Loading...
1995 01 10 PCPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California January 10, 1995 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 95-001 Beginning Minute Motion 95-001 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 plannhig and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the Planning Commission., please state your name and address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Item ................ CONTINUED - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015 Applicant .......... J. L. Jarnagin (La Quinta Carwash) Location .......... East side of Washington Street, approximately 100 feet south of Highway 111 Rectuest ........... Approval of a full service tunnel carwash and detail shop Action ............ Resolution 95- Minute Motion 95- PC/AGENDA 2. Item .............. PLOT PLAN 94-541 (AMENDMENT #1) Applicant ....... Vintage Homes, a Division of Century Homes (Mr. Arthur Levine) Location ........ Area generally bounded by Via Florence, Adams Street, 48th Avenue, and Caleo Bay within Lake La Quinta Request ......... Approval of an amendment to a previous approval for four single family residence models on 102 single family lots (Spinnaker Cove) Action .......... Minute Motion 95- BUSINESS ITEMS Item ............. PLOT PLAN 94-543 Applicant ....... La Quinta Village Limited Partnership Location ........ Southeast corner of Washington Street and Calle Tampico Request ......... Approval of a free-standing restaurant in the La Quinta Village Center Action .......... Minute Motion 95- 2. Item ............. TENTATIVE TRACT 26188 Applicant ....... Century Homes Location ........ South side of Miles Avenue east of Adams Street Request ......... Approval of a sign adjustment to allow two subdivision name signs Action .......... Minute Motion 95- 3. Item ............... SIGN APPLICATION 94-270 Applicant ........ Skip Berg Location ......... 78-672 Highway 111 Request .......... Approval of a new building sign for the Carl's Jr./Green Burrito business Action ........... Minute Motion 95- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 13, 1994. OTHER 1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting. 2. Discussion regarding Commissioner's attendance to the Planners Institute held at the Doubletree/Marriott Conference Center in Monterey, March 22, 23, 24, 1995. ADJOURNMENT (Adjourn to January 31, 1995) STUDY SESSION Tuesday, January 10, 1995 Study Session Room 4:00 P.M. All agenda items PC/AGENDA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL . PROPOSED PLOT PLAN 94.543 • LA QUINTA VILLAGE LINITED PARTNERSHIP JANUARY 10, 1995 1. The development of this site shall be in conformance with the exhibits on file In the Community DeveIopm,ent Department for Plot Plan 94-543, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the Planning Commission approval; unless it shall become null and void and of no affect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading which is begun within one year and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. A time extension as allowed by the Municipal Code may be requested 30- days prior to expiration. 3. All applicable conditions of Plot Plan 91456 shall be complied with as required. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the building and outdoor area shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The building lights shall ;match those used within the shopping center. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded to eliminate glare onto adjacent streets and land uses. 5. Ali conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District as noted in their letter dated December 16, 1994, on file in the Community Development Department shall be met. 6. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in affect at the time of the Issuance of a building permit. 7. Construction shall comply with all local and State building codes in effect at the time the building permit is issued. & Prior to the fabrication and/or installation of the building signage, final plans based on the Planning Commission approval including colors and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 9. There shall be no exterior exposed roof access ladder provided. The roof access shall t=;,3 provided from within the structure. 10. Prior to issuance of a fine grading or building permit for construction contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances, it necessary, from the following public agencies: CONAPRVL145 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 84M January lo, ION * Fire Marshal * Public Works Department * Community Development Department * Riverside County Environmental Health Department * Desert Sands Unified School District * Coachella Valley Water District * Imperial Irrigation District The applicant Is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining the City's approvals and signatures on the final plans. Evidence of the permits or clearances from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 11. Final building, landscaping, and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. All new trees approved by this approval shall be a minimum of 36-inch bog size with all palm trees to be a minimum of 8-feet in height. 13. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Agricultural Commissioner and Coachella Valley Water District prior to Issuance of a building permit.. 14. Any required utility boxes, pads, meters, etc., shall be shown on the final landscaping plans to ensure that they are properly treated and screened. Compliance with the utility company safety distance shall also have to be compiled with. 15. Should any of the landscaping be provided in the perimeter street right-of-way, the Engineering Department approval shall also be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. The outdoor fountain plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall meet with the Community Development Department to determine what trash materials can be recycled. Upon that determination, recycling areas sufficient in capacity,. number, and distribution, to serve the restaurant shall be provided. Trash enclosures shall comply with the requirements of the City and Waste Management of the Desert (Le., solid metal doors, mounted on metal poles and embedded in concrete, &Inch interior curb provided within the enclosure, and a concrete floor and pad} CONAPRVL.145 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-50 January 10, 1995 18 That all exterior colors and materials shall match those used within the existing shopping center. 19. The awning design and colors including signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 20. Outdoor seating shall be confined to the area as shown on the approved preliminary landscaping plans on file in the Community Development Department. 21. Final construction plans shall show all roof mounted air conditioning and mechanical equipment to ensure that it is screened from view as required by Code. 22. This approval includes no freestanding monument signs for this use. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall fill out an application for an Air Quality Checklist as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (The application checklist is available in the Community Development Department.) FIRE MABSHAL- 24. 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. 25. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" % 4" Z 2%"� located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measures along approved vehicular travelways. 26. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. V. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet 010, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of the equipment. 28. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguisher system. The system plans must be submitted, along with a plan checklinspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 29. Install Knox Lock Boxes, Models 4400, 3200, or 1300, mounted per recommended standard of the Knoll: company. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval of mounting locationiposition 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. 30. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time the building plans are submitted. CONAPRVL145 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94.543 January 10, 1995 11 QQ==G DEPARTMM, IMPROVEMENT PLANS 31. Improvement plans shall be submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Grading," "Streets &. Drainage," and "Landscaping." All plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer and are not approved for construction until they are signed. "Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates and entryways, parking lots, and water and sewer plans. Combined plans including water and sewer improvements 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 City Engineer's signature. "Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting, and perimeter walls. The City may maintain digitized standard plans for elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the developer may acquire the standard plan computer files or standard plan sheets prepared by the City. When final plans are approved by the City, the developer shall furnish accurate computer files of the complete, approved plans on storage media and in program format acceptable the City Engineer. GRADING 32. 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 6.10, 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. 33. 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. 34. A grading 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. CONAPRVL145 4 STAFF REPORT � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 10, 1995 CASE NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015 APPLICANT: J. L. JARNAGIN (LA QUINTA CARWASH) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A FULL SERVICE TUNNEL CARWASH AND DETAIL SHOP LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET APPROXIMATELY 100-FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY III GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MIRC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED AN INITIAL STUDY (EA 94-259) ON THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND DETERMINED THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS HEREBY PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION. PREVIOUS PLANNENG COMMISSSION REVDBW- This item was first reviewed on December 13, 1994, by the Planning Commission. After a lengthy discussion, the item was continued to this meeting. The public hearing portion of the meeting was closed at the previous meeting, and therefore, only Planning Commission discussion is to be allowed. During the previous Planning Commission review, persons spoke both for and against the project. At the conclusion of the discussion, it was determined that a decision could not be made at that time. The item was therefore continued to this meeting based on the following reasons: 1. Time needed to review new information submitted during the meeting; 2. Time needed to review the environmental information; 3. Setbacks for structures; 4. Landscaping; 5. On -site traffic flow anti circulation; and, 6. More openness at the corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. PCST.199 r Enclosed in your agenda packet are the draft Planning Commission minutes from the last meeting which include those items concerning this project. NEW INFORMATION: Since the last Planning Commission review, staff has received a letter dated December 28,1994, from the applicant regarding the Planning Commission items of discussion (see attached). In this letter the applicant proposes that the sidewalk on Washington Street be revised to run adjacent to the curb rather than meander along the entire frontage of his project. He feels this would allow the landscaping and higher berms to enhance the profile of the building when viewed from the sidewalk and street. Additionally, he indicates that the final landscaping plan can be revised as required by the Planning Commission and staff to incorporate plants which are best suited for this area. The applicant indicates that: after careful review based on their many years of developing carwash projects, that the site plan design as submitted is best. The applicant indicates the reasons for this are that "the building placement and orientation best serves the customers while offering the maximum showcasing of the landscaping and building aesthetics, yet still screening the activities of the business from both Highway III and Washington Streets. With regards to the traffic circulation, the applicant says "the traffic plan, as designed, will totally manage all of our customer traffic either on the property or on the private streets. This allows for no traffic congestion on Washington Street at the egress and none at the egress because it will be a right turn only." The applicant indicates that he feels they are offering a quality development for this "Gateway" property. He further indicates that "the limiting circumstances of reduced buildable area resulting from dedications and setbacks along with the height limitations have been affectively overcome. It appears that other developments for the site will offer much less and tend more toward it becoming another parking lot." Based upon this letter, the applicant has not submitted any revised plans for further review. The full text of this letter is attached for your review (Attachment 2). Also submitted is a letter addressed to the Planning Commission from the applicant (see Attachment 3} In this letter the applicant indicates that past letters which you have received on this project from a special interest opponent and his associates contains "gross exaggerations and false statements". The applicant has chosen not to respond to these statements. The applicant indicates that he did agree to allow the property seller (Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan) to make the offer contained in their letter of December 9, 1994, regarding the sale of the property to the Simon Plaza group. He notes that they did not accept it.. Staff has received a letter from James LaLoggia, project director for Lake La Quinta. In this letter he indicates that he has reviewed the carwash plans and withdraws his previous objections and now fully supports the project. A second letter has been received from Larry Andrews of Landrex Corporation which is building Avante at Lake La Quinta. In his letter he indicates that he has reviewed the carwash plans and withdraws his earlier objections to the project and supports the project on this site. As you may recall, a representative for these two developers previously spoke at the last Planning Commission meeting, objecting to the project. n r �) PCST.199 STAFF COIL EM As noted above, the applicant has not submitted any revised plans. The only physical change that the applicant has presented is replacing the meandering sidewalk along Washington Street with a sidewalk which runs adjacent to the curb. This would permit additional berming against the building and perimeter wall and a slightly improved aesthetic look due to the larger appearing landscape area. While the policy along Washington Street has been to require meandering sidewalks, staff feels that the sidewalk adjacent to the curb in this area, would be acceptable since it is at a major intersection and could be considered a transitional area. Due to its location at a major intersection there is more pedestrian traffic in this area. A sidewalk next to the curb is more convenient and easier for pedestrians to use. Staff has recommended conditions regarding landscaping to ensure that any inappropriate landscaping materials are not utilized. Although the Planning Commission felt that the on -site circulation was not appropriate, the applicant feels that as designed, it is the best for both the applicant and customers. As designed, there will be no traffic congestion at Washington Street and the project entry. It should be noted that Condition #52 which is recommended which would require the applicant to take alternate access in the future should it become available. As noted in the staff report for December 13, 1994, there are findings to justify approval of the conditional use permit (see attached staff report) and findings sufficient to approve a variance for the setbacks and building heights (see attached staff report). Therefore, staff does feel there are grounds to approve this project. RECX Based upon the findings as noted in the staff report for December 13, 1994, staff recommends: 1. Adoption of Resolution 95- approving a mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts; and, 2. Adoption of Minute Motion 95- , approving Conditional Use Permit 94-015, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: A. Staff report from the meeting of December 13, 1994 B. Letter from applicant dated December 28, 1994 C. Letter from applicant dated January 3, 1995 D. Letter from Lake La Quinta dated January 3, 1995 E. Letter from Landrex Corporation dated December 30, 1994 F. Miscellaneous letters received for December 13, 1994, hearing not included in the report G. Plans and exhibits FCST.199 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-289 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-289 J. L. JARNAGIN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 13th day of December, 1994, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued public hearing on the loth day of January, 1995, to consider the request of J. L. Jarnagin for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a full service carwash and detail shop on the east side of Washington Street, 100± feet south of Highway 111; and, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 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 Initial Study EA 94-289; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment due to mitigation requirements 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 project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either directly or indirectly. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 4. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. RESOPC.143 Resolution 95- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission for this Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. 2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 94-289 with the adoption of a mitigated Negative Declaration for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, labeled Exhibit "A" - EA, on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this loth day of January, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: -�Mll_In DON ADOLPH, Chairman City of La Quinta, California JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.143 • PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 95- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-289 PREPARED FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-289 J. L. JARNAGIN WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 13th day of December, 1994, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and continued public hearing on the loth day of January, 1995, to consider the request of J. L. Jarnagin for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a full service carwash and detail shop on the east side of Washington Street, 100 ± feet south of Highway 111; and, WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit 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 Initial Study EA 94-289; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment due to mitigation requirements 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 project. will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either directly or indirectly. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 3. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 4. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. RESOPC.143 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94--015 - RECOMMENDED J. L. JARNIGAN (CARWASH) JANUARY 10, 1995 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1. The development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 94-015 unless amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved conditional use permit shall be used within one year of the City approval date of January 10, 1995; 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. Time extensions up to a total of two years may be requested pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.172.060. 3. Approval of this conditional use permit shall be subject to approval of a variance application for setback requirements as noted in the staff report for Conditional Use Permit 94-015. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the parking lot area and buildings shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Light fixtures shall be designed and placed so as to shield glare from adjacent properties and streets. 5. There shall be no flag poles installed unless approved by the Planning Commission as required by Code. 6. There shall be additional architectural treatment provided on the exterior walls facing Washington Street and Highway III through the use of stuccoed columns similar to those used within the parking lot area. 7. All trees shall be a minimum 48" bog size with all palm trees being a minimum of 8-feet in height. All landscaping material, design, irrigation system shall be revised and approved by the City as preliminary and final plans. 8. If prior to issuance of a building permit, the City requests installation of a City entry sign at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, the applicant shall install and maintain said sign to the satisfaction of the City. 9. There shall be no outdoor storage in unscreened areas or sales displays on the property unless approved by the Community Development Department. CONAPRVL.143 1 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 10. The project shall pay the required Art in Public Places fee prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. There shall be no exposed rain downspouts permitted on the building unless they are an Integral part of the architectural element of the structure. 12. Within 48-hours of final City Council approval, the applicant shall pay the required State Fish and Game fee of $1328.00 to the City. The City shall forward said fee to the County of Riverside (check made out to the Riverside County Clerk 13. The provisions of the City Water Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 220) shall be met during plan check. 14. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon any discovery of archaeological remains or artifacts during grading of the site. The developer shall apply appropriate mitigation measures during the project development should archaeological remains or artifacts be uncovered. 15. Wall heights around the paved parking area shall be subject to final review and approval of the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. If perimeter public street improvements are not installed initially with the project, temporary planting and irrigation shall be installed in any unpaved areas adjacent to the streets 17. Trees shall be planted near the north and south openings of the carwash in the street perimeter planting areas to screen said carwash opening from view of Washington Street and Highway 111. 18. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant/developer shall meet with the Community Development Department to determine what trash materials can be recycled. Upon that determination, recycling areas sufficient in capacity, number, and distribution to serve the development shall be provided. Trash enclosures shall comply with the requirements of the City and Waste Management of the Desert (i.e., solid metal doors mounted on poles embedded in concrete with an &inch curb provided within the enclosure, etc.). 19. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer and submitted to the Community Development Department prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of a grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on interior areas for perimeter streets and impacts on the proposed and abutting land uses and provide mitigation measures. Mitigation measures as determined by the Community Development Director shall be provided as part of the construction of the project. CONAPRVL.143 2 0041 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 20. Prior to 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 which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building occupancy inspection approval, the applicant shall prepare and submit a second written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Community Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 21. The parking lot stripping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces, shall be approved by the Community Development Department and Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 22. The color and design of the decorative paving at the entry ways shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. If required, the applicant shall install a bus "turn out" and bus shelter on Highway 111 and/or Washington Street in compliance with Cal Trans, Sunline Transit, and City requirements. 24. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 94-289 on file in the Community Development Department shall be met. 25. Prior to 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 or clearances from those 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 Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use CONAPRVL143 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 contemplated herewith. 26. 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. FIRE esn�e4 27. 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. 28. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super Hydrant(s) (6" X 4" X 2W), located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 29. Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for reviewlapproval. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet registered civil engineer and 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." 30. Install a complete fire sprinkler system NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy Group 1. 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. 31. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a planlinspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. 32. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code/Riverside County lire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 71. 33. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Subcontractors should contact the Planning and Engineering office for submittal requirements. 34. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 35. 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 and mounting location/position and operating standards. Special forms are available from the Riverside County Planning and Engineering office for the correctly coded system to be n CONAPRVL.143 4 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 purchased. 36. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. IMPROVEMENT AGREEMM 37. The applicant shall construct, or enter into a secured agreement to construct, the on- and off -site grading, streets, utilities, landscaping, on -site common area improvements, and any other improvements required by these conditions before issuance of a grading permit for this development. Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements. 38. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for required improvements which are deferred for future construction by others. Deferred improvements for this development include: A. Construction of 20-feet of pavement, curb and gutter on Washington Street from the south side of the entry drive to the end of the curb radius to State Route 111. The improvements shall include removal, relocations, or replacements of existing Improvements as required by the City Engineer. B. Applicant's pro rata share of the cost of a new storm drain along Washington Street to the Whitewater River channel. The secured amount shall include the cost of a storm drain lateral crossing from the west side of Washington Street to the storm drain outfall for this development. C. Applicant's pro rata share of the cost of undergrounding existing overhead utility lines within or adjacent to the currently undeveloped portion of the property bounded by Washington Street, State Route 111 (S.R. 111), and Simon Drive. The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the deferred improvements may, at the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement program or other street infrastructure fee program which may be adopted by the City. DEDICATIONS 39. The applicant shall dedicate or deed public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans, and as required by the City Engineer. Approved deeds and/or dedications shall be executed r! CONAPRVL.143 5 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 and recorded prior to issuance of any encroachment, grading, or building permit. Required deeds and/or dedications include: A. Washington Street - 95-foot half width right-of-way from the section line west of Washington Street centerline and may be reduced where right turn lane terminates. Right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 10 feet east of the approved curb location. Dedication shall include the applicant's portion of the corner cutback for a 150-foot curb radius at the intersection with S.R. 111. 1. The applicant shall deed to the City blanket sidewalklbikepath easements over the required landscape setbacks along Washington Street and S.R. 111. 2. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to utility lines and structures, drainage facilities, and mailbox clusters. GRADING 40. 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 6.10, 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. A. 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 Departments. B. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance. C. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted. The report of the investigation ("the soils report") shall be submitted with the grading plan. D. A grading 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. 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 CONAPRVL.143 6 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 engineer, or surveyor that lists actual building pad elevations. The document shall, for each building pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and shall clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. DRAINAGE 41. The site shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention or storm drain capacity to flow off the site through a designated overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. The site shall be designed to receive storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow. 42. The design of this development shall not cause any change in flood boundaries, levels or frequencies in any area outside the property. 43. Storm water run-off produced during a 100-year storm shall be routed to the City storm drain facility on the west side of Washington Street. If that facility is not yet in place at the time this project is constructed, the applicant may temporarily direct storm flow, in an approved manner, to the existing east gutterline of Washington Street. If the temporary solution is utilized, the applicant shall construct an approved storm drain stub - out beyond the proposed future curbline of Washington Street for connection to the future City storm drain facility. 44. The applicant shall provide for on -site retention, treatment, or sanitary sewer disposal of nuisance water produced as a result of this development. Nuisance water shall not be allowed to enter the storm drainage system. This requirement shall be waived during any period in which the applicant demonstrates to the City that the nuisance water will not contribute to pollutant loadings which may require the expenditure public funds to mitigate. 45. The applicant shall provide for treatment or sanitary sewer disposal of gray water produced by this development. Gray water shall include service bay and operations area washdown water as well as wash- and rinse -water from the car wash. UTILITIES 46. The applicant shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the undergrounding of overhead utility lines. The pro rate share shall be based on the percentage this parcel represents of the currently undeveloped portion of the property bounded by Washington Street, S.R. CONAPRVL.143 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94-015 January 10, 1995 111, and Simon Drive. The utilities to be undergrounded shall include all existing overhead lines within or adjacent to the larger property. 47. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall be installed prior to construction of the surface improvements. The applicant shall provide certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval of the City Engineer. 48. The applicant shall comply with Conditions of Approval requested by the Coachella Valley Water District. STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS 49. Improvement plans for all streets, drives, and parking areas 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. Pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design procedure for a 20-year life and shall consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading. The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows: Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c.14.50" a.b. Collector 4.01115.0011 Secondary Arterial 4.01116.0011 Primary Arterial 4.51116.0011 Major Arterial 5.51116.5011 If the applicant proposes to construct a partial pavement section for use during construction or between phases of construction, the partial section shall be designed with a strength equivalent to the 20-year design strength. 50. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization markings, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required. 51. The City Engineer may require miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements as necessary to integrate the new work with existing Improvements and provide a finished product conforming with City standards and practices. This may include, but is not limited to, street width transitions extending beyond property CONAPRVL.143 0 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 boundaries. CONAPRVL143 9 Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 LANDSCAPING 52. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the setback lots along the following streets: A. Washington Street B. S. R. I I I The applicant is encouraged to minimize steep slope designs within the perimeter landscaping setback areas. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within 5-feet of curbs along public streets. 53. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements of the City Engineer. 54. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. Landscape and irrigation plans shall meet the requirements of and be signed by the Community Development Director, the City Engineer, the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. 55. The applicant shall insure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures. 56. The applicant or applicant's successors in ownership of the property shall ensure perpetual maintenance of the approved landscaping and related improvements. QUALITY ASSURANCE 57. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the approval of the City Engineer. 58. 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. 59. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record drawings of all plans 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. CONAPRVL143 10 "r� Conditions of Approval Conditional Use Permit 94.015 January 10, 1995 FEES AND DEPOSITS 60. 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. MISCELLANEOUS 61. Except for water, sewer and electric transmission systems which are under the jurisdiction of other agencies, all non -building improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted on 24" x 36" media. 62. Plans for grading, drainage, streets, pedestrianibike facilities, gates, common parking areas, parks, lighting, landscaping & irrigation, and perimeter walls are not approved for construction until they have been signed by the City Engineer. 63. Prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for buildings, the applicant shall install traffic control devices and street name signs along access roads to those buildings. 64. Access and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted to an entry drive off Washington Street at the south end of the property. As the adjacent property to the south and/or east is developed, the City may request that this drive be abandoned and that the applicant take access through easements or rights -of -way provided over the adjacent properties. Upon the request of the City, the applicant shall abandon use of the temporary drive and replace the portion of the drive on the applicant's property with standard curb, sidewalk, and setback improvements. 65. A raised "triangular" shaped island shall be installed at the Washington Street entry to help guide right -in and right -out traffic, if the Washington Street median is not installed at the time of issuance of building permit for carwash. 