the approved sign program. The approved sign program
requires illuminated channel letters in a helvetica light letter style. The signage shown on the
plans does not appear to be this type of signage.
PCST.291
C a, `',
RECOMMENDATION:
1. By adoption of Resolution 94- , move to approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration of environmental impact report;
2. By Minute Motion 94- , approve Plot Plan 94-533, subject to conditions
Attachments
1. Location and zoning map
2. Initial Study for the Draft Negative Declaration
3. Comments from various City Departments and agencies
4. Plan exhibits for project
PCST.191
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-285 FOR
PLOT PLAN 94-533
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-285
PLOT PLAN 94-533
EISENHOWER HOSPITAL
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did
on the 11th day of October, 1994, hold a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to the
environmental assessment of proposed Plot Plan 94-533 for a 8,635 square foot immediate
care facility; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (hereinafter
"EA") has been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the EA,
has found that the EA considered all the potentially significant environmental impacts of
the project, is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA;
and
WHEREAS, prior to action on the EA, the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta, California has considered all significant impacts and mitigation
measures, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the project have been
mitigated; 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 to justify the adoption of said environmental assessment:
1. The project is in compliance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality act of 1970, as amended and City of La Quinta
Resolution 83-68; and
2. Approval of the project will not result in any significant adverse environmental
impacts that cannot be mitigated.
RESOYC.104
r t 5
RESOLUTION 94-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of La Quinta
does hereby adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for EA 94-285, subject
to the mitigation measures contained in the EA and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the
project.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 11th day of October, 1994, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
DON ADOLPH, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.104
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
PLOT PLAN 94-533 - MCG ARCHITECTS FOR EISENHOWER HOSPITAL
OCTOBER 11, 1994
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT:
1. The development of this site shall be generally b,e in conformance with the exhibits
contained in the file for Plot Plan 94-533, unless otherwise amended by the following
conditions:
2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the Planning Commission
approval date of October 11, 1994; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no
effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is
allowed by this approval, not including grading, which is begun within the one year
period and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. An extension of time as allowed
by Municipal Code may be applied for.
3. All applicable conditions of SP 89-014 and Parcel Map 25865 (Transpacific Development
Company) shall be complied with as necessary.
4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and building shall be approved by the
Planning and Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Lighting
fixtures shall be shielded to eliminate glare on the adjacent streets and surrounding areas.
Parking lot fixtures shall match existing parking lot fixtures.
5. The trash enclosure shall be enlarged so that it is large enough to accommodate recycling
bins as well as trash bins with the Waste Management of the Desert to determine what
is needed to accommodate the bins.
6. That all conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District shall be met as required in
their letter dated September 6, 1994, on file in the Community Development Department.
7. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted
infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of a future building permit.
8. Construction shall comply with all local and State building code requirements in effect
at the time of issuance of a building permit.
9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit and 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:
CONAPRVL.137 1
Conditions of Approval
PP 94-533-MCG Architects for Eisenhower Medical Hospital
October 11, 1994
o City Fire Marshal
o City of La Quinta Public Works Department
o Planning and Development Department
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Imperial Irrigation District
o Riverside County Health Department
Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of application for any permit
for any use contemplated by this approval.
10. The trash enclosure shall comply with City and Waste Management of the Desert design
requirements. These requirements include but are not limited to decorative masonry
wall, solid metal doors, and a concrete pad in front of the enclosure.
11. A sign program for the building shall comply with the adopted sign program for the
Center.
12. The perimeter landscaping shall be modified and designed to blend in with the new
landscaping. Should any retaining walls be necessary adjacent to the perimeter
landscaping, they shall be provided by the applicant as required by the Planning and
Development Director. Any landscaping or irrigation damaged by the approved
construction shall be corrected prior to any Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
13. The required State Department of Fish and Game mitigation fees of $1328 shall be paid
to the Community Development Department (check made out to the County of Riverside)
within 24-hours after review of the case by the City Council.
14. All trees shall be a minimum 24" box size.
16. The existing transformer located adjacent to Highway 111 shall be provided with
shrubbery to screen the transformer, if deemed necessary by the Community
Development Department.
