Loading...
1991 09 24 PCPLANNING COM fX SSXON AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California September 24, 1991 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT C;ONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING Beginning Resolution No. 91-037 Belem nning Minute Motion No. 91-035 CALL r ORDER — Flag Salute ROLL CALL PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION - Elly Dowd PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 27187 Applicant ........... Gary L . Pudney Location ............ West side of Madison Street and south of Beth Circle (1 / 2 mile south of 50th Avenue) . Request ............. Request for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 4.98 acres into 8 single family lots. Action .............. Resolution 91- PC/AGENDA 1 2. Item ............... Applicant ........... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. 3. Item ................ Applicant ........... Location............ Request............. Action .............. 4. Item ................ Applicants .......... Location ............ Request............. Action .............. PUBLIC COMMENT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-020 City of La Quinta City wide. Request for approval to establish a new commercial/office medical zoning district which will include provisions for medical facilities, offices, limited retail, public and quasi -public uses, and other land uses deemed permissable by the Planning Commisssion and an Amendment to Section 9.160, Off - Street Parking Code. Resolution 91- , PLOT PLAN 91-465, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91- 037, CHANGE OF ZONE AMENDMENT 91-065, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27267 Desert Hospital West side of Washington Street at Via Marquessa (generally north of 48th Avenue and south of 47th Avenue/Highland Palms Drive. Request for approval of a plot plan to permit a three story medical/office complex with heli-pad on a portion of a 30 acre site located on the west side of Washington Street at Via Marquessa; A request to amend the City's General Plan Land Use Element from Low Density Residential to Office/Medical Commercial; A Change of Zone from R-1, Single Family Residential to Office/Medical and related uses (OMS); A request to approve a tentative parcel map to subdivide 30 acres into two parcels. Resolutions 91- 91- , 91- Minute Motion 91- Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #1 Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1 North Star Corporation & Valley Land Development Northeast corner of Sagebrush Drive and Date Palm Drive intersection +1, 320 feet east of Washington Street. Amend the Specific Plan to add approximately 30 contiguous acres and subdivide into 75 lots with private streets and common area with access from the Pyramids project. Continue to October 8, 1991 This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. Persons wishing to address the Planning Commission should use the form provided. Please complete a form and submit the form to the Recording Secretary prior to the beginning of the meeting. Your name will be called at the appropriate time. When addressing the Planning Commission, please state your name and PC/AGENDA address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded on tape and comments of each person shall be limited to three minutes. BUSINESS SESSION 1. Item ................ TENTATIVE TRACT 25389-3 & 25389-4 Applicant ........... M. J. Brock & Sons, Inc. Location ............ East of Washington Street between Avenue 50 and Callle Tampico extension, and Calle Rondo and Park Avenue alignment. Request ............. Request for a one year time extension. Action .............. Resolution 91- 2. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 91-152 Applicant ........... Jesse Cross, Best Signs, Inc. Location ............ 78-250 Highway 111 (Cliffhouse Restaurant) . Request ............. Approval of monument and two directional signs Action .............. Minute Motion 91- 3. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 91-151 Applicant ........... Shell Oil, Mr. Don Adolph Location ............ Northwest corner of Highway Ill and Adams Street. Request ............. Approval of a sign program to allow additional number and square footage of signs. Action .............. Minute Motion 91- 4. Item ................ GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW OF PROPOSED COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS Applicant ........... Coachella Valley Water District Location ............ City wide Request ............. Review of proposed projects Action .............. Minute Motion 91- CONSENT CALENDAR Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held September 10, 1991. OTHER 1. Discussion of joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on October 9, 1991, at the La Quinta Middle School. 2. Discussion of Commission policy regarding individual contact with applicants. ADJOURNMENT PC/AGENDA 3 STUDY SESSION MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1991 City Council Chambers DISCUSSION ONLY 4:00 P.M. 1. All Agenda items. ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS a. Height limits along Washington Street - Specific Plan Amendment b . Downtown Parking District - develop time line C. PGA West Specific Plan - review d . Commercial Noise Study - General Plan inclusion e. Guest houses, •- draft regulations f . Satellite Dishes - Commercial & Residential zones PC/AGENDA 4 cc MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California September 10, 1991 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER A. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 04 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows. The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ladner. II. PRESENTATION OF RESOLUTION OF RECOGNITION A . Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded the motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-025 recognizing Sue Steding for her time, effort and service to the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. III. AGENDA REORDERED A. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded the motion to reorder the agenda as follows: Public Hearing Items #1 became Item #2. Public Hearing Item #2 became Item #1. Unanimoulsy approved . IV. ROLL CALL A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, and Chairwoman Barrows. B . Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planners Wallace Nesbit, Glenda Lainis, Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony. V . PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Public Zone 90-056, Sp( approval of a 327 commercial uses, residential units . Searing - General Plan Amendment 90-031, Change of cific Plan 90-016; a request of Landmark Land for acre project, including golf course, residential and incorporating a 21 acre commercial site and 1208 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Continued Public Hearing. Forrest Haag, Vice President for Landmark Land Company addressed the Commission regarding their concerns. 3. Mr. Jorge B. Gutierrez, Executive Director, Facilities Operation for Coachella Valley Unified School District addressed the Commission regarding the District's concern about development and their lack of funds to handle the growth. He asked the Commission to consider asking developers to fully mitigate the cost of the school expansion. The Commission stated that even though they sympathize with the School District, they did not feel this development should shoulder the entire mitigation of the problem and other projects in the area should be included in addressing this problem. 4. Mr. Jack McGinty, Green Valley Ranches, addressed the Commission regarding Mr. Gutierrez's request. The Commission clarified that all builders pay school mitigation fees upon construction of every house built in La Quinta. 5. Mr. Mike Meyers, J. F. Davidson Associates, inquired if the full turning, movement and median breaks would be as Staff recommended. Staff stated it would be unless the Commission or City Council modified those conditions. 8. Discussion followed between the Commission and Mr. Haag regarding the School District's problem as well as Conditions #6, #12, #25, #26, #30, #38, #44, #53. 9. As there was no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 10. Following lengthy discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91-024 recommending to the City Council certification of the FEIR subject to findings contained in the Staff report. Unanimously approved. 11. It was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91--026 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 90-031 as modified. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. PCMIN9/10 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 12. It was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- 027 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 90-056, as requested by the Applicant. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 12. It was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-028 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 90-016, subject to the conditions proposed by Staff, and modified by the Planning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. B . Continued Public Hearing General Plan Amendment 90-029, Change of Zone 90-054, and Specific Plan 90-015; a request of Landmark Land Company for approval of a 265 acre project, including golf course, and residential uses, incorporating 1060 residential units. 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Continued Public Hearing. Forrest Haag, Vice President for Landmark Land Company addressed the Commission regarding their concerns. 3. Discussion followed between the Commission and Mr. Haag regarding Conditions #6, #11, #28, #31, #42, #43.A. , and the addition of a new Condition #50. 4. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. Following discussion by the Commission and Staff, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91-025 recommending to the City Council certification of the FEIR subject to findings contained in the Staff report. Unanimously approved. 3 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 6. It was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- 029 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 90-029 as modified. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 7. It was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- 030 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 90-054, as requested by the Applicant. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 8. It was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- 031 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 90-•015, subject to the conditions proposed by Staff, and modified by the :Planning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. C. General Plan Amendment 90-030, Change of Zone 90-055, and Specific Plan 90-017; a request of Landmark Land for approval of a 220 acre project including golf course and residential uses, incorporating 880 residential units and consideration for certification of Final EIR . 1. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the information contained in the Staff Report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Continued Public Hearing. Forrest Haag, Vice President for Landmark Land Company addressed the Commission regarding their concerns. 3. Mr. Allan Levin, Sunrise Company addressed the Commission regarding a condition which requires a facility for the management companies. He stated this could be a great hardship due to 1,he number of management companies which may ultimately exist within the project. Commissioner Ladner stated that this PCMIN9/10 4 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 is a current problem for most country clubs not having a place for these companies and homeowners to meet and conduct business. Discussion followed. 4. Mr. Robert Napoli, Lusardi Companies, 86-705 54th Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding the land -locking of their property. He asked the Commission to consider conditioning this project to allow an easement to their property. 5. Discussion followed between the Commission and Mr. Haag regarding Mr. Napoli's problem and Conditions #6, #10, #26, #29, #30, #40, and the addition of a new Condition #48. 6. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Bearing. 7. After discussion among the Commissioners and Staff, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91-026 recommending to the City Council certification of the FEIR subject to findings contained in the Staff report. Unanimously approved. 8. It was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- 032 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 90-030 as modified. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 9. It was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- 033 recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 90•-055, as requested by the Applicant. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 10. It was moved by Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-034 recommending to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 90-017, subject to the conditions proposed by Staff, and modified by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. BREAD D. Tentative Tract 26953; a request of Sunrise Desert Partners for approval to resubdivide 5.1 acres into three lots with other lots being used for landscaping and roadway purposes. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Allen Levin spoke on behalf of the Applicant and explained why they were requesting to resubdivide. 3. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 4. Discussion followed among the Commissioners regarding the need for facilities for managment companies and homeowner associations to meet. 5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-035 recommending to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 26953, subject to conditions. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. E. Plot Plan 91-464 and Variance 91-016; a request of Louis Campagna (La Quinta Pharmacy) for approval to construct a 4,258 square foot commercial complex. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report. A copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Louis Campagna, Applicant addressed the Commission regarding his request:. PCMIN9/10 6 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 3. Commissioner Mosher and Commissioner Ladner expressed their concurrence with the Applicant that the parking should be in the rear of the building. 4. Commissioner Ellson addressed the condition that a building permit could not be issued until the right-of-way vacation for Tampico was completed. Mr. Campagna stated he would not be able to wait for that to take place. He would be out of business before then as he had to leave his present building. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer stated that the City did not intend to start the Calle Tampico construction until after Easter, 1992. Discussion followed as to possible alternatives. It was determined barriers could be used adjacent to Calle Tampico to allow construction to proceed prior to the street vacation. 5. Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing and opened the matter for discussion. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-036 approving Variance 91-016 subject to the findings. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. 7. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-027 approving Plot Plan 91-464, subject to the modified conditions. Unanimously approved. F. Tentative Tract 26972; a request of Dr. Joseph Darr for approval of a tentative tract map to subdivide 9.6 acres into 15 single family ]lots . 1. Commissioner Ellson withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest. 2. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 3. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing. Mr. Mike Rowe, Keith Companies spoke on behalf of the Applicant. 4. Discussion followed between the Commission and the Applicant regarding Conditions #10, #22. C . , #27, #38, and #47. 7 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 5. Mr. George Stearns, 51-425 Madison, property owner south of the proposed development. He stated his concern regarding why this project was not submitted with the adjacent project. He stated his objection to having such a high density project in a rural equestrian area. 6. Mr. Torn Teigen, 50-375 Vista Montana, expressed his objection to the density, the ingress and egress, and the issue of horses in the close vicinity. 7. Mr. Jack McGinty, 80-820 Vista Bonita Trail, expressed the environmental impact by the destruction of the citrus trees and the problems expressed by Mr. Stearns and Mr. Teigen. 8. Mr. Morgan Ward, 48-800 San Pedro, Palm Desert, spoke on behalf of the Applicant. He stated the reasoning behind the lot sizes was because the zoning for this area allows it and it is a marketing fact. As to the equestrian zone, there would be disclosures notifying all potential buyers of the horses in the area. 9. Mrs. Beth Stearns, 51-425 Madison, read a letter from Mrs. Gabriel Giannini objecting to the project into the record. 10. Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing and opened the matter for Commission discussion. 11. Commissioner Ladner expressed her concern regarding the height limitation. She felt the limitation should be one story with an 18-foot maximum height. In addition she felt this area should be kept very low density for the equestrian uses. 12. Commissioner Mosher stated his concern regarding the number of people in this area who spoke in opposition to the size of the lots yet, this was the allowed zoning permitted by the City. Planning Director Jerry Herman stated the property is designated Very Low Density or 0-2 units per acre according to the General Plan Guidelines, and the Commission could limit the project to any lot size within that allowed densignation. 13. Chairwoman Barrows stated her concern was for the loss of the citrus trees and would want as many trees as possible incorporated into the development. 14. Commissioner Marrs stated his objection to infringing on the existing developments by placing such small lots in close proximity to the equestrian area. PCMIN9/10 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 15. Commissioner Mosher inquired of the development coming before them in October. Mr. Rowe stated this was an application requesting 8 lots on 5 acres. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to deny the project as proposed. Chairwoman Barrows asked if there was any further discussion. Planning Director Jerry Herman discussed with the Commission the zoning for the area and the limitations of the Commission regarding this zoning. Following this discussion, Commissioner Marrs and Commissioner Ladner withdrew their motion and second. 17. Commissioner Marrs moved and Commissioner Mosher seconded the motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-037 recommending to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract 26972 subject to the revised conditions including minimum 1.5 acre lots. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: Commissioner Ellson. G . Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #1 and Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1; a request of North Star Corporation and Valley Land Development for approval to amend the Specific Plan to add approximately 30 contiguous acres and subdivide into 75 lots with private streets and common area with access from the Pyramids project. 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened the public hearing and stated the matter would be continued at the request of the Applicant. 2. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion to continue the matter to September 24, 1991. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT - None Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 VII. BUSINESS SESSION A. Tract 23935; a request of the GWR Development Company for review of an additional unit. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Marrs asked for a clarification of the detailing requested by Staff. 3. Commissioner Ellson inquired how this unit would compare to the other units in the area in regard to price and size. Mr. Dennis Cunningham spoke on behalf of the Applicant and stated the house would be in the price range of $150-155,000 and the current houses are $175-$215,000. 3. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to adopt Minute Motion 91-028 approving the additional unit for Tentative Tract 23935 subject to the Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. B . Plot Plan 91-442; a request of Wilma Pacific for approval of a new architectural unit for Marquessa on Lake La Quinta. 1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Commissioner Ellson inquired if the garage would need any additional fire walls due to its location. Principal Planner Stan Sawa stated that the building codes would be strictly enforced and this would be addressed at that time. 3. There being no questions of Staff or the Applicant, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91-029 approving the new architectural units for Plot Plan 91-442. Unanimously approved. C. Tentative Parcel Map 26525; a request of Chuck Strother for approval of residential unit on one parcel of the Orchard Dunes. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. PCMIN9/10 10 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to adopt Minute Motion 91- 030 approving the request for architectural elevation and color scheme for Lot 2 of Tentative Parcel Map 26225. Unanimously approved. D. Street Vacation 91-016 for Specific Plan 90-015; a request of Landmark Land Company for determination of General Plan consistency to vacate Rancho La Quinta Road and Paseo Del Rancho. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 91- 031 approving findings for the vacation of Paseo Del Rancho, Rancho La Quinta Road, 55th Avenue and other unnamed streets, generally north of Airport Boulevard and east of Madison Street are in compliance with the Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. Unanimously approved. E. Street Vacation 91-017 for Specific Plan 90-016; a request of Landmark Land Company for determination of General Plan consistency to vacate Kaylon Street. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 91- 032 approving findings for the vacation of Kaylon Street between 52nd Avenue and the future extension of 51st Avenue is in compliance with the Circulation Element of the La Quinta General Plan. F. Tract 23269 - La Quinta Highlands; a request of Williams Development Company for approval of architectural elevations for Unit #5. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Minute Motion 91- 033 approving the architectural elevations for Unit #5 for Tract 23269 subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. 11 Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1991 G. Tract 24517 and Tract 25290 - Rancho Ocotillo; a request of the Williams Development Company for approval of architectural elevations for a new unit. 1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 91- 034 approving the architectural elevations for a new unit for Tract 24517 and Tract 25290 subject to Staff recommendations. Unanimously approved. VIII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. There being no corrections to the Minutes of August 13, 1991, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to approve the Minutes as submitted. Unanimously approved. IX. OTHER A. The attendance for the Design Review Board will be as follows: October Kay Ladner November Donald Marrs December Fred Mosher January Kay Ladner February Marion Ellson March Donald Marrs April Fred Mosher May Marion Ellson June Katie Barrows July Katie Barrows X. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to recess this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on October 8, 1991, at 7 : 00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:10 A.M., September 24, 1991. PCMIN9/10 12 PH-1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 CASE NO: TENTATIVE TRACT 27187 APPLICANT: GARY L. PUDNEY ENGINEER: KEITH COMPANIES REQUEST: APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO SUBDIVIDE 4.98 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF MADISON STREET AND SOUTH OF BETH CIRCLE (1/2 MILE SOUTH OF 50TH AVENUE) DENSITY: 1.6 UNITS PER ACRE EXISTING ZONING: R-1-20,000 WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY LOT SIZES: MINIMUM LOT SIZE: 20,000 SQUARE FEET PROPOSED MAXIMUM LOT SIZE: 23,200 SQUARE FEET ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-213 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS ATTACHED. SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES: NORTH & WEST: R-1-20,000 WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY; RESIDENTIAL RANCHES, VACANT LOTS & TT 26972 (DR. DARR) PENDING SOUTH: R-1-20,000 WITH EQUESTRIAN OVERLAY; SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH HORSES EAST: CEPD/INDIO JURISDICTION (COUNTRY ESTATE ZONE, MINIMUM SIZE LOT 20 ACRES) EL DORADO POLO CLUB FIELDS DESCRIPTION OF SITE: EXISTING CITRUS ORCHARD DRAINAGE CONSIDERATION: THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THAT STORMWATER BE RETAINED WITHIN THE PARKWAY STRIP ALONG MADISON STREET. STAFFRPT.050/CS -1- ON -SITE CIRCULATION: A LOCAL PUBLIC STREET IS PROPOSED (BETH CIRCLE). LOT ACCESS WILL BE FROM BETH CIRCLE OFF -SITE CIRCULATION: MADISON STREET - DESIGNATED AS A PRIMARY ARTERIAL WITH 110 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. BACKGROUND• This area was annexed to the City of La Quinta as part of Annexation #5 on January 31, 1991. ANALYSIS: 1. Stormwater Retention: The City requires on -site or off -site water retention to contain seasonal stormwater so as not to impact abutting properties. The proposed tract map has delineated areas along Beth Circle and Madision Street to meet the requirement. The Madison Street design is acceptable. However, Lot #1 (south of Beth Circle) is impacted by the proposed easement as stormwater retention will be on the single family owner's lot rather than in an area outside the property boundaries of the parcel. Staff opinion is that buyers of these lots should not be burdened with drainage easements which affect the size of the lot or its future building envelope. If the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, then the size of the lot shall not be reduced in size below this because of other obligations of the tract map (e.g. streets, dedication, landscape easements, drainage easements, etc.). The City has a history of problems with owner's maintaining public safety drainage easements on private property. The City will require on -site retention if lots are greater than 1 acre in size rather than allow a parkway easement for water retention. 2. Zoning: This area is zoned R-1-20,000 with an equestrian overlay. The R-1 zone allows equestrian use with certain restrictions. The equestrian overlay, which takes precedent over the R-1 zone requirements has a minimum lct size of 1.5 acres for equestrian uses. The lots in Tentative Tract 27187 are a minimum of 20,000 square feet (just less than half an acre). Therefore, the keeping of horses will not be permitted in this subdivision. STAFFRPT.050/CS -2- 3. Land Use Discussion: (Background) At the Planning Commision meeting of September 10, 1991, the Commission reviewed a subdivision application by Dr. Darr (TT 26972 to the north of the site) to divide +10 acres into 15 lots. That application was similar to this one in that the property lot sizes are approximately 20,000 square feet and the zoning is the same. Many of the abutting residents protested Dr. Darr's application at the meeting because they felt the area should remain rural due to the Equstrian Overlay provisions and existing lot sizes in Green Valley Ranches. The Commission recommended 1.5 acre lots for Tentatve Tract 26972. The application is scheduled for review by the City Council on October 1, 1991. This tract as proposed with minimum 20,000 square foot lots is in compliance with the existing zoning. However, a condition requiring 1.5 acre lots is required in the draft conditions of approval. 