66. Applicant shall submit three alternative street names for the entry off of Washington Street to the Department of Community Development for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 67. An 8-foot wide sidewalk along Washington Street may be placed adjacent to the curb. CONAPRVL.143 11 ATTACHMENT A NTEM0RAND UM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1994 SUBJECT: J. L. JARNAGIN - conditional USE PERMIT 94-015 PUBLIC HEARING #2 On December 9, 1994, at approximately 4:00 P.M. the Community Development Department received a letter from Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan offering to sell the subject property to Simon Plaza. The offer requires a financial commitment no later than 5:00 P.M., December 12, 1994. Should this offer be executed, the need for processing of this conditional use permit will no longer exist. We will notify you of the results at the Study Session on Tuesday, December 12, 1994. MEMOSS.234 FROM tPFF SECURITY .0 1 7733013 iQ 12-09 16109 #294 P.02/= s Pomona First Federal Savin8s and Loan.4ssocladon Since 1893 December 9, 1994 Mr. Fred J. Simon, Jr. To Be Presented in Person Simon Plaza, Inc. By Mr. Dick Baxley P. 0. BOX 1461 La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 1841 Dear Mr. Simon: Responding to the December 5, 1994, letter of Mark Moran to the Mayor and City Council of La Quinta, Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association is willing to give you the opportunityto honor Mr. Moran' s claim that you .. will buy the subject pro rt and will pay Pomona First Federal�a fair price...." p y We require a purchase price of $737,500, which you will recall is less than the amount, you previously agreed to pay. This sum will enable us to receive the same amount that we will receive on our sale to our current buyer, Mr. Jarnagin, pay the broker, and also provide the funds to obtain Mr. Jarnagin's consent to walk away from his transaction. A non-refundable deposit of $100,000 must be made, and a mutually acceptable purchase agreement executed, by 5:00 P.M. on Monday, December 12, 1994. The purchase agreement must provide for escrow to close on or before March 31, 1995, the same date on which our escrow with Mr. Jarnagin must close. Based upon the statements made in the December 2, 1994, letter of CGI Financial Chairman & CEO Stephen C. Miller to you, which also was forwarded to the City of La Quinta, "All contracts and commitments have been signed and funds will be flowing within a few days of this writing," so these terms should not present any problems for you. We believe this offer is more than reasonable under the circumstances and hope it meets with your approval. if it does not, we intend to proceed with Mr. Jarnagin to obtain ail necessary approvals from the City of La Quinta to complete the development of this CC: S• LF 004 -a x DEC 0 9I4 C1110f LA UJINTA PI.Ai�1t��•. G�Q;� Ta9£H7 0 VeNy truly yours, �iT- •4Q Robert L. polish Senior Vice President Senior Counsel City Council and Planning Commission, City of La Quint& Rinehart, Shannon Paul Selzer Chrumont Otflce; 393 w Footmn tilvd 41711•2710 . PO SuY 1p11 . r gramnM P�II/nrMa 0+ n..n.on ..enm cne eer STAFF REPORT PLANNING CONWSSION DATE: DECEMBER 13, 1994 CASE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015 APPLICANT: J. L. JARNAGIN (LA QUINTA CARWASH) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A FULL SERVICE TUNNEL CARWASH AND DETAIL SHOP LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHWAY III GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: MIRC (MIXED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING: C-P-S (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Community Development Department has completed an Initial Study (EA 94-289) on the proposed project and determined that it will not have a significant environmental impact. Therefore, a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact is hereby proposed for adoption. SURROUNDING ZONING LAND USES: NORTH: C-P-SICOMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER ACROSS HIGHWAY III AND VACANT LAND (PART OF PP 93-495) SOUTH: C-P-SIVACANT LAND (PART OF PLOT PLAN 93-495) EAST: C-P-SIVACANT LAND (PART OF PLOT PLAN 93-495) WEST: C-P-SICOMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER The subject property is an irregularly shaped site of approximately one acre. While the property appears to be right at the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street there is actually a small triangular shaped parcel of approximately 3500 square feet immediately north of the property. The subject site is presently vacant and void of any significant vegetation. It should be noted that this property was originally a part of an adjacent approved project. This property, along with the properties to the north, south, and east are a part of Plot Plan 93-495 which was approved lit 1993 for Simon Plaza. That project consists of an 82,000 square foot commercial project on approximately 5.6 acres. Presently an appeal of a Planning Commission time extension granted- in May, 1994, is being reviewed by the City Council. This PCST.198 1 Simon Plaza application was last reviewed at the City Council meeting of December 6, 1994 and continued for four months. Assuming this carwash request is approved, the applicants were instructed by the City Council to revise their site plan without this piece of land and submit for Planning Commission review within three months and subsequent City Council review following the Planning Commission review. On September 13, 1994, the Planning Commission held a study session on the proposed carwash facility. At that time, the applicants presented conceptual plans of their proposed facility for Commission comment. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The subject property consists of approximately one acre of land and is a somewhat Irregularly shaped rectangle. The property has approximately 290 feet of frontage along Washington Street and 88 feet along Highway 111. This piece of property was created as a result of a parcel map which subdivided the land bounded by Highway 111, Simon Drive, and Washington Street into seven parcels. A parcel right at the intersection of Washington Street and Highway III exists, but was not a part of this parcel map. The largest of these parcels is approximately four acres and is the site of Simon Motors. The balance of the parcels including the subject parcel acre vacant. As a part of the parcel map, recorded private 40-foot to 30-foot wide vehicular access easements were created between the parcels and generally connect Washington Street with Simon Drive. Presently, adjacent to the site curbs, gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to the curb exist. These improvements were put in as a result of the original parcel map. Power poles run along the Washington Street frontage adjacent to the site. PROJECT PROPOSAL General The applicant proposes to construct a full service tunnel carwash and detail shop on the subject property. The carwash building will consist of 4232 square feet while the detail or auto care building will consist of 2095 square feet on the first floor with 575 square feet of office area on the second floor. Therefore, the total building square footage would be 6327 square feet. The structures while being separate will be attached by a wood trellis structure. Additional trellis structures attached to the main building will be constructed over the car drying area. Circulation/Parking Vehicular circulation for the site is proposed from Washington Street through the private easement created as a result of the parcel map. This easement is 40-feet wide and adjacent and parallel to the south property line. This easement transverses to the east and then to the southeast and to the north along the easterly property line. It is along this northerly easement, that the two driveway access points into the carwash will be provided. The northerly driveway will be for cars entering the carwash while cars exiting the carwash will use the southerly driveway. PCST.198 2 Cars will circulate in a counter -clockwise direction once they enter the site with the actual carwash being on the westerly side of the site. The auto care or detail shop, will be located adjacent to the northeasterly corner of the site. Ten off-street parking spaces are provided adjacent to the Highway 111 side of the site and are proposed to be used only for the employees since other persons utilizing the site will undoubtedly be using the detail shop or carwash. The detail shop will contain parking for four additional vehicles. The applicant has indicated that the operation at its maximum, require five full time employees and two part-time employees. With the proposed parking, adequate spaces will be provided. There is additional space on the site to provide at least four informal parallel parking; spaces. Architectural Design The proposed structure is Spanish/early California in nature and would consist of stucco walls, wood trellises with stucco columns, and a two-color Spanish "S" tile. Exterior colors are proposed to be tan stucco, with white bulk head and columns with the roof tile being light reditan. The structures will consist of a combination flat roof and sloped tile roof. In the flat roof areas of the structure, the maximum height is approximately 18-feet. There will be two hip roofed towers, one on the carwash building and one over the detail shop. The highest point of this feature on the carwash building will be approximately 23'8". The space below this tower will provide one floor with the feature designed to provide architectural interest and variety. On the detail shop building, the maximum height of the tower structure will be 27'5" with this area actually having a second floor for office space. This feature is approximately 130 feet from the existing Washington Street property line. This tiled tower structure is approximately 15' X 15' in size with the balance of the second story office space in an area lower in height (22' 10"). Adjacent to Washington Street, the carwash tunnel will be provided ten feet to approximately 18-feet from the new Washington Street property line after dedication. The carwash tunnel will be partially roofed with the center portion provided with a gable -shaped wood trellis. The entry which will be at the north end and exist at the south end will be provided with sectional doors which can be closed when the facility is not in operation. The auto care or detail shop will also be provided with sectional doors. In order to screen the facility from both Highway III and Washington Street, the applicant has provided stuccoed six foot high stuccoed walls. These walls will enclose and be attached to the exterior of the carwash and detail shop buildings. The walls will wrap around the south side of the facility in the area of the car drying. The applicant has proposed a trash enclosure at the south end of the detail for auto care building. While this location 'is adjacent to the public access easement, it is on a portion of the property which is a part of the site. 0 ? 4 PCST.198 3 Landscape Design The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan for the project. The applicant's plan indicates trees, varying in size from 24-inch to 36-inch box in size. The total landscaped area proposed is 13, 824 square feet or approximately 30% of the site. Along Highway 111, the landscape area behind property line after dedication varies from 30-feet to 50-feet with the landscape setback varying from 10-feet to approximately 18-feet along Washington Street. Along the south property line, adjacent to the private access easement, a setback of approximately 8-feet is shown. Additional landscape areas are shown on site adjacent to the carwash buildings, detail building, and driveways. A unique feature of the proposed plan is to include a waterfall at the northern end of the six foot high wall facing the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street. It should be noted that as indicated previously, there is actually another triangularly shaped piece of privately owned land right at the intersection of Highway I11 and Washington Street. It is necessary for the City to obtain this piece of land In order to complete the Washington Street intersection. The applicant's landscape plans indicate that mounding will be provided along both Washington Street and Highway 111 to provide visual interest. The applicant has submitted a colored elevation closely replicating the proposed landscaping at maturity. Carwash Operation The applicant describes his facility as a luxury full service carwash with auto detail. There will be no gasoline sales as part of the operation. The proposed hours of operation, as indicated by the applicant, is 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. with the maximum number of employees being seven of which two would be part-time and five full time. The applicant, as of this time, has not indicated any exterior lighting. However, due to the proposed hours of operation, it can be expected that lighting will be necessary in the winter. Sinae The applicants have not yet submitted signage plans for the proposed "La Quinta Carwash". However, they have indicated that they will be mounting individually unlit letters on the west wall of the carwash building facing Washington Street and on the north facing wall of the auto care building. Comments and Responses The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee met as the Planning and Review Subcommittee for the Chamber. After review of the project, they determined that while they were in favor of the carwash project conceptually, they could not recommend approval at the proposed location. The Subcommittee expressed considerable concern regarding this project at the "Gateway" (Highway 111 and Washington Street) to La Quinta (see attached letter). PCST.198 4 As previously indicated, this property was a part of the Simon Plaza project of which the properties to the north, east, and south are also a part. The adjacent property owners feel that the subject property should be a part of their project. A letter from Paul Selzer, dated November 18, 1994, is attached for your review. ANALYSIS: The project as designed complies with most necessary development standards and requirements. The project has been architecturally designed to be attractive and compatible with the adjacent properties. The project has been designed with access only to Washington Street. Due to the future raised landscape medians, access will be limited to right turn in and right turn out only. No access to Highway III will be permitted nor is any proposed. With regards to the proposed landscaping, it has been designed to be attractive and screening. However, the General Plan and Municipal Code do require a 50-foot landscape setback adjacent to Highway ill and a 20-foot landscape setback adjacent to Washington Street. These setbacks are measured from final right-of-way lines (street property lines). Due to the relatively small odd shape of the property, the applicant is requesting a deviation of this requirement along Highway 111. Along Washington Street, this requirement could be provided if the further dedication of a right -turn lane was not required. This right -turn land requirement is a result of the Washington Street Specific Plan which was adopted several years ago. Staff does feel that it is necessary to provide some additional treatment along the west elevation facing Washington Street and north facing Highway 111. Along Washington Street is the west wall of the car wash tunnel and screen wall for the interior area along Highway ill is the screen wall and detail building. Staff feels that stucco columns along these sides should be provided to provide a visual breakup and provide a shadow line. The stucco columns should match those used on the interior of the facility. While the preliminary landscape plan is generally acceptable, staff does feel that there are some changes necessary. The proposed landscape plan shows lawn planted adjacent to the street curbs. Staff has not allowed this to be provided due to overspray and water conservation concerns. Therefore, the plan should be modified so that there is no lawn within 5-feet of curb line and that any plant material used be drip irrigated. The landscape plan shows that tree sizes will vary from 24" to 36" box. Staff feels that landscape trees should be a minimum of 48" box size unless the tree is one which grows extremely fast. Additionally, palm trees should be a minimum of 8' and vary in height. There are several plant materials which may not be appropriate for La Quinta, and will need to be replaced. The applicant has shown a trash enclosure south of the auto care building. It will be necessary to design this to meet code requirements. Additionally, it will be necessary for the enclosures to comply with recycling access ordinance requirements. Generally speaking, this requires adequate, accessible, and convenient areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials. Conditions are recommended in order to comply with this requirement. PCST.198 5 Presently, there is a bus stop on Washington Street and Highway III in the vicinity of this project. Staff has received no comments from Sunline Transit regarding these facilities. It will be necessary for the applicant to comply with the requirements provided they are acceptable to the City and Caltrans. FINDINGS FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Findings for approval of the conditional use permit can be made and are as follows: 1. The proposed use conforms to all the requirements of the General Plan for the City and with all applicable requirements of State law and ordinances of the City, with the exception of setbacks for which a variance is required and will be submitted. 2. The proposed project is in conformance with General Plan Land Use Element and has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 3. With the construction of the project, the applicant will dedicate and improve the surrounding streets as required by the City and Caltrans to improve traffic circulation and thereby mitigate traffic congestion at the project location. 4. The maximum height of the proposed car wash is lower than the previously approved restaurant structure. 5. The proposed project has provided a 6-foot high screen wall around the entire parking and driveway areas which will mitigate any visual eyesores. Additionally, the applicant has provided extensive landscaping around the perimeter of the site including a waterfall feature at the intersection of Highway III and Washington Street. This treatment has been determined to be preferable to that proposed by the previous project. VARIANCE The Community Development Department has determined that there are sufficient findings to support granting of a variance which is required as a condition of approval, as follows: 1. Approval of a variance would not constitute a grant of special privileges that is inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. 2. In order to widen the existing street and provide adequate traffic circulation, granting of a variance permit is necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare. 3. The property is irregularly shaped and relatively narrow in depth. The City requirements for widening of Washington Street and Caltrans requirements for widening of Highway III further inhibits the ability to develop the subject property. 4. The location of the two-story office portion is situated so that it will not be visible from view adjacent to Washington Street. The car wash structure which complies with height requirements is in a location which will block the view of the two story element. Additionally, the two story structure is provided at the easterly most position of the site. PCST.198 6 Based upon the findings as noted above, staff recommends: 1. Adoption of Resolution 94- approving a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; 2. Adoption of Minute Motion 94 , approving Conditional Use Permit 94.015, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Letter from Paul Selzer dated November 18, 1994 3. Letter from PomonaFirst Federal Savings and Loan Association dated November 30, 1994 4. Letter from La Quinta Chamber of Commerce dated November 18, 1994 5. Initial Study and draft Negative Declaration 6. Comments from various City Departments and agencies 7. Plans and exhibits FCST.198 7 BEST, ®EST 6 KRIEGER ATTACHMENT LA%VYCRs ANT,RIR t. l)ThtrORP,w oTM�K • SLl[N• &ASI T- CHAVU DADL T' CNAR�R DA7RIC[ Krl. ARK K D,RTNJam DOMA R{� CARYALNO DAUL 1MK BALLAD NO VICTOR L. C &NON L. rOV JAS N tns A aamonrAN[/�S KARMo D�lw, 6" CAST �MtMRTC GAittON [ - C—STOI.KR 1. CARKNT[R• Or -HAND T ANO[RSON• WO M N [.. OOL8LIVG2 NOrARO D' �D MASS A. CAS►O DIAN[ L. /Dt[T T)KODORE A DMSrOto JULIANN ANMRSON 'OAT O11)Ct SOX tre �KSI SrMMIS. CAL/ORNA MIC MICHJOHa rAXAM a NARRIY MRCK[. ED O�rOON IRCKLLt O1K11[TT$ DAVIS I. ►larry(N, o,, J[►►NtT R. *�[ LORA N. WMAOR S:S �~OOK y.) M M.P10{ CURT JOHN C. Mp N. JpM R. NOTMLIUAIS[7115 MAlWH A. NJ"" C. MAUSD DENNIS!Lt. ANM'IA SMLRS CIRMCOO, - DAM1iY QCLCCOSQ w*i am.03" ISCNA[L 7 NtKDITN A. JURY. A MCNA[l VICTORIA M. Kan R�LIANSONPH JANCD D. Otp IIAAK a moo," IOCNA[L $MANY. ►RANCID J SAU W SCOTT C. S,RTN JACK D. CLtr JR. MARSHALL IL MUpptp, SCT~ A. 9 K L DUDANT�V OIMOUCN[L x»artN OLSON DOLAN OF �,UL AM,K T TI,ONAY a MARTw • ETHER,, MAN M LtrN, IMIADNAOL MART [. OIO�YI NO MAR' R JAMS D. CORISON C. MICHAEL COr[TT KORK N M[T[D MLLIAM r ►LpTa JR. M[SORT 1. NAROM[ rAtl(p D[TtR M SAMMACM AANrKTTC L a[TRNMDN • LtD OL9W C. KA IME DIANE CT L ANOR, ROTHNEWR DRYC[ r. SCACM AKaK MRAT[M �~ CLAM I N. SOP MATT N. WILIJAM O DAI;M,OONS. JA- D. r[ JAMCS R. NAMMtR C. TOOIM DAVID J [RrDM MICHAEL J- ANO[LDON• SRK C DWSAWN OWA & NA DARRARA A. NAROM 004MAA • ANTONIA DAA/„OD Y [M L0L. SAR,IM. CCU p SICNAMO T to"M MATMICK a OOLAN d•IIG[DM M[SORT It. rl)(wROM W NOS[R► W. NASOR[AKS JAMICt L. rOS MEAN M. DEMUTH N[LEN[ M DR[Tt() RA►NONO KW (1gSobp) IRV[RDOt (SOo) 0004MDN RAMCS[ NO MMAISM SOO•DNMtMR7 • "DaONA► COMPOgwTIDN !. K1NI„LL JAMtS K I(RKO[R lMMD [UO[N[ KDT WOS.,SM ) ONTA10 UMW SNo•8681 SAN 040" (am .MASSS November 18, 1994 r.�Tt-�-v�awr,ra:• ->r City of La Quinta rr _� Planning on 78-495 Calle Tampico .t NOY 2 1 IM [ P.o. H®x 1504 � La Quinta, California 92253�----�-�. [ Re: CUP -94-01s Dear Commission Members: The undersigned represents the 3S Partnership which is the owner of parcels 2,31,4,5 and 7 Motors, Inc., which is the owner off parcel 1 of Parcel Ma all of which parcels are adjacent to the Parcel P 18418 and Simon Wash which is ro p 18418, P Posed for parcel 1 of Parcel Map d184 84uir. Car For over three and a half years, the 3S Partnership, Plaza, Inc. and Pomona First Federal Savings Simon which is the owner of parcel 6 of Parcel Mad 8418 PFFSb•) working with the City and its 1 P 18418 have been office/restaurant complex at the corner develop ofe Righwa i=lliclass Washington Street. Under our original plan, the 3S partnership and arranged to purchase the PFFSL parcel. had changing city zoning standards anregulationsandthe adverse adv se market conditions of the last several arse successful in completing the financial yarrangementseneces not sarybfor us to proceed with this complex which we continue to believe will be a very appropriate. and fitting entrance to the City. no further modification of cit r Assuming to believe that we will have our financing in plawe ce e end, and would be happy good reason staff. PFy to discuss those arrangements with your Lew owlets or BEST, BEST 6 KRIE3E!!. City of La Quinta Planning Commission November 1S, 1994 Page 2 and pBeccing haase the Puse we ve no greet been able to finalize our f p 1, PFFSL has informed us and the that while they are not originally supported, they Opposed wishtto our develop which they Parcel independently from he remainder of our parcels. of their While we can not object to the right of PFFSL to devel parcel on their own, we can and do object vehemently°p their current proposal to place a car wash on the most visible ° their the City. corner in When we first sold this parcel to PFFSL, their intent Place a branch of their bank on the parcel was to the balance of the propertyand we were to develop Market conditions have apparently in a first class manner, at this location. made them decide not to build a branch We have no alternative other than to respect their business decision. ourselves could however, while neither PFFSL nor be developed, we all ��agexactly ectl that the developed in a first class manner how the property would eventually restaurants nor automobile service stations -entire neither fastarcel food allowed on any of the tations or the like would be probably the highest marketivalue emightugh both Parties knew that that manner, Neither PFFSL nor ourselveeewanfound in developingin as a neighbor. Smagine what their responset sort of se they built a beautiful branch office on aged have been had Proposing a car wash immediately adjacent to themland we now were What what h has s been we oposed to you for the PFFSL parcel i Purpose of existence is theatteservicingevent -- a facility whose sole application prominent)out of automobiles. While their gasoline and that they fi�erad to die that they do not the proposed development is still Propose to sell guise it, the fact remains that without gas pumps -- a la as automotive service station out facility with its attendant large traffic is egenerator; e a °cars w serviced • Quick in, quick attendants noisy vacuum, out e washing lot and siting to be Process. Vying care and finishingmachine�d to us than a many nal s' this proposed use is more objectionable gas station. able We believe that our Covenants, Conditions and Restri iCC�R-sD prohibit this use ctions remedies against PFFSL should he City aw this use. Obviouslyfully intend to pursue our prefer that the matter be nipped in the bud ithoutHowever,the necessity of litigation, P _ i LAW 0I/tCta Op BEST, BEST 6 KRIEGER City of La Quinta Planning Commission November 18, 1994 Page 4 cc: Gilbert J. Smith, PFFSL John J. Pena, Mayor Glenda Bangerter, Mayor Pro Tem Stan Sniff, Council Member Son Perkins, Council Member G. Michael McCartney, Council Member Donald Adolph, Chairman Planning Commission Jacques Abels, Vice Chairman Paul Anderson, Commissioner Katie Barrows, Commissioner Richard Butler, Commissioner Wayne Gardner, Commissioner Elwin "Al" Newkirk, Commissioner IS2071 ATTACHMENT 3 Pomona first Federal Savings and Loan Association Since 1892 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 November 30, 1994 Subject: CUP 94-015; Selzer/3 S Partnership Letter of November 18, 1994 Dear Commission Members: We have no choice but to respond to the subject letter, because we feel it paints an inaccurate picture of the situation facing development of Pomona First Federal's Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 1841. It was not only market conditions that forced Pomona First Federal to reassess its intended use of our parcel. The rather significant takings of our property for the desired widening of Washington Street. have made the site unsuitable for a branch office. Taking that in stride, we agreed to sell the property to the 3S Partnership so it could proceed with its development plans. However, both we and the City seem to have been hearing representations for years now about how the Simon Plaza was going to come together soon. We agreed to several extensions of our sale escrow, until finally the 3S Partnership and Pomona First Federal were no longer able to stay in agreement as to a proposed sale. Taking that in stride also, we looked for and have found another willing buyer for our parcel, even though the parcel is becoming subject to even further takings so that the other side of Washington Blvd. can be widened to create a left-tum lane for the shopping center to the northwest. If our current buyer is prevented ;from proceeding with his proposed development, we will have to reevaluate whether any reasonable use remains for our site in light of the nearly 40% being taken by the City. We wish to strongly encourage the City to approve the proposed car wash use. We and our buyer are confident that the CC&IVs permit this use and we can litigate the issue if need be. More importantly, we believe that our buyees plans for this site provide a fitting entrance to the City. They include extensive beautification at the northerly comer of the site that will be done at the expense of the developer. Mr. Selzer is accurate in predicting that we would characterize his protest as an attempt to hold our parcel hostage, for we believe 11W is exactly the source of his motivation. The fact that the proposed use is "incompatible" with the plans of the 3S Partnership is unfortunate. However, they had their r) AdethdWativa Ott6oao: 350 South Garay Avenue • P.O. BOX 13M • Pomona, CaUtomut 91789 • (714) 023-2323 • (213) 625-7888 - (818) 984-YOW • (M) 972-0521 City of La Quinta Planning Commission November 30, 1994 Page 2 opportunity to control the destiny of our Parcel 6, and the time has now come for Pomona First Federal and the City to move forward with a realistic plan for this site that can be attained. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, a4e'el A& Robert L. Golish Senior Vice President ,Sr. Counsel cc: L. Rinehart, PFFSL F. Shannon, PFFSL Dick Baxley, Broker Jim Jarnagan, Buyer John J.Pena, Mayor Paul T. Selzer Glenda Bangerter, Mayor Pro Tern Stan Sniff, Council Member Ron Perkins, Council Member G. Michael McCartney, Council Member Donald Adolph, Chairman Planning Commission Jacques Abels, Vice Chairman Paul Anderson, Commissioner Katie Barrows, Commissioner Richard Butler, Commissioner Wayne Gardner, Commissioner Elwin "Al" Newkirk, Commissioner - Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association ATTACHMENT 4 ` CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GEM OF THE DBERT November 18, 1994 TO: CITY OF I,:i QUINT% Community Development Stan Sawa, Principal Planner FROM: LA QUINTA CHNMBER OF COMMERCE Planning and Review Dan Featheringill, President , The Executive Committee of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce recently met as the Planning and Review Subcommittee. They reviewed the above referenced project and rendered the following recommendation: While they were in favor of the car wash project in concept, they could not recommend approval at the proposed location. They expressed considerable concern regarding this project at the "gateway" (Tiwy.111 and Washington) to La Quinta. D P_ NOV 18 1994 CITY OF LA AUINTA PUNNING UEPAFITMENT n r) F } w�r��rr�rr nw yr _ r. 9rI AveLurkA nrn►n Ir1AC . I A r11 IMITA !'AI IrnvwnA Q11CI • 1AI Q1 C(.d_i 100 CAY IA101 CAA i1' ATTACHMENT ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Assessment No. 94-289 Case No. CUP 94-015 Date November 7, 1994 Name of ProponentJ . L. J a rn i g a n Address 38-490 Drangecrest Road, Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Phone 772-1803 Agency Requiring Checklist City of La nu i nta Project Name (if applicable) La Quinta Car Wash CITY OF LA QUINTA Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, California 92253 H. ENVIRONMENTAL ]FACTORS POTIENTIALLY 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 X Biological Resources Utilities Earth Resources Energy and Mineral Resources 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. w` 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 effects) 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 "potential significant unless mitigated " AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. November 6, 1994 Printed Name and Title Lesl ie Mouriquand-CherrgV. Associate P1 For CUP 94-015, EA 94-289 0 i ft-MMY ft-dony rpmew U" nm swo— UMM VVdk_ WD kVM MWOod bpa IMP" 3.1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X: (source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? t 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 commmaity)? 3.2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) bxhice 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? 3.3. EARTH AND GEOLOGY. Would the project rem& in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking 011, C) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? Eli d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 011 0 e) Landslides or madflows? C. M 0 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? 0 Unique geologic or physical features? n 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? 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 may? 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 glow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 3.5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard to contribute to an existing or projected air quality violations? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? e) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectional odors? to -buy Pb-" y SOMWO tr TbM $14"i-M udw Swuhau UP= Mood hopma Pb kMM i0h'{• i:L:t :F W. E ar P-wwly FM§dh" swakaw Lan Tb" w4wk- UdM SwAft- me 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, (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 001 2 iv powboy P-Owly SOW"M L4M Ttm $*Mr— ude" SWIM 16 h"M MMpled bMM d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 3.8. ENERGY AND MINIMAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X: 3.9. RISK OF UPSET/HUAL4N 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? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? 01 3.10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 110, 1 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? V PWNNMV poftedoy sk"M LAN nun 94wft- Ud= SIS"Ifina )b bV" b) Police protection? c) Schools? 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 ro the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? jj b) Communications systems? C) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? IWS e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? 3.13. AESTHMCS. Would the proposal. a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or loam? 3.14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources?. b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect =ique ethnic cultural values? C) Restrict existing religious of sacred uses within the potential Impact a=7 qS GI try rely SWAM LAW Thu $*Wk- Ud= s*dft- td bw- mwplea WW hoped 3.15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks of 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, SiY: environmental ,goals? ... •?ii:! :>< :irk 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).'" d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? F ' 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. INITIAL STUDY for the LA QUINTA CAR WASH CUP 94-105 in LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico LaQuinta, California 92253 November 7, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 2 3 4 INTRODUCTION Page 3 1.1 Overview of the Proposed Project............................................................. 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study.............................................................................. 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review ...................................................... 3 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Assessment ................................ 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ............................................... 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics of Proposed Project ............................................... 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics of Proposed Project .......................................... 4 2.4 Objectives of the Project............................................................................... 5 2.5 Discretionary Actions................................................................................... 5 2.6 Related Projects............................................................................................ 5 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning................................................................................6 3.2 Population and Housing...............................................................................8 3.3 Earth Resources...........................................................................................9 3.4 Water...........................................................................................................11 3.5 Air Quality...................................................................................................13 3.6 Transportation/Circulation..........................................................................15 3.7 Biological Resources.................................................................. 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources....................................................................19 3.9 Risk of Upset'Human Health.......................................................................20 3.10 Noise............................................................................................................ 21 3.11 Public Services.............................................................................................22 3.12 Utilities........................................................................................................ 