17. All roof equipment shall be screened by the tile roof structure.
18. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 94-285 shall be complied with.
19. Prior to the issuance of any grading, building, or other development permits, or final
inspection, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and
CONAPRVL.137
2
Conditions of Approval
PP 94-533-MCG Architects for Eisenhower Medical Hospital
October 11, 1994
inspection, the applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and
Development Director demonstrating compliance with those Conditions of Approval and
mitigation measures of PP 94-533 and EA 94-285 which must be satisfied prior to the
issuance of an permits/final inspections. The Planning and Development Director may
require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. Said inspection or
monitoring may be accomplished by consultant(s) at the discretion of the Director, with
all associated costs borne by the applicant/developer.
20. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be provided from the existing sidewalk on Highway 111
to the walk on the west (front) side of the building.
21. The two handicap spaces and ramp shall be relocated on the west side of the building
from the north end to the middle of the building entry so that the ramp leads directly to
the front doors.
22. Sidewalks where they meet the parking lot shall be provided with ramps that comply with
the Americans With Disabilities Act Requirements.
23. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for review and approval. The plans shall be approved by the Coachella
Valley Water District and Riverside County Agricultural Commission.
24. All windows on the south, east, and west sides shall be recessed a minimum of 12-inches
from the exterior wall surface.
FIRE MARSHAL:
25. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1250 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.
26. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 21/a "),
located not less that 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s)
as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
27. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Light Hazard Occupancy. The post
indicator valve and Fire Department connection shall be located to the front within 50-
feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25-feet from the buildings.
28. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for plan review, along with a
plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department Job Card must be at the
CONAPRVL.137
Conditions of Approval
PP 94-533-MCG Architects for Eisenhower Medical Hospital
October 11, 1994
job site for all inspections.
29. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building
Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association
Standard 71.
30. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be
submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact
the Planning Engineering office for submittal requirements.
31. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code.
32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC
in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment.
33. Install Knox 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 Lock Boxes. This form must be
authorized and signed by this office for the correctly coded system to be purchased.
34. 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.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
35. The applicant shall submit site plans (civil, landscaping, and irrigation) to the
Engineering Department for plan checking and approval and shall maintain a deposit
account with the City for the cost of checking. The applicant shall not begin construction
activity until the plans have been approved and signed by the City Engineer.
36. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, all improvements shall conform with
the improvement plans approved for Specific Plan 89-014.
37. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, storm and nuisance water shall be
discharged in accordance with the approved drainage plan for Specific Plan 89-014.
38. On -site parking areas shall comply with the City's Off -Street Parking standards.
39. 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
CONAPRVL.137 4
Conditions of Approval
PP 94-533-MCG Architects for Eisenhower Medical Hospital
October 11, 1994
Chapter 6.10 of the 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.
40. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent dust and
blowsand nuisances and shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other
wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Community Development
Department and Public Works Department.
41. The applicant shall employ construction quality assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
42. The applicant shall employ or retain California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have his or her agents
provide, sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish
and sign accurate record drawings and certify compliance of all work with approved
plans, specifications, and applicable codes.
43. 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.
44. Plans for grading, drainage, parking lots, landscaping and irrigation are not approved for
construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.137
r,i.
ATTACHMENT 1
NAP
ip
7.
too ..:
e.
LOCATION MAP
NORTH
CASE No.
PLOT PLAN 94-533 SCALE:
EISENHOWER HOSPITAL N.T.S.
ATTACHMENT
Environmental Assessment No."?,52b
Case No.�
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I.
Background
1. Name of Proponent
0
2. Address & Phone Number of ProponentIA000 Ibca W4
it -
3. Date Checklist Preparedl-
4. Agency Requiring Checklist
5. Name of Proposal, if applic
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES
MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
\'
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
c.
Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features.
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
r, ' fi
1-
FORM.009/CS -1-
YES
MAYBE NO
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
y
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
l
y
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
FORM.009/CS -2-
YES MAYBE NO
4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of biological
resources?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants
or animals? \
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment or migration or
movement of existing species? `
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? 11
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
5. Noise. Will the proposal result in: `
a. Increases in existing noise levels?y
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
6. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce r
new light or glare? `
7. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a �r
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
S. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of y
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
10. Population. Will the proposal alter they
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?