4. Surrounding Lot Sizes: The .lot sizes in this area vary but generally they range in size from 2 to 2.5 acres in the Green Valley Ranch Tract (to the west of the project). Larger lots exist to the east in the County (e.g. +10 acres) and are used by the Eldorado Polo Club. There are also areas of the City in the immediate area which have lots smaller than 2 acres but those properties are not in the Equestrian Overlay area. 5. Height Restriction: The abutting tract to the West presently has a covenant running with their property which restricts building heights to 18 feet or one story. However, the height restriction of the R1-20,000 permits a higher level or 2 1/2 stories (35 feet). Staff has reviewed the area and the effects of these future homes on abutting properties. It's our opinion that a single story height should be required of this tract map to maintain a low level design theme for this rural area of the City. A condition to this affect is attached to the draft Resolution. 6. Citrus -Tree Retention: The developer has not submitted a detailed landscape plan to outline the proposed design program he would like to use for his single family subdivision. Usually, this matter is discussed during the review of a plot plan application. However, Staff thought it was important to put the developer on notice that retention of the trees in their natural setting would be beneficial to the ultimate development of the site in the future. We therefore have included a condition of approval reflecting this provision. STAFFRPT.050/CS -3- 7. Access: No median break will be allowed on Madison Street at the entry to this Tract thus restricting all access to right -in and right -out only from Beth Circle. 8. Approval of Unit Elevation: a) If this project is a custom home subdivision with each house plan submitted separately by individual homeowners, design and architectural standards for these dwelling units should be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. These standards will then be included in the CC & R's or property covenants for use by the future homeowners. b) If one developer plans to build all the units in this subdivision, the following condition will apply: The Applicant shall submit complete preliminary construction drawings for all units, for review and approval by the Design Review Board. FINDINGS: Findings necessary to recommend Tract Map can be made and are Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION• approval of this Tentative contained in the attached Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract 27187, subject to the attached conditions. Attachment: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tentative Tract Map 3. Surrounding Area Map 4. Environmental Assessment 91-213 5. Agency comments STAFFRPT.050/CS -4- 031 1� SCALE: 1"= 20 300' RADIUS MAP IQ= GARY L. PUDN Y - TRACT 27187 ®j w $ g ._ -------tom O N t 0 z W V ca O X o w O O • N T- z d m u u u z >, r m O¢. `' m 5 w °t �' to -� �A{ •— r, Z N k c.0 j p w Q r z to t V C� Z �- � N 1 1 I WWI N �� ! 1 tN©W /6.0 7 I 11 tl o �' r,o• SO tsar AI � t,oAce 1 r © i • t soft e , ,•, IlJt4t °M I C ~ y ? Ag AN 1 ► is 154,49 GO - Z,.t. AESIGENUAL / Iw AL Of / At SIDE NrAL I �i/ !,l.J«4w tt04 r \ / I \ tt / 'SO a ® e I II.4 AY • I / / ® lJft A•I 10 N.'®r / tAF&G, f` 1 / �J?V& AM Z p • M 2 tJ ! . r • / r® �� Cz K NIA? C-ccH `°r"�• / �� -a �� i DARTRA FARCE I IAJI*itl Y w I A / f oJAt /rut • Y t o / ` O r o,u • A s 5774 . ti •-tn' - �. r »Ar �r M ,T • �• '"'.', , • r OFAc • TENT q TI Is ,97 E TRAM rau ,�1 t ' ! - �•\ ' w Pat 4 ., p 27 a+ t rfr 4.56Ac.M' ' J•' 6/s 3* PMR7b/OS ft• 1• T• f+e � O ».t 415t.10 ® • Tit t � V � r oJAf �( V 3 L i �• 9.25 AC. N7. r O i °/Ac.= • LOCATION MAP PM 10/27 J,/ 19 ^ //dlll ' +1 rl 1 '� CRY OF Lk QDIRTk 'bopq�o`� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent:_ 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: /� �'�' '2• �, J1;`p lit � ���' 5 td0 'r-.. � � ,,� d'a zr 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: tT,4 b1� l• ����� S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: M t3O �°•: _ �-'� 7'"A MF�, II. ENVIRONENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? .— b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or . overcovering of the soil? .— — c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? -- — d. The destruction, covering or modification of . any unique geologic or physical features? — e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, }. Ae either on or off the site? -__- — f. ranges in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion %hich may modify the channel of a river or strewn or the bed of the ocean or any bay, / inlet or lake? ----- -- g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- ,.* Ae s:.ides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deteriorAtion of �,, ambient air quality? --�—r b. 1-.e creation of objectionable odors? — c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate,,, either locally or regionally? _ 3. Dater. Will the proposal result in: a. Ganges in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? - -- b. Ganges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? _ — c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? — -�,✓— d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? - — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ —LO f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — - — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? — (3) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water s+Ypplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? _ — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the 10r normal replenishment of existing species? ____ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ LOW, _ S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? — 1 _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration • or movement of animals? +, — d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? B. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an� area? -- — 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? _ — b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, istri uticn, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _~ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (4) Yes Maybe No 14. is 16. 17. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm, water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people tc potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or aniral 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? (S) _k--"- M Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) — c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) — d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on .� human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant _ effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. -find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect _ on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 10 Date: 02'"' 7 4g2n e CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CASE NO. TTM 27187 (EA91-213) Gary L. Pudney GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed site is located on the west side of Madison Street, just south of future Beth Circle (1/2 mile south of 50th Avenue). The five acre site is presently developed with a citrus grove and the owner has requested that the land be divided into eight single family residential lots pursuant to the R1-20,000 Zoning District provisions. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as Coachella Sand and Loam (prime agricultural). This type of soil has rapid permeability and it can be used for crop production or homesite development. The site has been vacant but used for agricultural purposes but the applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban services ( single family detached housing). The recontouring of the earth to support the project will be done as part of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of the site. The general elevation of the site is at sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic Hazard area as noted by the County of Riverside Planning Department (1983). A Zone 3 is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light trucks (Riverside County Manual)." Although earthquake damage should not be a major problem at the site, it is important that the Civil Engineer and a Geologist examine the natural forms of the site to determine if seismically problems could exist at this location. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1) . Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities have not been submitted, it is moving at the site (contouring) limited importation will occur. assumed that most of the earth will occur on the premises and 2. The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 because the project lies within a Seismic Zone 4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project. It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed project there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission releases because of related automobile trips which will be generated by the future residents of the subdivision. However, it is assumed that eight homes will only generate 10 vehicle trips per day per home, therefore, this small number of trips would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding thoroughfares because they have been designed and planned to accommodate ultimate development of the City as based on the adopted General Plan. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust. 2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. 3. WATER: With the proposed construction it can be expected that there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site retention/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer.) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run- off. This area is not noted to be an area subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is the term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects. If the geotechnique study shows that this is a problem at the site, measures shall be taken to mitigate this problem. Note: Recent geotechnical reporting in the area (Buena Engineers - Specific Plan Case 90-016/Landmark Land Company) indicated that free groundwater is not present in this area. This document was used as a reference guide for this project. The project engineer has provided a preliminary retention basin for the development, and the water retention area is located on the east side of the site between the proposed lots and Madison Street (a designated City arterial street). MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, which identifies the increased water run-off quantities which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed quantities in an undeveloped state and factcring this against the development proposal. Based on this study the project engineer shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins (retention/detention) which will maintain storm water run-off from the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the ground. On -site retention shall be allowed for lots greater than one acre in size. The basins shall not be greater than two feet in depth and not have a taper slope greater than 5:1. Off -site basins shall be the requirements of the City Engineer. 4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant but developed with a citrus grove, and it is assumed that no major impacts are anticipated by the development of this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant might be required to retain some of the agricultural production stock as part of the development of the site to retain the rural setting of the development as it relates to abutting properties. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider this matter during the public hearing process. 5. Animal Life: The subject site is not located in an area defined as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species), therefore, no impact mitigation fee is required of the developer if development occurs on the site. And since the property is used for agricultural purposes, it is highly unlikely that the Flat tailed horned Lizard exists at this site also. MITIGATION MEASURES: None anticipated. 6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of the single family subdivision, it can be expected that there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from the site but this type of noise is typical for this type of development. Noise levels along surface roadways adjacent to the site are expected to be 67 CNEL at 100 feet from the roadway centerline (based on future traffic demands within the City) and, it is assumed that all proposed dwellings within 300 feet of Madison will require noise mitigation to reduce the exterior noise levels to 60 CNEL. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). As required by the General Plan, this project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and outdoor noise shall be meet. An acoustical study should be prepared which analyzes the impact of road noise from Madison Street on the future homesites and the impacts of the site on abutting residents. Mitigation measures can include, but are not limited to: landscape barriers, walls, building wall upgrades, or other measures deemed necessary to meet the City's guidelines. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the building(s) will include lighting. However, at this time, this material has not been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. 8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as Very Low Density Residential (0-2 units per acres) and the area has not been designated as an open space preserve. Therefore, residential activities are permissible pursuant to City guidelines. The Zoning of the site is R1-20,000 Single Family, however, the land is also in the Equestrian Overlay Zone. The developer has indicated that he is not pursuing the keeping of horses on his property because his lots will be less than 1.5 acres in size which is less than allowed by the Equestrian Overlay requirements. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). None is required because the property is not within a open space preservation area. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check review. 10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities whether or not they are permanent or temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an incremental demand for additional employment areas to provide jobs for these new residents. However, due to the size of the project it is an insignificant amount in relation to the City as a whole. MITIGATION MEASURES: None is proposed. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Minor additional traffic will be generated by the development of this project. The project is fronting on an existing partially developed major arterial of the City which is planned to have divided north/south traffic on it which provides both access to Interstate 10 and Highway 111 (State roadway systems) and to the City°s downtown and other residential areas. It is assumed that the site will generate approximately 80 vehicle trips per day which is consistent with residential development projections. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s). 2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to accommodate the proposed use of the property. 3). Sidewalk and equestrian facilities shall be provided on Madison Street (major arterial). 4. No direct access will be permitted onto Madison Street from for any of the proposed single family lots. Project access shall be from Beth Circle. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements has mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc.). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection, police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area. The site will also generate additional school age children which will go to the Coachella Valley School District. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6, 000.00 per acre. This fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and Riverside County Sheriffs Department. 3). The developer will be required to pay the Coachella Valley School District's impact fees prior to acquiring a building permit. The current fee is approximately $1.58 per square foot of living area per single family home. The fee excludes patios and garages. 4. Water, sewer and electric service provisions shall be made and secured prior to securing building permits. 18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant but developed with a citrus grove. Any construction of buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing views of the area. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements of the City's Zoning Code. Single story buildings should be encouraged. 2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program should take into consideration the unique setting of this property as it relates to abutting properties. The developer should be encouraged to retaining some of the trees in either their present location or by moving them to other areas on the site to which will accentuate ultimate site development potential. 19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required but it is assumed that the 1/2 acre lots will allow outdoor recreation for each lot and the applicant will be required to pay into the City's park in -lieu fund which is used to develop City parks for both residents and visitors to this area. The fee is based on a ratio of the assumed population of the future housing tract (1-5 acres of park land for each 1,000 residents) as it relates to the entire City, dwelling unit population, and finally land costs of the property. The park fee will be determined prior to final map consideration. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). An archaeological survey by a qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be required. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Therefore based on the above information, this project will not have a great environmental impact on the City provided the discussed mitigation measures are met. Attached: Agency Comments Reference Document: Draft EIR, Specific Plan 90-016 (Geotechnical Engineering Report/Buena Engineers (9-6-89). GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINPO AVENUE a PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3183 CF—lutu August 21, 1991 AUG r-, 6 19L To: City of La Quinta �;I1 y Ur UA QUWTA Attn.: Greg Trousdell ,TANNING & DEVEWW"T OEP1 Re: Tentative Tract Map #27187 With respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code: 1. Schedule A fire protection approved Super fire hydrants, (6" x 4" x 2}" x 2}")shall be located at each street intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with no portion of any frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1500 gpm for 2 hours duration at 20 psi. 2. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." 3. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being placed on an individual lot. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the constructil of model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire Department for review prior to issuance of building permits. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Sincerely, cc: B-7 wla 0 INDIO OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F. Indio, CA 92201 (619) 342-8M 0 FAX (619) 775.2072 RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist PLANNING DIVISION ❑ IFMECaJIA OFFICE 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 694.5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 0 RIVERSIDE OFFICE 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 11 .-^ .r.v. ,.,"c '-, rR n. nrPrl nn rrrvrferl na^t ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY SEP 0 I� 10, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ur LHyu1N1 OEVELOWNT 0 POST OFFICE BOX low • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (61fi(3582651 DIRECTORS TEL LIS COJEKAS, PRESIDENT RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT JDHN W. McFADDEN DOROTHY M. NICHOLS THEODORE J. FISH Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: OFFICERS THOMASE. LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY OWEN MCCOOK. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER August 30, 1991 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS File: 0163.1 Subject: Tentative Tract 27187, Portion of Southeast Quarter, Section 4, Township 6 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area lies on the sandy area in the eastern portion of La Quinta and is considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone C 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 Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, >fom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:sv/e8 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California WNCONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 27187 TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 8 LOT SUBDIVISION ON A 4.9 ACRE SITE. CASE NO. TT 27187 - GARY L. PUDNEY WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of September, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Gary L. Pudney to subdivide 4.9 acres into 8 single family lots generally located west of Madison Street south of Beth Circle, more particularly described as: PARCELS THREE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 16457, BOOK 100, PAGE 48 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) , and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning Director has conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract Map will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. A Negative Declaration was considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 27187, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map: 1. That Tentative Tract 27187, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type, circulation requirements, R-1-20,000 Zoning District development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is fairly level with the southeast being the lowest part of the site. The proposed circulation design and single family lot layouts, as conditioned, are, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. RESOPC.045 1 3. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with public sewers and water, and therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. 4. That the design of Tentative Tract 27187 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 5. That the proposed Tentative Tract Map 27187, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape common areas. 6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 27187, as conditioned, provides storm water retention, park facilities, and noise mitigation. 7. That general impacts from the proposed Tract were considered within the MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment 91- 213, relative to the environmental concerns of this Tentative Tract. 3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council for the subject Tentative Tract 27187 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of September, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOPC.045 KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPc.045 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 27187 SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Tract Map 27187 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This Tentative Tract Map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify the means for digging test pits; and (2) provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant material are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results . A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant(s) /representative(s) , shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily diver, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation, or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analyses to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. CONAPRVL.035 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 4. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall meet the parkland dedication requirements as set forth in Section 13.24.030, La Quinta Municipal Code, by paying parkland fees in lieu, as may be determined in accordance with said Section. 5. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning & Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming, walls, and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques so as to avoid the isolated appearance given by walled developments. 6. If the tract is phased, tract phasing plans, including phasing of public improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Development Department and Engineering Department prior to final map approval. 7. Applicant shall submit proposed street names with alternatives to the Planning and Development Department for approval prior to final map approval. 8. A . If custom homes are proposed design and architectural standards for residences in this tract shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to final map recordation. All approved standards shall be included in either the CC&R's, property covenants, or Real Estate Disclosure forms subject to final approval by the Planning and Development Director. B . If one developer plans to build all the units in this subdivision, the following condition will apply. The Applicant shall submit complete detailed or architectural elevations for all units for Design Review Board review and approval prior to building permit issuance. The architectural standards shall be included as part of the CC & R's (if any) , property covenants, or Real Estate Disclosure forms subject to final approval by the Planning and Development Director. 9. A copy of the CC & R's shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review prior to building permit issuance. TRACT DESIGN 10. A minimum 20-foot landscaped setback shall be provide on Madison Street. Design of the setback shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Setback shall be measure from ultimate right-of-way line. CONAPRVL.035 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 a. The minimum setbacks may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b . Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition 36, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING 11. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activity. b . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded by undeveloped portions of the site. C. Provisions of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 12. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 13. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, location, and irrigation system for all landscape buffer and entry areas. Desert or native plans species and drought resistant planting material shall be incorporated into the landscape plan. Lawn shall be minimized and not used adjacent to curb. No spray heads shall be used adjacent to curb. b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. c . Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light glare impacts to surrounding properties. CONApRVL.035 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO BE FULFILLED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 14. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Coachella Valley Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned 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. 15. 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 . 16. Dwelling units shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 18 feet in height. 17. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities. b . Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage . c . On -site advertising/ construction signs. 18. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-213 and Tentative Tract 27187, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-213 and Tentative Tract 27187, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigating measures of Environmental Assessment 91-213 and Tentative Tract 27187. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. CONAPRVL.035 4 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 19. The Applicant shall comply with all the requirements of the City Fire Marshal as stated in the memo dated August 21, 1991. 20. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 21. Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as required by the City Engineer, as follows: a. Right-of-way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b. Madison Street - Primary Arterial, 55-foot half width; C. Beth Circle - Cul-de-sac, 60-foot full width. Applicant shall obtain the complementary portion of right of way from adjacent property owner or redesign the tract to more effectively utilize the existing right of way. 22. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to the following street right-of-way(s) : a. Madison Street, 20-feet wide. 23. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Madison Street from all abutting lots. Access to Madison Street from this land division shall be restricted to the Beth Circle intersection only. 24. Turning movements of traffic accessing the subject subdivision from adjoining public streets shall be as follows: a. Madison Street @ Beth Circle: right turn in and out only. 25. The median island on Madison Street shall have no opening in it to permit vehicular left turn movements into or out of the subdivision where Beth Circle intersects Madison Street. 26. Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements shall be designed and constructed for all streets within the proposed subdivision and for off -site streets as required by these Conditions of Approval. All street improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code and adopted Standard Drawings, and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant CONAPRVL.035 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 components required by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited to traffic signs and channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by City General Plan. Street design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic loading, and design life. The minimum structural section for residential streets shall be 3" AC over 4" Class 2 Base. '.Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with City standards and practices. This includes tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond tract boundaries and join the widened and existing street sections. The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: a. ON -SITE STREETS 1. Beth Circle - 18-foot half width Local Street cul-de-sac, plus a 12-foot wide east bound lane, refer to Std Dwg #800 b. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Madison Street (portion contiguous to tract) - Install half width Primary Arterial (86' width improvement option), bond for half of raised median, refer to Std Dwg #100. 27. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site public improvements and utilities, and on -site common area improvements before the final map is recorded. Applicant shall pay cash, in - lieu of and equivalent to the respective fair -share construction cost, for those improvements that the Applicant has partial cost responsibility and construction must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of cash may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by Applicant and City, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant. 28. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. CONAPRVL.035 6 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 29. The tract grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. 30. The tract shall be designed and graded in a manner so the difference in building pad elevations between contiguous lots that share a common street frontage or join lots with adjoining existing tracts or approved tentative tracts does not exceed three (3.0) feet. The pad elevations of contiguous lots within the subject tract that do not share a common street shall not exceed five (5.0) feet. If Applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the City will consider and may approve other alternatives that satisfy the City's intent to promote and ensure community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 31. The tract shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that has historically received flow. 32. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. Applicant may use landscaped setback lot along Madison Street for retention provided the foreslope slope -average does not exceed 5:1 and the maximum backslope slope -average does not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other improvement requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The triburary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of any public street contiguous to the site. NOTE: Individual residential lots may not be used for stormwater retention unless the lots are greater in size than one acre. If the lots are greater than one acre off -site retention ponds will not be permitted. On -site ponds shall be limited to 210" with slopes not to exceed 5:1. 33. A trickling sand filter and leachfield shall be installed in the retention basin to percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per 1,000 square feet of lot area per day. CONAPRVL.035 7 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 34. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 35. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 36. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the subdivision such as the landscaped setback lots and retention basins until accepted by the City Engineer for maintenance by the City. .In no event will the City accept the landscaped lots and retention basin for maintenance by the City until the residential lots within the subdivision are included on the property tax roll and producing assessment revenue to the City's Lighting and Landscape District. 37. Applicant shall construct a six-foot wide sidewalk in the westerly parkway and landscaped setback lot along Madison Street. An equestrian trail shall also be provided. The Design Review Board and Planning Commission shall approve the proposal. 38. Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lot(s) for the purpose of a public sidewalk/equestrian path. 39. All existing and proposed telecommunications, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 40. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 41. Applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 42. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amounts) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. 43. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify CONAPRVL.035 8 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract 27187 September 24, 1991 compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". b . Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the tract, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cummulative if the data is submitted at different times. c. Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproduceable drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 44. An encroachment permit for work in any abutting local jurisdiction shall be secured prior to constructing or joining improvements. 45. All existing structures that are to be removed from the property shall be removed, or an agreement secured with a performance bond that has been executed between the Applicant and the City to assure said removal, prior to transmitting the final map to the City Council for approval. 46. Applicant is responsible for the cost to design and construct traffic signals at the following locations. a. Madison Street @ Avenue 52: 2% fair share responsibility. 47. The minimum lot size shall be 1.5 acres and subject to the R-1 Zone standards . 48. If feasible, the Applicant shall retain 50 % of the existing citrus orchard in it's natural state or prepare a landscaping plan which described which trees will be retained or relocated as part of the development of the site. The plans shall be required during the review of the housing plans by the Design Review Board. 50. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the tentative map by the City Council. CONAPRVL.035 9 sji I Z— � I z tD LT) C� z trb Co EAM I m z Aj rop iAJ 0 PH-2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ITEM: ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-020 DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITY WIDE BACKGROUND/REQUEST: The City has been asked to develop a new zoning category for the City which will be aimed toward office professional and/or medical uses. The City's present code does not have a district which is consistent with this request. Independent of the Village Zone Districts, the present code was drafted to allow heavy commercial uses which reflected the Riverside County standards for the Highway 111 area. The design standards are very liberal, in say the CPS Zone category, thus allow the developer an enormous amount of design flexibility. As a result, the City had to adopt specific plans to accomplish its needs since the zoning text was lacking. staff's feeling was that since the Desert Hospital Group has submitted a development request for Washington Street (GPA 91-037, CZ 91-065, PP 91-464 et. al.) it is appropriate at this time to develop a new category which might be used in some of the City areas. The draft ordinance is attached. OFF-STREET PARKING CODE: The existing off-street parking code does not adequately address out -patient medical facilities. The current code discusses hospitals at 2 spaces/patient bed and professional offices at 1 space/250 square feet gross leasable area. Staff is therefore requesting that the Planning Commission consider a amendment to Chapter 9.160 for this purpose. To facilitate this discussion, Staff has attached a summary sheet from the American Planning Association which cites examples of parking requirements in various areas of the United States. Staff is not requesting the calculation for hospitals be amended. However, we are asking that the Commission examine a new classification for medical offices. As you can see from the attachment, the codes use floor area, treatment rooms or number of physicians to determine the on -site parking needs. The latter two ways are very difficult to monitor and Staff prefers not to use this type of standard. Our research has shown that offices/clinics for medical purposes are essentially the same as business professional offices. STAFFRPT.042/CS -1- They do not require as much parking as people use public transportation to utilize these types of facilities by appointment or referral services. We believe a ratio of 1 parking space per 300 square feet gross leasable acreage is sufficient for out -patient medical facilities. ANALYSIS: 1. The development of this new category could assist the city in the implementation of the General Plan. 2. The proposed regulations will not have an environmental impact on the community. 3. The proposed regulations provide more flexibility in property development subject to the City's approval. 4. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the City's General Plan Land Use Element. CONCLUSION: Staff is at the Commission's pleasure Planning Commission would like more topics which should be addressed, Commission continue this case to the 1991. RECOMMENDATION: on this subject. If the information or has other we recommend that the next meeting of October 8, Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- adding Chapter 9.92 (previously deleted I-P Industrial Park Section) to the La Quinta Municipal Code Zoning provisions and amending Chapter 9.160 of the Off -Street Parking standards, thereby establishing a new Zoning Text Section which provides office/medical related facilities requirement, and concurring with the Environmental Determination that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing. Attachments: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Planning Commission Resolution 91- Draft Ordinance Off -Street Parking Code Amendment APA Parking Summary Environmental Assessment STAFFRPT.042/CS -2- RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDING ADDING SECTION 9.92, AN OFFICE/MEDICAL & RELATED SERVICES ;OMS) ZONE DISTRICT TO THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.160, OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS. CASE NO. ZOA 91-020 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 24th day of September 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a City initiated Amendment to the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance), providing a new Medical/Office District to the Zoning Code and providing a parking standard for medical facilities. WHEREAS, said Text Amendment has complied with the requirements of "California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning Director has determined after initial study that the amendment will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration should be filed. WHEREAS, at said public hearing and upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find that the following facts exist to justify recommendation for approval of said Text Amendment. 1. The Text Amendment to the Municipal Code is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. 2. Approval of the Amendment will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. 3. The Amendment provides for more flexibility in property development in the City in the future. 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 in this case; RESOPC.023/CS -1- 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment that the approval of this zoning text amendment will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative Declaration is appropriate for filing; 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 91-020 as contained in Exhibit "A" & "B" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of September, 1991 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.023/CS -2- RESOLUTION 91- ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-020 EXHIBIT "A" OFFICE, MEDICAL & RELATED SERVICES (OMS) Purpose: This district is intended to provide an environment desirable for and conducive to development of medical or office facilities which can be located adjacent to residential uses and other similar types of facilities (e.g. churches, civic center, downtown, etc.). In addition, certain other kinds of uses are permitted under conditions and standards which assure their compatibility with a general concentration of office/medical uses as well as with different types of residential districts which will adjoin this district. This district will generally serve to provide a transition from, and occur between, the commercial core and residential districts. Allowable uses - Buildings, structures, or premises shall be used and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only for the following uses: 1. Business and Professional a. Business college, limited to the teaching of office and business practices and skills. b. Corporate headquarters, which may include transient residential units only for employees on a site less than 10 acres. C. Office, professional, for: Accountant, architect, chiropodist, chiropractor, dentist, engineer, lawyer, minister, osteopath, physician, surgeon, surveyor, optometrist, veterinarian. d. Office, semi-professional, for: Insurance broker, public stenographer, real estate broker, stockbroker, and other persons who operate or conduct offices which will not require the stocking of goods for wholesale. e. Laboratories: Medical, dental, blood bank. f. Museum, library, post office. g. Clinic h. Out -patient medical services. i. Hospital (less than 100 beds) j. Municipal Uses k. Governmental offices 1. Day-care or Preschool 2. Retail a. Establishments primarily supplemental in character to other permitted principal uses, such as: Pharmacy, prosthetic devices and optical goods. b. Blueprinting, photostating. C. Drug Store d. Candy Store printing, publishing or ORDPC.001/CS -1 3. Services a. Banks, financial offices, lending institutions, savings and loan associations, credit unions, and stock brokerage firms. b. Telephone answering service. C. Temporary buildings for uses incidental to construction work, which buildings shall be removed upon completion or abandonment of the construction work. d. Travel agency e. Barber or beauty shop f. Fitness studio g. Book store h. Florist i. Stationery store 4. Food Service a. Cafeteria/restaurant which is incidental to the operation of one of the above uses. b. Ice cream store Conditional Uses 1. Church 2. Corporate headquarters which includes transient residential units only for employees on a site greater than 10 acres. 3. Funeral home 4. Hospital - when larger than 100 beds 5. Research and development facilities (indoor research only). 6. Restaurant or cafe (less than 5,000 square feet in size which can have on -site alcoholic beverage sales but cannot have live entertainment) which can have outdoor seating. Drive-thru facilities will not be permitted. 7. Day Care or preschool for more than 150 children. 8. Helipads. Non -permitted Uses Any use which is not prescribed above to be a permitted or conditional use item shall be deemed to be not allowed by the adoption of this Ordinance, and any use which is in this Zone District prior to the adoption of this Code which does not meet the minimum requirements of this section, shall be deemed Legal Nonconforming and subject to the provisions of Chapter 9.152 of the Zoning Code. Site Development Standards Building Height - No building shall exceed 4 stories in height above finish grade except for appurtenant structures which do not increase the square footage of the facility. Facilities which qualify for this exception are: chimneys, architectural ORDPC.001/CS -2- towers, transmission equipment integral to the operation of the facility, etc. All building heights greater than two stories shall be approved by the Planning Commission on a case -by -case basis. Yards a. Front - Projects which front a major, primary, or secondary arterial street in the City shall have an average landscape setback along the frontage of the site of not less than 20 feet to any parking structure or facility. All buildings shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the property line and no building shall exceed one story in height within 150 feet of the front property line unless approved by the Planning Commission on a case -by -case basis. Any project fronting a local street shall have a front yard setback of 20 feet from either parking facilities or building structures. b. Street Side - A side yard of not less than 20 feet shall be maintained. C. Side - A side yard of not less than 50 feet from a building to the property line shall be maintained where the side of the lot abuts a single family residential district, or use. A side yard of not less than 25 feet from a building to the property line shall be maintained for all other districts. d. Rear - A rear yard of not less than 50 feet from a building to the property line shall be maintained. e. Special - In no case shall any yard setback be less than five feet wide. Setback adjustments may be made by the Director of Planning and Development for minor architectural appurtenances (balconies, stairwells, trellises, eaves, chimneys, towers, etc.) which do not involve square footage building increases by up to twenty percent. Distance between Buildings There shall not be less than 10 feet between accessory buildings and main buildings. The minimum distance between main buildings shall be based on a ratio of 10 feet for each building floor proposed (above ground structures only) for the highest of the two buildings involved. ORDPC.001/CS -3- Lot Size The minimum lot size shall be 5 acres, and all properties shall have a minimum street frontage of not less than 600 feet and a depth not less than 600 feet. Walls and Screening 1. A decorative masonry perimeter wall of not less than 6 feet in overall height shall be constructed along all interior or rear property lines which abut residentially zoned properties. 2. All parking areas shall be screened from view from all public streets by a wall, berm, or landscape hedge a minimum of 42 inches in overall height. 3. All mechanical structures and appurtenances shall be screened as approved by the Design Review Board. 4. All storage and refuse areas shall be screened by masonry walls. 5. All operations and storage shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building or within an area contained by a wall or fence as determined by the Director of Planning and Development. Lot Access All lots shall have frontage on and have vehicular access from a dedicated public street unless a secondary means of permanent vehicular access has been approved by the Planning Commission either by Specific Plan approval or other legislative action. Views into Buildings Building clustering shall be encouraged and in no case shall the building mass along a parallel plane exceed 50 percent of the width of the lot, as determined by the Planning Commission. Pedestrian Access and Shading a. Covered walkways shall be provided and designed for all ground floor building levels for each proposed structure. The arcade shall be a minimum of seven feet wide, and shading should be placed along all areas of the building which provide primary entry or exiting or are affected by mid -afternoon sunshine. Canvas awnings will not be permitted to be counted toward meeting this provision. ORDPC.001/CS -4- b. Bicycle parking facilities shall include provisions for locking of bicycles, either in lockers or in secure racks in which the bicycle frame and wheels may be locked by the user. The racks shall be placed in areas which are shaded by landscape or building structures. One rack with a capacity for six bicycles shall be installed for every 80 parking spaces. The facilities shall be placed within 80 feet of the front entry/exit to the building complex. C. Concrete walkways shall be designed internal to the project so that pedestrian access is not hindered by vehicular traffic movement. Walkways shall connect buildings to parking and buildings to off -site public transportation facilities which are in the immediate area. d. Fifty percent of the on -site parking spaces shall be shaded by detached structures or by proposed buildings. Phasing of the required covered structures will be permitted if approved by the Planning Commission. e. Decorative paving surfaces should be used to distinguish pedestrian areas from vehicular areas where necessary to reduce on -site conflicts, and all main entries in the project shall include textured concrete areas which promote architectural identity and promote community pride. Landscaping At least 10 percent of parking lot area shall be landscaped. One-third of the required landscaping area for a parking lot for more than 50 cars shall be in planting areas distributed throughout the lot other than on the perimeter. The landscaped area shall contain street trees and adequate sprinklers or other appropriate irrigation device, as approved by the Planning Department. The other landscaping provisions of the Off -Street Parking Code shall be maintained. Signs A master sign program shall follow the guidelines as prescribed in Sign Ordinance (Chapter 9.212) and the Planning Commission shall have final approval of all new projects. Special Provisions: All building signs shall not be internally illuminated but may be lit by an outside source. Freestanding signs can be internally lit if they provide information which serves emergency personnel, however, externally lighted signs shall be encouraged. All freestanding signs should be monument type signs not exceeding 7 feet in overall height as measured from the average street grade curb height within 20 feet of the proposed sign location. ORDPC.001/CS -5- Off -Street Parking Off-street parking lots should be located within 100 feet of any proposed building structure. Parking Structures The architectural character of above ground parking structures shall be compatible with the surrounding area, and consistent in design with the project within which they are contained. No above ground structure shall be over 2-1/2 stories (32 feet). Subterranean parking floors will not be counted in the 2-1/2 story height requirement. Emergency Traffic Signal Project Access All hospital projects shall be required to provide emergency traffic signal(s) on or close to the project site to assist public or private emergency personnel response vehicles. The signal can either be private or public. If a public signal is used, the signal shall be redesigned to include an emergency frequency transmitter which will override the traffic signal during a crisis situation. The developer is required to design and install the necessary hardware at their expense unless other arrangements are made with the City Council. ORDPC.001/CS -6 ZONE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 91-020 EXHIBIT B Off -Street Parking Code Amendment (Chapter 9.160) Amend Chapter 9.160.045 - Subsection C, and add item 10 (M) as follows: Medical Offices: 1 space per 300 square feet GLA including lobbies and reception areas. DOCGT.001/CS -2- )(fice, Medical )ne space per 300 sq.ft. of gross floor area if over oAW sq.ft., then one space per 200 sq.ft. of gross loor area (Orange Co., Calif.) )ne space for each 250 sq.ft. of gross floor area Columbus, Ohio) 1.5 spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. [minimum), five spaces per 1,000 net sq.ft. (maximum) (Bellevue, 'Wash.) Dne space per each 200 sq.ft. of floor area (Bozeman, Mont.) one space per 100 sq.ft. of usable floor area, with a minimum of four spaces, plus one space for each employee (St. Clair Shores, Mich.) One parking space for each 50 sq.ft. of gross floor area (Bonner Springs, Kans.) One space for each four seats provided for patron use (Aurora, Colo.) One space for each employee, plus one space for each examining room (Hilton Head Island, S.C.) Three spaces per treatment room and one for each doctor or dentist (Norman, Okla.) Four spaces per doctor or dentist on duty during busiest shift (Arlington, Mass.) Five spaces for each doctor (Albuquerque, N.M.) Six spaces per practitioner (Fairfax Co., Va.) Heliport One space per employee, plus one space for each vehicle used in connection with the facility, plus sufficient space to accommodate the largest number of visitors that may be expected any one time (Fair fax Co., Va.) One space per each 1,000 sq.ft. of operational area (Albemarle Co., Va.) Helistop A minimum of five spaces for commercial helistops and a minimum of two spaces for noncommercial helistops (Fairfax Co., Va.) Comment. A helistop differs from a heliport in that it has facilities only for the loading and unloading of passengers and equipment. A heliport has maintenance and refueling facilities. Am. Planning Association Planning Advisory Service Report No. 432 May 1991 Hospital One space per four beds (Orange Co., Calif.) One space per three beds (Fairbanks, Alaska) 1.2 spaces per room or 0.6 space per bed, whichever greater, plus five spaces per 100 sq.ft. of gross floor area for medical offices in building (Long Beach, Cali; One space per two beds, plus one space per doctor, plus one space per two employees on the largest shi plus one space per hospital vehicle (Citrus Co., Fla.) One space per two beds, plus 1.5 spaces per each emergency room examination table or bed, plus oni space per employee on the major shift other than doctors, plus one space per doctor assigned to the staff (Fairfax Co., Va.) One space per patient bed (Bellevue, Wash.) One space per bed intended for patients (except bassinets or beds in student nurses quarters), plus space per each medical staff member, plus one spa, per each two other employees on shift of greatest employment (Charlotte -Mecklenburg Co., N.C.) Two spaces for each bed (Salisbury Township, Penn. One space for every two beds, plus one space for e five outpatients, plus one for each employee on & largest working shift. Bassinets shall not be count, as beds for the purpose of computing parking. (St. Clair Shores, Mich.) 2.25 spaces per bed at design capacity (Arlington, Mass.) r r11 __;!ig or IA QUMA c`�MoF p� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: I 3. Date of Checklist: 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable ea th conditions or in changes in,, geologic substructures? — --- — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil?— c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? — -- — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features?— e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _'. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? — — g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- , slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?- 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of,, ambient air quality? -- — b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ — — Aeol c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? — -- — 3. Hater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? — -- — b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, water runoff? or the rate and amount of surface c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? — - d. Change in the amount of surface water in any �,,✓ water body? — - e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — - f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — - — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of any aquifer by cuts or excavations? — - — (3) Yes Mbe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? — b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: , a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? __y.-- c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? V 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _ _-- 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -- 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? — -- b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? — 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals cr radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area?- 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? — -- b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — -- — (4) 14 15. 16 17. c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenanze of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase '-n demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b.. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of anaesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan 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? (5) Yes Maybe No Grp 4r� _lie°'', Ae" �rr„s {y!W" L.O. Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to tte disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ — c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is Wff significant.) -- d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? —' III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect or. the environ.nent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. — I find that although the proposed project could have a — significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant f4fect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project P%Y have a significant effect _ on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date:' LAW ignature w PH-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 PROJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-037 CHANGE OF ZONE AMENDMENT 91-065 PLOT PLAN 91-465; DESERT HOSPITAL TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27267 APPLICANT: DESERT HOSPITAL, C/O MR. PETER BERGMANN, EL MIRADOR MEDICAL COMPLEX OWNER: ASH, DANKO, HODGE AND COMPANY ARCHITECT: MR. GERALD C. GENRICH, HDR (HENNINGSON, DUCKAM, & RICHARDSON, INC.) TRAFFIC CONSULTANT: ASL ENGINEERING/BARTON-ASCHMANN ASSOCIATES, INC., C/O MR. GAROLD B. ADAMS, RCE, TE. REPRESENTATIVE: MR. JEFF P. SOBCZYK, MEDIPLEX MEDICAL BUILDING CORP. REQUEST: A PLOT PLAN TO PERMIT A THREE STORY MEDICAL/OFFICE COMPLEX (78,557 SQUARE FEET/PHASE I) WITH HELI-PAD ON A PORTION OF A 30 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AT VIA MARQUESSA. TEN ACRES OF THE SITE ARE LOCATED IN THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS RESPECTIVELY. TO AMEND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE/MEDICAL COMMERCIAL; A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE/MEDICAL AND RELATED SERVICES (OMS); AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 30 ACRES INTO TWO PARCELS. LOCATION: WEST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AT VIA MARQUESSA (GENERALLY NORTH OF 48TH AVENUE AND SOUTH OF 47TH AVENUE/HIGHLAND PALMS DRIVE, A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION) . LAND AREA: 30 ACRES (20 DEVELOPABLE) BUILDING AREA: +78,559 SQUARE FEET (PHASE I) - MEDICAL CENTER PCST.016 1 SURROUNDING .ZONING AND LAND USE: NORTH: R-1-AND HC/HILLSIDE CONSERVATION; ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI CHURCH SOUTH: SAME; VACANT EAST: R-1 RESIDENTIAL/C-P-S VACANT; LAKE LA QUINTA DEVELOPMENT WEST: HILLSIDE CONSERVATION (HC); VACANT HILLSIDE. PARKING PROVIDED: +370 SPACES PARKING RATIO: ONE SPACE PER 208 (WITHOUT DAY CARE) SQUARE FEET DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed 30 acre site is a portion of a 42 acre property. The Desert Hospital Group is in escrow on the 30 acre property contingent on the approval of this development plan. The westerly portion of the site, approximately 10 acres, is in the Santa Rosa Mountain range. The remaining 20 acres has frontage along Washington Street. The property has 1, 000 feet of frontage along Washington Street and is 1, 275 feet in depth. The parcel(s) are vacant at this time and the area outside the mountainous portion contains native vegetation and an accumulation of migrated sand fines which have formed ten to fifteen foot high sand dunes along the rear portion of the site against the mountain. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 59 feet and at the toe of the mountain it is approximately 105 feet. The highest westerly - most point on the site is roughly 325 feet. The site is partially improved with new street paving along Washington Street, but the site does not have curb, gutter, or sidewalk improvements. A raised median island which exists on Washington Street was installed by the City in 1989. Further, the existing frontage road (along the frontage of the Saint Francis of Assisi Church and northerly) terminates at the northeast corner of the property emptying onto the southbound lanes of Washington Street. APPLICATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION: 1. Plot Plan 91-465; this plot plan application would permit the construction of the proposed three story medical complex. (The day care center is not a part of this review . ) 2. General Plan Amendment 91-037; this application is to change the General Plan Land Use designation from Low Density Residential and Open Space to Office/Medical Commercial and Open Space. The change is required in order for the Applicant to construct the proposed medical complex on this site. PCST.016 3. Change of Zone 91-065; this Change of Zone is to allow the zoning to be changed from the present residential R-1 to Office/Medical Commercial as requested by the Applicant. This zoning category is necessary to construct the proposed medical center. 4. Tentative Parcel Map 27267; a request to subdivide 30 acres into two lots to correspond with the Hospital's Phase I building plan. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/CHANGE OF ZONE AMENDMENT: In order for the plot plan application to become effective for this site, the property must be redesignated from residential to another land use designation. Initially, the Applicant thought they would pursue a Commercial General Plan category with C-P-S Commercial Zone District provision. However, the project proponent indicated that the C-P-S category was not truly appropriate for their needs since they do not want to examine, for example: a laundromat, gas station, department store, pool hall, hotel/motel, theater, car dealership, equipment rental yard, etc. In summary, Zone Ordinance Amendment 91-020 is being examined in conjunction with this multiple application submittal and would create a zone geared towards professional office and medical uses. SITE DESIGN: The proposed (Phase I) three story medical building has been positioned in the center of the lot with proposed parking encircling the building. The proposed plan, as presented, will include: medical offices, pharmacy, and urgent care facilities for approximately 45, 000 square feet of the building complex. The remaining portion of the building will be devoted to diagnostic imaging, clinical laboratories and out- patient surgery. LANDSCAPING / SCREENING: The landscape setback along the frontage of the site is approximately 100-120 feet, and a meandering sidewalk is shown along Washington Street. The sidewalk along Washington Street, a major arterial, should be eight feet wide to allow pedestrian and bikeway travel. The plans are drawn at a small scale (1" = 50' & 601) and it is hard to clarify this matter, however, Staff believes that the Applicant is meeting this requirement of the City in their design submittal. A concept landscape plan was submitted on August 21, 1991, and the plan is attached. The preliminary concept is to rough to comment on but latter on in the report a recommendation has been drafted concerning this matter. The Applicant has not submitted cross-section drawings of the site, or a parkway plan (street view elevation showing landscaping features), therefore, Staff is not able to comment fully on this submittal. However, these type of final construction details should be reviewed by the Design Review Board if the project is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. PCST.016 3 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: Medical Complex The three story building is 300 feet from Washington Street and is designed to allow easy access from the abutting parking lot areas into the first floor common waiting area. The proposed Spanish style design motif is indicative of this region (e. g. , the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.) . Preliminary discussions with the architect have indicated the building will be painted white with the balconies and wood trim painted green. The design group has stated that they will bring the finalized color board to the meeting for review/consideration. A covered arcade is proposed for the perimeter of the building around the first floor and the architect has included textured paved areas to define the public spaces. Planters are also interspersed along the pedestrian areas to add additional character to the entry into the proposed facility. The proposed building meets the design parameters of the City. STAFF & DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS: The Design Review Board met on September 4, 1991, and concurred with Staff comments on the project which were: 1. The Applicant should prepare a preliminary landscape plan which would identify all proposed plant materials which would be installed at the site. A parkway plan should be done separately, and it should be drawn to a scale not less than 1" = 20' and include all hardscape and softscape features along Washington Street within 12C feet of the proposed street curbing. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian/bike trail. The plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/Developer. 2. The landscape program for Washington Street should include a variation of planting materials, such as Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. . Consideration should be given to maintaining existing mountain vistas. This can be achieved by plant spacing and selective tree groupings. The design should consider using a more open type tree, such as the California Pepper, Australian Willow and Mesquite. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult with the Coachella Valley Water District's plant materials list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street. Incandescent light fixtures will be required ( less than 160 watts) . 3. The proposed retention areas on -site should be landscaped with materials which will support growth even though they are accepting water run-off from paved surfaces. 4. A meandering eight foot wide sidewalk should be installed along Washington Street along the frontage of the site, and an on -site easement shall be offered if the sidewalk is to be located on a portion of private property. 5. The proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed with analysis of the lighting pattern on the project and meets the PCST.016 City°s Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210. The height of the light poles should not exceed 20 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should try to reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 6. The Developer should consider using dark rust colors for all portions of the building in order to make the complex blend in with its rocky surroundings. 7. Should the Applicant wish to provide public art on the site, the center of the project facing Washington Street (at Avenida Marquessa) in the landscaped areas would be an ideal location since it is visible to public and will not be blocked from view by existing or future buildings. 8. All future buildings will be subject to further study by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission through Plot Plan applications. 9. The Applicant should examine covered parking spaces for 10 percent of the proposed on -site parking spaces. The covered trellises should be either wood or metal and spaces should be interspersed throughout the site. 10. All trash and loading area facilities should be located so that they cannot be seen from any public thoroughfare. The areas should be screened by using masonry wall enclosures and landscaping. 11. All windows on the second and third floor should be recessed into the building envelope (approximately 6 to 18 inches) and sunshade canopies should be used to reduce the sun exposure on the areas which are susceptible to mid- afternoon heating. 12. The overall height of the facility (to roof ridge) should not exceed 3 stories as determined by the Planning Commission. 13. A master sign program should be reviewed/approved by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of any permits for permanent signs at this location. 14. Design measures should be examined to minimize the exposure of the proposed parking lot(s) as they relate to Washington Street, a public thoroughfare. The landscape plan submittal should include provisions for both planter hedges and masonry screen walls along the property frontage. 15. The finished pad height of this phase and any other phases should be as low as possible to reduce the overall height of the building structures as they relate to the surrounding elements (e.g., existing St. Francis of Assisi Church, Santa Rosa Mountains, etc.) . HELI-PAD ISSUE: The helicopter pad is a new element to the Phase I development plan which was added after the initial application. Staff did not address this feature in the environmental assessment, and the Applicant has not provided a noise study to address the impacts of the proposal on abutting neighbors. At the Design Review Board meeting the Applicant stated that the heli-pad is not necessary for their initial first phase, POST.016 5 therefore, Staff would prefer to not address this matter during this review stage. A condition has been imposed wh;:ch eliminates this feature from the Phase I approval. TRAFFIC STUDY: Staff has requested as part of the submission of the project that the Applicant prepare a traffic study which analyzes the off -site traffic impacts this development would have on streets within the area. The purpose of the study was to examine: 1) whether or not the City should pursue the extension of the Washington Street frontage road southerly from Highland Palms/47th Avenue to 48th Avenue along the frontage of the parcel; 2) whether direct access to Washington Street should be permitted with or without the extension of the frontage road; or 3) whether the frontage road was necessary at all. The developer contracted with ASL Consultants, Inc. and Barton-Aschmann Associates, Inc., to perform this task and a copy of the study is in your environmental assessment. Staff believes that the site should not be permitted direct access to Washington Street and that the further extension of the Washington Street frontage road is appropriate for this site because if access is allowed a traffic signal would probably be necessary since a median island break was also requested by the Applicant. A traffic signal at the proposed entry to Washington Street would be at a 1/4 mile interval and the General Plan and City Council has discouraged mid -block signals unless they are at 1/2 mile intervals along Washington Street. The project to the east, Lake La Quinta, has also requested a signal at Via Marquessa, but the Council has not approved their request. The traffic report has indicated that the plan as prepared by the Developer, with signalized access to Washington Street without the extension of the frontage road is, from a traffic safety and traffic movement scenario, an acceptable or preferred alternative to that recommended by City Staff. The consultant, however, did recommend that the City require a cul-de-sac for the frontage road at the northerly end of the site and further provide reciprocal access to the abutting private property owners for cross traffic on -site traffic movement. The Engineering Department has tentatively reviewed the traffic study document, and they concur that the alternative recommended in the study is functional. However, their feeling is that the City should maintain their standard of eliminating access driveways on major thoroughfares even if they are right-in/right-out driveways and not allow traffic signals at 1/4 mile intervals. The Engineering Department will be at the meeting to elaborate on the final traffic study because the document was not received until September 19th. Further, it is the Engineering Department's contention that the change in land use designation from Low Density Residential to Office/Medical dictates that the developer should be required to improve both Washington Street and the Washington Street frontage road for their frontage and south of their site to 48th Avenue because of their added burden to City services. With this in mind, conditions have been included which require no direct access to Washington Street, and extend frontage road improvements in front of site and southerly to 48th Avenue. PCST.016 LAND USE DISCUSSION: The City presently has an over abundance of commercially zoned property in the City. However, the city does not have much property devoted to strictly Office/Medical related services. With the implementation of Zone Ordinance Amendment 91-020, the City would be in a position to consider rezoning commercial properties to the OMS category and/or perhaps redesignating this property. Positive traits for this site are: 1) the site is less than one mile south of the City prime commercial property (Washington/Highway 111); and 2) it would be located in the center of the City with immediate access to various major or primary north/south east/west corridor streets. The site is well suited for development since it is fairly flat and vacant at this time, and it fronts a major City arterial street. Development in the area has been toward low density development, however, heavy commercial zoned areas exist in the immediate area (east side of Washington Street; Washington Square and Lake La Quinta projects) , but areas south of 48th Avenue are generally residential in nature. A copy of the City°s Zoning Map exhibit for this area is attached to the Change of Zone Resolution. Staff is not opposed to the development of this site for office medical purposes provided the City limits the future potential of the site to uses which do not conflict or impede development of the C-P-S properties. Findings necessary to justify a recommendation for approval can be made and are attached to the draft resolution for your use. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: 1. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan and Text Amendment 91-037, and confirmation of the Environmental Determination. 2. That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 91- recommending to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-065, from R-1 Single Family Residential to Office/Medical and related services (OMS) . 3. That the Planning Commission by Minute Motion 91- approve Plot Plan 91- 465, subject to the attached conditions. 4. That the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91- approving Tentative Parcel Map 27267, subject to the attached conditions as noted in the Planning Commission Resolution. PCST.o16 9 N s AVE. WI�W...A'.�.D ............It's E 14 — �. Location/Property in Question 3 MAJOR L..-d 20' R.O.W. �RIAl PRIMARY ARTERIAL 100-110' R.O.W. (" SECONDARY ARTERIAL 88' R.O.W. CASE No. COLLECTOR 64•72' R.O.W. CASE MAP General Plan Amendment 91-037 Zone Change 91-065 Plot Plan 91-465 Environmental Assessment 91-210 11 /i ORTH SCALE: of 'I= Mit E -.1- T- 11-17i", Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Plan exhibits 3. Draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending GPA 91-037 4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution recommending CZ 91-065 5. Draft Conditions of Approval for PP 91-465. 6. Draft Resolution approving TPM 27267 7 Environmental Assessment 91-210 8. Comments from various City Departments and Agencies PCST.016 8 ,,......... ......�.�.... ���.....•�..�1� Kai• � - - --_ __._ \� ..•. ;� •• .•._\ ! •� .. •=ti:...� •. �S\ ®© ` `+•� Ik Il_��/ \RFTUDAj DUNES COVNTRY CLUB ��i s � ®�� �-•�� � _ :._..........ate _,g %r, v 1, \ J' i cq ,!� � • f �� '� � � �� •'° . ��;:�•••'S; ...�. • d II . C ice_: f�• - \ � • — ti•.r . .Water 18'rn •w 't�� s 1\ `_ \_ `;�i�o<'•':I (_ l r<_< -- DAR Y ROAD.•_ __ - �1 ;••�. .D �• ' ls. _i �: Water % ----. •^ -- -- .\- Y :•� .t - _. .:+ ;ter �`\ • J l ri J p0 r ti• _ \`\ \ "7)t _ ^•. � Tra,,er Parl.' 119 1 _ VENUE `' »8 r\ '• � 1. �� � . PointCHAP eo _0. \ 1 P 04 •�� ,_ Cc � •l o ��,lt�• �i 8 72 �7;''°tip✓�'I����`y«�Ii s �'31 BM 61 30 170,011, ram' �� ��• /� fir---�. — We \\\ \� \ '• s \�/ -Well •w�.\ � p \•:,� ��.�+ lye:. '; � � -- _ • ®� ii 31 CAA QUINTA QUAD - 1 o �� . WaCer ����A� , 0. VW vo 0ter i J. '. til --- --- -------- �• • AAVKiyuE�•. 50 Water Well � - we�01 ao_—S -; �\-fir/;.� I d _ 0 g �I —'OSG T' 0 3 19yt � 6 ;� q, —.L� __J —__—_ _ ____ �L--_ _______ `7i _N 1t4.. 1 i. AKI"•L QNT i�.. 'rt • �d ae%Mli.i4 A .j .,. ' `..e a.1iA 'ti'N�'fi . _ +„ uYi' `� 4�` 9�1yf.S•,����„a `�4Y.- ti�A �Y °Y_=ia�_+G�>___ T`��'+� J�fwY t � .'a { i .�� ''�iii'""" ,��1'�''r''TRK 1 1 � p.�,�� �.-. e. r.' �„j4•� r �'.��, .f2 � � Y . � � � r � � iq '` 6::•, ,�.firr ..IV2------------- .1 - 1� • w• i n 3 �¢. Ry},w •� 14'i,, �- ' e.;�" „'�e�lP."'• .alp",�. ,r,aY^ti v� ir`„,� "��'k. j,`,•'Tr' .YM'.; ice° ° w • i��.K� �# M1i I s, ' k� t - low 40 mev '� 1`,°'' 3 ter"-•'�� � Y q� '!�� � �� � -• t r : '3"u•lw ,. �i '1:r >.�s: e . =i � ?. •rr'03 �� wills4 ¢u w ye. �`" ` `'�`.-'9r� k. � ��''.skRp..�; .'. NY �; � •�:.i,��``�, Y Me � � y� 1� ,� �,y, ', •y�� i S'y'?!A „�W+i. :�"')4}. , �' A °ate'/'" - 'M � y tf� `�ri �`i�:,r` Q�+!"',,� k l ,. � ��!' ��, . ,. # ,•cr,�1r, •. # '�`e �L�* � „a1"L '� ' - " • :.�-'` _ � a �� #Y''4'�e';"- �;r '�• , � 'r A � Ni a j�� ^`.p �� •t ` i .. to � „.^ � • *y. �a'K i' '�`^. R.r,A. � - �"•* �� b�'�9.�d 4•,� +. .ap�, ��p � • Y4 * O n " _.' •p , +� K ',� ,.fix ., }Y. ryr „, ice}•. n;;a��•�, k*� �• .41� F ajy.!..`. � Y• '+4 Y#•-yr1A .F+ .RAPS- t'^�..y`AR 1"_(S I y�,A,,.. .Y ��'*` •� x ^ � _ -'arc"'a•.". Jv Y "Ir4w A� A -s ♦.♦g s{ + ^*i%+k:44!'', vk x -ZW`�, . "•'�+tc.�S':!! ray � , , :IF - I S, i jQ t + m2 '► . y_� - _ , a„�o � � fit•' '�*,:w;�- ... � � . ,e a �1Mi"R , • �-, �.,•:=�`e.-^,�yr..r ��,•'µ far. � ,; ro IL - .!. ].''wr :iin- �• ,�—, - i • _ • Y, a, U, a :+.�r�,+ : ^•Me+;'! ' .. w• ., x �?I'�1 . ant � ��':' ... ��. y � ,�-". :� iv�s.'W � �y� . � ... S. off;,. •. q:�.v-�^'r.-e:: e,•!nra: ;ate �' �' "�,, •Px"_±1 `'Y \ �Ydyb - �.+ ♦ � ... :. k....,, a r IL -• x :fir .41 . nI r IIti sars� os � 1 a ra/.uou unoi rmxw Auols I I ow I -- _:� �'>- �� � �� �.- i�'r1T4;;:�+,' - - - �_��� .tom'+= i �;� �,- i.� � all.IA r i�a• • ` •i y t . 1 � �' ��� '�����C��IJ��_'L I \ - / i N fuel/ 1 r r I I I ' i I I ---------------------- ri �Fl zy- ol 10M MIRA�OR MEDICAL CENTER 'PROFESSIONAL PLAZA 0==LUffU4 UBLL%m - N. NM 0 s 10 m 40 w im V. w KNEOPLAX MMUDEL%L gUoLrr-310MM MMM mMF1-3199JA-,\L PLAAHERPM EL MIRA��R MEDICAL CENTER IP 9 M F H R M 0 [a M LQL [P L Z42 /,% FLggg PLAN VW - I-0, NNM 0 5 v 20 40 so Am V. Im M99KODUMMIX MMFr--19Fc-'66l1L- 93MBLEMOMP Fc-19DAP09ATOMM 0 MFO-19 HNFI-319CAL PLL%HHmUqm EL MIRAOOR MEDICAL CENTER PROFESSIONAL PLAZA a c� \ BALDW W/— ASM FENTAL Af "i �'G;I�f�D G�f�0OG3 f�L�Q(n� NMM o s ID7u co so Vv.,r JJE V. 10 MAgUFL (9X CMUL TO-19HG M9 09AL PLLQNNgims I I 'I I� •—'�--� 11���. � � I I � 11 I LLILL I ., s W• ��.� I i �tl y 1 i� t {{ +� i�i+ �� � �����L���� L_ e p a e 8 a � g � �! �y �6 � � r; a� — - �-- - --- ..� :a— — - a, a 2 1 \ F ` N 4 t--- LU I— (n PROGRAM Space Inventory Summation The following program space listing was derived from dit=ssions with hospital personnel, the physician survey, the market survey, and professional experience. It represents the total space required for Phase One. Space Description Sq. Ft 1 Physician interest Space (Medical Officesl a. Physician Survey 23,200 NSF b. Physician Recruitment 6 .00 NSF c. Cancer Care Center ,O NSF Sub -total 34,200 NSF oft*& 2 Anullary Services Space a. Ambulatory Surgery Center 11,822 GUSF b. Diagnostic Imaging/Linear Accelerator 14,172 GUSF GUSF c. Clinical Laboratory 550 It d. Pharmacy 869 GUSF e. Urgent Care Center 2--s� a� Sub -total 29,413 GUSF Medical Office Building Physician Interest, Physician Recruitment, 34,200 NSF Cancer Care Center 869 NSF Pharmacy Urgent Care Center 2.000 NSF - Total Gross Usable Square Feet Affected by Efficiency Factor (83%) 37,069 divided by .83 = (GROSS MOB SO FT) 37,069 GUSF 44.66 1 GSF Ambulatory Outpatient Building Ambulatory Surgery Center 11,822 GUSF Diagnostic Imaging Center/Linear Accelerator 14,172 GUSF Clinical Laboratory 550 GUSF Total Gross Usable Square Feet Affected by Efficiency Factor (83%) 26,544 GUSF 26,544 divided by .83 - (AMBULATORY OUTPATIENT BM. GROSS SQUARE FT.) 31,981 GSF Total Gross Building Square Feet 76,642 GSF (Optional Ancillary Services a. Physical Therapy/Cardiac Rehab 3,240 GUSF NOTE: An assumed 83% efficiency factor was used for preliminary design purposes, this could vary based on final design considerations. Page 4 Nenningson, Durham d Richardson, Pnc 031 cz. /-a(5 CITY OF IA QUINT r i� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND A ,�9*�.• 1. Name of Proponent: 2)iers�vf�rAt_ r 2. ddress and Phone Number ofQ onent:AM. MAM -j,, 3. Date of Checklist: C _ 7- 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: c/"w d F 14 �M/� to� S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: II. ENVIRO.NDTNTAL IMPACTS %l "Yes" "M (Explanation of all and e' ans1rs is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? �,, — — b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? — d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Ar.y increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? b� _ f. a..anges in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? V01 g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? — _ lee — 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of anbient air quality? —— b. The creation of objectionable odors? _, _ — c. A:teration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, 100 either locally or regionally? — 3. Dater. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in curreits, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Czar.ges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood W1000. waters? — - — d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? — — e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? — — f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow ,• of ground waters? — — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an ,,,r aquifer by cuts or excavations? — (3) Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water ctherwise available for public water supplies? _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards suc% as flooding or tidal waves? -'+ - 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, r rare or endangered species of plants? — — c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? &00,r- _ -- — d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?S. ✓ Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: , a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic - organisms, insects or microfauna)?