23 3.13 Aesthetics.....................................................................................................25 3.14 Cultural Resources......................................................................................26 3.15 Recreation...................................................................................................28 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICNCE 28 L SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed La Quinta Car Wash. The proposed project site is 46,686.55 square feet of gross area, located at the southeast corner of State Highway 11 1 and Washington Street. The site consists of one parcel of land. The development envisioned for this project includes a 4,232-square foot carwash building, and a 2,670-square foot auto care building. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEiQA). 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 proposed development. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the La Quinta Car Wash, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This Initial Study provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed car wash. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the City of La Quinta with information to use as the basis for deciding whether prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration for the La Quinta Car Wash; To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating adverse acts before and EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a mitigated negative declaration; To assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is 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 environmental impact reports; and To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the project. 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On November 4, 1994, an application for approval of a full -service tunnel car wash was submitted to the City of La Quinta, by J. L. Jarnagin. The proposed car wash will be located on Parcel 6 of Parcel Map 18418, on the southeast corner of Washington Street and State Highway 111. Following this submittal, the City prepared an Initial Study, of which this addendum document is a part. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The Initial Study for the proposed La Quinta Car Wash indicates that there is a potential for adverse environmental impacts on some issue areas. These issue areas include water, biological resources, and transportation/circulation. Mitigation measures have been recommended to reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. As a result, a negative declaration of environmental impact will be recommended for this project. An EIR will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile city located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley. The City is bounded by the City of Indian Wells on the west, City of Indio and Riverside County on the east. Riverside County on the north, and federal lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed car wash will be l,xated on the southeast corner of Washington Street and State Highway 111, in the northern section of the City of La Quinta. The proposed development will consist of a one acre development with a full service luxury car wash and auto detail operation. The structures will feature an early California design consistent with the development standards of the City of La Quinta. Since the project will be located on a gateway coiner the proposed landscaping will be enhanced to provide an entry statement. The car wash building will be Iocated next to Washington Street and will be a 4232 square foot, one-story structure, 18 feet in height. The small auto care building will be located on the inside of the property, east of the car wash building, and will be 2095 square feet and two -stories (27 ft.) in height. The two buildings will be connected by a trellis structure. The second floor of the two-story building will provide office space for the car wash. 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The hours of operation for the car wash will be daily from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.. Access to the car wash will be from a right-in/right-out driveway off of Washington Street, to be located at the southern terminus of the project site. No gasoline will be sold, nor are gasoline pumps to be included in the proposed project. The mechanical equipment for the car wash operation will be hydraulic. Water used in the car wash operation is proposed to be recycled. 4 2.4 OBJECTIVES OF PROPOSED PROJECT The objectives the applicant intends to accomplish with the operation of the proposed car wash is to operate a profit -making enterprise that will provide a new service to residents of La Quinta and the surrounding area. Through the discretionary and environmental review process, the City Council will determine the nature and extent of benefits and costs (including environmental ) of the La Quinta Car Wash to the City and surrounding area. The City, through this process, will strive to achieve the following objectives: • To promote development that will provide the City with maximum economic benefits (revenue and employment); and • To ensure that future development is responsible for convibuting its' "fair share' in terms of infrastructure improvements and services required to mitigate potential adverse impacts. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project the government agency is the City Council for the City of La Quinta) that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed La Quinta Car Wash will require the following specific discretionary approvals from the La Quinta Planning Commission and La Quinta City Council: Approval of Conditional Use Permit - The proposed project will be required to obtain a conditional use permit prior to submitting construction plans for building permits. The City of La Quinta will need to approve and certify the environmental review process for the car wash project. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no related projects associated with this proposed project. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and subsequent operation of the proposed La Quiets Car Wash. The fifteen CEQA issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include the following: • Land Use and Planning • Population and Housing • Earth Resources • Water and Hydrology • Air Quality • Transportation/Circulation • Biological Resources • Energy/Mineral Resources • Risk of Upset/Human Health • Noise • Public Services • Utilities • Aesthetics • Cultural Resources • Recreation Under each issue, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions as they presently exist within the City and the area affected by the proposed development project. Then, a series of questions concerning the project's effects on the different environmental issues are listed. To each question, there are four possible responses: • No Impact. The proposed La Quinta Car Wash project will not have any measurable adverse environmental impacts. • Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will have the potential for impacting the environment, although this impact will be below thresholds that have been determined to be significant. • Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated. The proposed project will have impacts which may exceed thresholds of significance, although mitigation measures or changes to the project will reduce these impacts to acceptable levels. • Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project will have impacts which are considered significant and adverse and more detailed analysis is needed to identify mitigation measures that may reduce these impacts. Findings related to a statement of overriding considerations is a likely outcome of this review. 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 Seating The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which is located approximately 150 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 90 miles west of the Colorado River. The valley is located in the eastern portion of Riverside County. The Coachella Valley is a part of the larger Colorado Desert and was formed by a depression of the valley floor, caused by faulting in its early geologic history. This depression created a natural trough between the surrounding mountain ranges which, throughout the ages, experienced episodic inundations of sea water and fresh water. The Salton Sea, which currently exists in the Salton Sink area of the valley, is the latest of several inundations. The valley is abundant with both plant and animal life and has topographical relief ranging from -237 feet below sea level to about 2,000 feet above sea level. The valley is surrounded by the San Jacinto, San Bernardino, Santa Rosa, and Orocopia mountains, and is bisected by the San Andreas fault. There is a average of 4 inches of rainfall annually, and summer temperatures reach into the low 100's (F); however, the valley has not always been this hot and dry. Approximately 500,000 years ago the entire area was under water as the Gulf of California over -extended this contemporary desert area. The projects' regional location is shown in Exhibit 1. 6 Local Environmental Setdn, f The proposed project site is located in the City of La Quinta, which is in eastern Riverside County. The City is bounded by the City of Indian Wells to the west, City of Indio and Riverside County to the east, Riverside County to the north, and federal lands to the south. More particularly, the project site is located in the northern portion of the City on a one acre portion of a larger parcel located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway i 11. To the east of the project site is an existing auto dealership (Simon Motors). There is vacant land to the south of the site, a major arterial (Washington Street) adjacent to the- west, and Stare Highway i l l adjacent to the earth. Across the highway, there is a major commercial center (I I I La Quinta). Across Washington Street, there is an existing shopping center ( Plaza La Quinta).The closest residential development is located approximately 1,000 feet to the southwest of the project site. Adjacent land uses are shown in Exhibit 3-1. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? No Impact. The site is zoned C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) in the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance and is designated as Mixed/Regional Commercial (M/RC) in the La Quinta General Plan. The entire area adjacent to the south side of State Highway I I I is designated a Mixed/Regional Commercial, with the CP- S zoning. The City of Indian Wells is located within 2000 feet of the project site, to the west. Riverside County jurisdiction is located within 1,000 feet to the north of the project. County land adjacent to the city limits consist of residentially4lesignated parcels with varying density ranges. However, the City of Indian Wells General Plan is undergoing revision whereby this parcel is proposed to be changed to a commercial designation, since it is in their sphere of influence. The City of Indio is located approximately one mile to the northeast. Residential development is planned for in this location. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over the proposed project. The primary environrneatal plans and policies related to development on site are identified in La Quinta's General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment for the City. The project site is located within the La Quinta Redevelopment Area #2 which includes the majority of the northern section of the City. The redevelopment plan for the area relies upon the General Plan to indicate the location and extent of permitted development. As a result, the proposed car wash is not inconsistent with the adopted Redevelopment Plan.. The development envisioned for this project will not exceed the development standards contained in the City of La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. C. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or Impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. No agricultural lands are located on or near the site. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation. There are no existing agricultural producing activities within or adjacent to the proposed project site. Thai, no impact on agricultural resources or operations will result from the proposed project. (Sources: La Quinta General Plan; Zoning Ordinance; Site Survey) „ r- D. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a lover -income or minority community)? No Impact. The project site does not contain any residential use and the immediate areas is partially developed with commercial uses. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 500 feet to the southwest and are separated by Washington Street, a major arterial. The proposed La Quinta Car Wash will not disrupt or divide this community. Other residential areas are located to the north and south of the project site. This proposal will not affect the physical arrangement of these neighborhoods (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U. S. Census, making it the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. The number of city residents blossomed from 4,992 to 11, 215. La Quinta's share of the entire valley population increased from 3.7% in 1990 to 5.1% in 1990. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). The City's population as of January 1994 is estimated by the State Department of Finance to be 16, 634 persons. This is an increase of 208% in the last ten years. In addition to permanent residents, the City has approximately 8,000 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City of La Quinta. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in La Quinta are used by seasonal residents. The average occupancy is 2.5 persons per unit. The housing stock as of 1993 is listed at 7,755 single family units, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes, for a total of 8,483 units. Ethnicity information form the 1980 Census, for the area that is now the City of La Quinta, revealed that 80.8% of the La Quinta resident population as caucasian, 14.7% as hispanic, 2.3% as afro-american, 1.1% as asian, and .5% as native american. The results of the 1990 Census show a mix of 700/9 caucasian, 26% hispanic, 1.61/o afro-american, 1.5% asian, and 1.0% native american. The most current information available on employment of La Quinta residents is from the 1980 Census. At that time, almost 57% of the La Quinta work force worked at white collar jobs, while 43.3% were in blue collar occupations. Among those in white collar jobs, 16.4% were professional/technical positions, 13.3% were in managerial positions, 14.0% were in clerical positions and 13.0% were in sales. For blue collar workers, 15.6% were in crafts, 4.1% were machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors, 14.2% were in service jobs, 3.8% were laborers, and 5.6% did farm work. Major employers in La Quinta include the La Quinta Hotel Golf & Tennis Resort, PGA West, Von's, Simon Motors, City of La Quinta, Wal-Mart, Aibertson's, and Ralph's. For planning purposes, the Southern California Association of Governments has projected employment, housing, and population for cities that make up the SCAG region. A key objective of SCAG's Growth Management Plan is to achieve jobs/housing balance within each subregion that makes up the larger SCAG planning area. The ideal jobs/housing balance ratio, according to SCAG is 1.27 jobs for every housing unit in 1994 and 1.22 in the year 2010. Jobs -rich (housing -poor) regions have ratios greater than the regional average while housing -rich (job -poor) regions have ratios less than the regional average. Local Environmental Selling The project site is currently vacant and no housing units are located on site. In addition, there. are no commercial or industrial activities occurring on site and no persons are employed at the site. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? No Impact. The proposed car wash is expected to employ as many as 7 employees at full operation, this will include 5 full-time employees, and 2 part-time employees. The additional 7 jobs will be beneficial in terms of improving the overall jobs/housing balance and the current levels of unemployment in the City (Source SLAG Growth Management Plan, La Quinta Car Wash application) B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Infrastructure)? No Impact. As indicated previously, estimates from the project applicant indicate that approximately 7 persons would be employed at the proposed car wash. The proposal is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in the demand for new housing in the area. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. No existing residential units are located on the project site or in the immediate area. No public funds will be expended for this project that could otherwise be used to build housing. All financing of this project is coming from private (non-public) sources. The proposed La Quinta Car Wash would not result in the displacement or removal of any existing housing units. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 3.3 EARTH RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat topography, except for the hillside areas on the southern portion of the City. The City has elevations of 1,400 feet above mean sea level (msl.) in the southern hillside area to a low of approximately 30 feet above msl in the northeastern section. Slopes on the valley areas of the City are gentle, with ranging from 00/6 to 10%, while hillside areas on the south and southwest have slopes of 10% or greater. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef hills. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands in most areas. Local Environmental Setting The project area is generally urbanized. A review of historical aerial photographs indicates that the site has never been developed. According to the U.S.G.S. La Quinta 71/2 minute quadrangle, the site's elevation is 60 feet msl. Local relief is minimal, although the site seems to slope gently to the northeast. There is an inferred fault located approximately 2200 feet north of the project site, however, there has been no recorded fault activity, thus there is a low probability for such activity. The City of La Quinta lies in a seismically active region of Southern California Faults in the area include the San Andreas fault located several miles to the north, and two inferred faults transecting the southern section of the City. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: faun rupture? 9 No Impact. There are three inferred faults located within the City of La Quinta. These local faults are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along any of these faults would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong groundshaking effects in La Quinta. None of the faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Thus, no fault rupture hazard is present on site. (Source: Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan; City of La Quinta General Plan; City of La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment) B. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground shaking or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site will be subject to groundshaking hazards from regional and local earthquake events. The proposed project will bring people to the site who will be subject to hazards associated with groundshaking. The Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan indicates that the project site is within Groundshaking Zone IV. The proposed structures will be constructed pursuant to current seismic standards to reduce the risk of structural collapse. The La Quinta General Plan indicates that the project site is not within an identified liquefaction hazard area. The majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility, because ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the surface in these areas. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche or tsunami? No Impact. The City is located inland from the Pacific Ocean and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast section of the city might experience some high wave activity as a result of an earthquake and grounshaking. However, the lake is not anticipated to affect the City of La Quinta in the event of a levee failure or seiche. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudslides? No Impact. The terrain within the project is level and no hazards associated with landslides will occur. (Source: U.S.G.S. La Quinta 7 1/2 minute quadrangle; Site Survey) E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill? No Impact. The soils and geotechnical investigations of the site showed that the site is underlain by alluvial despots of Pleistocene age. The soils on site consist of Coachella fine Sandy loam. From 0 to I0 inches the soil is fine sandy loam. From 10 to 40 inches, it is sand, fine sand, and from 40 to 60 inches deep, the soil is loamy sand, and loamy fine sand. This soil is moderately alkaline and slightly calcareous, with a few scattered freshwater shells in association. The surface soil layer is I I inches thick, and the underlying layer is 60 inches or more thick. Runoff is medium, erosion hazard is slight. This soil has a moderate blowsand hazard. Water capacity is between 10 and 15 inches. The proposed development will maintain the existing topography. No hazards associated with changes in topography and unstable soil conditions are expected from development on site. Compliance with the recommendations of geotechnical studies will ensure the structural integrity of development on the site. (Sources: U.S. D.A. Soil Conservation Service) F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? 10 No Impact. The site is not located in an area which is considered to have subsidence hazards, according to the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment. Thus, no subsidence hazards to the La Quinta Car Wash are expected. Soil surveys undertaken on adjacent parcels indicated that, while standard engineering procedures should be followed, there does not appear to be any risk of subsidence associated with future development of the site. (Sources: La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment; Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan) G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils.? No Impact. The underlying soils on the site do not have a high potential for expansion. Thus, construction of the project is not expected to be subject to expansive soils. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to approval of the building permit. (Sources: USDA Report and General Soils Map for the Coachella Valley) H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features? No Impact. The Coral Reef Mountains and the Santa Rosa Mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta Area. These unique geologic and physical features are not located on or near the project site and will not be affected by the proposed project. (Sources: U.S.G.S. La Quinta Quadrangle; Proposed Site Plan) 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental Setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers ( porous layers of rock material) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater basin which is the major supply of water for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable water irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the under -ground aquifer via thirteen wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). La Quinta is located primarily in the lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal subarea is separated into the upper and lower valley sub -basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of State highway I I I and Washington Street, opposite the proposed project site. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated to federal drinking water standards and distributed to users through the existing potable water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality in the area. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water at depths of 400 to 600 feet is considered excellent. 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 fixture. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in Lake Cahuilla; lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated 11 ground water; and the Whitewater River and it's tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing in the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quints is participating in completing permitting requirements. Local Environmental Selling The project site does not have any standing surface water on or near it. The nearest stand of surface water is Lake Cahuilla, located several miles to the southeast of the project site. The Whitewater River channel is located approximately 1200 felt north of the project site, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The City has limited areas which are subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas within the City are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation Areas, W- 1).The intent of the zoning district is to allow development in flood prone areas based upon the submittal of a drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed site plan for the car wash indicates that almost all of the facility will be paved, except for landscaped areas at the corner of Washington Street and State Highway 111, and other planters. This pavement will prevent ground absorption and result in additional storm runoff volumes from the site. The site does not serve as a recharge basin for groundwater resources. Storm water will be directed to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? No Impact. The site is within the X designated flood hazard area. The X zone includes those areas that are outside the 500-year flood plain. The project site is also outside of the 100-year flood plain. The site is protected by the Whitewater River flood channel. An all-weather bridge on Washington Street spans the flood channel. (Source: La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment) C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Then Significant Impact. Runoff on site will be directed into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. There are no bodies of surface water on or adjacent to the project site. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? No Impact. Although an increase in runoff volume will occur, this increase is not expected to be a significant amount of surface water. The size of the project represents less than 1% of the drainage tributary area for the City. ta'r. d.e,e 12 E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any substantial bodies of water or rivers. The Whitewater River flood channel is located north of the project site and will handle runoff water from the project and surrounding areas. F. Would the project result in changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? No Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater's and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. The proposed Car wash will consume approximately 1,500 to 2,000 gallons per day, and is not considered a significant increase. The proposed water consumption will not substantially change the amount of groundwater pumped from local wells. Water will be consumed by watering of landscaping and the car wash operation, which will recycle almost all of the water used in the operation. G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? No Impact. The car wash will have no groundwater wells on site and excavation during construction will not be deep or widespread enough to intercept local aquifers. The water consumption anticipated from the proposed project is not expected to require substantial pumping of groundwater resources. Thus, no alteration in the direction or rate of flow of groundwater resources is expected. (Sources: Proposed Site Plan) 8. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? No Impact. The project site will be paved and ground absorption on site will be reduced. The storm runoff on site will be discharged into a city storm drain that will be directed to the Whitewater River channel. A substantial portion of the proposed project site will be paved and used for parking area. Crankcase oil, hydrocarbons, and other particulate and liquid contaminates may be deposited on the pavement from the parked vehicles. Following a heavy rain, these materials would be transported into the nearby storm channel and could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Regional Environmental Setting The Coachella Valley, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), is in the SEDAB which has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The SEDAB is .not classified as an extreme non -attainment area for ozone and therefore, the District has not changed the significance thresholds for the Coachella Valley from the 1987 version of the SCAQMD Handbook. A discussion of the jurisdictional organization and requirements is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). The air quality in the Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and Federal clean air standards established by California Air Resources Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are often exceeded. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. The SCAQMD samplers air quality at over 32 monitoring stations in and around the Basin. According to the 1989 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of the SCAQMD experiences poor air quality, but to a lesser extent than the South Coast Basin. Currently, the Southeast Desert Air Basin does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter. In the Coachella Valley, the standards for PM- 13 10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due to winds, grading acti%ity on construction sites, and by vehicles driving on unpaved roads, among other causes. Locut Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta 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 meteorology of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), a plan which describes measures designed to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City of La Quinta contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional Air Quality Management Plan. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs and one in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area and has been collecting data for ozone and particulate since 1983. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulates and has been in operation since 1985. A. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no significant pollutants anticipated to result from the operation of the car wash and auto detailing uses. There will be some pollutants as a result of vehicular traffic from patrons of the car wash. Staff calculated the potential emissions without mitigation through a computerized program. Calculations were made for Work Trip Running Emissions, Non -Work Trip Running Emissions, Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions, Non -Work Trip Start & Soak Emissions, and other evaporative emissions. A emissions summary utilizing worst case factors was projected for both vehicular and stationary emissions with the following totals: EMISS. THRES. %THRES. MITIGATED %THRES. CO 247.4 550.0 45% 247.4 45% ROC 27.0 55.0 49% 27.0 49% NOX 39.3 55.0 71% 39.3 71% SOX 2.7 150.0 2% PM10 4.8 150.0 3% 4.8 3% LEAD 0.007 N/A N/A The above emission levels do not exceed any thresholds set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as they pertain to the desert area. Thus, there are no potential adverse air quality impacts of a significant level as a result of this project. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? No hupact. Sensitive Receptor Land Uses include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation areas, medical facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include concentrations of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. There are no sensitive receptor land uses adjacent or nearby the project site. Thus, there is no impact regarding this issue. (Source: La Quinta General Plan) 14 C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. The proposed project will feature two connected structures, a main car wash building and an auto detail/office building. The total height of the buildings will be 28 feet. Much of the 1 acre parcel will remain open and used for parking and driveways. The proposed structures are not large enough to create any changes in air movements, moisture or temperature. The car wash operation will involve the use of water, which will be recycled, that could create a slight, on -site increase in humidity. However, this increase in humidity will not be enough to create an adverse impact to the project or any of the land uses nearby. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) d. Would the project create objectionable odors? No Impact. The proposed project will not be involved in activities which may create objectionable odors, such as waste hauling or the production of chemical and food products. The car wash and auto detailing uses may create some odors frorn soaps and compounds used in their operation, however, these odors are anticipated to be mild and not unpleasant. Vehicles traveling on State Highway I I I and Washington Street generate gaseous and particulate emissions that have odors. Odors from both sources are noticeable on the project site. (Sources: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental Setting La Quinta is a desert community of over 16,000 permanent residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system serves development in four general areas, primarily single-family detached residential uses north of the Coachella Valley stormwater channel, golf course and gated single -fancily residential communities in the vicinity of the La Quinta Hotel; a mix of medium density single-family detached uses and office and retail uses in the Cove and Village areas; and a mix of attached and detached single-family and golf course uses in PGA West, located south of Avenue 54. The La Quinta roadway system consists of State Highway 111, which runs east -west and divides the city north -south, major, primary and secondary arterial streets as well as a system of local and collector streets. Key roadways in the City include State highway I 11, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Street, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early -spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volume periods. Nigh traffic volumes and out -dated geometrics contribute to the relatively high incidence of automobile accidents at the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west of the City. Two lines operate along State Highway 1 I I serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the Coachella Valley. There are some existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quints, however, these systems are to be developed as the city grows. 15 Loco! E'nvironmead Setting The proposed project is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of State Highway 1 I I and Washington Street. In 1986, the Washington Street Corridor Specific Plan was prepared for the City by BSI Consultants, Inc. In this document, Washington Street is described as being a "gateway" into the central core of the City of La Quinta. The limits of Washington Street, as a transportation corridor, extend approximately six miles south from the Interstate 10 Freeway to 52nd Avenue, with major intersections along this route. Parcels along Washington Street, south of State Highway 111, consist of developed and undeveloped land. An auto dealership is located adjacent to the east. Immediately to the south, there are vacant parcels; further south there is residential development. Adjacent to the west of the project site, is Washington Street; further west is the Point Happy ranch, a historic point in the City, and residential development. To the north is State Highway I I I and north of that is a major commercial shopping center. In previous studies of potential traffic and circulation impacts, various segments of Washington Street were forecasted to carry extremely high volumes of traffic in the future. It was estimated that over 55,000 vehicles per day would travel on Washington Street south of I-10 Freeway. It was determined that if these projected increased were to occur, Washington Street would require a minimum of six lanes of travel and intensive Transportation System Management (TSM) applications to provide an acceptable level of service. The Washington Street/Highway I 1 I intersection is projected to be most severely and immediately impacted by increases in traffic. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The proposed project is forecasted to generate a daily average two-way traffic volume of 1,080 trips. The A.M. Generated Peak Hour Total trips is 40, and the P.M. Generated Peak Hour Total is 80 trips. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) prepared a Regional Arterial Program (RAP) in response to the Riverside County Congestion Management Plan (CUP) which serves as the mitigation program for the Washington Street and Highway I I I intersection. The Regional Arterial Program studied the worst case build -out scenario for the area around the intersection. Other traffic studies have been prepared for more intense projects proposed for the car wash project site. In these cases, mitigation for traffic impacts was contained in the RAP. The proposed car wash is a less intense land use, thus there will be less adverse impacts that previous projects for this site which were to be satisfactorily mitigated by the requirements of the RAP. Mitigation for the car wash will be satisfied by the RAP requirements. B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Potentially Significant unless Mitigated. The project will provide a driveway at the southern terminus of the parcel. Access will be by a right -in right -out maneuver, as Washington Street is a divided major arterial. The driveway entrance is approximately 290 feet south of the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111. Egress from the car wash will require traffic to turn into a right turn lane onto the highway. The right -in right -out design is the only possible maneuver if access is off of Washington Street. However, it is recommended that the car wash project be conditioned to provide access off of Simon Drive if required by the City, and to abandon the proposed access off of Washington Street. This requirement will reduce the potential for accidents on Washington Street as a result of ingress and egress from the car wash. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? 16 No Impact. The proposed project will not obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. (Source: Project Site Plan) D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off site? No Impact. A survey of parking needs at other car washes offering the same services was undertaken in order to determine the parking needs for this project. It was determined by staff and the applicant that 10 spaces were needed for employee parking. One of these spaces will be reserved for handicapped parking Customers would not need permanent parking spaces as they would be driving their cars into the entrance of the car wash building and the vehicle would proceed through the wash and out into the finishing area and then the customer would leave the premises. The finishing area provides four staking lanes each accommodating two cars, for a total stacking of 8 cars. The City of La Quinta Zoning Ordinance does not contain parking standards for car washes, thus, staff and the applicant determined the parking need based upon the needs of other existing car wash facilities. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? No Impact. The entire length of Washington Street, within the City of La Quinta, is a designated bicycle corridor. The north bank of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River) is also a designated bikeway corridor. The south side of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 11 I has a designated pedestrian crosswalk controlled by traffic signalization_ Currently, the number of pedestrians and bicyclists in the immediate area appears to be moderate. Pedestrians are observed crossing the street to reach the bus stop Located adjacent to the project site on the east side of Washington Street. Occasionally, bicyclists are observed crossing the highway along Washington street going north. The greatest potential for pedestrian/bicycle accidents will involve traffic on Washington Street. (Source: Site Survey) F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? No Impact. The project does not propose to eliminate the existing bus stop located adjacent, to the west property fine of the project site, or the bus stop located along the northern property line on the south side of Highway 111. There is no existing City policy that would require that this type of land use be required to install a bicycle rack, as the customers would not be riding bicycles to the facility, and the limited number of employees would not necessitate a bicycle rack. (Source: Application Material) G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There are no railroad tracks, navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes within the City of La Quinta, thus, there will be no adverse impacts. (Source: U.S. G. S. La Quints Quadrangle; Site Survey) 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Settings 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 and agricultural. A discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). 17 Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem. Typically undeveloped land within this ecosystem is rich in biological resources and habitat. The Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem is the most typical environment in the Coachella Valley. It is generally categorized as containing plants which have the ability to economize water uses, go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Cacti are very common in these areas due to their ability to store water. Other plants root deeply and draw upon water from considerable depths. The major variations of desert vegetation result from differences in the availability of water. The most dense and lush vegetation in the desert is found where groundwater is most plentiful. Dominant plants include: Creosote bush Bur -sage Ocotillo Barrel Cactus Jumping cholla Smoke -tree Mesquite Four -wing saltbush Agave Desert lavender (Larrea tridentata) (Ambrosia dumosa) (Fouquieria splendens) (Ferocactus acanthodes) (Opuntia bigelovii) (Dalea spinosa) (Prosopis glandulosa) (Atriplex canescens) (Agave deserti) (Hyptis emoryi) The Sonoran Scrub areas are considered habitat for a number of small mammals. These animals escape the summer heat through their nocturnal and/or burrowing tendencies. Squirrels, mice and rats are all common rodent species in the Sonoran Desert. The black -tailed hare is a typical mammal. Predator species include kit fox, coyote, and mountain lion in the higher elevations. The largest mammal species found in this area is the Peninsular Big Horn Sheep which is found at the higher elevations of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountain ranges. Birds and amphibians/reptiles can also be found in the Sonoran Scrub area. The project site, however, is vacant, but has been disturbed by grading activities of adjacent parcels and roadways in the recent past. There is sparse vegetation on the parcel. The La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment indicates that the property is located within the biological habitats of the Vermilion Flycatcher, Black -tailed Gnatcatcher, Crissal Thrasher, Le Conte's Thrasher, and the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. These wildlife species are listed as either endangered or threatened. The Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard has been listed as endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission and a threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service since 1980. The species is highly adapted to loose, windblown sand and is able to rapidly run over the sand. The mapped description of the lizard's habitat includes the sand dunes north of Avenue 50. To mitigate the loss of the lizard's habitat due to development, there is a development fee which is used to acquire and maintain habitat areas in a Habitat Conservation Preserve near Thousand Palms. The City of La Quinta participates in this fee program as mitigation for habitat loss. Four bird Species of Special Concern for the California Department of Fish and Game have been spotted in the Indian Wells/La Quinta border. They are the Vermilion Flycatcher, the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher, the Crissal Thrasher and Le Conte's Thrasher. The Gnatcatcher and Flycatcher are considered endangered by the California Department of Fish and Game and the two Thrasher's are considered rare and having restricted ranges. 18 A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? Potentially Significant Unless :Mitigated. The project site is within the designated habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. To mitigate the habitat loss as a result of development of the car wash, the applicant will be required to pay the Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Fee at the current rate prior to submitting an application for a grading permit. (Sources: La Quinta MEA) & Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of LaQuinta. All significant biological resources are designated by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (Sources: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey) C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found on or near the project site. The surrounding parcels are developed with structures or roadways. The project site has been disturbed in the recent past, thus there are no existing biological resources of local significance on the property. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey) D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There are no wetlands, marshes, riparian communities, or vernal pools on the proposed project site or nearby. Thus, there is no impact to these issue areas. (Source: La Quinta MEA; Site Survey) E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? No Impact. The immediate area around the proposed project site is developed, except for the parcel to the south. There are no known wildlife corridors within this project area. (Source: La Quinta MEA) 3.3 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Sening The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource 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 energy sources of the Imperial Irrigation District, the Southern California Gas Company. and gasoline companies. Local Environmental Selling There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing resources on the proposed project site. While the site is undeveloped, it is not a source of soil or gravel resources due to its limited size. The property is located within MRZ-1, a designation for those areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that little likelihood exists for their presence. A. \Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 19 No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan. However, the City does have a Transportation Demand Management ordinance in place that focuses on the conservation of fuel. The Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in housing construction, thus reducing energy consumption. The proposed car wash will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements in its construction. No other mitigation is required for this issue. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Then Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by this project include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction. The size of the proposed car wash indicates that resources needed for construction are not going to be significant. Operation of the project will increase the demand for energy but the car wash is not expected to consume energy or resources in a wastefW manner. Lighting for security will be minimal. Water will be used in the car wash operation, the majority of which will be recycled. Landscaping will require watering and fresh water will be added to the car wash operation to compensate for evaporation. The applicant state that the car wash will feature efficient, state-of-the-art, hydraulic mechanical equipment. The project will be required to comply with Title 24 requirements related to energy conservation. Landscaping will also be required to comply with the landscape water conservation ordinance requirements as well as requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. 3.9 RISK OF UPSET/HUMAN HEALTH Regional Environmental Seuing Recent growth pressure has dramatically increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not located in 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, although transportation of such materials out of, and around La Quinta takes place. Local Environmental Setting In order to comply with AB 2948, "Hazardous Waste- Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures", the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. The project site has not been used for manufacturing uses in the past. However, the site is located adjacent to a major arterial and a state highway, both impacted by frequent high traffic volumes. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Less The Significant Impact. Detergents, waxes, and window cleaners will be used in the car wash operation. The auto detailing operation could use waxes, solvents, and other cleaners that will require adequate ventilation and no open flame or heating elements in the near vicinity. The applicant will be required to comply with all applicable OSHA and EPA regulations. B. Would the project. involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 20 No Impact. Construction activities will be confined to the site and on site operations will not interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. (Source. Proposed Site Plan) C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed car wash will comply with health and safety regulations for work place conditions, including training personnel in safety procedures. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no existing health hazards on site. The proposed car wash is not expected to create any health hazard. The car wash will be required to conform to zoning standards, and all applicable health and safety codes. (Sources: Site Survey) 3.10 NOISE Regional Environmental Setting Noise levels in the City of La Quinta 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 noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterials in the City. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise level at the proposed project site is dominated by vehicle traffic noise from State Highway 111 and Washington Street. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nightime hours. The nearest residential use to the project site is approximately 750 feet southwest, across Washington Street. This is the location of the Point Happy Ranch, on which there are several houses. Other residential areas near the project site are located approximately 3,500 feet south of the project (Lake La Quinta), and approximately 3,500 feet north (Palm Royale Country Club) across the Whitewater River Flood Channel. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The increase in vehicle noise at the surrounding street system is not expected to create any discernible increase in the existing noise levels. The mechanical equipment that operates the car wash will be enclosed within a building that should reduce any operational noise detectible outside of the building. Staff has determined that the proposed car wash project is most compatible with Wholesale Commercial and Manufacturing land uses. The Land Use Community Noise Equivalent Levels (CNEL) table in the LaQuinta MEA indicates that Wholesale commercial and Manufacturing land uses can have a noise level of up to 75 CNEL value. Up to 65 CNEL is clearly acceptable and up to 75 CNEL is normally acceptable. In order for the car wash to have a less than significant noise impact, the operational noise levels will not be able to exceed 75 CNEL. Construction materials and structural design must take noise containment and reduction into account for this project. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Commercial areas should have a maximum exterior noise levels 21 of up to 75 CNEL from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. If the ambient noise level is higher than these standards, then it will serve as the standard. The proposed project may result in short-term noise impacts associated with construction activities During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. (Source: La Quinta General Plan) 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff Department. The Sheriff Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. The Sheriff Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies/1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in the City at buildout. Based on this standard, the City is currently underserved. Fire protection service is provided in the City by Riverside County Fire Department. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Avenue 52 west of Washington Street, and Station #70 at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firemen/1,000 population, the City is currently under -served. The Fire Department has indicated that a need exists for a third fire station in the northern part of the City between Washington Street and Jefferson Street. Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillside areas are barren and scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire hazard. Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City of La Quinta. There is one elementary school, one junior high school, and one high school within the City. The City is also within the College of the Desert Community College District. Library services in La Quinta are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and contains 2,065 square feet of space and approximately 18,000 volumes. The County utilizes unadopted planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this standard, in 1992, the City was underserved in space but overserved in terms of volumes. Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility located in the Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center. The Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility is a satellite clinic of Eisenhower Medical Center, located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental Setting The nearest fire station to the project site is Station #32 located approximately 2.7 miles south. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by city staff at the Civic Center and by other county, state, and federal agency offices in the desert area. The project is serviced by Adams -Truman Elementary School, La Quinta Middle School, and La Quinta High School. 22 A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed car wash will increase fire protection requirements due to the construction of a building on the vacant lot. The project must comply with fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazards on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Fire flows of 1250 gpm at 20 psi for 2 hours will be needed. Unobstructed fire access will also be needed to facilitate Fire Department response. Other code requirements (such as emergency exits, alarm and sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) will be required. A supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the uniform Building Code/Riverside County Fire Department and National Fire Protection Association Standard 71 will be required. (Source: Riverside County Fire Department) B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Riverside County Sheriffs Department was given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed car wash project. However, comments have not been received from this department as of December 7, 1994. It is not anticipated that there will be any signficant adverse impact upon police protection services from the proposed car wash. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Then Significant Impact. The 6,327 square foot car wash facility is expected to have a maximum of 7 employees. Indirect student generation due to increased demand for housing in the area is estimated to generate .72 students (at 0.0001145013 student per square foot). School impact fees will reduce potential impacts to the Desert Sands Unified School District. (Source: Desert Sands Unified School District) D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Then Significant Impact. the project site is currently served by existing infrastructure, including public roadways such as Washington Street and State Highway 1 11. The proposed project will not require new or altered government services for the maintenance of these roadways and other public facilities. (Source: Site Survey; Proposed Site Plan) E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Then Significant Impact. Building, engineering, and planning services needed for the project will be offset by permit fees charged to the project applicant. The car wash will generate revenue for the City which will be used to pay the costs of governmental and City services incurred. (Source: Project application information) 3.12 UTELITIES Regional Environmental Setting 23 The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for power supply and the Southern California Gas Company (SC.) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydro electric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services in the City. Colony Cablevision serves the City of La Quinta with cable television service. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from 13 wells located throughout the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs in the City. Sanitary sewage is collected and treated by the CVWD. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect.and transport flows through the City. The City of La Quinta is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Non- hazardous, mixed municipal solid waste to three landfills within the Coachella Valley. Local EnWronmentul Setting There are natural gas lines located along the west and north sides of the project site, along Washington Street and State Highway 111. A sanitary sewer force main is located along the west side of Washington Street. A water truck line runs along Washington Street, west of the project site. Storm water runoff from the project site is directed north to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River). (Source: La Quinta General Plan) A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas services? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed development will require electric power services. Consumption factors are not known at this time. It is not anticipated that the project will require a significant level of electricity or natural gas to result in the need for new systems or alterations to existing systems. The project applicant will have to coordinate with IID and SCG for the timely provisions of power and natural gas services. B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will require telephone services from GTE. Coordination with GTE will prevent any impact on communication systems. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water services. Based on a consumption rate of 2,000 gallons per day for the car wash, the majority of which will be recycled, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant adverse impact upon the water resources or water system in the City. D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Then Significant Impact. The proposed car wash will generate sewage which will have to be processed by the CVWD sewage treatment facility. Since the car wash will be recycling the majority of the 24 water used in its' operation, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant adverse impact to the existing sewer system. (Source: Application Materials) E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? Less Then Significant Impact. The project site is currently vacant and unpaved and storm runoff flows into existing catch basins in the area. The development of the project will lead to the paving of the site, except for scattered planter areas. Thus, storm runoff will have to be directed into the existing storm drain, which is the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, located north of the project site. Due to the relatively small size of the project site in comparison to the drainage tributary area of the storm drain system in the area, the runoff volume from the site is not expected to represent a significant amount of the runoff handled by existing drains. (Source. Proposed Site Plan) F. Would the project M-suit in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed car wash will require solid waste disposal services from Waste Management of the Desert. Solid waste from the site may be transported to the existing landfills in the Coachella Valley. The project must comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies. On site programs will need to be coordinated with Waste Management. 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental Setting The City of La Quinta is located within a desert valley cove, with hillside on the west and south. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located in a commercial corridor along State Highway 111. Existing commercial structures in the corridor cannot exceed 50 feet in height. Most commercial buildings nearby have neutral, soft -toned desert colors, with wall -mounted identification signs below roof -lines or monument signs close to the ground. Views from the site include the commercial structures north of the highway, the San Bernardino Mountains to the far north, the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the south, and the cove residential development also to the south and southwest. A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. State Highway 1 I 1 and Washington Street are designated as Primary Image Corridors on the La Quinta General Plan. The La Quints MEA indicates that the project site is within Distinctive Viewshed No. 3 with high sensitivity for impact. Distinctive viewsheds are identified through their close proximity (within 2 miles) to elevational high points and exhibit a high visual sensitivity. View Point #3 is located north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel, the 90 degree viewshed of attractive views and 270 degree viewshed of common views creates a combined low level of visual sensitivity. The immediate surroundings of the project site include both developed parcels and vacant parcels. Thus, the vista has already been impacted by previous development. State Highway 11 l is a designated scenic highway. The zoning designation for the commercial corridor along the highway is Scenic Commercial (CPS). This designation requires an enhanced architectural standard for development, and an enhanced landscaping standard. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? I; r 25 Less Than Significant Impact. While actual building plans have not been finalized, the proposed car wash will be designed as a two -component structure with a roof connection between the car wash and the auto detailing area. The upstairs offices will have central air conditioning and heating systems, with glazing on the second floor of the structure A ground -level monument sign is proposed at the corner of the property facing the intersection. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed car wash will be open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and interior and exterior lights will be provided. It is possible that there will be illuminated signage for the facility, however, the applicant has not submitted sign plans. There will be exterior security lighting. All lighting will be required to comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance that requires shielding and down -tasted lighting of low- level wattage. No adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed fighting. (Source: Proposed Site Plan) 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental Setting The history of the City of La Quinta extends back to an era when much of the Coachella Valley was inundated by ancient Lake Cahuilla. Early inhabitants of the Colorado Desert were people who had migrated across the Bering Strait more than 20,000 years ago. As their migration progressed, they passed through the Colorado Desert on their way to Central America where the Inca and Mayan civilizations were founded. As time passed, the Coachella Valley became the home of a band of people that have come to be known as the Cahuilla Indians. The Cahuilla followed a hunting and gathering life style as they lived along the Lakeshore and cove areas in the Valley. The archaeological record extends back almost 6,000 years. The Cahuilla were divided into three geographic areas of the Valley: Western or Pass Cahuilla within Agua Caliente (Palm Spring area), Desert Cahuilla (from Palm Springs east to the Salton Sea), and the Mountain Cahuilla (south of San Jacinto Peak in the Santa Rosa Mountains). Travel across boundaries to exploit seasonal resources for ceremonial purposes was a part of their annual cycle. Alfred Kroeber estimated that the original population (2500 individuals) had been reduced to about 750 by 1923. The most likely locations of prehistoric cultural resources in La Quinta are along the foot of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains. These resources are likely associated with the availability of water and food resources. Temporary campsites can be found near game trails, springs, mesquite groves, grass stands, bedrock outcrops near food or water resources, marshy areas, or along the ancient lake shore. Isolated milling features, sparse lithic scatters, and isolated pottery scatters can be found almost anywhere in the City. In 1540, the first European explorer, Captain Hernando de Alarcon, entered Southern California at the Yuma crossing, which is located to the southeast of La Quinta. Approximately 100 years later, Spanish missionaries visited the area. A trail was established by the Cocomaricopa Indians across the Valley in 1821 as they carried mail through the San Gorgonio Pass between Tucson and Mission San Gabriel. White settlement in the Valley did not occur to any degree until the transcontinental railroad was constructed. The construction of the railroad brought with it the technology to drill water wells deep enough to sustain settlement in the Valley. The Bradshaw Road brought in settlers and freight both before and after the construction of the railroad. The Coachella Valley was the site of the most popular immigration route to the Southwest via the Southern Immigrant Trait 'The Bradshaw Trail route passed through the Valley until 1915 when a graded gravel road was developed for automobile travel. 26 The settling of the La Quinta has been chronicled by the La Quint& Historical Society in several publications. There are 13 structures and sites recorded on the California Historic Resources Inventory. These resources are listed in the La Quinta General Plan. La Quinta experienced rapid growth in the Late 1970's which lead to incorporation of the City of La Quinta in 1982. The City has grown from a population of approximately 5,400 in 1982 to over 16,000 in 1994. The incorporated boundaries of the City include over 31 square miles of land. Local Environmental Setting The project site is located adjacent to the most prominent intersection on the City. On the west side of Washington Street, just across from the project site, is a designated historic structure, Point Happy Ranch. The ranch includes an old California style house, with a guest house and a workers village that date circa 1930. The ranch was a Neglet Noor date farm that became known for improving methods of pollinating dates. Prehistoric archaeological sites are numerous within a two-mile radius of the project site. The project site has been subjected to disturbance over many years. There is no existing evidence of any archaeological resources on the site. However, there could be subsurface cultural deposits. The site does not have any bedrock that could have been used for milling, or other resources that night have been exploited by prehistoric inhabitants. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Then Significant Impact. No paleontological resources have been found in the near vicinity of the project site. The project site is not located within an area that is considered to have a high sensitivity for paleontological resources and no paleontological resources are expected to be present on site. (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA) B. Would the project disturb archaeological resources? Less Then Significant Impact. The project site has been heavily disturbed, however, there are numerous recorded archaeological sites within a one and two mile radius of the project site. It is possible that there are subsurface cultural deposits on the property. The property has been previously surveyed for surface indications of cultural deposits and a report filed with the Eastern Information Center at the University of California at Riverside ( Report # 2201). No sites were recorded during this survey. However, a large recorded archaeological site (Cal-Riv-I50) is located very near the project site. The monitoring of all earth4sturbing activities and trenching will be required due to the project's location relative to recorded archaeological sites in the very near vicinity. The monitoring shall be done by a professional archaeologist acceptable to the Community Development Department, following professional standards and the policies of the City of La Quinta . C. Would the project affect historical resources? No Impact. The project site is vacant and does not contain any historical structures. Thus, the construction of the proposed car wash will not affect historical resources in the City. (Source: La Quinta General Plan) D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? No Impact. The project site does not represent an ethnic cultural value and development of the proposed car wash will not affect any ethnic cultural value. (Source: Site Survey; La Quinta MEA) 27 E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No impact. There are no religious uses or sacred uses on the site which may be affected by the proposed car wash. There are no churches within 500 feet of the proposed site. (Source: Site Survey) 3.15 RECREATION 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 Quinmby Act purposes. The 845.0 acre regional Lake Cahuilla County Park is not included in this count. There are also bike paths within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental Setting The project site is vacant and does not provide recreational services or contain a recreational facility. The nearest park, Palm Royale Park, is just less than a mile northeast of the project site. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? No Impact. The construction and operation of the La Quinta Car Wash will result in a maximum of 7 employees on site These employees are not expected to utilize parks in the area to a level that results in any detectable adverse impact. (Source: Application Materials) B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? No Impact. The proposed car wash will not replace nor provide a recreational opportunity in the City The operation of the facility will have no effect on the existing or future recreational opportunities on La Quinta. (Source: Application Materials, Proposed Site Plan) SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The Initial Study for the proposed LaQuinta Car Wash indicates that the project will not have potential significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist. Some of the issue areas could have a potential significant impact if appropriate mitigation measures are not implemented. These issue areas include: Traffic and circulation, biology, cultural resources, earth, and air quality. 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 car wash will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. The proposed car wash will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. The proposed car wash will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. 28 The proposed car wash will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. 29 aim o� ev 4J a, L N c 00 4J 9-4 v► v c co � 3 O 0 � c ui dam» N OQ Z� a�A o 0 �a le 01 m wi s_ o co 4 �1 N CEJ 0% Wit u a G V W Q ' U p�q a O� U V z V y W O V 0 4 r •o Q 4J is 0 O' "� Z J F Q p�q zU <Q a� UV a H a� U V z c.7 �o z� Rpx �o w . 0 0 n O ® a .. s- V! .. ''' cr 4-) � O Q aQ a o� V U c �4j 0) �cin L. O c csc�a O N z o� O 3 E c w =w ao Vl u C1 t� c d _ N V E U L i �y ~ O >11O N tm IM O 3 C 4J O V•Or N � Qf r pf VI r- •r. '• to 41 a 'n C z ao� o o� a� u. •• 4J 4J y .. •ems C �1 c E � db A O C o w L O M p 4J U O t- • M Q z� �Q a •w 14 N d. C RS > a �3c O C •— •r •r Yf z r- 4- +� O C S ' T cm So.0 4i C aJ 4J 0 90 P`� •r N N L. S. as C V 4) =LOCa amvto0 E C O any N U) N z RO 41 -E .0 E 1 S- b O ECL 96 0 O 4-3 O 3 O •r M •r g to rn 0 rn •r i � +- L 0)41 it •r r- r- 'r' 3 rcr AG.O QeC0 O �� 47 C m N rtm (aT] CL G7 ul Ci O u i0 t/f N iO 4J C y u go N O r• 4A W C Ua "ato"a 3 .J ►-N JaO e+� O p�q zU <Q O V � •w CO 1 •r fl-. r fi Q. a i •r U ••- O 'O N = M O +J C C tL m a. tp of tti Ci CJ • w .0 w C > r- U O to •.- O O f C 4J L. V C OU i O �UNO1+-U •r iJ C 7 � O N Ei r- of O C V > _C S. S. V 41 O t0 C V C 4! t0 t0 C .O S. S. to i 4J N o -0 C. a w ao� r- O S. >, 4J r- N N +; c d d O C O E �^ r- r- N U O 0•V C •� f•, 4-)U � s". C sue. sue. 4n C. •> _• p V C i0 4J 10 4J(D > C z N C N •r- i O t0 r- iJ d O •. Iot0 ••- 06 >•Or OC NO i Nt �H-ti. = C1 O 7 C 3 r- •r- h to v F-- N v- Vf m 3 M 0 U � �U c S � i ar �j v d b Llr �i C L c zcm V � 4JN PN (A S. t:3 V d z � � N R0 3E c ind L c 0 �m 4J c N N N c Y N N N z 4J id O to c V c 3 S. •e- 4) A V 4J'0 a O r r- N V r L N 4) go r0 c> CJ r- L 4� L rt b N ••- L N i 4J d „� 1-4 V +-►fo ac roE p4 t V •� 4, V to to "cd,4,d •V-0 >,4 i+J4J w S. 4-) 4-) •r- N r- S. •r• 4! N OnN �O Fri-t F-- 0 N1 >4 L4) 4� r0 O Z U +-) O 0) � V Cn r N � i N i CL. r CA C 47 � a o O C>J N >,coc Q +� d 3 N SL rE C V +j won�.c N � O� W S. M }— b w to > T � Us c i J J RS •i N r 'Di0 >> V 0) V ��4' i NL goz r R3 w �O +� C V bf N �' A A •• � cm •• i d'r 'a 0 aD b ,� +� A S. r cs•, A E O w to CJ N do d� U J li 10 G. w CL CL O M Q Um zQ aU �w V� U V z n z� �o w w 0 4 V .. �j a � L� _� 0 to Q �A 06 �U z P v z R2 �O w 4- 0 10 r 0-4J Nd 2J en O (J � 06 4) +° c c d� CD c 4JM C J cr oa MaLLJ � rno c •J rnsw c a 00 c fa E E zi p 0 w �r W M w O U r 07 u Vf 1/f IQ r V- 06 E c( w v to �.