FORM.009/CS -3-
YES MAYBE NO
11. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
12. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
\
y
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
\
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads?y
f. Other governmental services? V
14. Energy. Will the proposal result in: `
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
� t6
FORM.009/CS -4-
YES
MAYBE NO
15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
16. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health).
17. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
18. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
19. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alter-
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic or historic archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
N
NV
FORM.009/CS -5-
YES
MAYBE NO
20. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one in which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well in the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
b
FORM.009/CS -6-
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
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 the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature of Preparer
,S
FORM.009/CS -7-
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-285
PLOT PLAN 94-533
MCG ARCHITECTS FOR EISENHOWER HOSPITAL
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
General Project Description
The project consists of the construction of a one story Immediate Care Health facility on
35,175 feet of land. The proposed facility will consist of 8,635 square feet of floor space
within the One Eleven La Quinta Center. The proposed site is on the north side of Highway
111 between Simon Drive and Adams Street.
Past Environmental Documentation
During review of Specific Plan 89-014 for this shopping center in 1989 and 1990, the City
processed Environmental Assessment 89-150. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared and adopted by the City Council on April 17, 1990. The environmental assessment
studied the impacts of the project (618,000± square feet on 60+ acres). A Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for this project.
Explanation of "Yes" and "Maybe" Questions and Mitigation Measures
1. EARTH: With the exception of compaction and covering over of the soil on the site
with either buildings, paving, and landscaping, it is not expected that there will be
any environmental impacts with regards to soil or erosion.
Mitigation Measures:
The project will be required to comply with the Engineering Department requirements
regarding drainage and grading. This will mitigate any adverse environmental
impacts.
Since the City of La Quinta and surrounding Coachella Valley is within an area
subject to earth movement, it can be expected that there may be earthquakes at some
time in the future.
Mitigation Measures:
The construction will be required to comply with applicable earthquake standards for
construction. The Building and Safety Department will ensure that these construction
requirements are complied with.
ENVASS.015
2. AIR: The proposed project is not expected to create any significant environmental
impacts with regards to air quality. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed
necessary.
3. WATER: Due to the construction of the project with paving, etc., there can be a
possibility of some surface run-off.
Mitigation Measures:
The proposed project will be required to comply with Engineering Department
requirements regarding grading and drainage. This will mitigate any adverse
environmental impacts.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: The site is a vacant previously graded site which
was created as part of the shopping center. As such, it is not expected that there will
be any impact on plants or animal life. Therefore, no mitigation measures are
deemed necessary.
5. NOISE: Because of the proposed use of the building as a medical office, it is not
expected that there will be any significant impacts created in the area of noise.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
6. LIGHTING AND GLARE: With the construction of the new project, it is expected
that there will be some new exterior lighting created adjacent to the building and
within the parking lot area.
Mitigation Measures:
The project will be required to provide parking lot lighting which matches that used in
the center and is downshining. Additionally, the approval of the project will require
that any exterior building lights be downshining and shaded to minimize any light
pollution.
7. LAND USE: The project will not result in the alteration of the planned commercial
use of this property. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
8. NATURAL RESOURCES: It is not anticipated that this construction and operation
of the use will result in an unusual increase of the rate or use of natural resources.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
9. RISK OF UPSET: There is a slight possibility of a release of hazardous substances
since there will be some chemicals and x-ray use on the site. However, with
applicable regulations, the risk should be very minimal. Therefore, no mitigation
measures are deemed necessary.
ENVASS.015
10. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the project will have an impact on
population distribution, location, etc. The employees for this facility, for the most
part, will come from the relocated facility at the southwest corner of Highway 111
and Washington Street within Plaza La Quinta. Therefore, no mitigation measures
are deemed necessary.
11. HOUSING: It is not anticipated that this project will have an impact on housing
since the majority of the employees will be relocated from the existing Immediate
Care facility at the southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 111.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
12. TRANSPORTATIONi CIRCULATION: The subject property is located within a
shopping center where the majority of the parking and access points have been
established and installed. Traffic impacts were reviewed in conjunction with the
original approval of Specific Plan 89-014. The project will create a demand for new
off-street parking. However, the shopping center has been designed to accommodate
the proposed parking demand. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed
necessary.