— b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? -AZ — c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife r / habitat? — — 6. Noise. Wi:l the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? le0of b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new , light or glare? _ — 8. Land Use. Will the prcposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? ✓ — 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Does tte proposal involve a risk of an exp osion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? — — 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, istri ution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ 160 - b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? — — (4) 14 . 15. 16. 17. Yes Maybe No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. :ncrease in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? — Publ'c Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ b. Police protection? — ✓� _ c. Schools? &00011 d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including, roads? _ f. Other governmental services? Lo Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power cr natural gas? b. Corimr:ications systems? c. Water? — O d. Sewer cr septic tanks' e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creaticn of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Expos:-:e of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? Archeological/Historical. Will the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological,,, or historical site, structure, object or building? Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife copulation to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate im-3ortant examples of the ,• major periods of California history or prehistory? — v (5) Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, en- vironmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumula':ively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION Date (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. s �Po I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect _ on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I &0#00". 100'"",r rr,i CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CASE NO. GPA 91-037, CZ 91-065, PP91-465 (EA91-210) DESERT HOSPITAL GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed three story office/medical center is located on the west side of Washington Street, north of 48th Avenue and south of 47th Avenue. The proposed 78,000 square foot facility will be designed to care for out -patient services and the center will be located on a portion of the 30 acre property. The applicant has also designated a small portion of the site toward the development of a (future) child care facility on the westerly side of the site (the approximate size is 5,000 sqaure feet). Twenty acres are buildable and the remaining 10 acres are located in the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. In addition, the applicant has requested a change in the land use plan for this area to support the center; they are requesting a commerical designation versus the present designation of single family residential. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as Myoma Fine Sand. This type of soil has rapid permeability and it can be used for crop production or homesite development. The site has been vacant (never developed) but the applicant is desirous to pursue development of the site with urban services (i.e. medical complex) . The front portion of the site is flat, but the rear portion of the site includes a portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The slope of the mountains in this area is approximately 20 percent or greater. The recontouring of the earth to support the project will be done as part of the grading plan, and no on -site work shall be done until a study has been prepared which identifies the cut and fill needs of the site. The general elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above sea level but the mountainous areas are approximately 350 feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic/Geologic Hazard area as noted by the County of Riverside Planning Department (1983). A Zone 3 is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light trucks (Riverside County Manual)." Although earthquake damage should not be a major problem at the site, landslides can be considered a problem at this location since it abuts a steep section of the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. The fracturing of rock can produce hazards for this area. Therefore, it is important that the Civil Engineer and a Geologist examine the natural forms of the site to determine areas that are subject to seismically generated landslides. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site agreements have been made and/or approved. The grading quantities have not been submitted, it is assumed that most of the earth moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and limited importation will occur. 2). No disruption to the Santa Rosa Mountain range shall occur unless approved by the City as part of the grading review stage. At this time, it is anticipated that the project proponent will perform minor excavation work at the toe of the mountain to develop a portion of their on -site parking lot but any related construction work which is done, and effects the mountain, shall meet all the requirements of the City's Hillside Conservation Ordinance. 3). Provisions shall be made which will reduce any impacts associated with falling (fractured) rocks from the abutting hillside area. The design solution could include: concrete substructures, earthen basins, chain link fencing, or other facilities which will protect people from the unknown landslides which might occur in this section of the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. 4). All recommendations of the Buena Engineering Report, La Quinta Health Center, dated April 17, 1991 (Report B7-3091-P1) shall be met. This will include: site grading, building foundations, landslide design measures, building construction design methods, and all the other noted mitigation measures which are noted herein. The report is attached. 5). The site shall meet the provisions of Uniform Building Code Section 2312 (d) 2 because the projectd lies within a Seismic Zone 4. It is recommended that all structures be designed according to current Uniform Building Code requirements. 2. AIR: The project site is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project. It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed project there will be a reduction in the overall mobile emission releases because the medical complex would provide a convenient service to local residents of this area. Presently, no medical facilities of this magnitude exist in this area, therefore, the closest facilities of this caliber are in Indio (JF Kennedy Memorial Hospital - approximately 4 miles) or Rancho Mirage (Eisenhower Medical Center - approximately 10 miles). However, there are other smaller immediate care clinic at the area but none are as large as the one propcsed. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of the ccnstruction generated dust. 2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. 4). The operator of the facility should devise a car or vanpool plan which can be reviewed by the City to assure employees and doctors of the site are actively involved with reducing vehicle trips to and from this facility. 3. WATER: With the proposed construction it can be expected that there will be a change in the absorption rate (due to impervious surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water run-off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site retention/detention basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run- off and, special measures will be needed to divert mountain area run-off around the buildings into the proposed detention basins. The applicant has prepared a preliminary hydrology report (Sanborn/Webb Engineering stamp dated 9-18-91) which is attached. The applicant has analyzed the project and has made recommendations to the developer and the City concerning on -site water retention. This area is not subject to liquefaction (similar to the problems of the Downtown area). Liquefaction is the term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing failure and other adverse side -effects. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. The developer shall complete a hydrology study, prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer, which identifies the increased water run-off quantities which will be generated at the site by analyzing the assumed quantities in an undeveloped state and factoring this against the development proposal. Based on this study the project engineer shall design the necessary on or off -site drainage basins (retention/detention) which will maintain storm water run-off from the property and allow gradual dissipation of the water into the ground. The above - cited hydrology study is presently being reviewed by the City's Engineering Department and further information will be provided at the public hearing. 2. Diversion channels should be established which will funnel run- off from the hillside area into manageable storm water areas (as noted above). 4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of any significant plant life. The site has existing desert shrubbery intertwined amongst the fifteen foot high sand dunes, which are at the base of the mountains, were probably formed by drifting sand over the past few hundred years or longer. No impact is anticipated by the development of this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 5. Animal Life: The subject site is located in an area defined as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species) and it has been determined that a mitigation fee shall be paid to the City of La Quinta if the site is developed. The City is required to contribute the money to the Valley's Nature Conservancy, and the Conservancy is required to use the money at their Thousand Palms preserve (1300 acres) to protect and maintain this endangered species. All the valley cities contribute to this preserve through contractual arrangements which were made in the early 1980's and, although all properties in the City do not pay toward this fund at such time as they are developed, this project is required to contribute funds toward the continued preservation of this federally protected species since the property is designated as property that might have (or currently is) supported refuge for the lizard in the past. Another type of species which might be seen in this area is the Black -tailed Gnatcatcher and the Carissal Thrasher. These two birds are native to the Southern California area but they are not listed as a species which is rare or endangered at this time. It can be assumed that the development of this small property will not impede their continued survival since they are native to the Southern California region, and they usually thrive in areas with adequate water or arid scrub. This site has a marginal supply of desert scrub and no known existing source of surface water. Therefore, until these wildlife species are Federally protected it is assumed that they will migrate to other areas which are not developed in order to find safe areas to bred based on the assumption that adequate vegetation is available. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The applicant/developer shall contribute at the time a building permit is issued money in the amount of $600.00 per acre which shall be used by the Nature Conservancy to mitigate the development of this parcel to an urban use. 6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of the medical center, it can be expected that there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to the site for medical care, and it is assumed that no noise will be generated by the primary users of the site (doctors, nurses, etc.) because it will be operated similar to an office complex in that no internal noise will be projected externally outside of the building mass. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). As required by the General Plan, this project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and outdoor noise shall be meet. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the building(s) and/or parking lot/landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much of the material has not been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. 2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking lot and the plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity as well as identifies the height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other pertinent information which is necessary to assure compliance with the City's Off-street Parking Ordinance and the Dark Sky Ordinance. 8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as Low Density Residential (2-4 units per acres) and Open Space and the existing Zoning of the site is Single Family and Hillside Conservation. The 20 acres fronting Washington Street is the residentially zoned portion of the site and the remaining 10 acres in the rear (mountainous hills) is designated open space. The proposed land use is commercial which will necessitate a General Plan/Zone Change Amendment. Applications for this change have been submitted as part of the development plan application, and they will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as to their merit in the next few months. The City Council action is final unless the matter is appealed to the State Court System. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). None is required. However, it is necessary that the City Council approve the land use designation change in order for the applicant to develop the proposed medical complex. If this does not occur, the site is to remain vacant until other land use plans can be reviewed and be determined to meet the intent of the City's existing General Plan and Zoning Code. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. Building energy conservation will largely be achieved by compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code. These standards are handled by the Building and Safety Department during construction plan check review. 10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities whether or not they are permanent or temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an incremental demand for additional housing for employees of the development. However, due to the size of the medical center any demand would be insignificant because the City presently has an overabundance of land either vacant at this time (but slated for residential development) or developed with existing housing units. Single family housing is the primary type of housing at this time, however, multiple family housing projects will be forthcoming in the City's high density areas in the future. MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed. 13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the immediate area. The project is fronting on an existing partially developed major arterial (the median island is already installed) which provides both access to Interstate 10 and Highway 111 (State roadway systems) and, access to the City's downtown and other residential areas. Washington Street is also serviced by the Sunline Transit bus system. The site is bounded on the east by Washington Street and generally located south of 47th Avenue and north of 48th Avenue, at the Via Marquessa intersection. The Washington Street frontage road dead ends at the northerly edge of the project site. The City has determined that they would like the existing Washington Street frontage road to continue southerly of its present location so that it will ultimately connect (Simon Plaza Motors area) with 48th Avenue. The continued development of the frontage road will eliminate the need for the project to have direct Washington Street access, and the development of the frontage road will both provide development access and reduce off -site traffic problems. The applicant's preliminary traffic report is attached. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s). 2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to accommodate the proposed use of the property. 3). The Washington Street frontage road, west of Washington Street, shall be extended southerly along the frontage of the site. The project will be allowed access to this new frontage street system, but the development will not be permitted access to Washington Street, a major arterial. 4). A traffic signal should not be allowed for this project since the proposed light would be located 1/4 mile from the existing traffic light at 47th Avenue and Washington Street. This would be contradictory to the City' Circulation Element which states traffic signals should be located at 1/2 mile intervals on major arterials. However, the developer should contribute to the signal costs and/or maintenance of the future traffic signal at 48th Avenue and Washington Street. The City Engineer is reviewing the alternative access plans as prepared in the developer's traffic study, therefore, further recommendations will be presented at the upcoming public hearings which are tentatively scheduled for September and October. 5). Sidewalk and bikeway paths shall be provided on Washington Street (major arterial) , and a sidewalk shall be proposed along one side of the future extension of the Washington Street frontage road. 6). The developer shall offer reciprocal access rights to the abutting neighbors so that in the future cross traffic vehicular access can occur between this property and either the Saint Francis of Assisi Church (to the north) and the vacant property to the south. 7). A bus stop and shelter shall be install along the frontage of the site on the proposed Washington Street frontage road in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department. The bus turn -out shall not affect traffic movement. It is recommended that the bus lane be recessed either within the parkway or located on -site. Alternative forms of transportation should be pursued by the medical complex for its employees (e.g. car and vanpooling). 8. Street improvements shall be commensurate to the magnitude of the project. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements has mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. As mentioned before, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run-off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc.). 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection, police protection and maintenance of public roads in the area. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. The location of this facility will decrease the number of miles (response time minutes) public safety personnel might have to travel to take an injured person to a medical facility for additional treatment. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6,000.00 per acre. This fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and Riverside County Sheriffs Department and, further, the School District's mitigation fees shall be paid. 3). Water, sewer, and electric service provisions shall be made and secured prior to securing building permits. 17. HUMAN HEALTH: The facility is designed to provide a care treatment center for short and long term health problems, and it anticipated that the medical facility will generate various low- level hazardous materials which will require special handling and/or disposal (e.g. used needles, blood, human tissue, radioactive material, etc.) for any or all materials which are deemed hazardous. The on -site containment and off -site transport of such material shall be done in a professional manner so that life -safety hazards will not be problem either on -site personnel or off -site City residents. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The disposal of various low-level waste products shall be done as required by the State and Federal Licensing requirements and, further, contractual arrangements shall be made with the City's Disposal Agency (Palm Desert Disposal or other licensed Contractor) so that special care is taken to dispose of any and all materials which are classified as hazardous by the medical profession, State of California, Federal Government, or City of La Quinta. The materials shall be identified and disposed of in either approved landfill areas or incinerated if permitted by law. At this time, staff is unaware of any provision by the medical operator to incinerate some waste products on -site. 2). No adverse impacts are contemplated and it is assumed that this proposed center will assist the City of La Quinta in providing additional medical services which will broaden the scope of services the City can provide for their existing and future residents. 18. AESTHETICS: The site is Dresently vacant, the construction of buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing viewing views of the Santa Rosa Mountains. However, in order to reduce this impact the developer has placed the buildings to the rear portion of the site so that the view from abutting residential properties to the east are not drastically affected as they would have been had the developer placed the building(s) along Washington Street. The applicant has proposed the multiple story building approximately 200 feet from Washington Street in order to reduce the impact of any associated view lose, plus the developer has proposed large landscape areas to create a pedestrian scale along is major north/south thoroughfare. The building masses have been separated (detached), thereby, creating interest to the development and maintaining view corridors. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements of the City's Zoning Code and the buildings shall be designed to accentuate the natural mountain terrain to the west of the site. Measures should be taken so that the no scaring of the mountains occurs which would affect the future enjoyment of the residents of this community while the project is under construction or any time in the future without City approval. 2). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program should take into consideration the unique setting of this property as it relates to the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. The developer should consider vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and the use of accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view "windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be pursued and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged. Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible without sacrificing pedestrian security. The building complex should blend in with the mountainous setting to the west and parking areas should be nonvisible is possible. 3). Earthen building colors should be used to downplay the building mass, thus accenting the desert environment to the west. 19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required but it is assumed that the medical complex will provide therapeutic recreation for its clients as part of its operation (e.g. cardiac, podiatry, etc.) on a pay - for -service plan. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of the project. A copy of the applicant's preliminary site survey is attached. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). An archaeological survey of the city by qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be required. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Attached: Agency Comments Preliminary Hydrology Study Preliminary Traffic Report Preliminary Geotechnical Report ine Transa �. MEMBER AGENCIES Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Riverside County August 2, 1991 Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner CITY OF LA QUINTA P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92.253 RE: PLOT PLAN 91-465 Dear Mr. Trousdell: AUG 610c-' U I Y Ur ILIA quiNTA PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPI Thank you for allowing SunLine Transit Agency to review the plans for the El Mirador Medical Complex. As you know, SunLine Transit Agency operates Line 4 past this site. Beginning September 1991, this service will operate on a 30 minute headway during peak hours. Usually, SunLine Transit Agency carries a large number of people to medical complexes. Therefore, we request that in the plans for the El Mirador Medical Complex that a bus stop be included. Since this location is on a major arterial, we recommend that a bus turn -out be used for the bus stop. We recommend that the bus turn- out be located on Washington far -side of the main entrance -way, but as close to the main entrance -way as is feasible. In addition, we suggest that a sidewalk be provided from the bus stop area into the complex. We do request that a passenger waiting shelter be included at the site. SunLine Transit Agency has suggested standards for bus turn -outs and passenger waiting shelters. Please feel free to give me a call to discuss these comments. Yours very truly, S"LINE TRANSI AGENCY ie )br Astin --K Director of Planning DA/dy cc: File 32.505 Harry Oliver Trail . Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343-3456 • FAX (619) 343-3645 A Public Agency l� W TER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY c TRICS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMASE LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W. McFADDEN July 24, 1991 OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS 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 4- ~ YUNTA MT ►)EP7. Subject: Plot Plan 91-465, General Plan Amendment 91-037, Change of Zone 91-065, Lot Line Adjustment 91-147, Portion of Southwest Quarter, 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 Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission -2- July 24, 1991 Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley 'dater District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engine RF:dr/eng7 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Adr— CHAMBER OF COMMERCE GEPOiNtTHE DESERT C tv of La Ouinta annina Department Att: Greq Trousce',1 Assoc. Planner Ra:Plot Plan 91-465 et -al. The La Ouinta Chamber of Commerce Planninq and Development R=view Committee has examined the proposed project submittec 'o,/ Desert Hospital We have the following comments: Tha site is not now commercially zoned for the intenlec, u e. ~he Chamber feels that this additional zonina d&signation may adversely affect existing Commercially Zonec' -and. In additiDn, the Washinqton Street Corridor was nit intended to suoport major commercial projects. Recentiv the =strrt Sun reported that Desert Hospital was considerinc Cji-dine a 100 bed Acute Care Facility at this site. An,/ '. nera-' Plan A-nendment should consider the original intant -T -Lhe Wcish i naton Dfreet Specific Plan and Desert Hose i to s futur,r- use. ".) The site is situated next to an eristina up -sale r, usinc; project that is impacted by this site p ian_ TI-,F_ reE st_.)r-v may intrude upon the privacy t"'nt_ F cmt: owners c-r the 'rousing rrc iect c.:rDc=cted wher, they runught i_heir hem_ The site is located next to the St. Frances of Assisi _Harsh which presently has traffic and parkins, difficulties T1-11s proje-ct may further corrrlicate the traffic circulari(:r I ssues at thi' location u ) The- Cha,Tib��r would suggest that a study c' the impact_ ,.T= a fully drv-doped Medical Center be undertaken by the C,veloner prior to approval. Eisenhower Medical Center has h,,d extensive tra--fic circulation and park.inq problems that c , vc-for-ed on -site as EMC grEw Similar- prob 1 ems have a -i s =n ern other planned Medical Complexes thr-o�ic;hout the Sta-e T,-,---i r en -site Problems have often �,p i 1 1 ed over into the surrounding community. ncerely ECE AUG 51"' Mar4= Moran, Chairman P-1 an . & DG vel . Review Sub -Committee V11 Y Ur LA QUINTA La Ouinta Chamber of Commerce :ILANniNG,&DEVFLOPII F14TnrPT POST OFFICE BOX 255 e 51-351 AVENIDA BERMUDAS • LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253. (619) 564-3199 GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657-3I83 July 22, 1991 To: City of La Quinta Planning Division Attention: Greg Trousdell Re: Plot Plan 91-465 E1 Mirador Medical Complex 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 recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 2. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 2}" x 2}"), will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 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 the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 4. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that ---he building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 5. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. PLANNING DIVISION WNDIO OFFICE Q TFMECUTA OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201 41002 County Centrr Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 92390 (619) 342SM6 • FAX (619) 775.2072 ® RIVERSIDE OFFICE (714) 694-5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501 (714) 275.4777 0 FAX (714) 369.7451 printed on recycled paper o: City of La Quinta 7/22/91 e: PP 91-465 Page 2. E1 �Iirador Med. Complex Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Provide fire apparatus road to within 150 feet of any portion of the exterior wall of the first floor. Such road shall have a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed width and a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. Comply with Section 801.2 of Riverside County Ordinance 546, Life Safety Support System. Center divider in entrance way shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from curb line. Provide valve supervision and 24 hour monitoring of the waterflow alarm at the automatic fire sprinkler system. Approved building numbers or address shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. This project may require licensing and/or review by State agencies. Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing his proposed usage to facilitate case review. Contact should be made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (818-96C-6441) for an opinion and a classification of occupancy type. This information and a copy of the letter of intent should be submitted to the Fire Department so that proper requirements may be specified during the review process. nal conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check e must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. 1 questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the re Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886. Si -.cerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire f�Department Planner By Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist 7 4 XP QuMM 76.105 CALLS ESTADO -- LA OUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564.2246 FAX (619) 564.5817 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: - 15 City Manager Mana ement Q�rincipal ublic Works/Engineering �__�__�eral Telep one P1 nner(s) ire Marshal � er Cable Vision ,- ssociate lding 6 Safety "'line Transit Planner(s) amber of Commerce Caltrans (District II) Assistant Agricultural Commission �lanni er rsert rial Irrigation City of Indian wells ng hern California Gas City of Indio Director Sands School Dist. � Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Environmental Health owner's Association _ Aeriff's Department LA QUINTA CASE NO (S) : oor ✓ lh,i 637 etc 9/ - 0&5 • /44 I%,-)41 - F-A- " PROTECT DESCRIPTION: f PROJECT LOCATION: 4)95 r 5-/ of hs (�„ iati SirzE�' i �a% The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and/or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response byand return the maps/plans if not needed for your files. You re invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date:_ �AtQq 1 �'�,-L6LCLJ Time: J C 5 Contact Person: e!-- o1 51XLL- Title:hs.� 1149 Comments made by: _ Title:U'`7!L� DatePhone: Agency/Division RIVERSIDE, COUNTY COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Mr. Greg Trousdell A �ociate Planner C--fty of La Quinta 78-105 Calle Estado La Quinta CA 92253 Dear Mr. Trousdell: Sheriff 82-595 DR. CARREON BLVD. • INDIO, CA 92201 • (619) 342-89(. July 22, 1991 qFr.F#%J1- lul vI I Y Q,- I -A QUINTA 'FANNING & DEVEFCt'RENTOEM. RE: PP 91-465; GPA 91-037; IC 91-065; LLA 91-147; EA-91-2 The Sherif;'s Department has no objection in concept to this development. However, when the plans become available we would appreciate reviewing them. Thank you. Sincerely, COIS BYRD, SHERIFF Ronald F. Dye, Lieutenant Indio Station CB: RD:gt UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH UNIT (714) 787-3885 Jeffrey P. Sobczyk Vice President, Development MEDIPLEX 100 S. Sunrise Way Suite 358 Palm Springs, CA 92262 .o r SAh rA BARBARA • SANTA CRL7 � a s. rr RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92521 July 29, 1991 (ARU #1134) Re: Archaeological Data Recovery at the E1 Mirador Professional Plaza Site Dear Jeff: This is to inform you that our program of data recovery at archaeological sites CA-Riv-2199 and -4168 has been completed. Both sites appear to have been areas of occupation on the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Most of the cultural deposit was located near the surface, but some deeper cultural deposit was encountered. Our work included the excavation of ten 2 x 2-m units, to depths ranging from 70 to 210 cm, with further trenching below these levels to rule out deeper deposits. Generally, the cultural materials recovered indicate that the area was used on a temporary basis. Eolian activity has resulted in a geomorphically active environment over the years, with repeated episodes of sand deposition and deflation. Materials recovered from both sites were very similar and include small and large mammal bone, fish and reptile bone, freshwater mussel shell, milling stone fragments, ceramic sherds (in one case, about 205 fragments of one vessel), a large number of unfired clay fragments, a quartz crystal fragment, flakes of a variety of lithic materials, a Desert Side -notched projectile point, and historic and modern artifacts. The cultural deposits at sites CA-Riv-2199 and -4168 have been thoroughly investigated by a comprehensive program of archaeological data recovery, and their research value has, for the most part, been exhausted. Therefore, it is deemed that the adverse impacts that will result from development of the area have been mitigated. It is further recommended that grading activities on the subject property be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. This will entail the presence of an archaeologist during initial grading of the entire parcel. If, during the monitoring phase, a cross -sectional profile of the dunes composing the archaeological sites is exposed, the archaeologist should observe and record (by drawing and measurement) the structure of the dunes in order to supplement the data gathered during Phase III. The purpose of archaeological monitoring is to Jeffrey P. Sobczyk July 29, 1991 Page 2 continue searching for any buried deposits that may exist within the general area. If any cultural remains are found, these locations will be immediately examined, and all significant materials will be recovered in the most expeditious way. If any human remains are encountered, all work will cease in that area (as is required by law) until appropriate action can be taken. Our fee for monitoring is $250/day. Cataloging and laboratory analysis of the recovered cultural materials from both sites is in progress. The results of the analysis will be presented in our final report on the archaeology of the project area. Yours truly, 'Joan S. Schneider Acting Director JS/k �':'T BY; 9-13-91 1 1;07PNi ; T;te Desert Hospital- 5645617;# 2/1 HQSPITAL (9 t191 September 19, 1991 Mr. Jerry Herman Mr. Greg Trousdell Planning and Development Department City of La Quinta 78--105 C°alle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Gentleman: In response to your letter of September 6, 1991, I am pleased to confirm that the master -plan which we have completed for the proposed medical facility on Washington contemplates approximately lob general acute care beds. In addition, either on an interim or permanent basis, we area conaide: ing 15-20 Postoperative recove-- center beds. This bed classification permits longer recovers observation from minor surgeries to be completed in the proposed surgery center. These beds also require less rigorous licensing and architectural requirements than acute care beds, and will likely be housed in medical office buildings such has our proposed Phasa Ii and iYz developments. I appreoiate your continuing interest in the project, and look forward to the Planning Commission meetings next week. Kind regards, Peter Chief officer H:lCM) FIRM N01-01 inchati Avenue, P-0, .lox 273% P im Springs. UdifOrni-1 92263 (6J9) 323-6,511. ri J, EL MIRA D OR MEDICAL A A ZA LA OUINTAy CALIFORNIA HYDROLOGY / HYDRAULICS STUDY SEP TEMBER, 1991 if �?QZFESSIO-- we LQ Q= N Wo. 13515 CIVIL W CAUV 255 N. El Cielo Road - Suite 315 - Palm Springs California 92262 , (619) 325-2245 onnounn/ YYCD6, mu. SUBJECT PAGE EC MIRADOR MEV164C, ALAZ4 DATE CA QiJIAITA , CA 9-/3 - WORK ORDER BY l2/cis CHK. BY DATE P rRgc E' or- C0A17V-AI7.5 PA6c-- l<O YC'AR IrO/ZM FlzEQUeA1CY CAcC411-AT/0A1Y I G FfS'/ rC .4 RUA DRA/1,/46E' "4 P /Z R&-rE'1./r10A1 VCGC,/MC-" Reo41/2CD C44C41G/q r/OA/f /3 Rc-M.A OAI V040'A-16-AVA14404c= C4cCUTATIOA15 13 hVTCN5/ry-v41RAT/O/V Cakv,E- ' 14 { 1 94 t � � 1 �J L w x CL `V u � U) a ti D v Cr. Cr o N (� W N V� lt� 1� i� O O l(C $ 6 Qj J I^ 0 0 LfN 0 0 lt� O �p q > CL U. ,2 ti© Co Dco Co N c 9 o w T M U pp C O U� 0 CO J p O O OJ CY to ` cw \n CO N 'v �� 1 l: `• 1 w N ms 1 O Ica cr, o c d ►a ' u� �. �` ,� 16 v `� U ` �. \- Kj ; �� Clo <5O v � N \S) u Qr- m L w C9 Q Q w n PLATE D-2 � QZ ® O O O Q C, Q J J Q v LL w CL ec1 � � v Q �V I, �v r W r N � N N � CL m N N m o t,, \z o \ o Z ` r N N i N �c AI �•a N QO J „. V� T Q X N N c0 N lv X, O p o IJ C9 Q Q U v }v I�j toW � � V PLATE D-2 C- O Q i� Z o t� iX Q _j U V 1 w .3 W Cl 3 Q V � J � C� a cs U. LC o (r � c.� w il CC CL U tl Y � , Q 'c tv v C43 � b In �!1 <t in a I• I, {/: 1� g b > a O Z O � N � tr. U ` n( '-- :. �ti t__ h-, II N GJ � I� U I q� az Q, r-4 R: V IVA \j 12 a s ti ; II n I�s 73 dS JCQcl i� IA Il J , V Z ��, �( � I PLATE D-2 s'ftT 4 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDE NUMBER 1.10 DESIGN STORM DRAINAGE PAGE 28 GUIDES DATE 6-77 z 1 ' p c.; _ Q 1A 4 t1 Q -' K74 K, 5 W 1.7 6 U.I I.M 7 8 i _ter d ilj Lu 10 12 �, I -3 c Q 13 1 Lu ILI U flI-- i O 14 ( It. 11 O - UP w s �. 15 16 1a � Q Q - 21 22 Lu sal 24 + I Z i U M. 25 26 I Lt i - Oj f 27 1-3,�iW w_ - i- --• - --�--+ 28 t } h 29 �11 �- r 30 31TTT -C a 32 - - -- - --LL--� - _ z 33 NA Ij 1 � 5 I E- oIt 36 1 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 92 OI Q _L, 0 Q C) U It cr- v v v Q u � u RY u �, I• N vi CL �} O � � ` N °' W 51 T p O p 0- Q �), a cv- W .ii It. W �Q QW QQNJ �jl QQO ►� 0 PLATE D-2 O i z O y, -� U u L l� V w Uo �J J N N Y Q H W t•- g 7E J � la. Z, O t= O� N N aQ zcc � Q v o o � PLATE D-2 sit T- 7 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDE NUMBER 1.10 DESIGN STORM DRAINAGE PAGE 28 GUIDES DATE 6-77 � 2 I � 3 (� ' aLi s }- 0 8 W 9 -: - 10 111 J Q - v, C] 13 3 L' 14 tf�. J J Lu s - I t s •d r,0 --s 16 W 3 _ 17 Q -J = N Li_Z. ,e W 19 LLu Laic 20 O ~ 3 Z -T 21 p J U_ 22 W 23 U ; I ; < 25 ; 26 A I I Or- N i 27Iz W 4� ----- - _ - - ut28 In - �O 29 I b 1. Lj 30 — I (� � I �� ^ •-•y W � 11 - - ° 3, I� }t 32 "J 33 Q- - 34 tC 36 i i I - -- I - - --- - --' - -- - -----' -- -• --- --- - - a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -a Q 1; t N 0 d z O U U r W 71 it CL u H � n i � m Y (r J V Q �\ �v Q r v p W b zp }, z d N N N _j LL > CLCD LL 11�3 tz, >` r z LL � tl LL CQ Q to J m n N r� L�3 IL W <C < N cam( c�c �c `j ✓_ PLATE D-2 --1 Q Q 1 0O .o v c: It V `V O <J ZZ Z } O Q LLJ J � CY J U- U U W x CL c N Y - , Q W pj H $ 7i J 1" LL N > (L 4�. Z O w W N � x N � � V1 zi > N V) N Z�I � I� Q Q � t] PLATE D-2 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDE NUMBER 1.10 DESIGN STORM DRAINAGE PAGE 28 GUIDES DATE ,_77 F44 „ 4 = 6 LUAt p .4 Ld V w 7 Lu n — �a - W nl, W 12 ,3Tt if 14 31 (d. ,s 0 17 Q _1 = 1 W z,- te is W W jx — -.. [Y N - 21 22 I ! Li -X 23 24 25 26 27 U i- 2e 29 I s3 30 — i I i*� b 3t I I `I I 4� 32 I 33 �? 34 } LIW 35---+--- -- X 36-- �a i I ; 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 1n 11 17 19 I oft t STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DESIGN GUIDE NUMBER 1.10 DESIGN STORM DRAINAGE PAGE 28- GUIDES DATE 6-77 ,.I 2 .40 .47 a pL.... /l a N 7i 3 6 6 7 N ' W W W �JE 17 .-_� -_ - - . __....- -1•.t _. 10 W 12 Q O 13 14 I,t-tQ u - � � O Lu 16 17 18 =! Q 19 z; 20 j i O u p 1 Z u) 2, 22 23 '. I[] KY 24 z I 25 26 27 �! I ; I V _ rf- 29 J28 . t`l h 31 4 1 —tL � ni 33 34 IL fW 33 .� --�- -- - - ----- -- ----- -- - -- -- - �-- - - - ;_- .a I 1 2 3 4 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 19 1A I 1a 1, to 1C 1n 11 11 64.5 vJ%IINVIIII/ VUGDDi tIVti. SUBJECT PAGE 13 EC M124 DO12 P 6-01GAL PL 4f Z4 DATE 1-4 q,111,17-A 4--z° WORK ORDER g1-Z+ BY CHK. BY DATE 7 rs DET 2 ti'11A,1C VG! (,114C Of- 2tr---A/rloAf caC'FF � C'�'{ %, r-- .c iJ � � - U(,,�I�CV� t�cu/��1� --- 7-•'�-�L_ �, , f,� � C� 1.a 2?� /a � , U, 84 APE -A OF soli � r��c��cuc���r� � rY�r- �r�„ ; r�iC 4,195Ac APrTA OF n ,,�.r,,�_ rr-rY rr "A 50/L 19, 7 7,4c. a,�7 V IZE7Z-N77C�1�/ t3/{SlN til�J, / lZ�rc��t/% ICI,! .�� '�•'•°`/ NLj, �j G?//� i00 4G,?UC� °741300 rG G RE TC"AI rlc);I/ tr 'i�(INC�Uor!— 1I,1F/(-rP✓17'1 sl) 160 YEAS 24 1faUr` S rOPM = 47141 / ran YCIfP- 6 H6Ue Mr r� /f, C'I Yam; 2 3 Hr)U2 s 7m l ' = �E , Z 1A ( REF; A?CF-C- �CO MW'r',WL `/, 44 A c--- Fr 74 /4.4 7 701, / o 0 Fr 3 1IVF/c r12, 77oeW USrO /, 3 F-IF 7-2104 v x o, 54 Fc rY ,c",4c me I -ACC !`% 7 4 3 2 I E 3 Mal 11MMI up MIMI 111111M .: gg121111111MIM1111111 s: i ial a i� ■_ : . Ills EMMMIKE. III .. is : INS : MM:1 -- `-- - 1 1 :il l wonznz MEN M� MIN `�.�.. Mu 11 i�u.. �aal �.WIN- INTENSITY DURATION CURVES CALCULATION SHEET t0 rA J 4 4 3 c L F PLATE D-4.7 P46E / S 3.5 ' 3 (n 2.5 = U Z Z 2 = a_ W 0 J Q 1.5 z 0 2 5 10 25 50 RETURN PERIOD IN YEARS 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 .5 NOTE; I. For intermediate return periods plot 2-year and 100-year one hour values from mops,then connect points and read value for desired return period. For example given 2-year one hour=.50' and 100- year one hour=1.60",25-yeor one hour = 1.18" Reference:NOAA Atlas 2,Volume Xr-California,1973. RAINFALL DEPTH VERSUS R C F'C a W C® RETURN PERIOD FOR HYDROLOGY ]MANUAL PARTIAL DURATION SERIES PLATE D-4.F RIECam) AUG 27 l0e4 CITY UF- LA YUINTA PLANNING & DEVELOpMEr DEPT. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT LA QUINTA HEALTH CENTER LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR DESERT HOSPITAL CORPORATION B7-3091-P1 APRIL 17, 1991 i Buena Engineers, Inc. AN [WtTN %yST9W%tNc COaAANT 79.811 B COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - BERMUDA DUNES, CALIFORNIA 92201 - PHONE (619) 345.1588 - FAX (619) 345-7315 April 17,1991 B7-3091-P1 91-044-758 Desert Hospital Corporation c/o Mediplex Medical Building Corporation 14126 Sherman Way, Suite 573 Van Nuys, California 91405 Attention: Jeffrey P. Sobczyk Project: La Quinta Health Center La Quinta, California Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report Presented herewith is our Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared for the proposed Health Center to be located in the City of La Quinta, California. This report incorporates the tentative information supplied to our office and in accordance with the request, recommendations for general site development and foundation design are provided. This report was prepared to stand as a whole, and no part of the report should be excerpted or used to exclusion of any other part. This report completes our scope of services in accordance with our agreement. Other services dditional dery services and w, such as plan review and ill be billed according to grading observation are a the Fee Schedule in effect at the time services are provided. Please contact the undersigned if there are any questions I report or the recommendations included herein. Respectfully submitted, BUENA ENGINEERS, INC. R. Layne Richins Staff Geologist eBreftz.Zerson, P. E. M HD/SER PpFESS/p ANOFey c% rn UJ No. C045389 Exp. 9-30.94 OF Copies: 6 - Desert Hospital Corporation 0Re iewed or /'11 ichard . Beard Geotechnical Engineer e Mooney Q PAUL E. K'OONCV No. 1227 * CERTIFIED ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST VIA File acalIWNT BAKERSFIELD _ANCASTER VENTURA­ TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK........................................................................1 SITEDESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................2 FIELDEXPLORATION..................................................................................................2 LABORATORYTESTING..............................................................................................3 SOILCONDITIONS.....................................................................................................3 GROUNDWATER.........................................................................................................4 REGIONALGEOLOGY..............................................................................................4 LOCALGEOLOGY......................,,..............................................................................4 GEOLOGICHAZARDS...............................................................................................5 Primary.5 ................................................................................................................ Secondary.........................................................................................................6 Non-Seismic....................................................................................................... 7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................7 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND GRADING.....................................................................8 SiteDevelopment - Grading.......................................................................9 Site��Development - General ................................................... .................. 10 ExV�io �s..uw......................................................................................uo...... 11 TrafficAreas. ...................................................................................................... 11 UtilityTrenches. ................................................................................................. 12 STRUCTURES..............................................................................................................12 Foundations.....................................................................................................12 Slabson Grade..............................................................................................14 Settlement Considerations..........................................................................14 Frictional and Lateral Coefficients............................................................15 RetainingWalls................................................................................................15 SlopeStability..................................................................................................15 Expansion.........................................................................................................16 AdditionalServices........................................................................................16 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS...........................................16 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................18 APPENDIX A Site and Vicinity Map Logs of Borings APPENDIX B Summary of Test Results Table 2 APPENDIX C Standard Grading Specifcations APPENDIX D Site Period Investigation April 17, 1991 •1- 137.3091-P1 91-04-758 This Geotechnical Engineering Report has been prepared for the proposed health center to be located in the City of La Quinta, Califomia. A It is assumed that the structure will be of three story steel frame construction. It is assumed that the building will be supported by normal continuous or pod footings. B. Structural considerations for building column loads of up to 180 kips and a maximum wall loading of 3.0 kips per linear foot were used as a basis for recommendations related to the construction of the steel frame buildings. C. These are estimated values provided by Mediplex Medical Building Corporation. if design loading is to exceed these assumed values, it will be necessary to reevaluate the given recommendations. D. All loading is assumed to be dead plus reasonable live load. The purpose of our services was to evaluate the site soil conditions, and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to the site and the proposed development. The scope of work includes the following: A A general reconnaissance of the site. B. Shallow subsurface exploration by drilling. C. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the exploratory borings drilled for this project. D. Review of selected technical literature pertaining to the site. E. Evaluation of field and laboratory data relative to soil conditions. F. Engineering analysis of the data obtained from the exploration and testing programs. G. A summary of our findings and recommendations in written report. Contained In This Report Are: A Discussions on regional and local geologic and soil conditions. B. Graphic and/or tabulated results of laboratory tests and field studies. 011r111A ClirltkiCcoc IUn April 17, 1991 -2- B7-3091-P1 91-04-758 C. Discussions and recommendations relative to allowable foundation bearing capacity, - recommendations for foundation design, estimated total and differential settlements, lateral earth pressures, site grading criteria, geologic and seismic hazards. Not Contained In This Report: A Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site. The proposed project is located on the west side of Washington Street north of Eisenhower Street in the City of Lo Quinta, California. A The site is vacant with scattered desert brush, weeds and debris. B. The eastern portion of the site is fairly level but the site slopes upward to the west along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains which form the west edge of the site., C. There are existing utilities along Washington Street.. D. The existing St. Francis of Assisi church is directly north of the site. Exploratory borings were drilled for observing the soil profile and obtaining samples for further analysis. A Ten (10) borings were drilled for soil profiling and sampling to a maximum depth of sixty-one (61) feet below the existing ground surface. The borings were drilled on March 25, 1991, using an eight (8) inch diameter hollow -stem auger powered by a CME 45-B drilling rig. The approximate boring locations as indicated on the attached plan in Appendix A, were determined by pacing and sighting from existing streets and topographic features. The boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. B. Samples were secured within the borings with a two and one-half (2.5) inch inside diameter ring sampler (ASTM D 3550, shoe similar to ASTM D 1586). The samples were obtained by driving the sampler with a one hundred forty (140) pound hammer, dropping thirty (30) inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler one foot was recorded. Recovered soil samples were sealed in containers and returned to the laboratory for further classification and testing. C. Bulk disturbed samples of the soils were obtained from cuttings developed during excavation of the test borings. The bulk samples April 17, 1991 -3- B7-3091-P1 91-04-758 were secured for classification purposes and represent a mixture of soils within the noted depths. D. The final logs represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs, and the results of the laboratory observations and tests of the field samples. The final logs are included in the appendix A of this report. The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types although the transitions may be gradual. After a visual and tactile classification in the field, samples were returned to the laboratory, classifications were checked, and a testing program was established. A Samples were reviewed along with field logs to determine which would be further analyzed. Those chosen were considered as representative of soil which would be exposed and/or used in grading and those deemed within building influence. B. In -situ moisture content and unit dry weights for the core samples were developed in accordance with ASTM D 2937. C. Settlement and hydroconsoUdation potential was evaluated from the results of consolidation tests performed in accordance with ASTM 2435. D. Classification testing co silted of Hydrometer Analysis (California Test Method 203). E. Expansion Index (UBC Standard No. 29-2), Maximum Density - Optimum Moisture (ASTIVI D 1557) and Direct Shear Testing ASTM D 3080 was performed previously for adjacent projects. F. Refer to Appendix B for tabular and graphic representation of the 'rest results. As determined by the borings, site soils were found to consist primarily of fine windblown sands with interbedded silt and clay layers. The boring logs in Appendix A contain a more detailed description of the soils encountered. A The soils were found to be fairly loose near the surface but blowcounts and ring samples indicate that density generally increases with depth. The soils were found to be quite dry 'Throughout. B. Thin interbedded silt and clay layers were encountered in most of the borings. April 17, 1991 -4- 137-3091-P1 91-04-758 C. Consolidation testing Indicates that the site soils are susceptible to settlements or expansion due to the Introduction of water. D. Clay and slit contents of the soils exhibit low plasticity. Expansion tests Indicate the sandy soils to be in the 'very low' expansion category in accordance with Table 2 in Appendix B of this report. The clay layers were found to be in the 'high' expansion category. Refer to section B of the structures section for specific explanations and requirements dealing with expansive soil. E. Soils should be readily cut by normal grading equipment. M;0_11NI��- Free groundwater was not encountered in any of the borings. The depth to groundwater in the area is generally in excess of one hundred (100) feet. Fluctuations in groundwater levels may occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature and other factors. The project site is located in the southern Coachella Valley near the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Coachella Valley is part of the tectonically active Salton Basin which is a closed, internally draining trough that has been filled with a complex series of continental clastic materials during Pleistocene and Holocene time Nan de Camp, 1973). The San Andreas rift zone dominates the geology of the Coachella Valley. The Banning and Mission Creek faults, which are ports of the San Andreas system are responsible for earthquakes recently felt in the Coochella Valley. Other regional faults that have produced events felt in the Coachella Valley are the San Jacinto, Imperial and Elsinore faults (see figures 1 & 2). Based upon the historical and prehistorical record, the Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas fault system is likely to generate a magnitude seven (7.0) or greater earthquake within the next fifty (50) years. The potential for a mognitude seven (7.0) earthquake within the next fifty (50) years is estimated by Seih (1985) as 'High' (50%-90%). Lithologic units observed on site are described as follows: Gray. well sorted (poorly graded) medium sand deposited by oeolian process. �e- N + a"t P.Ae O Tviore Z �� •� + v�'� 36° 2 TreAo +� hoDets C^^e se OARLOCK `�'.46 ®airtreb � : E Baker Ton ��144xho> + 3s LOMODC B!G PlME 1 y Lonestet aADe s M rA A Sonic Barbara Vtnt✓o �''`®RI �sact: Saft Befnofero T.enrr- t b+�Pew SIT ., ri osA �/ $OA►Q Cfve b. r lJl +s.• SOAfO Pyr1y�eRtRf4-0t y `���jO long ocn Ets-we ..or SOA1 Co+arO �4'•., ro� �> : �S Q K '� •. Octr%vt so"#Qe r� �Za�� fey 12 t20• �SCAk` eA i Brawler �0 1 1 + 09Et Ce�+re 'f. r 33• �v r $en 0490 Yocvr_e �• �p� a:11I91 l I.S. L s L + ` + 32• 0 $0 100 w ••S' \!, Gulf f Soo L50 L" COO. to8• u7• u6° a3' Base map of southern California region with major faults Fault Map of Southern California Figure #1 BUENA ENGINEERS, INC. * From Hil.eman et: al (1973) , DATE: 5-17- 91 1 FILE NO: 37-'-O+Pl rontisniec i 1927 (6) Bishop ,\\. �1 ,X 1.