- 4J M 4J rjr- 4) (A O 41 4-)L. a7 06 w �o E E 4) 4J a A �O O Ri .0 r C • 0 3r4J C a •• _4J � S ;wE 4J0 S. 0 a1 'r• r r r U r r E> to x r v E >v u v' � E r- U01G�L " F- r- vi c 0�j z I r- b U _O 0 41 541 U z go CL E CL .. rd' E 4 .. r O . N - 0 00 .•w V O U M Q 1�Gi r- 0 of O '0 t C (� CC to +J N U � •r 4J 4) L. S. r- +j 4) 4- a Nl r •r O C C] 0 = L. r R3 f 4- 4) O CL 04)m +) U C C "- 0 O r- •r N r L IA 7 41 4- N r- 0 �r O V VI O N U W d Nrr CL..� 4J V 4m C C 4— Nf 4J do U 4J 4J •r •rUL.L CL CL N U1 M E 4! •r Q V- Ca C] e ....mod... U p�0 04U �w U� U a� 0 S. Z 0� "w r r E i O a cr 1 .ter N V d V WSJ+ 1F C W- A A E O y R O O > r a � r w C3 N 4) 41 C > `r O r A 41 C p1A� C Uf r N • +ENO N r ij r p 41 a c rz •• OL. !'� .. 3 'n O d'O re, N 7 O !V o =3 at ri O Q z 0° a� o� V� r i a Ls U c CLLto ¢asn 'a c cO �" •� i VI C +) W C M VI .— O = w� W.. a H i A7 C 1/1 4J S- W W 'C � q1 QJ Cf i0 ',y •r (3 •r- O iJ W C df 4J N V� M x r (U r 0 �'r IL 0 i LN 3 •• C W 0 •r �N V 0)N I u 4JU U M (A CAM .e' V +) r iJ W •.- +a G. .0 E t +J r u � V EG. •�- E rm, H @ Hb•C mVO en � E� Q U p�q 0. U �+ U Z z H O O w i 1 O d O O NO •• >ACV al • • 3 r ik i O ►U+ � •.- LLJ vi N > 1% Z d� M Q F-� QA. U �U U C' �O z� �o w 4 U O � 0 i4-3 �• Q i cr 4 J C 1�•Gion Vi Z O -� i ATTACHMENT 6 ESTPAISM0 IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1059 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 9M • TELEPHONE (619) 3051 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEXAS, PRESIDENT THOMASE.LEW,GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RIAMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNAROINE SIMON. SECRETARY JOHN W. McFADDEN December 5, 1994 OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NCHOLS REDWINEANDSHERRILL.ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: Subject: File: 0163.1 DEC 12 �94 E Conditional Use Permit 94-015, Portion lof .Aiii j'i ' Q� ?^flT''EYI Northeast Quarter of Section 30, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Whitewater River 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. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of the district for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping and irrigation systems shall be submitted to the district for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Dan Farris, principal stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, Vevy < <�- General Manager -Chief Engineer DF:sv/e18/flood 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 FROM: � 4 ya w DATE: ?"S CALLE TAMPICO — LA CWINTA, CALIFORNIA 92263 - (619) M.7= COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FAX (etsa) '7n-7jo, City Manager 'S_Public Works Department Building & Safety _Parks & Recreation Fire Marshal Chamber of Commerce � Imperial Irrigation District �; Soutbern California Gas Desert Sands Schbgr District —CV Unified School District ,�L-Cv Water District N Waste Management US Postal Service General Telephone Colony Cable ' Sunline Transit �LCaltrans (District II) „Agricultural Commission CV Archaeological Society _BIA - Desert CounaD ,City of Indio/Indian Wells _CV Mountain Conservancy _CV Recreation & Parks Riverside County: Sheriffs Department LA QUINTA CASE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 44y' PROJECT LOCATION: r7 11. _ Principal Planner �► Associate Planner %V Associate Planner IV Planning Director Quit t44=64jaw ,Planning Department `Environmental Health Rerm 4 14--015 ; J; 4 . -::Rrh rain orb Kww III ( MEN 404 -ono-oral. The City of La Quints Development Review Committee is conducting as initial environmental study pursuant to the CUM Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(:} Attached TN bt�et+e� proponent. Your comments are uested with for 1 4 M 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources. facwhier, and/or seQUINTA 2. Recommended conditions a) that you or your agenrybelieve would mitigate sabi�6lppWalto the project design; e) or impr+oveasents to satisfy other regulations and Donaryh rtC 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avai through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by Noy 'AI, 1C104- You are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVtI COMIVII'= meeting at La Quints City Halt: Hate:_ 1U or► .23 1 ,101+ Tm 1 o Q' ate. rrtecl ag �S . �/ ns�t Contact Person: Tale: �/iNiG LC3arL gin Yt�a/` Comments made by: "' Title: /D) ✓ . er r, r� trlr-r F-. RfVE'RSIDE�.�����J J. M. HARRIS FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE 9 PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657.318 NOVEMBER 16, 1994 To: City of La Quints, .Planning Division Attn: Stan Sawa Re: Conditional Use Permit 94-015 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced CUP, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quints, Municipal Code and /or Riverside County Fire Depart- ment protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 1250 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. 2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super Hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2P), located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the buildings(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet registered civil engineer and 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." 4. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13 Ordinary Hazard Occupancy Group 1. The post indicator valve and fire department connec- tion shall be located to the front within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25' from the buildings. 5. System plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for review, along with a plan/inspection fee. The approved plans, with Fire Department job card must be at the job site for all inspections. -1- O RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 273-4777 0 FAX (909) 369.7451 FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION PLANNING SECTION CJ INDIO OFFICE 79.733 Country Clue Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (619) 863.8886 9 FAX (619) 863.7072 To: City of La Quint& Ra: CUP 94-015 11/16/94 Page 2 6., 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. 7. All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately for approval prior to construction. Sub- contractors should -contact the Planning 6 Engineering office for submittal requirements. 8. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 9. 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 the Riverside County Planning 6 Engineering office for the correctly coded system to be purchased. 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 6 Engineering staff at (619) 863-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner by Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist JP/th ATTACHMENT 7 0 ..e....._.... - `. MOV19S OO®® 8 BO r a let a a� Id dais#J. L & (MUG 7 & C ik WW & S H Arhtt@ct tegemann, A.Q.A. am YGWM ICY. Q 1!r! ur .a 10 r� _;K0P?mq(NWT �aUauvu- I -Z1 > O `F ® h WASHINGTON STREET • 0 h h i z Is L& (MUON71/k oa[RMW&SH La (MUDH AS CALL PORMOa J. Gary Stegemann, A.I.A. Architect . y. w, =..10 raw. -us LQ QMOH7L% C &IRIR WL SH Ar hitecttegemann, A.I.A. A QUGH U Ap DSOALDl�OIRMOA �lypaw�� LAIBM FU OOM fMHM= C C7 F LAKE LA QU January 3, 1995 Stan Sawa City of LaQuinta Planning Dept. RE: Proposed Car Wash Hwy 111 and Washington Mr. Sawa: I have reviewed the plans for the proposed car based on th -3-n zmation submitted, I withdraw 0Jec io an ull�y 7'upport the project. /// e aL Project 'ect Lake LakQuinta ATTACHMENT D wash and my previous P1 JAM 0 3 1995 CITY 4F LA mTA PLANNtHG DEPARTMENT 47-305 VIA RAVENNA , LA CZUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 n (} 619,564-5407 FAX 619-564-5204 ai E C -DEC 31 194 10: UECUTIVE LIF[j i ,'LCS 481c:09� M o P i3 St T I E S P. 1 P. g ATTACHMENT E Larry Andrews LAN DREX CORPORATION Avantc at Lake La Quinta 11 Wesleyan Rancho Mirage, CA 92290 Decembsr 3o, 1994 Mac. Stan Sawa Principal Planner City of La Quinta 72495 Calls Tampico VIA FAX: 777-71SS La Quanta, Ca 93253 RE: Proposed Car Wash at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington, La Quinta, CA Dear Star:, I recently had an opportunity to meet Mr. Jim Jarnagin, developer of the proposed car wash site, to examine his proposal, his experience and his credentials. As a result of that meeting Y hereby withdraw my earlier objection and would support this proposed use on this site. Sincerely, LarrY Andrews o s."DREX CORPORATION JAN 03 1995 LA/me r A CITY OF LA OUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT ATTACHMENT F 9;toz Honorable John Pena, Mayor City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quintal CA 92253 Dear Mayor Pena: 00 /10 December 161 1994 '94 DEC 19 PM 1 26 CITY OF LA QL'iNTA NAGETS OFFICE As you are no doubt aware, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the car wash project which is proposed for the southeast corner of Washington and Highway 111 on Tuesday, December 13, 1994. After hearing the staff report and taking public testimony, the Commission continued the matter for one month to allow the Commission time to sort out what appeared to be contradictions between what they had been told by the staff and what they heard from the public. The testimony at the hearing clearly demonstrated that the car wash project, as proposed, would violate City Code sections and would fly in the face of the Washington Street Corridor Plan. Many residents of our community took the time to come to the meeting and speak out against this project and the recommendations of the Planning Director. Most of them just didn't feel that a car wash should be the hallmark for the entrance to our community. However, in addition, a former member of the Commission who worked on and helped develop the Washington Street Corridor Plan wrote to the Commission and spoke before them outlining her concerns about the recommendations of the staff which undermine the very intent of the Corridor Plan. Finally, Mr. John Sanborn, the civil engineer we retained to help us with our project, after reviewing the conditions of approval, questioned why the car wash project had been allowed more leniency than our project. Some of the very items we had previously requested from the City, and which had been rejected by the staff, were now recommended for approval by the same staff. Rather than outline each of the problems and inconsistencies, the letters which were submitted to the Commission are attached for your review. it is my opinion that Jerry Herman and his staff should not be demonstrating preference for one development over another. It appeared quite clear to us and those in attendance at the meeting that policies and code requirements which were imposed on our project were either eliminated or adjusted for the car wash developer. Why? I have been in business in this City for over ten years. During that time, Simon Motors has. been a productive and lucrative business for the City and its residents. During the extensive time we have spent trying to get through the permitting process, Simon Plaza and I have always been willing to make P.O. BOX 461, 78-611 HOMY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 0 PH.: 619/773-2345 9 FAX: 619/568-4567 all adjustments the staff and City has asked of us, even though they were very stringent, costly and time consuming. I, together with other members of the public who attended the hearing are having a hard time believing that this car wash is considered a more desirable project than our project which was approved. It is also inconcievable to me that the planners did not take into consideration the probability that the City could very well get entangled in unnecessary litigation as a result of their recommendations. Nct only does this project violate the various codes and policies outlined in the attached letters, but also the CC&Rs which Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan helped draft and signed. While I can 'understand why the Commission continued the matter, the written protest of over 97 letters cannot be overlooked, nor can the remarks of the local citizens who took the time to come to the meeting be dismissed. They pointed out real issues and concerns which must be addressed. More than anything else, what I and others want to know is why this project is getting what appears to be preferential treatment. Had we gotten that same treatment, our financing would have been in place over a year ago, and Simon Plaza would already have been built. Finally, I would like to take this last moment to apologize to you for having to write this type of letter. I have always tried to be a conscientious member of the community. I have always supported decisions by the City and its commissions even though they might have had an adverse impact upon me and my business. I have participated in many civic affairs, all the way back to the founding of the Arts Foundation and forward to the Boys and Girls Club as well as many other civic projects. If I am mistaken about what appears to us to be preferential treatment of the car wash project, I would be more than willing to apologize, but right now, I am having a great deal of difficult understanding why the standards appear to have been changed. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Very truly yours, SIMON PLAZA, INC. i Fred Simon, r. Fred man of the Board ENCLOSURES (2) 1 �it��t�on; �.�.��►n� �.4rnm�ssla�., � am wcit� �� �n. cegacd� -� #1�. c�,r wps�n -�4„� ►s P r cPc'S czcnv.r ok 1\wy 111 a►i'�► �c�ssl��n�`t'an. . n�6t10.�.. re t�o�ni C�4v�, aS cL ca'3 C.a1'nMV'rt�°y cr�c aancc �n` c- -One,.a� 'I.,aQvaCa �51nov.1 �,e �►. 1 rho v �h� du`� °� ���� '�e���-N►i�.s �r� �c�it��► , R cc�s `i�ne strce� From -his Pr©P d she, Es c Roo C .v6 butt4%V%3 wlrnch leas C.vcce � �M1hu5�oh�1 :.,bw5 �eNiar't��� fip c�e.5`ge� or� Scv1�} 0. 1-o►'C9e, �J�vi.lA �d �►3 �,Jl�Ce C�i" C9C�fi � � 1 C�C.� Oft" Gi�t�s � E. 0. Als Sep 'fie. C.ac �se.Q.l. 'i°he.�e, i s a rnoc'e apP,rQpr'�«ke �.ocsa�i dri ion s�~ �►rti2 tahec DEG — 1 3— 9 4 T U E 1 6 s 0 0 P.02 MEMO TO! HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF LA QUINTA PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: SUSAN FRANCIS, HOME OWNER AND RESIDENT OF LA QUINTA 77-800 CALLS MONTEREY DATE: 12.13-94 RE: PLANNINU COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM REGARDING CAR WASH I wanted to voice my opinion of the car wash pr*,Ct proposed for the intersection of Highway I I I and Washington. My concerns are: It has been my observation through life that car wash businesses may open with a big flair but change hands within a few short years. Once they change hands the appearance suffers and the service suffers. I would hate to see this happen in La Quint& and particularly at the gateway to our city. This is the entry to our city, the Gateway to La Quinta, deserving of a proper "presentation" such as an archway or structure depicting the portals of entry. Does this go with a car wash business? is the car wash willing to build to meet this type of expectation? Naturally they will be required to participate in the 1% for the arts program but ( feel its important to have wjjLd= public art for a site that is the "gateway" to La Quinm and would like any business at this site to be required to work with our Arts in Public Places Committee. An ample "set -back" from the street is essential for any business in that location as well as for attractive placement of the public art installation. Safe traffic flow and control is very important. This is a very busy, heavily traveled corridor which is often backed up in the height of season. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. ._ ,sue--�^7 �..•-.• e°�a DEC 13 1994 LCITY OF li+ 1L�rrTR PLAN41NO MPARTMW 11 IV" (; MARK & MORAN & associates r ^ - .7 "'ED December 5,1994 L_ j 0' ;;'f i y Hon. John Pena, Mayor HAND DELIVERED & Honorable City Council n 4 u i h i A 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca. 92253 RE: Continued Public Hearing on Plot Plan 93.495 (Revised) I have been asked to respond to various issues related to Simon Plaza at the request of Simon Plaza Partnership of which I act as the Development Consultant. After reading the Staff Report and the attached letters from Fred Simon and Stephen Miller of CGI Financial, Ltd., it becomes apparent that this project has not been a simple, straight -forward development Over the past few years this project has changed dramatically and each time a change has occurred, the financing has had to be renegoiated. Ultimately, the purpose of our project is to construct an approximately 85,000+/- sq. ft "state-of-the-art" medical office and retail complez. As this project shrank in size due to City imposed conditions, the financing has had to be renegoiated. This renegoiation has taken years due to the fact that it is "off shore" and subject to final conditions of approval by the City. One condition was the dedication of the "right -of --way" on Washington and State Highway 111. The property to be dedicated was owned by Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan. Simon Plaza had arranged to buy the land which Pomona FFS&L thought they might use for a branch of their S&L. Those plans evaporated in the early 19809. Simon Plaza became its only buyer and a fair per square foot price was agreed upon. In early 1994, as a direct result of the Northridge Earthquake and the structural failure of multi -story parking structures, Simon Plaza requested it's Structural Engineer to re-examine the multi -story parking structure. This further delayed our process, placing any financing issues on hold until we felt secure that the parking structure would not need major redesign. Finally, the Planning Commission voted and passed Simon Plaza on May 24, 1994, with modified conditions and granting the development plan a 1 year extension. Simon Plaza appealed the modifications to the original conditions of approval disagreeing with the City Engineer on the amount of "off -site" storm water that would be produced by our project. In addition, we objected to a requirement that forces Simon Plaza to remove improvements which the City had previously required and then reinstall those same improvements, thus making us pay twice for the same improvements. In late June Simon Plaza was asked to respond to guidelines for an Owners Participation Agreement. Since the project had changed over time due to its reduction in size it was necessary to revisit all of the original development issues. As we began to gather the information requested by the City, summer vacations by all parties and the Cities' summer schedule necessitated a number of continuances bringing us to September. In September we asked the City Council to allow Simon Plaza the opportunity to begin negotiations with Pomona First Federal, to allow us to purchase the properly that we intended to dedicate to the City for right-of-ways. As Simon Plaza awaited its first infusion of cash from our "off -shore" investors we began to complete our development plans that included the Pomona First Federal properly. It was at this time that we discovered that Pomona First Federal had allowed another developer to explore the use of the property. The proposed Car Wash violates the CC&ifs which Pomona First Federal helped to formulate. This use is obstructive to our intended project and devaluates the entire corner. AQ Box 1305,1A Quints, CA 92253 0 (619) 564.3761 1 Page I MSM & AssocJHon. J. PeAa, Mayor Continued Public Hearing on Plot Plan 93-495 (Revised) Although we can't speak for the City Council, we feel that this new use violates the Washington Specific Plan for the entry to the City. No matter how many bushes or trees try to hide this shabby use of our Cities view corridor, a Car Wash is still a Car Wash. It will detract from our project and set a poor precedent for future development in La Quinta. We submit that Simon Plaza's intended display of a major art work at that corner, according to our conditions, is superior to heavy vegetation crowded onto a small 1.01 acre commercial Car Washing facility. Finally, Pomona First Federal has alluded to possible inverse condemnation if the City doesn't allow this new intended use. I wish to make it very clear that Simon Plaza will buy the subject property and will pay Pomona First Federal a fair price for their land, assuming we are given the opportunity to do so. Toward that end, we would hope that the City would allow Simon Plaza an opportunity to continue its development process, when the Car Wash is adjudicated. Sincerely, 0 rk an cc: Fred Simon Simon Plaza Inc. Paul Selzer Esq. Best, Best & Krieger Attachments: Letter from Fred Simon, Simon Plaza Inc. Letter from Stephen Miller CGI Financial, Lt& 12-02-1994 06114PM FROM ^ I MON hq rM i I NC. TO 5645321 P. 02 December 2, 1994 VIA FAX. 619-564.5321 Mark S. Moran & Associates P. 0. Box 1305 La Quintal CA 92253 Dear Mark, After reading the letter from PFF dated November 30, 1994,; over the signature of Mr. Robert L. Golish. I have a hard titre containing myself over its contents and inferences. As you are aware, I asked our agent to give us a written summary of his financial search on behalf of Simon Plaza which he did and I faxed it on to you. I feel certain information needs to be clarified and transmitted in regards'to statements which were made that are not necessarily correct. 1. His quote, "The rather significant taking of property for the desired widening of Washington Street have made the site unsuitable for a branch office.' unquote. Originally, the sale of that parcel was with Mr. Robert Nichols who ultimately became president of PFF and they made the decision early in 198.0 not to proceed with a branch office in Rancho Mirage and/or La Quinta long before the Washington Street corridor was planned. 2. PFF does have an alternate source for the sale of :their parcel and that is the Simon Plaza partnership which they had in escrow for some time and which they decided not to extend and took the deposit which was required to open the escrow. As you can tell from the letter from Stephen. Miller, Simon Plaza was unable to complete the escrow due to financial changes outlined. The comment that nearly 40% of the land has been taken by the City is an inappropriate calculation. There has always been a highway 111 set back and a Washington Street set back. The only difference today i-n the parcel as far as set backs is that the set back on Washington Street was incroased to 20' from 10' from the time of purchase and the dedication requirement for the single lane is only 20' on Washington Street for the right-of-way• to regards to the CC&Rs, PFF participated in the formulation of the CC&Rs and it was their desire at that time specifically to limit the types of establishments which would be permitted to be* constructed on the project. At that time, it was deafly and explicitly noted that the type of facility being proposed by them today was to be prohibited. I find his statement, "we are confident that we can overcome the CC&Rs improper and a personal opinion. It should• also be noted that 'Simon Plaza would take strong. ligitation action against,:such a violation which PFF helped draft. .... .......... •... a.......w. ... . • ^scut-rs Ha nwwee . OU . lI r"*-49AC • RAY- 444149A.AMV 12-02-1994 e6 =15PM FROM S C M ON MDTORS s INC. TO . 5645321 P.93 Mark S. Moran S Associates 1December Z, 1994 Page 2 It should also be noted that a significant part of the delay in or financing is due to the fact t'nat PFF refused to adjust their **price downward when the project was reduced in density thus forcing Simon Plaza to wait and negotiate for .a period of time; Had we been able to reduce the price of the land immediately,- we could have saved one of the original finance packages and dedicated the land to the City. I personally regret the delays we have had in the Project considerably more than any other individual or PFF especially after having worked 4J years to put the Project together, investing approximately $500,000.00 and an untold number of hours,* days and months. PFF has never 1 if ted a finger to -of for the Project any assistance. if there is any intent.of any sort, it behooves me to bring forth the lack of cooperation and patience on the part of PFF in working with the City 'in finalizing an acceptable financial package once the City has approved all the necessary changes. I think that we at Simon Plaza have been more than cooperative in beautifying the project to the desire of the City without violating the City's Beautification Program. I'm confident that with due diligence, the City and Simon Plaza can finally construct the Project which they (City) have spent a great deal of time and money in assisting with the design and lay -out that we now have. very tru! y yours, SIMON 2LAZAs INC J. imono Sr. moh of the Board 11 44—WK-477" wC • ff jm rr%" w 1 rum rw 1 u1CW a 11Y1.. 1 u ►'.ICE December 2, 1994 Mr. Fred J. Simon, Sr. Simon Plaza, Inc. P. 0. Box 1861 La Quinta, Chi 92253 Dear Fred, in 'reply to your request for a chronological history of'Kanan Pacific Corporation, financial activitl:es and proposals, I submit the.'following to you and your officers. •: In July 1991, .you and your fellow officers submitted to •Kahan Pacific Corporation a financing request for what is now knoim as Simon Plaza. The original project called for a combined medical and commercial center in excess of 161,000 square footage. of rentable area. Kanan Pacific then explored several financing sources, both from foreign and domestic institutions seeking both a loan and/or equity financing or a combination thereof in the range of approximately eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000.00'). You will recall the proposal was nbt acceptable because of the limited term of five years. As'-" were negotiating this point and abort the time we reached en agreement with the Lender, the City of La Quipta rquired -you to make a reduction in square footage down to approximately 130,000 square feet plus the parking garage. Shortly thereafter, as a matter of fact on January 25, 1991, we were able to obtain a firm commitment from. a British Off - Shore Trust for a net amount of seventeen million five hundred thousapd dollars • ($17,500,000.00). While this offer was acceptable, contracts were drawn up and both parties agraed to 'the .amount. Since there was a requirement- for a substaptial equity ownership we were attempting to negotiate a' reduction in the equity ownership. :. We were then informed that the city of La Quinta had furt'ber reauceQ the square. footage of the Simon Plaza rentable epaee to approximately 82,000 square feet.. Consequently, the agreement on the seventeen million five hundred thousand dollars ($171500,000.00) was no longer valid and clearly disqualified us with* the British Trust. ' 4�3F�doadl►B�Oewoed Ra0om6sB�d1, tat(3t4?ft�tat FrspiO�llLftl� .. •[�is�A�fow��oLr�e.:,e�doq,N&lNtt� 1bt0tiAao1�OQ� ' . . �Z�-M-1994 02124PM FROM SIMON MOITORSP INC. M 5645321 P.03 Mr. Fred J. Simon, Sr. December 2, 1994 Page 2. As I recall, you 'then submitted a four story building to the City and I approached another European Off -Shore Trust for the reduced .amount of fourteen million seven hundred thousand ddll4re ($14..700,000.00) and submitted all the plans which were evidently approved by the City. I was then advised that the four story building must be reduced to a three story building with .one story over the parking garage. The increased cost of this change required a net funding of sixteen million two hundred thousand dollars ($16,200,000.00) up from the $14,700,000.00. F°inall.y, just in the past six months, we have been able to confirm, an acceptable offer from a third off -shore trust :which will produce the net funding of sixteen million two hundred thousand dollars ($16,200,000.00) which is required. Documentation and contracts for the initial funding were :drawn up for .another equity partnership proposal by your attorneys and theirs. Since the contracts are completed and signed, this source agrees and will make available to Simon Plaza the first payment against the fourth and final proposition the week of December 4, 1994. All contracts and commitments have :been signed and funds- will be flowing within a few days of this writing. Accordingly, You are' now close to a position of making a cash offer to the land owners for the entire corner parcel and make your dedications to the City of La Quin'. --.a as the programs now .calls for. Once you have confirmed the position of control of the entire parcel, we will inform the lender to commence with the balance of the funding until the entire balance has been paid into your account at Great Western Bank in Indio, Cali€ornia as we -have previously arranged. Best regards, CGI , LTD. C Killer 4 CEO .W . As this letter reflects, Simon Plaza, Inc. had to adhere to very stringent, though understandable, City Planning requirements. When combined with a very difficult real estate financing market over the past three years, the funding of Simon Plaza has been an almost insurmountable challenge. But, we have met this challenge. Now, we find the Planning Staff is recommending a project which thoroughly compromises the very standards to which Simon Plaza has been held. CC&:Rs to which all parties have agreed are not just being ignored, but thrashed by this recommendation. There is no logic, no sense, say nothing of honor, in this recommendation. It is incredulouslll We trust you will not allow such a variance to proceed. 3CLNI 6T=lStJ1,CItJi&!<JC1t4IX'1'J :11- O-:R : 15:11 BEST. SE:ST & KRIEGER • M.T�.le1� l.M.p.krrr..NMAA 40"OAya.e LAWYGR3 MYMgI t tr"Ll.iOeLTwr O'TN.t O TLAM ►AfaKd Keel rtAaGt a0e1M RVRw CARtA►1.0 4500 CAOI [ANOINT! CANYON WAY OLANt OTt"O-W NINE MftAAA I'm W.•R1N JOAwO PYRNtr N087 Oft KC sox OM WRIAAMe 048OLPCG AARs T. OLAPOAM JA=1N6CASAXt1M9R {MAWO0 9"Ok ISM aALM LPMN1ba. OALrtN11NA OPPLS BARYON C. eAN/• iMOT1.rK07.Y0A Rrit A. fIOM .KNaNU JeMarno PAµ T W MW MIOR L NIAA.T MAN[ A.fA.pt t -ANJANMA.MTNsow 1CLOPIgN[ fAl>•: 310.726e "It OHMOOr OAMRI L. OLI+KR TMAw L r"If Jrrr OCT 1e ?"OWN TCL&COPIRR 0I01 7i0.03O6 t7WNWIWO IL t•R9W*T9R• MOrTA OR O. 00t." WWII LC Nutt 69 TTt tTN1AM WAwftw 41066Re T. AAQR.nM• RT/Pwg1 P. WTOC" aAVW P. r"U'rem, UK. . ..►*K IA RTRAA COWRCO jam O. WOJO [w "AMC f• LPMT AULAw C NAwte JACTNRL wr I &AA fr WCe.A[L C. NA 400• JONR R. AQTTOLMARI[IR i[RwK L. ", WPM- ..RA O O.0 IA * OMRT LAW MARY'N A. ML99 LCO Of VO. L NAOOOLP" n AW"@OVT NOORwLLE DI Comm% JOIMC,LNOeA• /OCMAtI T. R000 lr J. MCMAtL OMOIMMPJR VIC TIIMA IL game JAMO R. OkPM MAeMALA • 11WU' -" 1•At.ar-DUWOALLL JLI to OL SON OOLAN A a A cemo aw IL NOWT. A ART' ACQT T C. LkrN PA" A. OrOCMO C. P I A[L r4OCTT NW!s"9t ONANT. JOAN O. ISA•.C. JN CYNTMA M. OCATLAMO NAYCR VPOCACM In... J. kW V." a Wes MANY L. OLOTRA. ",t.M ARATIM J0► W C TeNWN ANNE T. TNCYA• a, MAITN NarmRrt aAAv0.tV C. wrJreLA OMAR Yl WALXZX OL IMP. AAONL MANE C. OLAAM et"ar N. RLn1 PLTCR K LAANACA aOROTM 1. AMOCO"" Witt. 11 W. ru"IL A. JLATOKTTC A. ►t'COMOU a WMAY WIMLLO wd*&%MV L. NARN" MLUAN 1.OAeKbek JR. JANO U R wAMPLM ewfletOOt QNOALL 1t N.-VT [LANK M. ALOOP MATT IL0OART1 JLIT<Rtr M ILJIOt at" IL NAARM eARtARA R,MROF RIVCII000 I6611 RN&IAeO RAV'0 J. CReLP INC We" O. 01*^W RICNANe T. mefy1 NAA.aMO rAAet QaRO RJPMOY MttAwt J.ANMLA m- 90VOLAR • PNL 09. LAN: 6.OARILJI etNMU on. COM PWRCA O. OMAM WAk a. Of16tTN RA►OOAq OCai lON{OTOe7T O MA10 seep e4e-Oaee ANTeMA ORANTOO NOOLRT N.NAAORLAVCO NELCIMP.01trLR JAMCOK[RICOCA(IRIOIeM1 AAN Aube Odd aka.[ Oaf OOCCORT ILT1RRM C11N JA WCt L. WM ZVOLT P. M"PIOLL LURLNL OLAT 06", OC . T.NeP�. C M.—. PISSMt November 18, 1994 City of La Quinta Planning Commission 7$-495 Calle Tampico P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Re: CUP 94-015 Dear Commission Members: The undersigned represents the 3S Partnership which is the owner of parcels 2,3,4,5 and 7 of Parcel Map 18418 and Simon Motors, Inc., which is the owner of parcel 1 of Parcel Map 18418, all of which parcels are adjacent to the proposed La Quinta Car Wash which is proposed for parcel 1 of Parcel Map 18418. For over three and a half years, the 38 Partnership, Simon Plaza, Inc. and Pomona First Federal savings and Loan ("PFFSI,"), which is the owner of parcel 6 of Parcel Map 18418 have been working with the City and its planners to develop a first class officejreataurant complex at the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. Under our original plan, the 3S partnership had arranged to purchase the PFFSL parcel_ However, because of changing city zoning standards and regulations and the adverse market conditions of the last several years, we have not yet been successful in completing the financial arrangements necessary for us to proceed with this complex which we continue to believe will be a very appropriate and fitting entrance to the City. Assuming no further modification of city requirements, we have good reason to believe that we will have our financing in place befqxe year's end, and would be happy to discuss ttWge�OaQrit�-�rvith your staff. V1N(nri If A0 A110 60 8 Wd CT 330 660 114 1.AW OFFIC & Oi - BEST, BEST & KRIE R City of La ¢uinta Planning Commission November 18, 1994 Page 2 Because we have not yet been able to finalize our fiaiacicing and purchase the PSSFL parcel, PFFSL has informed us and the City that while they are not cpposed to our development which they originally supported, they now wish to purnue development of their parcel independently from the remainder of our parcels. While we can not object to the right of PFFSL to develop their parcel on their own, we can and do object vehemently to their current proposal to place a car wash on the most visible corner in the City. When we first sold this parcel to PFFSL, their intent was to place a branch of their bank on the parcel, and we were to develop the balance of the property in a first class manner. Market conditions have apparently made them decide not to build a branch at this location. we have no alternative other than to respect their business decision. However, while neither PFFSL nor ourselves could predict exactly how the property would eventually be developed, we all agreed that the entire parcel should be developed in a first class manner and that neither fast food restaurants nor automobile service stations or the like would be allowed on any of the parcels, even though both parties knew that probably the highest market value might be found in developing in that manner. Neither PFFSL nor ourselves wanted that sort of use as a neighbor. imagine what their response would have been bad they built a beautiful branch office on their site and we now were proposing a car wash immediately adjacent to theml What has been proposed to you for the PFFSL parcel is exactly what both they and we attempted to prevent -- a facility whose sole purpose of existence is the servicing of automobiles. While their application prominently points out that they do not propose to sell gasoline and that they intend to disguise it, the fact remains that the proposed development is still an automotive service station without gas pumps -- a large traffic generator; a quick in, quick out facility with its attendant lines of cars waiting to be serviced; noisy vacuum, washing and drying machinery; and attendants working out in the lot drying cars and finishing the process. In many respects, this proposed use is more objectionable to us than a traditional gas station. We believe that our Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) prohibit this use, and we fully intend to pursue our remedies against PFFSL should the City allow this use. However, we obviously prefer that the matter be nipped in the bud without the necessity of litigation. Pisszo71 Lww OrFICCO Of BEST. HEST & KRIEGs . City of ba Ouinta Planning Commission November 18, 1994 Page 3 Furthermore and notwithstanding the CC&R'e, we believe that the proposed use is totally inappropriate for one of the most prominently situated parcels in the entire city. Obviously, if this use is allowed, our plans for the remainder of the parcels will have to be dramatically modified. You can almost be assured that the quality of development for the balance of the property will be adversely affected if you approve this car wash project. No doubt the argument will be made that we are attempting to hold PPPSL hostage. Nothing could be further from the truth. We acknowledge their right to develop on their property. However, after they abandoned their intention to build their branch office, they participated and encouraged us to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to design, redesign and process our office complex through the city process. Now they come to you and ask for approval of a project and uue which is entirely inappropriate for the site and incompatible with our project. All of the time, money and effort expended by both ourselves and city staff will he tossed out the window if you approve this car wash. At the very least, the development of their parcel should compliment and be compatible with what has been proposed fvr the balance of the property. We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to comment on the proposal and formally request that we be given specific written notice of any and all meetings or hearings dealing with the car wash project. Thank your for your consideration of our concerns. PTS/sk PTS52071 Yours very truly, BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Paul T. Sel I I F .x..t -al !] 