13. PUBLIC SERVICES: Due to the relative size of the project, it is not anticipated
that there will be any negative environmental impacts created on public services.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
14. ENERGY: It is not anticipated that there will be any significant increase in the
amount of fuel or energy necessary to implement or operate the proposed project due
to its size. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
15. UTILITIES: The shopping center has provided all utilities necessary for the uses.
Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant environmental impact
created. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
16. HUMAN HEALTH: With proper operation of the facility there should not be any
significant impacts created in the area of human health. Therefore, no mitigation
measures are deemed necessary.
17. AESTHETICS: The project is well designed and compatible with the existing
shopping center. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
18. RECREATION: Due to the nature of the project, there will not be any negative
impact created on existing or future recreational facilities. Therefore, no mitigation
measures are deemed necessary.
ENVASS.015
19. CULTURAL RESOURCES: The project site is a graded pad within the One Eleven
La Quinta Shopping Center. An archaeological survey was completed on the center
prior to grading. A monitor was present at the site during the initial grading of the
shopping center project. No negative environmental impacts are anticipated.
Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary.
20. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: The project due to the size and
nature of the project and the fact that environmental review was completed on the
shopping center project. No environmental impacts are anticipated which cannot be
mitigated as noted previously. Therefore, no mitigation measures are deemed
necessary.
ENVASS.015
ATTACHMENT
«.-
r RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
J. M. HARRIS 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS. CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657-318
FIRE CHIEF
September 1, 199"
Tc tt. cif L_� C,.ti-tt�
angling ii1v1 :url
F?e: Pl;�t Plan =�4-t3�
ect tc, the CG -,d:r o c, f Dl:,o I rCjc 1('.:j th,= ^CG-c
+ - r - 1 P ti-, [' 1 e DEE. _=C_ 'e=
�i ,-tc=Ct1Dri meaSUi eS fe pr0i1oed li; accorcance v.:th La LiUliiia IilJnl Iva:
C�de ar.d Di RiverslC..G,.J .-i ;. Fire Leer--'ai t�1-1e r,t prvteCtl Dr, s?aridaI-dS:
1 P, t-.. Idr (jr =h_•t•, t hE-,-E E, I E t S r_ atel- =,r e,11 [gip ab1C ;;f
delivering 1250 gpm for a 2 hour duration, at 20 psi residua
operating pressure which mu=_t be avaiIat1e before anv
combustible material is placed on the joo site.
c. The required -Fire flow shall be available from a Super
hydrants) ( 6 " x 4" x 2 1/2"). located rot less than 25' no, -
move than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured
alo--g approved vehicular travelways.
3. Instal a complete fire sprinkler system per HFPA 13 Light
Hazard Occupa-icy. the post indicator vale and fire
department coinectior. shall be located to the front within tad
feet of a hyd^-ant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the buildings.
4, Svste(n olai,s must be sub fT,itted to the F-lre bepactmeilt TOi c,la,
review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans,
L-)ith Fire Department Job Card must be at the job site for all
inspections.
5. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by
the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and
National Fire Protection Association Standard 71.
b. All fire sprinkler systems, fired fire suppression systems acid
alarm plans must be submitted =_eparately for approval prior to
construction. Subcontractors should ccntact the Plannino_
Engineering office for submittal requirements.
4
FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION'
ZI RIVERSIDE OFFICE PLANNING SECTION 26ND1O OFFICE
3700 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 "9-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92M
(909) 275-4777 0 FAX (909) 369-7451 (619) 863-8886 0 FAX (619) 863-7072
Ic. C_it" of L a DLI11ltci 'J1/i;"
F%F : PP `;y- 5.3:3 Pane P
Ir,stall par,lc hardtroare er]t -1c7n,I� a per ChaF tP1- 33 cf t.i'E-
Unlfc„ m RUIIdino Code.