\Lone Pine \ 1946 (6.3) °Chino Lok \ Bakersfield° 1952(7.7,6.4,6.1,6.1) *Baker _ 0Moiove 1947(6.2) "•• °.Sonia !.brio 1916 (6) % *BarstowPalmdale 1941(6.0) 92s (63) 198 5.9) 1971 (6.4) _ SonBernordino___ °Los Angeles ° 1948 (6.5) e1923 (6'/4) .�o� J �5o, Andreas At. lid ;E� 1918(6-8) 1933 (6.3) --, ,e,-P,-',,, °_ n SITE M L%i O 100 Miles 0 MC IDO ?00 Kms. Earth Quakes of magnitude 5.9 and greater in the Southern California Region, 1912 - 1972 (including the North Palm Springs Earthquake). From Hileman et al (1973) \\ 1 ,54(6.2) — ' 1966\8,(6.4) 8orr�go f l`1 growley 1940�(67) 1915 (6'/4 6'/4 '" ro ol Son v ego "`"'Mex;cYumi 1934 (6.5) ,1934 (7.1 j1915 (7.1) 1935(6.0) Ensencoo 1956(68,6.1,6.3,6.4) i V 1940(6 0)T 1954f63.60) 1966(6.3 ,j p C -Jt, 16- r&- 21 V I c N A, >0 -s 's 'i leg' % r 06 IT 'L$c4 C6- `7�7,j Or X A v Cat -6 Cs Ic r np 'l• q d i�'N i 04 3. -- j- AF Ce, - %. it It E. 0 1 1 Coa �ella IN .61 K. I cem ous A, Ica- IN- w 4NCIE vz 17-1 LA K E COAM It Co 1Q- v % C! bL Allow- A -3 V, CALCAMCC US {SPA Olt A L bir L - z -:. r" VIAE,011C 23. IN"t" 7� Z AtFrf A\1 / JC4.0ORRES ,Otl � RESL rZ: C C, I?. L ',, nC L -Scale 1 2 5 1 0 0 0 Cc Sx, Z t , 7, •E yc "N, 1. .. . ..%I jrf� -.Ica Ng r!. 7- 1- -:Cf:11-, _j U '.s. r: 7 -0c C ALCURE06 i IoTFA ,� Co EposlTS1 PI -RH)t0EA1� ANCIENT t;11 Z:T: S. Cat L.,m E c" . 'DiEW CQJjN1Y' .4 9. 't 10 RELATION MAP OF PROJECT SITES lip TO LOCAL GEOLOGY �Fiaure TA A14A MAP SKEET (1965) '-ffI e r s "tic, y() 5. '?I C-ITE F; L E NO WICA I - April 17, 1991 -6. 87-3091-P1 91-04-758 b. Because of the relatively thin alluvial sedimentary nature of the soils on site, ground shaking characteristics are expected to include very high amplification of high frequencies and low amplification of low and intermediate frequencies. Duration of shaking could be from fifteen (15) to thirty-six (36) seconds. The project area is mapped in Ground Shaking Zone III E as designated by the County of Riverside, California. Ground Shaking Zones are based on distance from causative faults and soil types. See Appendix 'D' for results of our site period investigation. c. The project is mopped near the Riverside County Liquefaction Study Zone, however, no groundwater was observed in our borings. Secondary seismic geologic hazards that may affect the project site area include settlement, liquefaction, down slope movement of rock and ground lurching. 1. Settlement, whether seismically related or not, is considered a potential hazard in this area. Historic records report episodes of settlement in the Coachella Valley area due to seismic forces and/or heavy rain fall and flooding. 2. Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength as a result of an increase in pore water pressure due to cyclic seismic loading. Conditions for liquefaction include relatively high water table (within 40' of surface), low relative densities of the saturated soils and susceptibility of the soil to liquefy based on grain size. No free groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings. 3. The rock slopes on the project are littered with loose cobbles and boulders. Development adjacent to the rock slopes could be impacted by down slope movement of said rocks. In addition, grading may disturb or expose more cobbles and boulders, thus increasing the potential hazard of downslope rock movement. 4. Ground lurching is generally associated with fault rupture and liquefaction. Because of the sites distance from any known 'active' faults, the possibility of ground lurching affecting the site is considered low. 5. Other secondary seismic geologic hazards that may result from an earthquake include tsunamis (tidal waves) and selches (waves oscillating in an enclosed area, i.e., storage tanks, lakes). Based on the project sites geologic location and topography, it is our opinion that the probability of the above hazards affecting the property are negligible. BUENA ENGINEERS. INC. April 17, 1991 - -7- 137-3091-P1 91-04-758 9•I K4 11 ra a• • Other geologic hazards that could affect the project site Include down slope movement of rock, flooding and erosion. 1. Evidence of past downslope movement of rock was observed at the site. These rock movements were in the form of rock topple and debris movement on the slopes of the granitic rock outcrops. Rocks that had fallen down the slope were observed on the Quaternary sediments at the toe of the outcrop slopes. 2. Flooding and erosion are always a consideration In acid regions. On -site, the erosion rate is affected by the relatively soft rock units, sparse vegetation and seasonal rains. 3. The Coachella Valley averages four (4) inches of rain per year. When large amounts of rain occur suddenly, the surface alluvium becomes saturated and prevents further infiltration of the rains. The result is surface runoff and sheet flow drainage on slopes toward gullies and washes. 4. Generally, erosion in the desert can be reduced by minimizing soil disturbances and diverting seasonal runoff from areas of high potential erosion. On -site erosion may be reduced by diverting runoff from the hill area and the large drainages to the north of the project. The following is a summary of our conclusions and professional opinions based on the doto obtained from a review of technical literature and the site investigation. A The primary geologic hazard relative to site development is severe ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby foults. The site is located in Southern California which is an active seismic area. in our opinion, a major seismic event originating on the San Andreas fault zone would be the most likely cause of significant earthquake activity at the site within the estimated design life of the proposed development. B. Settlement due to seismic factors or flooding is a potential hozard in the Coachella Valley area. C. Areas of alluvial soils may be susceptible to erosion. Preventative measures to minimize seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans. . D. Down slope movement of rock is a potential hazard to development adjacent to native rock slopes. This hazard can be substantially mitigated by the following recommendations. BUENA ENGINEERS. INC. April 17, 1991 •8• 137-3091-P1 91-04-758 1. Establishing a set back zone of a minimum of 30' between the toe of native slopes and habitable structures. 2. Construction of a brow ditch at the toe of the natural rock slope. The ditch should be a minimum of 10' wide and slope at 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) back into the rock outcrops. E. Fluvial or aeolian erosion may affect the site during construction. F. ether geologic hazards including liquefaction, lurching, landslides, tsunamis and seiches are considered negligible. G. Ilt is our opinion that the upper native soil will not provide uniform or adequate support for the proposed structures without the recommended sitework. To decrease the potential for consolidation and to provide a more uniform and firm bearing support for the proposed structures, we recommend constructing recompacted soil mats beneath all foundations and slabs -on - grade. H. The project site is in seismic Zone 4 as defined in Section 2312 (d) 2. of the Uniform Building Code. I. It is further recommended that any permanent structure constructed on the site be designed by a qualified professional who is aware of the seismic hazards that may affect the site. J. Adherence to the following grading recommendations should limit potential settlement problems due to seismic forces, heavy rainfall, flooding and the weight of the intended structure. K. It is recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc. be retained to provide Geotechnical Engineering services during site development; excavation, grading, and foundation construction phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. L. Plans and specifications should be provided to Buena Engineers, Inc. prior to grading. Plans should include the grading plans, foundation plans, and foundation details. Preferably, structural loads should be shown on the foundation plans. Prior to any construction operations, areas to be graded should be cleaned of vegetation and other deleterious materials. Appendix C, 'Standard Grading Specifications' contains specific suggestions for removal and disposal of deleterious substances and, as such, forms a part of these Site Development and Grading Recommendations. BUENA ENGINEERS. INC. April 17, 1991 -9- 137-3091-P1 91-04-758 Site grading and the bottom of all excavations should be observed by a representative of Buena Engineers, Inc. prior to placement of fill. Local variations in soil conditions may warrant increasing the depth of recompaction and/or overexcavation. 1. Prior to site grading any existing structures, stumps, roots, foundations, pavements, leachfields, uncompocted fill, trash piles, and any abandoned underground utilities should be removed from the proposed building and paving areas. The top surface should be stripped of all organic growth and non- complying fill which, along with other debris, should be removed from the site. 2. Depressions resulting from these removals should have debris and loose soil removed and be filled with suitable fill soils compacted as recommended herein. No compacted fill should be placed unless the underlying soil has been observed by Buena Engineers, Inc. 3. In order to help minimize potential settlement problems associated with structures supported on a non -uniform thickness of compacted fill, Buena Engineers, Inc. should be consulted for site grading recommendations relative to backfilling large and/or deep depressions resulting from removal under item one (1) above. 4. It is our understanding that the western portion of the site will be lowered in elevation and the eastern portion of the site will be raised. To control differential settlement and produce a more uniform bearing condition we recommend that the structure be supported by a recompacted soil mot. Once the building layout and location is determined, the following grading recommendations should be re-evaluated. 5. Because substantial cuts and fills are proposed for the building areas, the recommended grading will vary dependent on location. In general we recommend that the building be supported by a recompacted soil mat a minimum of one footing width thick. In the cut areas along the western portion of the site, which are composed primarily of fine windblown sands, we anticipate that compaction could be obtained to a depth of three (3) or four (4) feet by watering and compacting from the surface. In the fill areas along the eastern portion of the site, overexcavation may be necessary. The recommended compacted soil mat can be composed of any combination of compacted in place native soil, recompacted native soil or compacted fill material. The intent is to have at least one footing width of soil compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density compose the building pad beneath the footings. Compaction Is to be verified by testing. 6. These grading recommendations apply to building areas and at least five (5) feet beyond building limits. April 17, 1991 -10- B7-3091-P1 91-04-758 7. Auxiliary structures including freestanding or retaining walls should have the existing soils beneath the structure processed as per items five (5) and six (6), above. The grading requirements apply to three (3) feet beyond the face of the walls. if plans for auxiliary structures and walls are provided for our review, these recommendations may be revised. 8. It is anticipated that during grading a loss of approximately one tenth (.1) of a foot due to stripping, and a shrinkage factor of about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) percent for the upper three (3) feet of soil, may be used for quantity calculations. This is based on compactioe effort needed to produce an average degree of compaction of approximately ninety-three (93) to ninety-four (94) percent and may vary depending on contractor methods. Subsidence is estimated between one - tenths (.1) to three -tenths (.3) of a foot. B. itQDevelopmQnt - Qeneral 'i. The following general recommendations listed in this section are In addition to those listed in the 'Grading' section A above. 2. All rocks larger than eight (8) inches in greatest dimension should be removed from fill or bockfill material. 3. Import soil used to raise site grades should be equal to or better than on -site soil in strength, expansion, and compressibility characteristics. Import soil will not be prequalified by Buena Engineers, Inc. Comments on the characteristics of import will be given after the material is on the project, either in - place or in stockpiles of adequate quantity to complete the project. A Areas around the structures should be graded so that drainage is positive and away from the structures. Gutters and down spouts should be considered as a way to convey water out of the foundation area. Water should not be allowed to pond on or near pavement sections. ;i. Added moisture within previously compacted fill could result in a number of reactions at the surface depending upon the amount of moisture increase, the in -place density of the soil, in - situ moisture content and soil type. Although the soil could in reality be expanding, collapsing, moving laterally due to the phenomenon 'creep', the result is usually movement and will most likely manifest itself visually in structural slabs and street areas as cracks, (horizontal, lateral or vertical displacement). 6. The apparent cure to the problem is to not introduce excess moisture into fill material once in place. To help minimize increased moisture into the fill material, site drainage and 0119:hin CKIr,IA,ic9:oc IAlr` April 17, 1991 -11- 137-3091-P1 91-04-758 landscape is critical. Site drainage should be in the form of roof gutter, concrete brow ditcher, ribbon gutters and gutters, storm drain and other drainage devices. Landscaping should be such that water is not allowed to pond. Additionally, care should be taken so as not to over water landscaped areas. 7. The Recommended Grading Specifications included in Appendix C are general guidelines only and should not be included directly into project specifications without first Incorporating the site specific recommendations contained in the Site Development - Grading section of this report. Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code contains specific considerations for grading and is considered a part of the general guidelines. 8. It is recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc., be retained to provide soil engineering services during construction of the grading, excavation, and foundation phases of the work. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. C. xcav to ions 1. All excavations should be applicable regulations. Fro knowledge of the general area, construction problems involving excavations (i.e. utilities, etc.) encountered, lateral bracing or be provided. made in accordance with m our site exploration and we feel there is a potential for caving of relatively deep site . Where such situations are appropriate cut slopes should 2. No surcharge loads should be allowed within a horizontal distance measured from the top of the excavation slope, equal to the depth of the excavation. D. Traffic Ares 1. Curbs and streets should be provided with one (1) foot of subgrode compacted to ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 2. On -site parking should be provided with one (1) foot of subgrade compacted to ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 3. Sidewalks should be provided with one (1) foot of subgrade compacted to ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 4. The surface soil was sampled and tested for R-Value per California Test Method 301. The testing resulted in an R-Value of 61. The following pavement design sections are based on a design R-Value of 60. April 17, 1991 -12- 87-3091-P1 91-04-758 E. Traffic Index = 6 use 3.0' of Asphaltic Concrete or 4.0' Class II Base Traffic Index = 7.5 use 3.5' of Asphaltic Concrete on 5.0' Class II Base Traffic Index = 8.5' use 4.0' of Asphaltic Concrete on 6.0' Class II Base These design sections ore based on paved areas being confined on two (2) sides. If the minimum requirements of the City of La Quinta exceed the design sections listed above, the City requirements will become the basis for design. Utility Trenches 1. Backfill of utilities within road right-of-way should be placed in strict conformance with the requirements of the governing agency (Water District, Road Department, etc.). 2. Utility trench backfill within private property should be placed in strict conformance with the provisions of this report relating to minimum compaction standards. in general, service lines extending inside of property may be backfilled with native soils compacted to a minimum of ninety (90) percent of maximum density. 3. Backfill operations should be observed and tested by Buena Engineers, Inc., to monitor compliance with these recommendations. Based upon the results of this evaluation, 4 is our opinion that the structure foundation can be supported by compacted soils placed as recommended above. The recommendations that follow are based on 'very low" expansion category soils. A Foundations it is anticipated that foundations will be placed on firm compacted soils as recommended elsewhere in this report. The recommendations that follow are based on 'very low' expansion category soils. Table 2 gives specific recommendations for width, depth and reinforcing. Other structural considerations may be more stringent and would govern in any case. A minimum footing depth of twelve (12) inches below lowest adjacent grade for one (1) story structures, eighteen (18) inches for two (2) story structures and twenty four (24) inches for three (3) story structures should be maintained. n,,.-hIsk apo,-i%tcCDC INJ(% April 17, 1991 -13- 67-3091-P1 91-04-758 2. Conventional Foundations: Estimated bearing values are given below for foundations on recompocted soils, assuming import fill (if required) to be equal to or better than site soils: a. Continuous foundations of one (1) foot wide and twelve (12) inches below grade: i. 1500 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads. ii. 2000 psf for wind and seismic considerations. b. Isolated pad foundations 2' x 2' and bottomed twelve (12) inches below grade: i. 1800 psf for dead plus reasonable live loads. 1. 2400 psf for wind and seismic considerations. 3. Allowable increases of 200 psf per one (1) foot of additional footing width and 300 psf for each additional six (6) inches of footing depth may be used. The maximum allowable bearing will be 3000 psf. The allowable bearing values indicated have been determined based upon anticipated maximum loads indicated in the 'Introduction' section of this report. If the Indicated loading is exceeded then the allowable bearing values and the grading requirements must be reevaluated by the soil engineer. 4. Although footing reinforcement may not be required per Table 2; nominal reinforcement should be considered to reduce the potential problem related to cracking due to temperature and shrinkage stresses and in order to span surface imperfections. Other requirements that are more stringent due to structural loads will govern. 5. Soils beneath footings and slabs should be premoistened prior to placing concrete. 6. Lateral loads may be resisted by soil friction on floor slabs and foundations and by passive resistance of the soils acting on foundation stem walls. Lateral capacity is based partially on the assumption that any required backfill adjacent to foundations and grade beams is property compacted. 7. Foundation excavations should be visually observed by the soil engineer during excavation and prior to placement of reinforcing steel or concrete. Local variations in conditions may warrant deepening of footings. 8. Allowable bearing values are net (weight of footing and soil surcharge may be neglected) and are applicable for dead plus reasonable live loads. QIICIkiA C10/!1MCCDC iI'l April 17, 1991 -14- 137-3091-E31 91-04-758 Lim I •• •1 OT, 0 �- 1. Concrete slabs -on -grade should be supported by compacted structural fill placed in accordance with applicable sections of this report. 2., in areas of moisture sensitive floor coverings, an appropriate vapor barrier should be installed in order to minimize vapor transmission from the subgrode soil to the slab. We would suggest that the floor slobs be underlain by a four (4) inch thick layer of grovel or by an impermeable membrane as a capillary break. A suggested gradation for the gravel layer would be as follows: Sieve Size Percent Passing 3/40 90 - 100 No.4 0- 10 No. 100 0-3 If a membrane is used, a low -slump concrete should be used to help minimize shrinkage. The membrane should be covered with two (2) inches of sand to help protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. & Reinforcement of slab -on -grade is contingent upon the structural engineers recommendations and the expansion index of the supporting soil. Since the mixing of fill soil with native soil could change the expansion index, additional tests should be conducted during rough grading to determine the expansion index of the subgrode soil. Additional reinforcement due to the expansion index of the site soil should be provided as recommended in section G below. Additional reinforcement may also be required by the structural engineer. 4. it is recommended that the proposed perimeter slabs (sidewalks, patios, etc.) be designed relatively independent of foundation stems (free-floating) to help mitigate cracking due to foundation settlement and/or expansion. C. $Qttlement Considerations 1, Estimated settlement, based on footings founded on firm soils as recommended, should be less than one (1) inch. Differential settlement between exterior and interior bearing members should be less than one-half (1/2) inch. 2. The majority of settlement should occur during construction. April 17, 1991 -15- B7-3091-P1 91-04-758 D. Fdctignal nd Lateral Coefficients 1. Resistance to lateral loading may be provided by friction acting on the base of foundations, a coefficient of friction of .46 may be used for dead load forces. 2. Passive resistance acting on the sides of foundation stems equal to 300 pcf of equivalent fluid weight, may be included for resistance to lateral loading. 3. Passive resistance of soils against grade beams and the frictional resistance between the floor slabs and the supporting soils may be combined in determining the total lateral resistance, however the friction factor should be reduced to .33 of dead load forces. A A one-third (1/3) increase in the quoted passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. 1. For cantilever retaining walls backfilled with compacted native soils, it is recommended that an equivalent fluid pressure of thirty-five (35) pcf be used for well drained level backfill conditions. 2. The lateral earth pressure to be resisted by the retaining wails or similar structures should be increased to allow for surcharge loads. The surcharge considered should include the loads from any structures or temporary loads that would influence the wall design. 3. A backdrain or an equivalent system of backfill drainage should be incorporated into the retaining wall design. Backfill immediately behind the retaining structure should be a fee - draining granular material. Alternately, the back of the wall could be lined with a geodrain system. A Compaction on the retained side of the wail within a horizontal distance equal to one (1) wall height should be performed by hand -operated or other light weight compaction equipment. This is intended to reduce potential 'locked -in' lateral pressures caused by compaction with heavy grading equipment. 5. Water should not be allowed to pond near the top of the wall. To accomplish this the final backfill site grade should be such that all water is diverted away from the retaining wall. AMOBTOTOMIRINTOW Slope stability calculations were not performed due to the anticipated minimal slope height (less that 10'). If slopes exceed ten SUE14A ENGINEERS,-INC. April 17, 1991 -16- 87-3091-P1 91-04-758 (10) feet, engineering calculations should be performed to substantiate the stability of slopes steeper than 2 to 1. Fill slopes should be overfilled and trimmed back to competent material. The design of foundations should be based on the weighted expansion index (UBC Standard No. 29-2) of the soil. As stated in the soil properties section., the expansion index the majority of the surface soil is in the 'very low' (0-20) classification, however, some 'high' (91-130) expansion category soils were encountered. During site preparation, if the soil is thoroughly mixed and additional fill is added, the expansion index may change. Therefore, the expansion Index should be evaluated after the site preparation has been completed, and the final foundation design adjusted accordingly. This report is based on the assumption that an adequate program of client consultation, construction monitoring and testing will be performed during the final design and construction phases to check compliance with these recommendations. Maintaining Buena Engineers, Inc., as the soil engineering firm from beginning to end of the project will help assure continuity of services. Construction monitoring and testing would be additional services provided by our firm. The costs of these services are not Included in our present fee arrangements. The recommended tests and observations include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: I. Consultation during the final design stages of the project. 2. Review of the building plans to observe that recommendations of our report have 'been properly implemented into the design. 3. Observation and testing during site preparation, grading and placement of engineered fill. 4. Consultation as required during construction. The analysis and recommendations submitted in this report are based in part upon the data obtained from the ten (10) borings performed on the site. The nature and extent of variations between the borings may not become evident until construction. If variations then appear evident, 0 will be necessary to reevaluate the recommendations of this report. Findings of this report are valid as of this date. However, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time whether they be due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially RIIt: UA GKin IArcCDC 10.11` April 17, 1991 -17- 137-3091-131 91-04-758 by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report Is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of eighteen (18) months. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the building are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative to insure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the architect and engineers for the project and are Incorporated into the plans and specifications for the project. it is also the owners responsibility, or his representative, to insure that the necessary steps are taken to see that the general contractor and all subcontractors carry out such recommendations In the field. It is further understood that the owner or his representative is responsible for submittal of this report to the appropriate governing agencies. Buena Engineers, Inc., has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the client and authorized agents. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering proctices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as the professional advice provided under the terms of this agreement, and included in the report. It Is recommended that Buena Engineers, Inc., be provided the opportunity for a general review of final design and specifications in order that earthwork and foundation recommendations may be properly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications. If Buena Engineers, inc., is not accorded the privilege of making this recommended review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. Our scope of services did not include any environmental assessment or investigation to determine the presence of hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, surface water, groundwater or air, on, below or around this site. Prior to purchase or development of this site, we suggest that an environmental assessment be conducted which addresses environmental concerns. END OF TEXT Appendices Q119:MA FNrI Mr- 9:Rc Iki(% April 17, 1991 -18- B7-3091-P1 91-04-758 1. Envicom, Riverside County, 1976, Seismic Safety Element. 