1; 615 561 3489:0 51 5 LAW osrICEa 06 BEST, (BEST & KRIEGEH City of La Quinta Planning Commission November 18, 1994 Page 4 cc: Gilbert J. Smith, PFFSL John J. Pena, Mayor Glenda Bangerter, Mayor Pro Tem Stan Sniff, Council Member Ron Perkins, Council Member G. Michael McCartney, Council Member Donald Adolph, Chairman Planning Commission Jacques Zbels, Vice Chairman Paul Anderson, Commissioner Katie Barrows, Commissicner Richard Butler, Commissioner Wayne Gardner, Commissioner Elwin "Al" Newkirk, Commissioner MUM MANIC & MORAN &, associates'-�7p`... . . December 13,1W4 Mr. Donald Adolph, Chairman DEC 13 Planning Commission: y m r City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quints, CA 92253 Re: CUP 94-015-J.L. Jarnagin (La Quinta Car Wash) Dear Mr. Adolph: First, I want to apologize for not having this long letter to you earlier, so you could look at the issues I've brought to your attention. Unfortunately the staff report was not available until late Friday afternoon and I had considerable research to do. As you are all aware, I was on the Planning Commission for over 5 years. During that time I was involved with the adoption of the Washington Street Specific Plan. The Planning Commission worked long, hard hours on this plan for over 3 years, with Public Hearings and input from the Community and landowners. I have listed below several areas that are not consistent with the Washington Street Specific Plan, the La Quinta Municipal Code Title 9- Planning and Zoning, Recorded CC&Ws (which the Simon Plaza Partnership and Pomona First Federal formulated and signed) and the Findings required by law to allow a Variance, just to name a few. Conditional Use Pew The reason certain types of uses are not allowed in specific zones is because they have the potential of having a negative impact. Those negative impacts must be looked at on a individual basis with the location, configuration of the parcel and impacts on surrounding landowners. These negative impacts and any issues raised during the Public Hearing process must be negated before approval can be given. WaW9afffm 6 t ftedj`,EIM The purpose of the Washington Street Specific Plan was to look at traffic, infrastructure and make recommendations on the ultimate development of the corridor. In the Findings it states, "Washington Street serves as a "gateway" into the central core of the City of La Quinta". It goes on the state, "The intersection of Washington Street and Highway III is projected to be most severely and immediately impacted by increases in traffic". Based on the recommendations of the study, the City adopted a new alignment for El P.O. Box 1305, La Quinta, CA 92253 0 (619) 564-3761 11 Is Washington Street, which effected this parcel of land, as well as almost every other parcel along Washington. When any project along Washington Street came before the Planning Commission, we looked at this street as one of our "Image Corridors" and requested that special treatment be given along Washington. An example is Parc La Quinta, where no two story unit could be located within 200' of Washington. The developer kicked and screamed about this condition, but because we were adamant on the condition, we have a housing project that looks very nice. Will you be able to say the same thing in five years about this Car Wash? Based on the Washington Street Specific Plan, I feel that this development request is inconsistent with our original intent to keep Washington Street as a "Imaee corridor". La QWMa Municipal Code Mtle 9-planwag 2.o ii= There are so many violation of the Zone text, it's hard to figure on where to start. Section 9.172.050 states, "A conditional use permit shall not be granted unless the applicant demonstrates that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community. Any permit that is granted shall be subject to such conditions as shall be necessary to protect the health, safety or general welfare of the community." I think that the safety of our citizens will be at risk because of the traffic problems it will cause, like stacking and possible idle traffic on Washington. Section 9.188.060 states, 'No request for a setback adjustment shall be granted unless it is determined that the adjustment is consistent with the intent and purposes of this title; that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel for which the adjustment is requested. Not only will this project be detrimental to the Simon Plaza project with the noise and aesthetics, but they want to utilize a old easement that zig zags across Mr. Simon's land for their circulation. Variance: In order to give a variance you must show a hardship. I don't feel that this project qualifies with this requirement because if they located on a parcel that was a adequate size, there would be no hardship. Recorded. C&R's.- They do not allow for the car wash, based on noise, "the obstruction of visibility of improvements on any other panel" and -Use Restrictions" that lists approved uses (which a car wash is not a approved use) and states, "It is the intent of this Declaration to allow any commercial 2 11, or business use or purpose which is common to a first-class shopping center". A car wash is not common to a first class shopping center or it would be listed as a approved use in the CPS Zone and would not require a Conditional Use Permit. Americau's With MaMtXAct Comn 'ance: I spoke with Mr. Jim Collins who consults with developers on ADA compliance. I asked him what the requirements were on sidewalks and he stated that, "Cross Slope cannot exceed 2% and ramps at the end of sidewalk cannot exceed 1 in 12. question weather the sidewalk along Washington complies with these requirements. In conclusion, I feel that this project does not meet the requirements of a Conditional Use Permit, the intent of the Washington Street Specific Plan, the requirements for a Variance, or the General Plan set back requirements of our two most important roadways in the City. I also question weather you can justify adopting the findings listed for the Plot Plan. I'm not opposed to a car wash. I would love to have one in our City, so I wouldn't have to go to Palm Desert or Indio. I am opposed to one at this location and on a parcel of this size. Based on these conclusions, I am asking that the Planning Commission deny this project, or at the very least, require further Environmental review to assess the traffic and other impacts this. Project will have. Since ly, J L 'a Moran cc: Jacques Ables, Vice Chairman Paul Anderson, Commissioner Katie Barrows, Commissioner Richard Butler, Commissioner Wayne Garnder, Commissioner Al Newkirk, Commissioner 3 December 13, 1994 City of La Quints Planning Commission 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Re: CUP 94-015 Dear Commission Members: ==I I 100 SANHORNAVIEBB INC. Civil Engineers s Land Surveyors Architects is Land Planners 91-224 DEC 13 694 _,..,.. -._._ After reviewing the .Conditions of Approval and staff recommendations for approval, I have several concerns. Based upon these concerns, I feel that you have no other alternative than to deny the permit for the car wash. I have outlined my concerns, and they are: 1. The total disregard for the Washington Street Specific Plan. The applicant is requesting a variance for setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and 18 feet - the 10 foot portion being closest to Highway 111. In fact, the car wash structure is in the 20 foot setback area. That is why the request is for a 10 foot set back. (See Page 3 of Staff Report.) 2. The reduction from 50 feet to 35 feet landscape setback on Highway ill. The requested 35 foot setback is along the Highway Ill frontage, and at the comer of Washington. This reduction is required to accommodate parking. (See Page 4 of Staff Report.) 3. The Environmental Impact Statement is flawed in at least two areas. I believe a focus E.I.R. should be required for each. Item 3.1(a) (Land Use and Planning Page II E.I.R.). There is a definite conflict with the Washington Street Specific Plan, and therefore to the City's General Plan. 255 N El Cleo Road • Suite 315 • Palm Springs, Califcxnia 92262 • (619) 325.2245 9 (619) 325-9426 • Fax (619) 325-5130 Page 2 - Continued Planning Commiission December 13, 1994 Re: CUP 94-015 3. Cont. Item 3.6 (Transportation/Circulation) Page II E.I.R.(a), (b) and (d). Item (a) Due to the high number of vehicle movements generated by a car wash, and with only one entrance, it is very apparent that there will be a substantial increase in traffic congestion. Item (b) Due to the high volume of vehicle movement, there is a safety hazard. Item (d) There is a total lack of on -site parking for employees and customers - only ten (10) spaces are provided. I have yet see a successful car wash where, on a regular basis, there were less than ten to twelve people working, and several cars waiting for work to be done in the detail shop. Again, in the Conditions of Approval, there are several items that appear to be in consistent with the City's standards or policies - Page 1, Condition 3 (Approval of Variance), and Page 5, Condition 38a (Staff is recommending a deference of the improvements for Washington Street). These improvements should be constructed at this time. Also, Page 7, Condition 44 (On -site retention not shown on site plan) indicates an inconsistency. There does not appear to be any location for said retention. The last issue I would like to address is the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Lots 2 through 7 of Parcel Map 18418. Said CC & R's Were recorded with the County Recorder on March 17,1983 as Instrument No. 50361. These CC & R's were prepared with the input of Pomona Federal Savings, and in fact, they were signed by Robert Nichols, Senior Vice President of Pomona Federal Savings. Item B-1 of said CC & Ws states the following: Neither the project nor any part thereof; nor any parcel contained therein shall be used nor shall any building or other improvement be constructed, maintained or used for any purpose other than the following: retail, office and service establishments, including without limitation, financial institutions, brokerage offices, restaurants, travel and similar Page 3 - Continued Planning Commission December 13, 1994 Re: CLIP 94-015 agencies, motion picture theaters, clothing and appliance stores, specialty retail shops, supermarkets, drug stores and related or similar establishments. It is the intent of this Declaration to allow any commercial or business use or purpose which is common to a first-class shopping center an which is not prohibited by law, provided, however, that automobile service stations and fast food restaurants shall not be considered permitted uses. It is clear that a car wash (similar to an automobile service station) is not an approved use for the subject site. Again, I would like to point out that Pomona is a signatory to this recorded document. In closing, it is apparent that the Commission must deny CUP 94-015. The project does not meet setback or landscaping requirements, the E.I.R. has major problems as it relates to traffic, street improvements are being deferred, the proposed development is clearly in conflict with the recorded CC & R's, and most important, the proposed project does not meet the Washington Street Specific Plan and, therefore, the City's General Plan. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, SANB / WE , INC. Jo L. Sanborn :lm c.c. Fred Simon - Simon Motors Ps\DATA\94DATA\91-WO\M4CUP.CLQ City of La Quinta Planning Commission November 30, 1994 Page 2 opportunity to control the destiny of our Parcel 6, and the time has now come for Pomona First Federal and the City to move forward with a realistic plan for this site that can be attained. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, aviv �� Robert L. Golish Senior Vice President ,Sr. Counsel cc: L. Rinehart, PFFSL F. Shannon, PFFSL Dick Baxley, Broker Jim Jarnagan, Buyer John J.Pena, Mayor Paul T. Selzer Glenda Bangerter, Mayor Pro Tem Stan Sniff, Council Member Ron Perkins, Council Member G. Michael McCartney, Council Member Donald Adolph, Chairman Planning Commission Jacques Abels, Vice Chairman Paul Anderson, Commissioner Katie Barrows, Commissioner Richard Butler, Commissioner Wayne Gardner, Commissioner Elwin "Al" Newkirk, Commissioner Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association 1 PH #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 10, 1995 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 94-541 (AMENDMENT #1) APPLICANT: VINTAGE HOMES, A DIVISIION OF CENTRUY HOMES (MR. ARTHUR LEVINE) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUS APPROVAL FOR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE MODELS ON 102 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS (SPINNAKER COVE) LOCATION: AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY VIA FLORENCE, ADAMS STREET, 48TH AVENUE, AND CALEO BAY WITHIN LAKE LA QUINTA BACKGROUND: Four new house plans for Vintage Homes was approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1994. These units vary from 1840 square feet to 3,128 square feet (with an optional second story loft and optional attached guest cottage). Fourteen Conditions of Approval were imposed at the time of approval. One of the conditions requires a 25-foot setback for lots with circular driveways and review and approval of the typical landscape plans for situations where circular driveways would be used. Another condition requires that the concrete driveways be provided with an integral color. The applicant is requesting an amendment to these two conditions. For background information, the previous staff report of November 22, 1994, and the final Conditions of Approval is attached (Attachment A). REQDESUM A>I MMEM Condition #12 requires, "On lots where circular driveways are used the minimum front yard setback shall be 25-feet subject to the approval of the landscaping plans by the Planning Commission. Several alternatives for the treatment of the 'island' shall be submitted." The applicant is requesting an amendment to this condition to allow the frontyard setback to be 20- feet where a circular driveway is used. The applicant has submitted a letter indicating the reasons for this request. In summary, the reasons are follows: 1. The applicant states that the other projects which require a 25-foot setback are on public streets whereas their project has private streets. 2. Because the streets are private there are no sidewalks which reduces the amount of concrete showing in the front yards. This allows additional planting which would soften any impact the circular driveway may have. PCST.201 I 3. With a 20-foot setback in the front yard, a larger rear yard can be provided. During the consideration in December, the applicant requested that the recommended setback requirement be changed from 25-feet to 20-feet. At that time the Planning Commission did not take action to change the required setback distance. However, the applicant at that time felt that the Planning Commission action intended to allow a 20-foot setback if acceptable landscaping plans were submitted for the Planning Commission's review. Staff informed the applicant that was not the case. Therefore, the applicant filed this requested amendment and submitted plans showing a 20-foot setback with conceptual landscaping. Condition #7 requires that:, "The concrete driveway shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better) texture. The driveway shall be provided with integral color as approved by the Community Development Department." This condition was recommended by staff for compatibility with the Lake La Quinta subdivision because some of the homes do have colored concrete driveways. The applicant indicates that he has been told that the private design review for both Avante and Marquessa projects in the tract did not require the colored driveways. It was an upgrade requested by the individual homeowners on some of the semi -custom houses. Therefore, that is the reason the applicant is requesting relief from this requirement. The applicant's streetscape study that has been submitted shows how each of the four plans could be provided with a circular driveway utilizing a 20-foot setback. The plans while showing the location of the turf, groundcoverlshrub area, and tree locations does not provide specific species or sizes of landscaping materials. The plan submitted by the applicant shows how the circular driveway would be provided. Between the curb and the circular driveway, a strip of approximately 5-6-feet is provided for landscaping and approximately 1.5 feet of mounding. Additional mounding is shown in the main turf area in front of the residence. Each lot is provided with two trees one of which is in the "island" planter between the circular driveway and street. It appears that for those lots which have circular driveways, the applicant is proposing very minimal amounts of turf area. STAFF CONNTS: The applicant has chosen only to submit at this time, plans which show how a 20-foot typical setback could be incorporated with a circular driveway. The plan is a streetscape plan where adjacent lots, some of which do not have circular driveways, are also shown to show how they would integrate. Because the project :has private streets, the front property line is at the inside edge of the curb. The typical 12-foot wide City parkway, which can be found on public streets, does not exist. Because of this, the typical five-foot wide sidewalk does not exist adjacent to the curb. Staff generally feels that because of the fact that there is no 12-foot wide parkway, the proportional amount of concrete seen from the street appears greater than if there was a parkway with a sidewalk. Even with a five-foot wide sidewalk there is normally a seven foot deep area of land which is normally landscaped. PCST.201 2 The lack of the 12-foot parkway additionally affects the appearance of the circular driveway in that it reduces the amount of radius and decreases the appearance that the driveway is a circular driveway. The applicant states that the 20-foot setback would allow a larger rear yard. Presently, the average lot depth for the rectangular shaped lots that the applicant owns is somewhere in the area of 112-feet with some lots as deep as 144-feet. The minimum lot depth is approximately 106.5-feet. In the case of the minimum depth lot, except for the largest unit, a back yard of approximately 25.5 feet minimum could be provided. In cases of the smallest unit that back yard depth would increase to 34.5-feet for the 106.5-foot depth lots. As indicated, most of the lots are deeper than the 106.5-foot minimum. Therefore, staff feels that the 25-foot setback should be maintained. For the Rancho Ocotillo tract, south of Fred Waring Drive and east of Adams Street, the Planning Commission required a 25-foot setback for those units which will be provided with a circular driveways. With regards to the integral color for the driveways, the last six or seven homes built for the on - water marketplace units have been provided with decorative colored concrete driveways. The driveways poured prior to that are natural grey driveways. The Avante units have not yet poured any driveways. For compatibility, staff feels that while there are some grey concrete driveways there are also colored ones. Staff feels that since there is a mixture of concrete colors that units with circular driveways should be provided with colored concrete driveways. While all lots will not have the same color, it will provide for variety and a breakup in the appearance of the hardscape areas adjacent to the street. By Minute Motion 95- , staff recommends that Conditions #12 regarding circular driveway setbacks be retained and that the second sentence of Condition #7 be revised to read: "Integral color as approved by the Community Development Department shall be provided for those units which have a circular driveway." Attachments: A. Planning Commission staff report dated November 22, 1994 D. Final Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 94-541 C. Letter from Century Homes dated December 2, 1994 D. Letter from Century Homes dated December 30, 1994 PCST.201 3 ATTACHMENT PH *2- STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMON MIKETING DATE: NOVEMBER A 1994 CASE. PLOT PLAN 94-541 APPLICANT: VINTAGE KOM A DIVISION OF CENTURY HOMES (B. ARTHUR LEVI1M REQUEST: APPROVAL OF FOUR NEW HOUSE PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON 102 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS QSPINNAKER COVE) LOCATION: AREA GENERAUY BOUNDED BY VIA FLORENCE, ADIM STREET, 49M AVENUE, AND CALEO BAY, WITHIN LAKE LA 49111TTA The subject property Is a part of Tract 26152 which was approved by the City Council in July, 1990. Subsequent to the tract approval, four on -water unit types were approved and are presently under construction. Since the approval, some of these Marquessa on -water units have been modified and/or enlarged during the construction. Presently the unit sizes vary from 2500 square feet to S800 square feet. In June, 1993, the Avante project with three new unit types were approved for the lots off the water, north of Dulce Del Mar and along the east side of the project adjacent to Adams Street and Via Florence. These three unit types are 2005 square feet, 2470 square feet, and 2580 square feet in size. These homes are three bedrooms and four bedrooms or three bedrooms plus an extra master bedroom option. All units have a minimum two full bathrooms. The model complex for this project has been built and two production homes are presently under construction. Potentially, this project could consist of 77 homes. A common recreational park has been constructed at the west and of the lake near the northeast Intersection of Caleo Bay and Via Marquessa. The project Is a private community with a security gate at Dulee Del Mar and Caleo Bay. A second gate is proposed at Via Florence and Caleo Bay adjacent to the project PROJECT PROPOSAL: The applicants are intending to construct four different model plans on a total of 102 single family lots on the south side of the lake generally bordered by Via Florence, Caleo Bay, 48M Avenue, and Adams Street. The street improvements have been installed along with curb cuts ncsum for each lot. 38 to 40 lots have two curb cuts per lot. Presently, the entire site which they are proposing to construct on is vacant. The area immediately to the north consists of vacant single family lots which are either on water lots to be developed by Wilma Pacific or lots fronting on Via Florence which may be developed by Landrex (Avante� To the west of the site across Caleo Bay, is a vacant piece of land for which Eisenhower Medical Center received approval to construct a medical facility. That approval has since expired. To the east across Adams Street is vacant residentially zoned (R-2 8,000) property. To the south across 48th Avenue, is Rancho La Quinta Country Club which is presently under construction. The applicants are proposing four basic floor plans, two of which have options which would increase the base square footage. Those plans are as follows: PLAN SQ. FT. # GARAGES 1 1864 2+ golf cart 2 2006 2+ golf cart 3 2216 2+ golf cart 3L 2516 2+ golf cart 2nd story loft and optional attached guest cottage 4 2436 2+ golf cart 2728 with optional attached guest cottage 4L 2836 with optional 2nd story loft 3128 with optional 2nd story loft and optional attached guest cottage The applicant has submitted a tentative proposed mix of the 102 units. That mix as follows: PLAN # UNITS % MIX 1 21 21 2 14 14 3 25 25 3L 14 14 4 14 14 4L 14 14 TOTAL 102 100 Generally, the architectural style is a MediterraneanlSpanish motif utilizing stucco walls and trim and a "S" style roof tile. All garage doors will be sectional roll -up doors without lite panels. Each unit will have a chimney and French style front windows (with grlds} All PCK197 interior walls will be decorative block similar to other homes in Lake La Quinta. The floor plans show an optional front yard patio wall of 32-inches with a maximum 42,iuch high pilaster and wrought iron gate. The sideyard pedestrian gates will be wrought iron to match others In the project. The exterior stucco colors will be fairly neutral varying from white to a peach and blush with the roof tile a variegated tan color. There will be no exposed wood utilized on the structures. The maximum height of the units are as follows: Plan He ¢ht 1 17' 2 17' 3 17' 3L 201" (with loft) 4 18'6" 4L 22' (with loft) The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan to show the proposed front yard landscaping. Each unit will be provided with two trees on interior lots and five trees on a corner lot. The applicants are proposing some lots to have circular driveways and have shown landscaping treatment for one of these situations. The applicants have not determined precisely where the circular driveways will be utilized or how many. However, they have noted that there are approximately 38-40 existing lots which have two curb cuts. The applicants feel that they will provide circular driveways on lots where they can increase the front yard setback by at least five feet. ANALYST& The applicant has submitted plans to the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association for review. The Homeowners' Association has submitted a letter indicating that they approve of the units as proposed. There were some Homeowners' Association required changes made to the initial plans which are reflected in the drawings before you. Staff is expecting also to receive a letter from the Avante project. This will be passed out to you at the meeting. Presently the smallest home existing or approved in the project is the 2005 square foot, 3 bedroom unit being constructed by Avants. The applicant's smallest unit is proposed to be 1804 square feet which is . Ten percent smaller than the Avante unit. This size would be permitted by Compatibility Ordinance 241 The largest unit proposed by the applicant is 3128 square feet Including the optional guest cottage and loft. This is still smaller than the largest hiarquessa home at 3800 square feet. Therefore, the sizes proposed by the applicant are acceptable. Presently, there are no homes within the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, the proposed one story with Ioft unit can be constructed on any of the proposed lots without Impacting other existing units. HIV The applicant has indicated that lot fencing will be block with wrought iron gates to match those utilized In other parts of the subdivision. Architecturally, the proposed units are compatibility and similar to those existing in the subdivision. The Mediterranean/Spanish style is the style of both Marquessa and Avante. The front elevations have been provided with overhangs andlor recessed windows. The sides and rear elevations of all the proposed units, have minimal overhangs due to the architectural style of the units. The Marquessa project, being an upscale project, is provided with either significant overhangs or recessed windows for shade protection. The Avante project does utilize a covered patio at the rear of each unit. Additionally, there are some recessed windows and popouts around some of the side and unprotected rear glass areas of the Avante units. Based on recent actions by the Planning Commission, additional covered rear patios should be provided for the south and west facing windows. Additionally, there should be some use of stucco popouts around other windows and doors for both sun protection and architectural treatment. As indicated, the garage doors will be sectional one piece metal doors without lite panels similar to that utilized in the rest of the subdivision. The project proposes two full car garage spaces with the third space being a "golf cart" space. What this means is that the width of the single space is slightly smaller than the normal 10-foot single car space. Two of the three Avante units have a two car garage with the third unit having a two car plus workshop area. The Marquessa units are provided with three car garages. With regards to landscaping, for the most part, the landscaping materials are acceptable. There are some materials which will need careful placement to ensure their survival. With regards to circular driveways, the applicant shows a tree between the circular driveway and street along with screening shrubs and ground cover. The landscaping plans indicate that trees in front of the house would be 24-inch box size with side yard trees on corners 15-gallons in size. Further review of the landscaping plans and materials will be required prior to issuance of building permits. The applicant has provided a site plan layout for the units on Via Firenze, which includes 16 lots. The first phase is propose to consist of eight lots closest to Via Florence with Phase II being the remaining lots. A model complex is not proposed at this time. Ali the units shown would comply with the minimum setback requirements. This plot plan layout does not take into account any lots which may have a circular driveway. As previously indicated the applicant will increase the front setback if a circular driveway is utilized. Staff feels that the proposed architecture of the units Is acceptable provided additional architectural treatment is done to the sides and rear elevations including provisions for patio covers. Staff feels that courtyard fencing as an option is acceptable since the major developer of the project has approved it as such. ML107 Staff feels that there are adequate findings to support approval of this request as follows: 1. The proposed use conforms to all provisions of the General Plan and Specific Plans, and with all applicable requirements of State Law and ordinances of the City. 2. The units are architecturally compatible and designed to fit in with the existing units In the tract. 3. The Homeowners' Association for Lake La Quinta has reviewed and approved the units as proposed. 4. The units as proposed and conditioned will be compatible and not detrimental to other units within the project. 5. The development standards proposed by this project regarding setbacks, parking, landscaping, site design, and other similar features will be compatible with other existing units in the subdivision. By Minute Motion 94 , staff recommends approval of this request subject to the attached conditions. Attachments. 1. Plot plan map 2. General notes on the project submitted by the applicant 3. Home size comparison of projects at Lake La Quinta 4. Letter from the Lake La Quinta Homeowners' Association dated November 8, 1994 5. Plan exhibits ,i. ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACH M N- CE�iTtIRY HOMES Century•CnraelI Communities GENERAL NOTES ON SPINNAKER COVE DESIGN REVIEW SUBMISSION -------------------------------------------------------- It is the intent of Vintage Homes to comply with the requirements of the developer, the Lake La Quinta Architectural Control Committee, the Lake La Quinta C.C.& RI and Homeowners' Association as well as with the terms of the City of La Quintals Compatibility Ordinance 242. To this end the following is to clarify some of elements of the plans being submitted: - All colors and color variants materials are according to the developer's representative. used on the various exterior color palette provided by the The floor plan square footages have been set up to come within the maximum/minimum allowable areas as set out by Ord. 242 and have already received acceptance by the developer's representative. The exterior designs have attempted to utilize and be compatible with as many possible of the architectural elements/features of the exterior elevations in the plans already approved by the City. Once again the exterior elevations have already been approved by the developer's representative including certain changes to the clerestory roof projections to the 3C and 4C plans. The height of the front yard walls shown on the plans but not on the elevations has been set by the C.C. & R's at no higher than 54" but Spinnaker Cove courtyard walls are to be a maximum height of 32" with a maximum 42" high pilaster with the gate being wrought iron. The walls are to be stucco having the same color as the house and is typical for the Lake La Quinta Community. Sectional metal roll up garage doors are proposed for all garages. No lite panels are to be used. All interior walls shall be block in keeping with the other homes in Lake La Quinta. The proposed mix for our overall 102 lots is appended together with the proposed mix for our first construction phase (s). Appended to this submission is a plotting for our first construction phase which however does not include a model complex which will be built at a later date. The 18 sets of black line prints submitted do not show the roof tiles rendered. Please refer to the colored elevations which show the tiles especially rendered for the color presentatio�n"� eK- P�ftuCbior$6 1535 South " D" Street, Suite 200 " San Bernardino, CA 9240811 (ono) ZR 1 _F(W) 7. F A x (QOQ) ZR i _(WIA 1 -- ar6kur j„e, t.., ATTACHMENT HOME SIZE COMPARISON OF PLANS OFFERED OR TO BE OFFERED AT LAKE LA QUINTA Marquessa 2500 2600 2640 2867 2910 3100 3320 3800 Avante 2005 2470 2580 Vintage 1804 2006 2516 3128 ------------------------------------------------------------- The smallest Vintage Homes plan of 1804 S.F. is 10% smaller than the smallest plan currently being offered by the 2 current and active projects in Lake La Quinta. � n OCT 2 7 1994 C:i t ",,F t,-A- U.i:N1A - M - -1--,wr+s we-H LAKE LA QUINTA November 8, 1994 Stan Sawa City of La Quinta Mr. Sawa, ATTACHMENT 4 I have reviewed the elevation designs proposed for the Spinnaker Cove project at Lake La Quinta as proposed by Vintage Homes. I find these to be acceptable and in keeping with our architectual-.guidelines. Further, Vintage Homes has the permission of Wilma -La Quinta to pursue approval of their program with the city. Thank yo ur assistance. Jim LaLbgg Project Director of Lake La Quinta Architectual Committee of Lake La Quinta H.O.A. JL/as cc: A. Levine Vintage Homes NOV 0 8 144 CITY OF LAc_W10-TA G.Pr.RT 4ENT 47-305 VIA RAVENNA - LA CZUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 I 619.564-5407 FAX 619.564-5204 ATTACHMENT 5 !ri TT --4 AM. Be. Great Room uzM,I,. Suite—A J 00, Formal Dkft j Mstr. Suite 2 r I Ba.�2 Entry ntry M Kitchen A— > U L rFj e Mmr*V Room Garage 1�61 Guest Suite it 9.4 HOUSE/GUEST: 1804sq.ft. VINTAGE g(OMES Spinnaker: at .&r* Cove La 0itima j sea V TA IN GE HOMES Spinnaker Cove at Lake La Quints PLAN 1 LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION VINTAGE HOMES MSpinnaker Cove at iLake La aorta Opt. Pool/Jacizzl O FT Garage HOUSE/GUEST: 2006sq.f t. 51• PLAN 2 VINTAGE -00MES f Spinnaker Cove at ,.e to Quimr r i -. 1 1 2 0-127111 PLAN 2 LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEVATION OMES VINTAGE H ®� Spinnaker Cove at Lake La Quinca Opt. Pool/JacuzziLl ley — I I 1 _ i M. Ba. I0 Parlour — Ell� Family MO. Suite .y � • ,,:�I% gyp" ®opt. loft abov9l— RI..•' .f awT n'f nhy Formal DiOng drm.2 LAorrrtg � t 1. Reheat Porch I I II Kitchen ' _ rl= Servf •:I 1..1—.::.. LSi1 T —r--- OPt. 8a. 3 I I I O I Bdrm. 3/ I 1 — Dan/y a Llbrarar �j Garage w I+.r1 u1t +n I . It--•-11 Guest ��_= LM t� WY WU �4li H USE/GUEST:2216sq.ft. LOFT: 300sq.f t. TOTAL: 2516sq.f t. I PLAN 3 ,3L s Spinnaker Cave at Lake La Otrinta +' I I-J ...-i ,=r = PLAN 3L � � S VINTAGE HOMES Spinnaker Cove at Lake La Quinta LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT ELEvAnom r I w retreat _ mstr. suite i •'F, mcr rang room --I I 9 :.I 7) do 17 �' kitchen kvslg I ® formal chning — 4 —� opt. loft above entry j I den/ftary I IF I m. ba. O 0 i, p ba. porch ; I 1-- . Opt L_ •:guest ; be i = -- ir i c ourly ird ii guest collage ' II II I FIRST FLOOR I PLAN 4 ,4L,4G HOUSE: 2436sq.11. GUEST: 292sq.11. LOFT: 400s4ft. TOTAL: 3128sq.1t. garage s VINTAGE 910MES Spinnaker Cove at Lake La Ouinta__ Spinnaker Cove at o Lake La Quima I'ILI LEFT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION -. Poa m M---P—z a PLAN 4L ®� T I I Lake La Ouinta VINTAGE HOMEs Spinnaker Cove at ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - FINAL PLOT PLAN 94-541 VINTAGE HOMES, A DIVISION OF CENTURY HOMES NOVEMBER 22, 1994 * Amended by Planning Commission on November 22, 1994 Added by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1994 1-M 1. Approval is granted for Plans #1, 2, #3, #3L, #4, and #4L as noted and on file in the Community Development Department. 2. On the side and rear windows and doors, stucco popouts shall be provided where space is available, subject to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department. The applicant shall be required to submit a plan showing these stucco popouts prior to completion of final working drawings. 3. All side and rear yards shall be provided with block walls to match the existing decorative walls in the tract with pedestrian gates being metal and compatible and similar to existing gates. 4. A trellis or patio cover shall be provided for each single family residence where the rear of the unit faces west or south. The trellis or patio cover shall be a depth of four feet and be constructed over all sliding glass or French door openings and all glass windows greater than four feet by four feet. The concrete porch shall be provided under the doors and be the same size as the trellis or patio cover. 5. A landscaping and irrigation plan for all lots shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. The plans shall be provided as required by the Community Development Department. Additionally, the plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the Coachella Valley Water District Water Management Specialist. 6. 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. 