E1, III-ta11 portahIF f ire F; t 1,,,;,,1-. ,ers pe, HFPA, Pamphlet #1 ,. Loot
not. less than PA109t_: in railno. Contact cer tifled extinGulF,r,F
r"rt, for ['�rG[-�ei F'lar F(T,Fn* r-.t c—Qulpment.
1 =f d t� n( Lt7l✓Cle, _-•fJ',� .j c'�.)� ��- is �l�• �t,v _ «F4] i F
t0 ( T tt.E i .=C, v F It Le
s b fitted to th; F ire Tie partr'G t for approv&j of mo,(ntI
1 ra t1 r C-, C- �+ c t .3 �- i (1 ._y r C) = � C' �- c_ �+ 1 f o r r - F
nU=t ['- ttJ o,_lS = ,_ 1 1=
t
_1,i= i t&& 4T,ust. tF paI_j t � tr= F rE Lc pa-tr:E ,t ct tr, A.
ans are SUb(Ti 2tted.
Al l qu4FF tlC)ri= renardl'1G the rtleanlnc, of the=e Cor,ditlor,s shn4,IC' hF
E, t t{.ir F 1, e �,eparto,e,iC Fla:' li t E,IU]i-.EE, lilq ---)tatf at lb] �!
Go.? eeai-
S1 r,Z:ereI ,r .
RA', REG I S
Chief Fire Department Planner
B ys-
Tom HUtCh150
Fire Safety Specialist
JP tl
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPOR t., i ION AND HOUSING AGENCY
PETE WILSON, Govemor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11. P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186-5406
�619' 688-6424 TDD Number
6195 688-6002
City of La Qunita
78-105 Calle Estado
La Qunita, CA 92253
Attention: Stan Sawa
September 28, 1994
0 C T 0 6 1994
11-RIV-111
PM 34.1
pp 94-533
We have reviewed Plot Plan 94-533 for Eisenhower Hospital located on the north side
of State Route 111 (SR-111) between Simon Drive and ,Adams Street and have the following
comments:
• The environmental document should include a traffic study showing peak hour
and average daily traffic for all turning movements and mainlane sections for
the year 2015.
• All improvements to SR-111 identified in the PSR/PR dated 3/91 should be
completed before this project is completed.
Any work within Caltrans` right of way on State Route 111 will require an
encroachment permit. Infomation regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by
contacting our Permit Office at (619) 688-6158. Early coordination with our agency is
strongly recommended for all encroachment permit applications.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions,
please contact Jim Buksa at (619) 688-6988.
Sincere)
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
BD/JB:ce
cc: CRWest
MParra/DPound
FYazdan/MDobbins
Permits
•
CHAMBER of COMMERCE
GEQOFTHE DESERT
September 15, 1994
TO: HONORARL? MAYOR JOIiN PENN AND
LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL
FROM: LA QUINTA CHXMBER OF COMMERCE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
RE: Plot Plan 94-533 MCG Architects for
EISENHOWER HOSPITAL
The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee
convened September 13, 1994. Upon review of plot -plan
94-533, an 13,•535 square foot immediate cars facility in the
111 La Quinta shopping center, they expressed no
objections. Subsequently, we would encourage the City to
approve the project as submitted.
Sincere ,
D Feath ringill
President
La Quinta Chamber of Commerce
t
SEP 19 1994
POST OFFICE BOX 255 9 51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS • LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 • (619) 564-3199 FAX (619) 564-3111
V! ATEIp
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBL.0 AGENCY
018TRIC�
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1D58 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLISCODEKAS PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON SECRETARY
JOHN W MCFADCEN OWEN MCCOOK. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHYM DELAY September 6, 1994 REDWINE AND SHERRILL ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J FISH
File: 0163.1
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta SFP 1 z 1994
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
Subject: Plot Plan 94-533, Portion of the Northeast
Quarter of Section 30, Township 5 South,
Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare
instances.
This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in
effect at this time.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
If you have any questions please call Joe Cook, planning engineer,
extension 292.