7. The concrete driveways shall include expansion joints and a broom finish (or better) texture. The driveways shall be provided with integral color as approved by the Community Development Department. CONAPRVL.142 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. All applicable conditions of Tract 26152 shall be complied with. 11. At a minimum, all garage spaces shall have a minimum clear inside 20' X 20' dimension for the two car garage, as required by Municipal Code. 12.* On lots where a circular driveway is used, the minimum front yard setback shall be 25- feet subject to approval of the landscaping plans by the Planning Commission. Several alternatives for the treatment of the "Island" shall be submitted. 13.** If a lot with two curb cuts is not provided with a circular driveway, then the unused curb cut shall be removed and replaced with a standard curb. 14.** Plan #3 and #4 shall have a minimum 29-foot wide garage with an 8-foot wide single door and 15-foot wide double door. CONAPRVL.142 ATTACHMENT C Century -Crowell Communities December 2, 1994 Mr. Stan Sawa Planning Department City of La Quinta RE: CASE Plot Plan 94-541 - Additional Condition #12 from the Planning Commission Dear Mr. Sawa, It was my understanding that the Planning Commission would consider a minimum front yard setback of 20 feet where a circular driveway is used if we could make the case that a street scape having circular driveways could be visually acceptable. You will recall that in my initial remarks to the Commission, I asked for the 20 Foot setback where circular driveways were used rather than the 25 foot setback. I believe that the whole purpose of the Commission asking for "several alternatives" was for Vintage Homes to demonstrate the acceptability of circular driveways with front yards having 20 foot setbacks, not whether or nct we would be able to use circular driveways at all. You might also recall that I told the Commission that these circular driveways were an option, that they would not be used at the bulb of cul-de-sacs, that since this development has private streets, there would be no sidewalks thereby lessening the amount of concrete and lastly that the "island" of landscaping resulting from a circular driveway would be mounded to about 1.5 feet as well as landscaped to further visually mitigate any impact that might result. If I am in error in my thinking, this matter, when it goes back to the Commission, needs to be presented in the context of our original request. Please let me know where we stand on this matter as soon as possible as we are trying to get our plot plan completed so that we can submit for plan check. Sincere y, Arthur Levine Project Director cc: Gary Weintraub, Senior Vice President, Vintage Homes 1535 South " D" Street, Suite 200 • San Bernardino, CA 92408 - - - (909) 381-6007 v FAX (909) 381-0041 (__','iEN'T(RY'H0)AES Century -Crowell Communities December 30, 1994 Mr. Stan Sawa Principal Planner City of La Quinta RE: Amendment of Plot Plan 94 - 541 Dear Mr. Sawa, ATTACHMENT., D Although I would like my letter to you of December 2, 1994 to remain in the record, I would like to state that notwithstanding the 25 foot setback that you say other projects provide in this instance, I believe that they are on public streets whereas our project has private streets. Further, as we have no sidewalks, there would not be the additional concrete showing in the front yards as otherwise would be the case for houses fronting on public streets and along with the proposed berm and additional planting this should soften any impact that the circular driveway might have. Lastly, if we are able to have the 20 foot setback on the front yard with the option of a circular driveway, this leaves more of a rear yard for a homeowner to be able to put in his own pool should he desire or otherwise to landscape it. I want to add once again that a circular driveway is being offered as an option only and that this option would be restricted to only those lots whose configuration would allow it to be practical i.e. they would not be offered on lots at the bulb of a cul de sac or on the knuckle of a street all which amount to approximately 20% of our lots. Once again, not everyone is going to want this option. In addition to the above I wish to take issue with that provision of Article 7 requiring integral color in the driveways. This was required I am told because a few of the houses in Lake La Quinta already have this. It has come to my attention that this was never a requirement of the Design Reviews of either Avante or Marquessa and therefore had never been formally required or approved by the City or the developer. There is not even any provision for this in the architectural design guidelines of Lake La Quinta. The addition of color to the driveways was simply an upgrade requested by individual homeowners on some of the semi custom houses. As such, we would like to be relieved of the requirement for integral color in the driveways. Since�r1ly, � r r Arthur Levine Project Director 1535 South "D" Street, Suite 200 • San Bernardino, CA 92408 -- J (909) 381-6007 . FAX (909) 381-0041 BI #1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: JANUARY 10, 1995 CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 94-543 APPLICANT: LA QUINTA VILLAGE LIMITED (SESAME'S RESTAURANT) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A PLOT PLAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A FREE STANDING RESTAURANT IN THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CALLE TAMPICO GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) ZONING: C-P (GENERAL COMMfERCIAL) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS APPROVED FOR THE LA QUINTA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER (PLOT PLAN 91-456), DURING THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN 1991. THIS NEGATIVE DECLARATION ASSESSED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIIDERATION IS DEEMED NECESSARY. ZONING/ LAND USE: NORTH: C-PIPART OF SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH: R-2*40001LA QUINTA CIVIC CENTER EAST: SR/VACANT AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WEST: C-PIPART OF SHOPPING CENTER Property Description The subject property is a pad within the La Quinta Village Shopping Center. The property is presently a rough graded site with a retention basin which is under construction to the south, and parking lot improvements to the north and west. PCST.202 1 Description of Prolect The applicant proposes to construct a sit-down restaurant with alcoholic beverage service of approximately 3,500 square feet with some outdoor patio seating. The original plot plan allowed a total of 5,600 square feet of building area. Site Design The building is somewhat rectangular in shape with a round uncovered architectural feature supported by columns at the southwest corner. A trash enclosure will be located at the northeast corner of the site in the parking lot area with the main entrance into the restaurant is from the north. The building is setback 30-feet from the Washington Street property line. A unique architectural feature to the site design is an outdoor fountain and spillway which would be located to the south of the building between the outdoor eating area and the retention basin. Architectural Design The structure has been designed in a manner which is architecturally similar to the main shopping center area. The building utilizes a flat roof and partial tile roof which matches that used in the main shopping center. The walls will be exterior stucco to match the shopping center. Along the north, south, and east sides of the building the the roof will provided a outdoor covered area over the glass windows. A smaller overhang will be provided over the west windows. As indicated, there is a round uncovered rotunda feature at the southwest corner of the structure. This area will be utilized for outdoor seating. The outdoor seating area will consist of approximately 1,600 feet and be adjacent to the outdoor fountain. Over the building entry way, the applicant proposes an awning. The maximum height of the building at the flat roof is 24-feet. Parkin As previously indicated the parking lot improvements surrounding this building site have been installed. Parking was provided for a total of 5,600 square feet which exceeds that being proposed by the applicant. Therefore, parking requirements are complied with. Landscaping The applicant has submitted a preliminary landscaping plan for the area surrounding his building. Mature date palm trees are proposed adjacent to the outdoor fountain area with the other low-water usage plants and trees proposed surrounding the property. SignaLre The applicant intends to call his restaurant "Sesame's" and has shown proposed signage on the north elevation and east elevation facing Washington Street. Both signs would be located on a PCST.202 2 large stucco wall portion of the building above the building archways. The signage is proposed to consist of interior lit signs on two lines. The upper line would say "Sesame's" with letters two feet in height by 16-feet long in a slight radius. The second line would say "Restaurant" and be one foot high by 16-foot long. The total square footage of the signage is 48 square feet. A smaller sign saying "Sesame's" is proposed on the awning over the entrance. This sign is proposed to be 12-inches in height and approximately 10-feet in length and be curved to match the archway. This sign is provided to show where the entry to the restaurant is located. ANALYSIS: The project has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the main shopping center. The same materials and colors are utilized and many of the same architectural features are used. Therefore, the building will fit well with the existing shopping center. Staff feels that there are grounds for approval of this plot plan as follows: 1. The project has been designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 2. The project conforms and will be compatible with the existing shopping center. 3. The project conforms with the logical development of the land and surrounding area. 4. The project complies with all applicable requirements of Plot Plan 91-456 and all zoning and General Plan requirements. RICOMM MATION: By Minute Motion 95- approve Plot Plan 94-543, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Comments from various City Departments and outside agencies 3. Plans and exhibits PCST.202 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED PLOT PLAN 94-543 - LA QUINTA VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP JANUARY 10, 1995 COMMUNITY DKVMPNODIiT DEPARTMENT: 1. The development of this site shall be in conformance with the exhibits on file in the Community Development Department for Plot Plan 94-543, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the Planning Commission approval; unless it shall become null and void and of no affect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is allowed by this approval, not including grading which is begun within one year and thereafter diligently pursued to completion. A time extension as allowed by the Municipal Code may be requested 30- days prior to expiration. 3. All applicable conditions of Plot Plan 91-456 shall be complied with as required. 4. An exterior lighting plan for the building and outdoor area shall be approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The building lights shall match those used within the shopping center. Lighting fixtures shall be shielded to eliminate glare onto adjacent streets and land uses. 5. All conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District as noted in their letter dated December 16, 1994, on file in the Community Development Department shall be met. 6. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in affect at the time of the issuance of a building permit. 7. Construction shall comply with all local and State building codes in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 8. Prior to the fabrication and/or installation of the building signage, final plans based on the Planning Commission approval including colors and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department. 9. There shall be no exterior exposed roof access ladder provided. The roof access shall be provided from within the structure. 10. Prior to issuance of a fine grading or building permit for construction contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances, if necessary, from the following public agencies: CONAPRVL.145 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-543 January 10, 1995 * Fire Marshal * Public Works Department * Community Development Department * Riverside County Environmental Health Department * Desert Sands Unified School District * Coachella Valley Water District * Imperial Irrigation District The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining the City's approvals and signatures on the final plans. Evidence of the permits or clearances from the above agencies shall be presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 11. Final building, landscaping, and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 12. All new trees approved by this approval shall be a minimum of 364nch box size with all palm trees to be a minimum of 8-feet in height. 13. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Agricultural Commissioner and Coachella Valley Water District prior to issuance of a building permit.. 14. Any required utility boxes, pads, meters, etc., shall be shown on the final landscaping plans to ensure that they are properly treated and screened. Compliance with the utility company safety distance shall also have to be complied with. 15. Should any of the landscaping be provided in the perimeter street right-of-way, the Engineering Department approval shall also be required prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. The outdoor fountain plans shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicantldeveloper shall meet with the Community Development Department to determine what trash materials can be recycled. Upon that determination, recycling areas sufficient in capacity,. number, and distribution, to serve the restaurant shall be provided. Trash enclosures shall comply with the requirements of the City and Waste Management of the Desert (i.e., solid metal doors, mounted on metal poles and embedded in concrete, 8-inch interior curb provided within the enclosure, and a concrete floor and pads CONAPRVL.145 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 94-543 January 10, 1995 18 That all exterior colors and materials shall match those used within the existing shopping center. 19. The awning design and colors including signage shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit. 20. Outdoor seating shall be confined to the area as shown on the approved preliminary landscaping plans on file in the Community Development Department. 21. Final construction plans shall show all roof mounted air conditioning and mechanical equipment to ensure that it is screened from view as required by Code. 22. This approval includes no freestanding monument signs for this use. 23. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall fill out an application for an Air Quality Checklist as required by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (The application checklist is available in the Community Development Department.) Ui lyfji 24. 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. 25. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrants) (6" X 4" X 2%11), located not less than 25-feet nor more than 165-feet from any portion of the building(s) as measures along approved vehicular travelways. 26. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 27. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact a certified extinguisher company for proper placement of the equipment. 28. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguisher system. The system plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 29. 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. 30. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time the building plans are submitted. r�_•f� CONAPRVL.145 ATTACHMENT 1 I Lai 1 JL.�J_1lII 1 KA Pµ 12; elie- 11 nun Gum $A � •, V% WV7 M.� -- a. � JP • -fir / %7lLA / N Has i • "� 1 TT7� MO •� ' . • a l 1 1. �., 1 1 1 YM W. • ..0 — •ter .... 1 •M� C� 1 NORTH CASE No. PLOT PLAN 94-543 SCALE: SESAME'S Nrs � `' ATTACHMENT 2 0 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GEM OF THE DESERT J ! . DEC 2 0 19% December 13, 1994 -.� F! .. - TO: City of La Quinta Community Development Department Stan Sawa, Principal Planner FROM: La Quinta Chamber of Commerce f Planning and Review Committee ,r Dan Featheringill, President RE: Plot Plan 94-543; La Quinta Village Limited Partnership The La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee met December 12, 1994, as the Planning and Review Committee. At that time they reviewed proposed project plot plan 94-543; La Quinta Village Limited Partnership. The project is a 3,500 square foot freestanding restaurant in La Quinta Village Shopping Center (northwest corner of Washington and Calle Tampico). They have no objections at this time. Furthermore, they would recommend that the city approve this project. POST OFFICE BOX 255 9 51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS s LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, 92253 • (619) 564-3199 FAX i619) 564-3111 South Coast AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 AIR QUALITY PERMIT CHECKLIST for non-residential buildings only Location of Property: Zip Code Company Name: Contact Person: Telephone Number: Type of Industry/Business: Title: Fax Number: Any person applying for a non-residential building permit must complete this checklist. If you have any questions about completing this checklist, please call 1 800 388-2121 for assistance. YES NO 1. Will the building house a restaurant (with a charbroiler)? [ J [ ] 2. Will any internal combustion engines with greater than 50 Horse Power operate at the facility? [ ] [ ] (excludes motor vehicles) 3. Will operations at the facility involve the mixing, [ ] [ J blending, or processing of solvents, adhesives, paints or coatings? 4. Will any dust or smoke be generated at the facility? [ ] [ ] 5. will refining of any liquids or solids be done at the facility? 6. all any plating or coating of materials be done at the facility.' [ ] [ ] 7. Will any combustion equipment rated greater than 2,000,000 Btu/hr be operated at the facility? [ ] 8. Will any acids, solvents, or motor fuel be handled or stored [ ] at the facility? 9. Will any organic liquids or gases be reacted or produced? [ ] [ 10. Will any ovens be used to dry or cure products at the facility? [ J [ 11. Will any CFC recycling machines operate at the facility? [ [ Person Preparing this Form : Name: Signature: (Print Clearly) If you have marked "No" in All the boxes, an air quality permit is = needed at this time. This checklist is your written release. If you marked "Yes" in any of the boxes, you must contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD). Please read the requirements on the back of the checklist. 1800 388-2121 (FAX 1909 396-3335) revised 8/26/% ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY -vi T COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 922M • TELEPHONE (619) 3982651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODENAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W McFADDEN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. DE LAY December 16, 1994 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 0163.1 DEC 13 1994 r Subject: Plot Plan 94-543, Portion of the Northwest Quarter of Section 6, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth 1 foot 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 Dan Farris, principal stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engi RR:sv/el9/floodl 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 To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Attn: Re: Plot Plan 94-543 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92570 • (909) 657-318 December 9, 1994 DEC t 2 1994 With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced Plot Plan, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code and/or Riverside County Fire Department protection standards: 1. 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. 2. The required fire flow shall be available from a Super hydrant(s) (6" x 4" x 2 1/2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. 3. Install panic hardware exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 4. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 5. Install a food Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 6. 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. 0 RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 275-4777 9 FAX (909) 369-7451 -1- FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION PLANNING SECTION (3 INDIO OFFICE 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 (619) 863-8886 • FAX (619) 863-7072 To: City of La Quinta Re: PP 94-543 12/9/94 Page 2 Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months. 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 & Engineering Staff at (619) 863-8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By or.. h14 cc Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist JP/th IMPERIAL IRRI All N I JR1 I COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81-600 AVENUE 58 • P.O.BOX 1080 *LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253.1080 TELEPHONE (619) 398.5811 • FAX (619) 398-5848 IIDPD-DDC December 13, 1994 T.I DEC 16 1g94 Mr. Stan Sawa, Principal Planner Community Development Department City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Sawa: Re: Plot Plan 94-543 Restaurant in La Quinta Village Shopping Center (Ralph's) Enclosed please find the Pad "B" Preliminary Plans & Elevation drawings that were provided to Imperial Irrigation District (District). After review of these plans, it was concluded this project will impact the electric service to the area. Previous discussions with District personnel regarding this project have determined that an 800-amp, 120/208-volt panel will be placed on the western wall of the restaurant. If this information is incorrect, please let us know immediately. The cumulative impact of projects of this size will be to increase the electrical demand on the District's existing facilities at peak loading periods, and will result in the need for additional generation, transmission, substation, and distribution facilities. This will directly impact future power rates in the District's service area, and may result in higher electric rates in future years. A Developer's Information Letter is enclosed which specifies the District's requirements. Among those requirements are District regulations which state the underground conduit and vault system (including any required streetlighting system) will be installed at the expense of the Owner/Developer/Contractor. These underground facilities will include padmount transformers (averaging three feet in width, length, and height) and padmount switches (approximately six feet in width and length and four feet in height). An area approximately ten feet in radius around these facilities must be kept clear of shrubs and similar landscape vegetation to insure the safety of District personnel during maintenance and operation of the equipment. These padmount transformers and switches will be located within a ten -foot easement as described below. The District must have access at all times to any District facility for maintenance and emergency situations. If these are to be gated communities, provisions must be made for access. Mr. Stan Sawa - 2 - December 13, 1994 Easements, ten feet in width and adjacent to all streets, will be required for the installation of underground power facilities. The District requires that the easement indicated in the Developer's Information Letter be shown on the final tract map title sheets. Easement originals must be signed by a representative of the District prior to recording. If you need additional information concerning this matter, please contact me at (619) 398-5818 or John Salas at 398-5834. Sincerely yours, lei THOMAS F. LYONS, JR., P. E. Engineer, Sr. Enclosures M:rg IMPtRl I IRRI 11PN 01 IRIE1 COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81.600 AVENUE 58 • P.O.BOX 1080 *LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253.1080 TELEPHONE (619) 398-5811 • FAX (819) 398 49--- -- - - '- DEVELOPER'S INFORMATION LETTER DEC 16 (Effective September 15, 1994) ( As an Owner, Developer or Contractor involved in today's new residential and/or commercial developments, you are well aware of how timing can make the difference between the success or failure of any project. The importance of establishing and adhering to realistic construction schedules is equally as important to the success of that project, as is project funding. With current and projected demands for residential and commercial units within the service area of the Imperial Irrigation District (District), Developers establish a comprehensive development plan for the successful marketing of their project. The District, likewise, in order to provide electrical service in a timely manner to various projects, must also set schedules to keep pace with the demands for services. In that regard, the following Information is provided as a guide to assist the Owner, Developer or Contractor in the planning and scheduling of his/her project(s). All of the general and specific requirements set forth in the 'Project Service Schedule' must be followed in the sequence listed, therein. When underground facilities are to be included, the District Will provide a complete set of underground duct, vault, transformer pad and riser pole system installation drawings and associated specifications for each project or project phase. It Is the responsibility of the Owner's), Developer(s) or Contractor to provide and install the underground conduit and vault system complete, at the Owner's, Developer's or Contractor's expense, to and including any street fighting systems required by and approved by the City or County agency having jurisdiction in the project area. Ughting systems must be approved in advance of Installation by both the County and the District within a County Service Area (CSA), and shall be designed by and included with the District's underground power system drawings. The District will provide an Underground Power Inspector during the actual installation of conduit and vault systems. Any request for inspections on a project must be scheduled with the District 48 hours prior to actual need. Failure on the part of the Owner's), Developer(s) or Contractor, to schedule and/or obtain an inspection and approval for any portion of the righting or underground power systems, may result in the total rejection of the newly installed systems. Developer's Letter -2- September 15, 1994 It is the responsibility of the Owner(s), Developer(s) or Contractor to supply and maintain all necessary safeguards and to insure a safe working environment during and after the construction and/or installation of the underground power system. It is the District's policy to occupy and energize only those portions of the system for which a written service request has been made and all line extension charges and connect fees have been paid. Only those portions of the system which are actually occupied and energized by the District will be released from the Owner's or Applicant's responsibility. The Owner(s) or Developer(s) shall continue to be responsible for the maintenance, repairs, safety, corrections, and the liability for the balance of the unoccupied and unenergized portions of the power system, until such time that the District takes possession. Any portion of an existing underground system installed in advance of service needs by the Owners) or Developer(s), but not occupied and energized by the District, shall require a full and complete reinspection. The District will not establish construction and/or cable installation schedules in advance of this requirement. Upon completion of the duct and vault system and acceptance of the installation as meeting the District's standards for installation conformance only, the Owner(s) or Applicant will transfer an unencumbered ownership of all such facilities, excel2t conduits, vaults and enclosures that are on, within or a part of a building or structure, or that are not occupied and energized by the District. During the initial review of any project, the District may determine that special service conditions exist due to one or more of the following conditions: 1. Determined by the District that existing distribution and/or transmission facilities do not have the capacity to serve said project. 2. Special or additional right-of-ways or easements may be required to serve said project. 3. Special voltage and/or load demands could be imposed on existing facilities by the project. In which case the Owner(s), Developer(s) or Applicant would be required to: 1. Provide a two -acre substation site at a location determined by the District. 2.. Provide any additional right-of-ways or easements that the District determines will be necessary to provide electrical service to said project. Developers Letter -3- September 15, 1994 These guidelines, as provided by the District, herein, are not a guarantee expressed or implied that electrical service will be provided to a particular project or phase of said project, nor that electrical system designs or service will be provided within the time frame so stated or Implied, herein. To eliminate any misunderstandings concerning the District's assumption of liability for personal injury or property damage prior to or following the completion of the underground duct and vault system by the Owner(s), Developer(s) or Contractor, please note the following: The Owner and/or Developer will be required to acknowledge, in writing, that the District assumes no responsibility for safety, maintenance, repair or corrections for any on -site or off -site electrical distribution system equipment or facilities until the system and facilities are occupied and energized by the District. The Owner(s), or Developer(s) will be required to sign and have notarized an Indemnification Statement prior to obtaining electrical power service for the development project. The person or persons executing the said statement are legally authorized by the Owner(s) and/or Developer(s) to enter into the Agreement and that same is binding on all parties having ownership of, or contractual interest In the land and/or development project. Please refer to EXHIBIT "A", sheet 8 of 8 of this informational letter for the standard recording form format required by the State of California for recordation in both Imperial and Riverside counties. The District's Indemnification Statement has been Incorporated on this form for your convenience as well as notes relating to the required legal description of the site or project. Note that the property and/or the development's legal description may require more space than is provided on the form due to text size requirements per government code. Please refer to the legal description of the property or project site as EXHIBIT "A" and any associated maps or drawings as EXHIBIT "B." The following is a sample of a legal description that will fit Into this format. ..........................................................................................................................................., THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF FRACTIONAL SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN;:: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND DELINEATED IN EXHIBIT "B," ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. ............................................................................................................................................ Developer's Letter -4- September 15, 1994 Please note that the District requires that the Owner(s), Developer(s) or Contractor for a development project within the District's service area are required to provide the following items to the Engineering and Distribution Department having jurisdiction in the project service area: 1. Be advised that Items 3 through 8 and Item 10, are to be provided in AutoCAD Format up to and including Rev. 12, and submitted to the District on a standard 5-1/4" mini -floppy disk (double sided/high density/double track) or a 3-1/2" micro - floppy disk (double sided/high density/double track). State Plane Coordinates may be obtained for Imperial County from the County of Imperial or from the Imperial Division of the Imperial Irrigation District — Power Department, (Distribution Units). Please note that this service is not available in the Coachella Valley Power Division of the Imperial Irrigation District. If this CAD media is not available or cannot be provided by the Developer or Applicant, then hard copy maps/plans and drawings will be accepted by the District for design study but under the following conditions: A. Plans and other drawings required by IID for Commercial and Housing Developments not submitted as AutoCAD drawings may delay the District's project development drawings to the Applicant by 90 days or more. B. AutoCAD drawings that cannot be utilized due to lack of same scale for all components, or lack of detail required for designing the requested power system, or the lack of state plane coordinates for all details tied down to at least one commonly known benchmark, or lack of correct dimensions on landbase details, or extensive use of single layers that have all pertinent text, as well as multiple drawings on one layer. 2. One copy of approved Street Lighting plan similar to conditions in Item 1 above. No e: In the District's Riverside County service area, the Developer will submit lighting proposals, first to the County of Riverside and then to Imperial Irrigation District, Power Department for approvals. 3. Water, sewer and drainage plans. 4. Street improvement plans. 5. Precise grading and landscaping plans. 6. Plot plans with buildings shown. 7. Parcel and overall project map with phasing. Developers Letter -5- September 15, 1994 8. Graphic scales on all Auto -Cad drawings. 9. One hard copy of total connected electrical loads for each building style or floor plan. 10. All parcel map property comers or tract map boundary comers shall be tied to section or 1/4 section comers, 11. The following easement requirements shall be recorded on the title sheets of tract and/or applicable parcel maps within City limits. OWNER'S STATEMENT WE, HEREBY, OFFER FOR DEDICATION TO THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, AN EASEMENT OVER ALL PRIVATE STREETS SHOWN ON THIS MAP AND AN ADDITIONAL TEN (10) FEET IN WIDTH ON BOTH SIDES OF AND ADJACENT TO ALL PRIVATE STREETS AND/OR PUBLIC STREETS SHOWN ON THIS MAP FOR THE EXCAVATION, LAYING, CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, INSPECTION, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT; AND REMOVAL OF ELECTRICAL LINES, WIRES, CABLES, DUCTS, SUPPORTS, FIXTURES, FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES, WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND WITHIN SAME FOR MAINTENANCE, OPERATION, AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES. CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE GOV. CODE SEC. 27281 1, HEREBY, CERTIFY THAT UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ME BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, PER RESOLUTION NO. 15-90, DATED MARCH 22, 1990, THAT I ACCEPT ON BEHALF OF SAID DISTRICT, ITS SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, THE DEDICATION OF EASEMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL POWER FACILITIES AS OFFERED, HEREIN. DATED:_ BY: SUPERINTENDENT, GENERAL COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION • (( For Riverside County areas)) OR SUPERINTENDENT, GENERAL IID POWER CONSUMERS SERVICES (( For Imperial County areas)) Developer's Letter -6- September 15, 1994 If the map has been approved or recorded in advance of this requirement, then the Owner(s) and/or Developer(s) shall advise the District of same and other easement arrangements shall be made with the Owner(s) or Developer(s) to obtain said easements. Any easement requirements over and above that stated, herein, will be requested by separate notice during the project scoping study or as soon as the need is apparent. NO FINAL PRINTS FOR OVERHEAD AND/OR UNDERGROUND POWER FACILITIES WILL BE ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT'S CONSTRUCTION FORCES, UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE DISTRICT'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED FIVE -FULL SIZE COPIES OF THE RECORDED TRACT AND/OR PARCEL MAP WITH ITS ASSOCIATED TITLE SHEET(S) WHEN APPLICABLE. PROJECT SERVICE SCHEDULE 1. Application for electrical service(s) to proposed project (Imperial Irrigation District Business Office). 2. Requirements of Developers Information Letter completed. 3. Conduit drawings by Imperial Irrigation District completed and mailed to Developer or Contractor (60 days typical). 4. Cable Charges prepared and mailed to Developer or Contractor when available. 5. Cable Charges paid. NOTE: Further scheduling will not occur until Item 5 is completed . 6. Cable drawings prepared and material ordered (45 days typical). 7. Underground conduit system installation completed and approved by Imperial Irrigation District Inspector. 8. Imperial Irrigation District work order released to Construction Department for scheduling (45 days typical). 