Yours very t
G�� O
Tom Levy
General Manager-Ch f Engineer
JC:lmf/e5/pp94-553
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
NJ
jjG�GQa�3
e1�
�w
Y�I
VTElid,[ORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1994
SUBJECT: REVISED POLICY FOR SUBDIVISION/MODEL HOME FLAGS
BACKGROUND:
The City Council at its meeting of September 20, 1994, requested that a new policy be
established for subdivision and model home flags. Presently the City is operating under a
policy adopted on September 10, 1990, which allows a total of 21 flags per development.
The rationale is that 21 flags is sufficient to provide advertising statement and that any
number above that would be excessive. The policy does not include any provisions
regarding flag size, color, wording, or height.
On February 1, 1994, the City Council established a policy of six months for the displaying
of flags with a six month extension if, after review by the Planning Director, the flags are
determined to be in good condition or worn flags are replaced.
The City Council on September 20, 1994, during consideration of a request for subdivision
flags indicated that the policies regarding subdivision flags should be re-examined and
revised due to the number of flags which presently exist in the City.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS:
In order to develop this revised policy, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission
consider this item for recommendation to the City Council. The City Council suggested that
the number of flags be reduced to somewhere possibly between 10-15 flags. Additionally,
Council noted a desire to have some standardization and restrictions regarding sizes, colors,
heights, etc.
In developing a policy regarding this matter there are a number of factors as noted below
which should be considered:
MEMOSS.231
1. Since the City Council indicated a number between 10-15, 12 flags should be
considered the maximum number permitted.
2. It should be decided whether the total number of flags should only consist of those
which are on perimeter arterial streets surrounding the tracts such as Miles Avenue or
Dune Palms Road, for example, or whether the number of flags should include those
which are provided along interior streets in front of model homes as well as along the
perimeter of the subdivisions.
3. Most pole heights are approximately 20-feet in height. The Council requested a study
of the height. In order to function as an advertising statement, the height should be
somewhere in the area of 12-15 feet minimum. Another consideration could be that if
flags are allowed in front of the model homes or on local residential streets, height
should be lower.
4. Flags sizes vary in size with some being thin and tall while others are wide and short,
such as an American flag. On the average, flags seem to be in the area of 3' X 7' .
5. A recent trend seems to be to provide flags which are rigid and do not wave (i.e.,
Inco Homes, Citrus Course homes).
6. The flags vary in color. The simplest flags may be a solid white with more elaborate
flags being a design or scenic picture in multiple colors. Staff generally feels that
multiple colors are acceptable provided no loud or fluorescent colors are utilized.
7. With regards to text or wording on these flags, staff feels that wording should be
limited to the name of the subdivision and/or name of the developer. Flags which
have a phrase or part of a phrase which is read on multiple or subsequent flags should
be avoided.
8. Staff feels that the current policy of six months with a possible six month extension is
acceptable. The only thing to consider is that some subdivisions may take longer than
one year to sell out.
RECOMMIENDATION:
Staff recommends that utilizing the above -noted factors, the Planning Commission should
develop a policy for recommendation to the City Council regarding subdivision/model home
flags. The policy should consider the number of flags, location of flags, height of poles, size
of flags, wording on flags, colors of flags, and duration of approval.
MEMOSS.231
CITY OF LA QUINTA
RULES OF CONDUCT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING
The following procedural rules shall be observed in the conduct of hearings relating to historic
preservation matters:
1. The Chairman will introduce the case to be heard.
2. All those in the audience desiring to be heard on the announced case, either for or
against, or those who think they may care to speak, are asked to fill out a form indicating
which item they wish to address the Commission on and give it to the secretary.
3. The Chairman will then officially open the public hearing.
4. The Chairman will ask for applicable staff reports followed by Commission questions of
staff.
5. Evidence shall be presented in the following order:
A. The applicant and those in favor of the application will be heard.
B. Those opposed to the application will be heard.
C. The applicant, for the purpose of rebuttal, may be heard.
(NOTE: After being recognized by the Chairman, an individual wishing to be heard
should step to the podium, speak directly into the microphone, give his/her name
and home address and present his views on the matter under consideration.)
6. The Chairman will then close the public hearing and invite the members of the
Commission to express themselves on the case.
7. The Chairman will then call for action by the Commission. The La Quinta Municipal
Code calls for the Commission to act by a minute motion or a resolution.
FORM.026