9. Start construction as per scheduled date. 10. Construction completed. DATE COMPLETED Developer's Letter -7- September 15, 1994 NOTE: Any changes made by the Applicant to the project that will require the District to make modifications or changes to the original design of the electrical facilities for the project will cause the project schedule to revert back to Item 2. PLEASE FORWARD ALL MAPS, AUTOCAD MEDIA AND CORRESPONDENCE TO: COACHELLA VALLEY ARE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT Date Issued: 81-600 Avenue 58 P.O. Box 1080 La Quinta, California 92253-1080 Issued By: Telephone: (619) 398-5854 Section or Unit: Fax Number: (619) 391-5999 Received By: Owner, Developer and/or Agent IMPERIAL VALLEY ARE IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT Date Issued: 333 East Barioni P.O. Box 937 Imperial, California 92251-0937 Issued By: Telephone: (619) 339-9182 Fax Number. (619) 339-9140 Section or Unit: Received By: Owner, Developer and/or Agent Developer's Letter RECORDING REQUESTED BY: i IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRI No Recording Fees Required Per Government Code: Section 27383 AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: REAL ESTATE SECTION IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT P.O. BOX 937 IMPERIAL, CALIFORNIA 92251 -8. September 15, 191, EXHIBIT "A" 1/2" TOP OF FORM 2-3/4 INCHES 1/2" FROM EDGE OF FORM ON ALL SIDES OF THE FORM 51NCHES SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE PROJECT LEGAL DESCRIPTION INCLUDING TRACT No., PARCEL No., OR RECORD OF SURVEY No. INDEMNIFICATION STATEMENT "IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED AND UNDERSTOOD BY THE PARTIES HERETO, THAT THE OWNER(S) AND/O DEVELOPER(S) OF THE HEREIN ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY OR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. SHALL 6 FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDITION, SAFETY, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS, AS WELL A REQUIRED CORRECTIONS, AS TO ALL U14OCCUPIED AND UNENERGIZED COMPONENTS OF TH PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY ELECTRICAL SERVICE DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES, BOTH ON AND OFF TH CONSTRUCTION OR PROJECT SITE, WHERE SUCH SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES ARE REQUIRED TO B CONSTRUCTED OR INSTALLED BY THE OWNER(S) OR DEVELOPER(S). THIS RESPONSIBILITY WIL CONTINUE UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE SYSTEMS AND FACILITIES HAVE BEEN ENERGIZED BY TH DISTRICT. THE OWNER(S) OR DEVELOPER(S)INDEMNIFIES THE DISTRICT AND HOLDS THE DISTRIC HARMLESS FROM ALL DAMAGE CLAIMS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,.CLAIMS FOR BODILY INJUR OR PROPERTY DAMAGE RELATING TO OR ARISING AS A RESULT OF THE INSTALLATION OF SAI FACILITIES, UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN ENERGIZED BY THE DISTRICT. THE INDEMNIFICATION INCLUDE THE DISTRICT'S COSTS OF DEFENDING ANY APPLICABLE CLAIMS, INCLUDING REASONABL ATTORNEY'S FEES." IN WITNESS WEREOF, said Grantor _ ha _ hereunto affixed signature — this day of ,19 GRANTOR *GRANTORS ( Example 1 ) H.K.Porter Company A Limited Partnership ( Example 2 ) By: &9 RI sawar " Principle Partner and President Owner r, , F BI #2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMON MEETING DATE: JANUARY 10, 1995 CASE: SIGN APPROVAL 95-275 APPLICANT: CENTURY HOMES (MR. DENNIS CUNNINGHAM) UgUFSr APPROVAL OF A SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW TWO SUBDIVISION NAME SIGNS FOR TRACT 26188 LOCATION: SOUTH OF EMS AVENUE AND EAST OF ADAMS STREET RACBGROIIND: The Municipal Code permits one maximum 32-square foot, eight foot high subdivision name sign at each major street entrance to the project. Century Homes is planning to develop the subject property on the south side of Miles Avenue and east of Adams Street. The tract has one entrance off of Miles Avenue (Attachment 1). The applicant is asking permission to construct two subdivision name signs at their Miles Avenue entry at Bridgette Way. PROJECT PROPOSAL` The applicant is requesting approval to construct two subdivision name signs on the perimeter block walls between the 32" square stucco pillars (Attachment 2). The sign would consist of metal ('a" cut aluminum) letters painted medium green to be consistent with the Topaz project identification sign to the east of the site. The sign would say "Del Rey" and consists of 18- inch high letters with the exception of the polished brass flying Eagle logo (Attachment 3). The length of the sign copy is 14-feet. SIGN ADJUSTMENT: As permitted by the Municipal Code, the applicant is asking for a sign adjustment as well as design approval in order to have a second sign at this entrance. The Municipal Code allows an additional sign to "compensate for inadequate visibility, or to facilitate good design balance". The applicant feels that in order to balance the entrance and to provide adequate visibility from both directions, these signs are needed. ANALYSIS: Staff feels that the request is acceptable. The signs are relatively small and are designed in a manner which will be attractive. Staff feels that the findings can be made that the signs as proposed will provide better visibility from both the east and west, and do provide a YCST.198 balanced entry design. RECOMMENDATIOAi: By Minute Motion 95- , move to approve the request, subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Tract location map 2. Site plan 3. Elevation plan 4. Landscape concept PCST.198 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SIGN APPLICATION 95275 CENTURY HOMES JANUARY 10, 1995 FINDINGS: 1. The sign locations will provide proper tract identification because the signs can be read from each direction of vehicle travel. 2. The request is architecturally compatible with other tract signs in the area, and is proportional in size to the 45-degree perimeter wall return to which it is applied. CONDITIONS: 1. This sign application is approved to allow two subdivision name signs at the Miles Avenue and Bridgette Way entrance of Tract 26188 per the exhibits on file in the Community Development Department. 2. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction. 3. A sign permit fee of $80.00 shall be paid to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. CONAPRVL144 a i DIM1E bl2NE ATTACHME=NT 1 molorols AVM -.IF , NKill r El ,„C ,^ 1-1 !� KA4A Gs��QT' M INA �w It r CA V N 0 i i ! x i t k ! is r* U E &YE !i rh E v►c-Tzmt A DQiv !A f '1, 11�1 a PROPOSED iUiURE MY PARK SffC � 613 431 006 VA pok"MVACANT we ...a +.w ATTACHMENT 2 Immommmmmmi 1 Ln �• F(Dc,+ CQ cO r- O OJ fD 0 ATTACHMENT ki BI #3 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JANUARY 10, 1995 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 94270 (AMENDMENT #1) REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A NEW BUILDING SIGN FOR THE CARUS JR.IGREEN BURRITO BUSINESS AT 78-672 HIGHWAY 111 BACBGROW. The Carl's Jr. restaurant at 78-672 Highway III has formed a partnership in December with the Green Burrito restaurant to operate both restaurant businesses from this existing site. The dual - concept restaurant is the first one to be developed in the Coachella Valley. The remodeled facility was opened to the public a few weeks ago. On December 13, 1994, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by DGI Sign to modify the existing building signs at the Carl's Jr. restaurant to incorporate new signs for both businesses. At the meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the new proposal that included both business signs/logos on each side of the existing building. The Planning Commission voted to approve the request as follows: "On Signs A (west elevation) and B (north elevation), on the gable ends over the entries, the Carl's Jr. sign lettering would be reduced in size and no new Green Burrito signs would be allowed. On the facia, as discussed, on the north elevation between Signs IN and 'B', a Green Burrito sign, as shown in the Exhibit would be allowed on the building eave. Signs 'C' (east elevation) and 'D' (south elevation) would be approved as submitted." On December 16, 1994, Mr. Skip Berg was permitted to install two new building signs (Signs "B" and "D") at the existing facility. Staffs approval was based on the Commission's actions of December 13th. New Application Request On December 30, 1994, a new sign request was received from DGI Sign for a new sign on the east side of the building (originally Sign "C"). The new sign is in a different location from the applicant's proposal of December because the applicant wishes to relocate the existing Carl's Jr. sign from the upper elevation of the building (northeast side) to the southeasterly building facia. The new sign, which includes both businesses, is on the facia on the southeast side of the building to the south of the drive-thru trellis. Besides this sign, the applicant would also like the Planning Commission to reconsider allowing the existing Carl's Jr. signs (Signs "A" and "B") to remain above the building entries without having to install new signs that would be smaller in overall height and size than the existing signs. Staff Comments Staff is uncomfortable with the applicant's newest request for a sign on the east building wall because the sign will clutter the building facia and the sign is so lengthy the "Happy Star" logo had to be placed on the adjoining building wall. The sign should be proportional to the area were the sign is to be placed. This proposal is not architecturally compatible with the other approved signs on the building. We would recommend that if this new location is wanted, the sign should not include the logos for either business. If the logos are eliminated, the sign should be centered on the facia between the edge of the building and the drive-thru trellis. The last matter for the Planning Commission to consider is the applicant's request to retain the existing Carl's Jr. signs (Signs "A" and "B") on the building. In December, the Planning Commission felt the existing sign letters should be reduced in size from approximately 294nches to 18-inches. RECOMMMATIOW. Adopt Minute Motion 95- approving a sign on the east building elevation (Sign "C") for Carl's Jr./Green Burrito provided the logos are removed from the signage request, and Signs "A" (west elevation) and "B" (north elevation) are reduced from approximately 29-inches to 18-inches pursuant to the exhibits on file with the Community Development Department. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Large exhibits (January 3, 1995) (Planning Commission only) 2 Drive• ATTACHMENT 1 One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center Common Area Parking V� S T A T E H I G H W A Y I I I Simon Motors Simon Drive 0 m v T W N N i •r s o- - 4.) M Y! W C O ij -WC N u 0 0 M110 S PLANAHNG COMMMSION - CITY OF LA WINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California DECEMBER 13, 1994 1. CALL TO ORDER A. The meting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Chairman Adolph. Commissioner Butler led the flag salute. II. ROLL CALL A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioner Abels, Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph. 7:00 P.M. B. Staff Present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, and Department Secretary Betty Sawyer. III. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Robert Tyler, 41-215 Valleta Drive, asked if there had been any public hearings before the Planning Commission or City Council regarding the Auto mall. Chairman Adolph stated there had been no hearings before the Planning Commission nor the City Council. Mr. Tyler questioned why the City of Indio had been holding hearings regarding the Mall, and La Quinta had not. Chairman Adolph stated the City had held no hearings regarding the subject. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONTINUED - TENTATIVE TRACT 27854 AND SPECIFIC PLAN 93-023 (AMENDMENT "; a request of Jascorp (Mr. Joseph Swain) for approval to 1) revise an approved tentative tract map to reduce the number of buildable lots from 116 to 106; and 2) to revise the adopted Conditions of Approval for the project's approved specific plan. 1. Chairman Adolph stated the applicant had requested the issue be continued to January 24, 1995. Commissioners AbelslButler moved and seconded a motion to continue the item to January 24, 1995. Unanimously approved. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-015• a request of J. L. Jarnagin (La Quinta Carwash) for approval of a full service tunnel carwash and detail shop. PC12.13 1 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 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 recommended two additional conditions regarding the access easement off Washington Street recommending a triangular island be installed to avoid illegal left turns onto Washington Street, and the closure of the Washington Street access in the future if alternate access can be provided. Staff then handed out additional letters to the Commissioners that had been received. Staff further stated that a setback variance will be needed if the conditional use permit is approved. 2. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified the staff report regarding the findings for the conditional use permit (in the report it is written "findings for the plot plan",. 3. Chairman Adolph asked if there were any questions of staff. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public hearing. Mr. Jim Jarnagin, applicant, gave a presentation of the project. He gave a slide presentation showing examples of what the public can perceive as a carwash. 4. Mr. Duane Yonker, applicant/designer, also spoke on behalf of the project. He asked that the Planning Commission not judge the product on what is perceived of a carwash but judge it on the merits of what the applicants are presenting. 5. Commissioner Anderson asked if the study the applicants conducted, showed whether there was any other area or site in the City that would work as well for the project. Mr. Jarnagin stated that in their opinion this is the finest and most cost efficient site. 6. Mr. Fred Shannon, representing Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan, who is the property owner of the land for the proposed project, stated the land had diminished over the years due to the easements that have been acquired or are needed for setbacks, etc. As owners they decided to sell the property to move it along. He further stated that Mr. Jarnagin's project was a viable commercial venture and a viable use of the property, and as owners of the property they would recommend the Planning Commission approve the project. 7. Mr. Dan Shephardson, 54-839 Shoal Creek, La Quinta, stated he and his wife have been full time residents since 1989. Many people in La Quinta feel there should be a car wash closer to home than Palm Desert. He has known the applicant for a number of years and he knows him to be of good character and will produce a beautiful facility. He would ask that the Planning Commission approve the project. PC12-13 2 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 8. Mr. Robert Tyler, volunteer driving instructor and resident of La Quinta, stated this corner has always been a traffic problem. He would not be in favor of in or out access onto Washington Street. Any access should be on Simon Drive. He further stated his concern that there had been a continuing dialog with Simon Plaza to develop their project and he felt the carwash people should be required to pay for the same items that Simon Plaza had been conditioned to pay. He pointed out to the Commissioners that a carwash was currently under construction on Adams Street north of Highway Ill as part of Wal-Mart Center and there was a sign at Country Club and Washington Street stating a carwash was to be constructed. He asked if the community could support three car washes. In addition, he was concerned about a carwash being located at the opening to La Quinta but, after seeing the pictures presented by the applicant, he had changed his mind and felt the project would not be an eyesore. 9. Mr. Dexter Barr, resident of Cathedral City, speaking for Mr. Jim Loggia, the land developer of Lake La Quinta and Mr. Andrews, the land owner of Avante at Lake La Quinta who were the closest residential developers to the project. Mr. Barr stated Mr. Loggia and Mr. Andrews were not opposed to the carwash but to the location as this is the gateway into La Quinta. He further stated he did not believe the residents of La Quinta would want a carwash at this location. He felt that given the setbacks and land use proposed for this piece of property, that the land could not support a project as depicted in the slides. 10. Mr. Skip Berg, 55365 Firestone, La Quinta, stated he was well aware of what a carwash would look like as he had dealt with many in his sign business. He felt this location was considered to be the gateway to La Quinta and even though this is a very nice presentation it does not represent what should be located at the gateway to La Quinta. 11. Mr. Michael Shultz, 78355 Crestview Terrace, stated this location was a pretty good location but it was not the right location for a carwash. A lot of effort had gone into making this entry a beautiful place and the Planning Commission should keep it that way. 12. Mr. John DeLeo, 52990 Avenida Obregon, after researching the growth potential of the Coachella Valley, knew the Coachella Valley contained the necessary elements for growth and he, as a real estate broker, chose to move to this area. He chose La Quinta because of its tract PC12.13 3 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 record of pro -growth and the elements of the General Plan that La Quinta stood out over all the other cities in the Valley. As a real estate broker he could not explain to his clients the inappropriate use of land at this location nor could he explain the traffic delays, problems, etc., that would be created due to the proposed use. La Quinta needs a carwash but not at this location. He further stated the applicants had presented a project that appears to be the type of carwash this City needs and wants but, not at this location. 13. Lucia Moran, POD 1305, La Quinta, informed the Commissioners that she had served on Planning Commission during the adoption of the Washington Street Specific Plan. She then submitted a letter to the Commissioners stating her reasons why she felt the project was in nonconformance with the Specific Plan, did not meet the requirements for a conditional use permit, was in violation of the La Quinta Municipal Code, could not show hardship to allow a variance to be granted, and did not comply with the recorded CC & R's for the parcel of land. She further had contacted Mr. Jim Collins regarding the American's With Disabilities Act and he cited requirements for sidewalks that she felt the project could not meet. She further stated she supported the idea of a carwash but not at this location. In summary, she stated, the conditional use permit requirements, the Washington Street Specific Plan, the La Quinta Municipal Code violations, variance requirements, recorded CC & R's, and the American's with Disability Act compliance all do not allow for a carwash. The project does not meet the requirements of the above noted. 14. Mr. Wallace Woods, who submitted a written request to speak, declined to speak. 15. Mr. Stephen Miller, who submitted a written request to speak, declined to speak. 16. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn Webb Engineers, Palm Springs, and one of the partners in the Simon Plaza project stated that after reviewing the staff report he felt the Planning Commission must deny the request. He cited reasons for the denial as being setback requirements, landscape setbacks, and the Environmental Impacts. He felt a focused EIR should be required as the land use planning showed a definite conflict between the Washington Street specific plan regarding traffic congestion, safety hazards, and parking spaces. He further stated he felt the recommended Conditions of Approval were inconsistent with City policies PC12.13 4 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 regarding a variance, staff recommendation for deferred street improvements, and no on -site retention was shown. The CC & R's for Lot 2-7 of the parcel map, Item B-1 states the uses that can be built on this parcel, and a carwash is not listed. He stated the Planning Commission must deny the conditional use permit as it does not meet the requirements as stated above. He further stated the applicant does have a beautiful product but it is not appropriate for this site. 17. Mr. Fred Simon, Simon Motors/Simon Plaza, 78-611 Highway 111, La Quinta submitted a letter to the Commission written by Mr. Paul Selzer, a partner in the Simon Plaza project, and asked that it be entered into the record. He then addressed items listed in a letter written to him by Pomona First Federal (Pomona) that he received at 3:00 P.M. on Friday: a. "A rather significant taking of property has made the site unsuitable for a branch office." Mr. Simon stated the property was originally bought by Pomona for a branch office early in 1980, and the decision not to build was made before the Washington Street Specific Plan. b. "Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan does not have an alternative source for the sale of their property." He stated it was Pomona that decided not to extend their proposed sale and took the $25,000 they had put up as a deposit for the land purchase. He then presented to the Commission a letter on the history of the financing to develop the Simon Plaza project. He went on to state that Simon Plaza had made every effort to meet all the requirements put on them by the City and this required the project to be changed four times. C. He stated that Pomona was very aware of what the City wants to see on that corner to the point they made the allowable uses a- part of the CC & R's. d. In the beginning, Pomona delayed the purchase of the property by holding out for more money. He believed the bank had reduced the land cost for the carwash. At the study session he had heard the comment "put up or shut up". This was in reference to a letter that he had received from Pomona on December 9th at 3:45 P.M. making an offer to sell the land to Simon Plaza if they could come up with a $100,000 deposit by 5:00 P.M. on PC12.13 5 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 Monday. As Mr. Selzer, a co -applicant, was out of the City and he did not have the time to put the escrow together, he asked Pomona for ten days to put the escrow together. He told Pomona they would accept the offer as stated in their letter if Pomona would allow him ten days to put the deal together. Pomona refused to do so. Pomona then stated they would give the ten days if Simon Plaza would not object to the carwash If Simon Plaza was unable to complete the deal. Mr. Simon stated he was unwilling to do this. Mr. Simon then stated he was against the carwash at this location as it is not commensurate with the City's goals for this corner. 18. Mr. Mark Moran, 52-385 Avenida Madero, La Quinta, stated the Planning Commission had received the inside story on this site. He felt the carwash project located at another location is a very beautiful project. In 1980 this was not a city and La Quinta was at the mercy of the County. It was the County's idea to create a community that was more of a ghetto than a community. The residents decided this was not fair. They created a city and put standards in place so that La Quinta would not have a ghetto and not a carwash at the entry to La Quinta. This carwash is not consistent with the Washington Street Specific Plan. If the Planning Commission sets a precedent to deviate from the Specific Plan then it is a dangerous step and developers will take advantage of this deviation. Mr. Moran stated he was proud of La Quinta and the Commission needs to continue to retain the beauty that is La Quinta. He informed the Commission that the Chamber of Commerce had received a presentation on the carwash, and they felt it should be located at a different location. They are standing behind the Washington Street Specific Plan. He than presented the Commissioners with 94 letters from residents objecting to the project. 19. Mr. John DeLeo stated the Mr. R. Crockett had to leave but that he agreed with the statements that had been made in opposition and he apologized for having to leave. 20. Mr. Jarnagin stated his concern about subjects he was not aware of. Some of the codes stated have no relevance to his project. The traffic generation is only 1.5% of the total traffic. He stated he was confused as to what he was to mitigate. He stated it was difficult to understand what he was being asked to do and no one was offering a suggestion. He had presented the City with the required information and applications necessary to receive approval for his project. PC12-13 6 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 21. Mr. Duane Yonker, stated he had been keeping score on the buzz words that had been used such as "Gateway to the Community" and he felt they did not need to be mitigated. This is a piece of property that has a lot of problems and this project has complied with all the requirements they were asked to do. Staff has reviewed the project and agrees with approving the project. He stated he was sympathetic with Mr. Simon but, they also have their problems and he would ask that the Planning Commission only consider the project on the merits of the project and not on what has happened in the past. They were willing to meet all the requirements of the City, but did not feel it was fair to ask them to deal with the problems of the past. The economic study they had done showed there is not a commercial project that can justify the cost of developing that corner, as their project could. 22. Mr. Fred Shannon, Pomona First Federal, stated he had come to the hearing for the purpose of supporting the project and did not want to address past projects. He further stated he does not agree with Mr. Simon's interpretation of the CUR's. Mr. Simon's relationship with Pomona has taken a long time with extension after extension and their CEO instructed them to divest themselves of their project as it was going on too long and they needed to move on. Mr. Shannon stated the Planning Commission should consider what is before them tonight only. 23. There being no further comment, Chairman Adolph closed the public hearing. 24. Commissioner Anderson asked staff about the findings relative to the Washington Street Specific Plan and the setbacks. He asked if there was a request to vary from the setbacks as stated in the Washington Street Specific Plan. Community Development Director Jerry Herman clarified by stating that setbacks were not mentioned in the Specific Plan. The Plan only addresses the right-of-way. The variance was necessary because a 50-foot landscaping setback is required along Highway 111 and a a 20-foot landscaping setback along Washington Street. The project as proposed would encroach into the setback as required in the parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 25. Commissioner Anderson asked if the variance was for parking. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated it was for an encroachment into the landscape setback as required in the parking standards. PC12.13 7 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 26. Commissioner Barrows questioned staff as to whether the Simon Project had been given the same setbacks. Mr. Herman stated that they complied with the required landscaping setbacks. V. Commissioner Butler asked if it would it be appropriate, due to the new information the Commission had just received, to continue the project as he would like to review the information before ruling. Commissioner Barrows agreed that she would like to review the environmental report. Commissioner Gardner also agreed. 28. Chairman Adolph stated he still had a problem with the building wall along Washington Street as he did not feel the setback was adequate. The corner needed to be more open, the traffic flow was not what it could be nor was the landscaping. Chairman Adolph stated he felt this could be resolved but he did not feel it was adequate as it was laid out. The setbacks that exist create a nice green belt but, the wall being so close to the street is too close. The applicant needed to change the wall and open up the corner. 29. Commissioners Abels stated that in view of the remarks made by the commissioners he was inclined to go along with continuing the project. 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Barrows to continue Conditional Use Permit 94.015 to January 10, 1995. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell clarified that the public hearing portion of the hearing was closed and the continuance was for Planning Commission discussion and their vote. 31. Commissioner Barrows expressed her concern that this would be an attractive addition to La QZuinta but the location was a problem. She was further concerned about the landscaping and setbacks on Washington Street. Also, the plant materials proposed to be used, Pampas Grass and Purple Fountain Grass, were too invasive and needed to be replaced. The project calls for walls and berms yet the conditions do not require them and should be added to help screen the facility. 32. Commissioner Gardner asked that the minutes state the reason for the continuance. The motion to continued was based on the following reasons as stated by the Commission: PC12-13 8 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 a. Time needed to review new information submitted during the meeting; b. Time needed to review the environmental information; C. Setbacks on structures; d. Landscaping; e. On -site traffic flow and circulation; and, f. More openness at the corner of Washington Street and Highway Ill. 33. There being no further comment, the motion carried unanimously. BUSINESS SESSION: A. Sian ADDlication 94270; a request of Skip Berg for approval of a corporate sign program for both Carl's Jr. and The Green Burrito. 1. Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. 3. Mr. Skip Berg spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Berg stated that his client had to close his facility down for a week in order to remodel the building. He could no afford to wait until January to receive Planning Commission approval. Mr. Berg went on to explain their request. He then introduced Mr. Carl L. Karcher, Jr., Rancho Mirage, owner Carl's Jr. Mr. Karcher stated that Carl's Jr. and the Green Burrito were in the process of conducting a test of the joint use at three locations and if successful, they would be extending to 15 locations. 4. Commissioner Abels, asked if there were any other Carl's Jr. restaurants In the Valley that had been changed. Mr. Karcher stated there were none in the Valley. The other two were located in Dana Point and Carson. 5. Commissioner Newkirk asked if this was the corporate logo. Mr. Berg stated it was. 6. Commissioner Butler stated he was having a hard time picturing what the signs would look like from the drawing. It appeared to be too busy. He felt the Commissioners needed to know whether or not this would interfere with what was going on in the center. Mr. Berg stated there was only one more color added and he realized it was difficult on this small scale. He went on to explain the signs. Commissioner Butler PC12.13 9 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 asked if it was an urgency to have the signs up for a grand opening. Mr. Berg stated it was already open. He went on to state that if they waited for the January Planning Commission meeting, it would mean they would not be able to have their signs installed until February. The business would be there for almost three months without signage. 7. Commissioner Anderson asked if there was a hierarchy between the two business or were they completely equal. Could the Carl's Jr. sign remain and the Green Burrito sign be lower. Mr. Berg explained and showed the Commissioners a picture that showed the wall would not support two signs designed as the Carl's Jr. sign is now. 8. Commissioner Barrows asked if they were the same operation. Mr. Berg stated they were. 9. Chairman Adolph asked if the signs would be the same on all four sides. Mr. Berg stated they would. 10. Commissioner Anderson asked if one of the Carl's Jr. signs would remain as is. Mr. Berg explained that the signage on the drive-thra would go to another elevation and one would be relocated. 11. Chairman Adolph asked how important the portion of the logo with the thatched roof and palm tree were. Mr. Berg stated it was part of the corporate logo. Chairman Adolph stated he felt it looked too busy with the "Star", "Thatched Roof", and "Palm Tree". Commissioners discussed with the applicant the amount of signage that was currently on the building and the possibility of not having The Green Burrito on the gable ends. Mr. Karcher stated how important it was to have the signage for visibility now that they were reducing it and he wondered how viable the Commission request was. Mr. Berg stated he would like to see both signs with 24-inch sets. Chairman Adolph asked if there was another place that was not as congested that the signage could be placed. Keep the Green Burrito in just two locations so not to clutter up all four sides. 12. Commissioner Barrows stated she felt the north and west sides seems to be the busiest. She had no problem with the linear signage but, maybe they could place the Cul's Jr. sign on the north and west sides only. Mr. Berg stated the gable areas are the entry and this is where the people will look. 13. Mr. Karcher stated the building had only two windows that could be seen from Highway 111 and he felt that his signage was not as busy as the other fast-food stores in the Center. The only visible signage is what was on the building, as no windows could be seen. PC12-13 10 Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 1994 26. Mr. Robert Tyler, La Quinta resident stated his senses were irritated by the searchlights that were being used to advertise the business. He wanted to know why the City would approve such a searchlight when there was a Dark Sky Ordinance prohibiting their use. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated that the only people that could approve searchlights and banners was the City Council and none had been approved. Staff can only approve banners for "Grand Opening" or "Under New Management". 27. There being no further comment, Commissioner Anderson moved to approve Sign Application 94-270 with following conditions: a. On Signs A & B, on the gable ends over the entries, the Carl's Jr. sign lettering would be reduced in size and no new Green Burrito signs would be allowed. On the facia, as discused, on the north elevation between Signs A & B, a Green Burrito sign as shown in the Exhibit would be allowed on the buildings eave. Signs C & D would be approved as submitted. 28. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked if the Commission wanted a condition added to require the removal of the flag and searchlight. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell pointed out that as they are Illegal a condition is not needed. 29. Commissioner Barrows seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR: There being no changes to the minutes, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners BarrowslAbles to approve the Minutes of November 22, 1994, as submitted. Unanimously approved. OTHER: Commissioner Abells reported on the City Council meeting of December 6, 1994. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business it was moved and seconded by Commissioners GardnerlAbels to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on January 10, 1995. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:10 P.M., December 13, 1994. Unanimously approved. PC12.13 12 N72 Al •tea 80���� � �,g�a.� a�•m I-SP Owl • � � � p, a .�3 '� is .� � �..°'c 3 ' o c� � � a %Ila �+ W Ing 0 3 0 � 'S ' ..3o�-iamb° tig 8�r,+rab ►°w°N ,tit �b =ag. mC�34d�ac8��o�0 m m �a88oa�xm o.tlm O mO�b SlOap d���+�yy� �"wOw M•a%�P. ^dJGt.m�O,�'v�sq�m�7?raG NN" N� w •••rU ^'.� O� %+�ATO" 0. m p a~tl'OC OD Lq F >,.[ as �wr-"�tlr NU y N� N s+O �..•--� co U A N r. 4yy N O ap a0 0^ O..�.p N a7 o mo m m a u m ai Al aa,o m ma°o3a�m Nm°°�•o ova �aU >'mm�ae °3Nop 3 m.4 m m 007 o as m :'3 b~ m O >,US w ap ap �y �� 00•.. N 0 C a ym+ z -L� C4 E ],.Nm A aN+ r o m •o at m O •o de•'93o �• x o, oaaa-� r o Or ao 3 N u 0 O«3 � � g$v ym V p'�•,C.v��•C ��',� y �•r�. a>0'�Np �, 'g� Q3$'j'6p i� .�° �a ep+, aim ��Rb•�q � •�V,i'$Cg,O,_� p6�>C p,a'�'+Clm��pE'�A�y V Nis O ►a �N��V N �. ? Oqi�� ��ti��.�75���8t"'�[�N .4 ��OOa+ or$ .f,o�a•,� a ��08� �Oa•�b'N�� GQp���3 � �Noo•;,� $ r 10. Lim a..,a _---- ----- ------ -------. • • 3 1 ti 0a'°a �a o p��.-�...It] ",fit . 1 11- lag "S ilk IN n8.0 a�- M ..r 0 ° .� b ., b qwQ �q 8Um o E� 2 E'S m� o .�•v;9�c°o�YSdUB�a:�8a8�w�b 1t"� 1mip "� O°M. .6r..1 c�'.Q� 3°y ymmm sm33lt. DD 0y�ap00 Q� Op . OSOao88Wo 3�� a°>-+.c1m oaPm'mm ►. of m^'�o Qw° E d.s'�'S yy Q o owM � S old N10 pp' V pp O EeO' � O w eyp„, I V IC cc w Go US o m pmp o m oo m o S Z 3 ao mcs. eq as 06> e S m$ u4oIsJw ti� c a 8 m m as 9 •� :U O d ,9 •• m 3 a0 �apptl C 3 y a.aS -yama�oc Iaoa3 m ....omarmmm y C ++'a�ay�A�� d OD =+?�oaoq�� E�rJy1S°0�' ° a 3¢ m 39�5C r. ooi.~ o w pod �� :aa �Cg�."sd�•� Q��'a��g����,:�;��'.°c a��'.cm+aw rs •C 9 0'� o « w C m d a►,��•• o„•o st C a S a as c .�04 e� c c ��'•�� m Q 000 �'m