2, Greensfelder, Roger W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earthquakes in California, CDMG Map Sheet 23. 3. Krinitisky, E.L., Chang, F.K., Mognitude-Reloted Earthquake Ground Motions, Bulletin of the Association of Engineering Geologists Vol. XXV, No. 4, 1988, Pgs. 399-423. 4. Ploessel, M. R. and Slosson, J. E., 'Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes', 1974 California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, Pgs. 195-199. 5. Seed, H. B. and idriss, i. M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes. 6. Seih, Kerry, 1985, 'Earthquake Potentials Along The San Andreas Fault', Minutes of The Notional Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, March 29-30,1985, USGS Open File Report 85-507. 7. Van de Camp, P. C., 'Holocene Continental Sedimentation in the Salton Basin, California: A Reconnaissance'. Geological Society of America, Vol 84, March 1973. BUENA ENGINEERS, INC. APPENDIX A Site and Vicinity Map Logs of Borings On File with City Staff BUENA ENGINEERS, INC. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCURRENCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-210 AND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-037, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE/MEDICAL COMMERCIAL AND TO AMEND THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN TEXT. CASE NO. GPA 91-037 - DESERT HOSPITAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did on the 24th day of September, 1991, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of Desert Hospital to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Office/Medical Commercial for a portion of the site totaling 30 gross acres, located on the west side of Washington Street, north of 48th Avenue, and south of 47th Avenue, more particularly described as: APN 617-070-022 AND A PORTION OF 617-070-023 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony, and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the fallowing facts and reasons to justify recommending the approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1. Traffic impacts caused by the implementation of General Plan Amendment 91- 037' can be mitigated to a large degree. 2. The request for Office/Medical Commercial land use is consistent with the intent of the La Quinta General Plan. 3. This General Plan Amendment application complies with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68. Mitigation measures can be generated to reduce the impact of General Commercial land uses on the subject property. 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 in this case; 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 91-037 consisting of a Land Use Map Amendment as described in Exhibit "A". attached hereto. RESOPC.029 3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council, approval of the General Plan Text Amendment as described in Exhibit "B", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, he]ld on this 24th day of September, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN": KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY H;ERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.029 I GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (Text Amendment) EXHIBIT B OFFICE/MEDICAL COMMERCIAL: Office/medical facilities are often found to be located along major arterial streets which can be close to heavy commercial areas and areas with planned or developed residential population centers. This classification is intended to replace existing areas which are designated General Commercial or other categories which are not acceptable for residential development. The primary intent of this land use designation is to insure that City residents are provided necessary urban services to accommodate both their livelihood and living needs and recreational pursuits. Medical facilities which provide temporary urgent care should be encouraged. This category should be used as a supplement to the other categories of the City. This Land Use provision would be beneficial to areas along Washington Street, Highway 111, Jefferson Street and Eisenhower because these thoroughfares are the main arterial of the City which support transportation movement throughout the City. IMPLEMENTATION POLICY: Policy 6.3.9 The development of office/medical facilities should be encouraged in areas of the city which are located abutting major streets in the City and close to existing or planned residential population centers. The primary focus of this category should be to establish medical facilities for the City commensurate with demographic needs of the community. Health facilities should be within 2 miles of urban areas of the City to assure adequate travel response times in case of an emergency. Land uses which can supplement this category shall be encouraged. DOCGT.001/CS -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE 91- 065 CASE NO. CZ 91-065 - DESERT HOSPITAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of September, 1991, hold a duly notice Public Hearing to consider the request of Desert Hospital for a Change of Zone from R-1 Single Family to Office j Medical and related services (OMS) on +20 acres, located on the west side of Washington Street at Via Marquessa, more particularly described as: BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 30, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said Change of Zone request has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (as amended), and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning and Development Department has completed an Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration, which has been reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta. WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the recommendation for approval of said Change of Zone. 1. The proposed Change of Zone, as requested, is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The proposed zoning is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan and the Land Use Plan in, accordance with the recommended amendment for GPA 91- 037. 3. The proposed OMS (Office, Medical and related services) zoning is consistent and compatible with surrounding land use and zoning designations. 4. Approval of this proposal will not result in a significant adverse impact on the environment due to mitigation measures contained in the proposed Negative Declaration. 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 in this case; RESOPc.048 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the Negative Declaration by the La Quinta Planning Commission pursuant to the attached Environmental Assessment. 3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Change of Zone 91-•065 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as illustrated in the map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of September, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HiERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC. 048 r= CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN 91-465 - PROPOSED SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 DESERT HOSPITAL GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 91-465, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code. 3. Approval of this plot plan shall be subject to final approval of General Plan Amendment 91-037 and Change of Zone 91-065. 4. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 5. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. All parking lot lighting plans utilizing light pole standards shall be a maximum 20 feet and shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off-street parking requirements. 6. Adequate trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. Applicant shall contact local waste management company to insure that enclosure size is adequate. 7. A colored vinyl coated six foot high chain link fence shall be provided adjacent to the west property line and provide protection to the Medical Center should rock fractioning occur in the mountainous areas behind the facility. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any detention basins depending on site grading requirements, color, location, and placement of fence shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 8. Future expansion of the property shall be subject to Planning Commission review. Parking demand shall be reviewed at that time to insure adequate parking is provided. CONAPRVL . 02 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 September 24, 1991 9. Handicapped parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code and State requirements. 10. As required by the General Plan, Applicant shall provide noise study by qualified engineer to determine impacts on surrounding residential zones and uses. The noise study shall suggest mitigation measures which the City can require concerning the development of Phase I. 11. Screen wall height adjacent to loading areas shall be determined by required noise study. Should noise problems from use of loading areas arise, Planning Commission shall retain the right to limit the hours of loading and unloading. Surrounding property owners and residents which could be affected by noise shall be notified of Planning Commission consideration of limitations on delivery hours. 12. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 13. Decorative screen walls provided adjacent to street shall be high enough to screen parking lot surface and majority of parked cars from view of street. Determination of height of walls shall be made after review of landscaping and grading plans by City. 14. Landscaping planters along the north, south and east property lines shall be provided at maximum width possible with all unusable areas adjacent to property lines provided in landscaping. 15. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance. 16. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (C`VAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the plan or testing results. CONAP:RVL.029 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 September 24, 1991 A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant (s) / representative (s) , shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 17. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 18. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 19. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and Coachella Valley Water District. 20. A bus waiting shelter shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on the Washington Street frontage road when street improvements are installed. 21. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust CONAPRVL.029 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 Septernber 24, 1991 control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a. ) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b. ) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c.) provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to :reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be wagered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 22. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 23. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 24. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 25. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 26. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. A detailed complete sign program shall be approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of first sign permit. Sign program shall include any center identification signs. B . Cement plaster texture used on building shall be of a decorative natural and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The color scheme shall reflect the native colors of the Santa Rosa Mountain range. C . Along the street perimeters, the amount of turf utilized shall be reduced (i.e., eliminate on back sides of slopes, and between sidewalk and curb areas) . CONAPRVL.029 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Man 91-465 September 24, 1991 D. A preliminary landscaping plan indicating specific trees, shrubs, and ground covers, and irrigation system type shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to preparation of final landscaping plans. E. Water efficient irrigation system including bubblers and emitters shall be utilized wherever possible. F. Landscaping adjacent to south and east property lines shall be heavily planted to provide screening and buffering with adjacent residentially zoned properties. G . All planting materials shall be water efficient to maximum extend feasible. H. The Applicant should examine covered parking spaces for 10 percent of the proposed on -site parking spaces. The covered trellises should be either wood or metal and spaces should be interspersed throughout the site. I. All trash and loading area facilities should be located so that they cannot be seen from any public thoroughfare. The areas should be screened by using masonry wall enclosures and landscaping. J. All windows on the second and third floor should be recessed into the building envelope (approximately 6 to 18 inches) and sunshade canopies should be used to reduce the sun exposure on the areas which are susceptible to mid -afternoon heating. 27. The courtyard areas as shown on the approved site plan shall be developed into shaded lounging areas with permanent seating provided. Said plans to be approved by the City at the time of landscaping plan review. CITY FIRE MARSHAL 28. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3, hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 29. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2-1 / 211 X 2-1 / 2") , will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant (s) in the system. 30. 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 the fire hydrant types, location and CONAPRVL.029 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 September 24, 1991 spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. " The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 31. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve anti fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s) . System plans must be submitted with a plan check/inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 33. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 34. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 35. Provide fire apparatus road to within 150 feet of any portion of the exterior wall of the first floor. Such road shall have a minimum of 20 feet of unobstructed width and a minimum of 13 feet 6 inches of vertical clearance. 36. Center divider in entrance way shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from curb line. 37. Provide valve supervision and 24 hour monitoring of the waterflow alarm at the automatic fire sprinkler system. 38. Appproved building numbers or address shall be placed in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road. Said numbers shall contrast with their background. 39. This project may require licensing and/or review by State agencies. Applicant should prepare a letter of intent detailing his proposed usage to facilitate case review. Contact should be made with the Office of the State Fire Marshal (818) 960-6441 for an opinion and classification of occupancy to the type. This information and a copy of the letter of intent should be submitted to the Fire Department so that property requirements may be Specified during the review process. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: CONAPRVL . 02 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 September 24, 1991 40. The Applicant shall dedicate public street right-of-way and utility easements in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as required by the City Engineer, as follows: A. Washington Street - Major Arterial, 60 foot half width; the Washington Street Specific Plan applies; B . Washington Street frontage road - local street, 1010" foot half width. 41. The Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Washington Street from the Site. 42. Access locations to the site shall be limited to the Washington Street frontage road. 43. The Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback lot of noted width adjacent to the following street right-of-way(s) : A. Washington Street, 20 feet wide. B . Washington Street frontage road, 10 feet wide. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for the landscaped lot(s) shall be prepared in conformance with the requirements of the Planning Director, and City Engineer, and approved by same officials prior to construction. 45. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off --site public improvements and on -site common area improvements before the issuance of a site grading permit. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the respective construction cost, for those improvements which involve fair -share responsibility that must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of cash in lieu of construction ma`be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by the Applicant and City Engineer, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant. 46. The on -site grading plan shall be prepared by a register civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 47. The Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on the Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during grading of the site and construction of the improvements to insure compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant and charged with the compliance responsibility shall make the following certifications upon completion of construction: CONAPRVL.029 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 September 24, 1991 A. All grading and improvements were properly monitored by qualified personnel during construction for compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances and thereby certify the grading to be in full compliance with those documents. B . The finished building pad elevations conform with the approved grading plans. 48. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100 year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin(s) designed for a maximum wager depth not to exceed six feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless the Applicant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. 49. The Applicant shall have a focused master drainage plan prepared by a registered civil engineer to determine what storm water disposal facilities are needed to protect the site from flooding by off site storm water. If the drainage study recommends the construction of off site storm water disposal facilities, the Applicant shall participate in the cost of the facilities, on a fair share basis. The tributary area to be studies includes all tributary land south of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, east of the Bear Creek Channel and west of Washington Street. 50. Applicant shall install a trickling sand filter and leach field in the retention basin to percolate nuisance water in conformance with requirements of the City Engineer. The sand filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 160 gallons per day per 5000 s . f . of landscaping. 51. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 52. The Applicant shall participate in the cost of the designing and installing street improvements. All street improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the La Quinta Municipal Code and adopted Standard Drawings, and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant components required by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but notlimited to traffic signs and channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by City General Plan. Street CONAP tVL.029 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 Septernber 24, 1991 design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic loading, anti design life. Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with City standards and practices. This includes tapered off site street transitions that extend beyond project site boundaries and join the widened and unwidened street sections. The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: A. OFF -SITE STREETS 1. Washington Street - Install half -width Major Arterial, refer to La Quinta General Plan Figure VII-2. 2. Washington Street frontage road - Install 3610" wide (curb to curb right-of-way) refer to La Quinta General Plan Figure VII-2 with 10' easement on westerly side of street. The Applicant shall be required to extend the frontage road southerly of the proposed site to 48th Avenue. The Developer shall be entitled to request reimbursement from the City for costs incurred for this off -site improvement. The City Council shall determine the cost -sharing percentage for which the City might sponsor or that the Developer will be reimbursed for by abutting benefiting property owners. 53. Street right--of-way for Washington Street from the northerly portion of the site to 48th Avenue shall be dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 54. The Applicant shall participate in the cost, noted as follows, of designing and installing traffic signals at the following locations: A. Washington Street at 48th Avenue, 25 o cost participation. 55. The Applicant shall construct meandering sidewalk in the parkway and landscaped setback lot along Washington Street (8 feet wide) . A non - meandering 510" sidewalk shall be installed on the west side along Washington Street frontage road. 56. The Applicant shall provide a blanket easement that covers the entire landscaped setback lots for the purpose of a meandering public sidewalk. CONAPRVL . 02 9 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91-465 September 24, 1991 57. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and comment with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 58. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent to the proposed. site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 59. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to City standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by the Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 60. The site shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity, caused by a storm event greater than the 100 year 24 hour event, to flow out of the tract through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the tract shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that have historically received flow for those occasions when a storm greater than the 100 year 24 hour event occurs. 61. The Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the City as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the City. 62. The heli-pad site and its operation are not approved pursuant to the review of Phase I. The developer shall submit a noise study for review and approval by the Planning Commission separately for this feature. 63. The project shall meet all requirements of Zone Ordinance Amendment 91-020. 64. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after review of the proposed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. 65. The final working drawings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall include landscaping, irrigations, signing, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, utility plans and materials. 66. All required improvements shall be completed prior to site occupancy of the proposed development. 67. Reciprocal access agreements shall be prepared and approved by the City Engineering and Director of Planning and Development which secures common on -site access systems between the property and the abutting properties to the north and south. CONAPRVL.029 10 PLANNING COMMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27267 TO ALLOW THE TWO DEVELOPMENT LOTS. CASE NO. TPM 27267 - DESERT HOSPITAL WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24th day of September, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the resubdivision of 30 acres into 2 lots, generally located on the west side of Washington Street -at Via Marquessa, more particularly described as: PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.6.S., R.7.E., S.B.B.M. WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of the "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed tentative parcel map will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and will be incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Parcel Map 27267 thereby retaining that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said tentative parcel map: 1. That Tentative Parcel Map 27267, as conditionally approved, is generally consistent with the goals, policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use, circulation requirements, zoning district development standards, and design requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is vacant. The proposed circulation design and lot layouts are consistent with City standards and the project has been conducted accordingly, therefore, suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Parcel Map 27267 will not cause substantial environmental damage or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will not impact the existing public sewers and water improvements, and therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. RESOPC . 04 6 Planning Commission Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval September 24, 1991 5. That the design of Tentative Parcel Map 27267 will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public. 6. That the proposed Tentative Parcel Map 27267, as conditioned, provides for adequate maintenance of the landscape buffer areas and provides storm water retention. 7. That general impacts from the proposed tentative parcel map were considered within the -MEA prepared and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Parcel Map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources. 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 in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental Assessment (Categorical Exemption 15315, Class 15) relative to the environmental concerns of this Tentative Parcel Map; 3. That it does hereby approve the subject Tentative Parcel Map 27267 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of September, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RESOPC.046 Planning Commission Resolution 91- Conditions of Approval September 24, 1991 KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Manning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.046 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 27267 -• DESERT HOSPITAL SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 GENERAL, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Tentative Parcel Map 27267, marked Exhibit "A", shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. Provisions for rights -of -way and frontage road to be as noted in Plot Plan 91-465. 2. This Tentative Parcel Map approval shall expire two years after the approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire map, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blowsand and dust control measures during the grading and site development. These shall include, but not be limited to: a. The use of irrigation during any construction activities. b . Planting of cover crop or vegetation upon previously graded but undeveloped portions of the site. c. Provision of wind breaks or wind rows, fencing, and/or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The land owner shall comply with requirements of the Director of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent the emission of dust and blowsand. 4. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a condition so as to prevent a dust and blowsand nuisance and shall be either planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water erosion control measures as approved by the Planning and Development and Public Works Departments. 5. Owner shall execute and record a "Declaration of Dedication" in a form acceptable to the City and offering the dedication of drainage retention basin(s) and landscape buffer areas to the City for future acceptance and maintenance. In the interim, the owners shall maintain the basin (s) and perimeter landscaping and provide bond assurance accordingly prior to final map approval. 6. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm water retention areas via one of the following methods prior to final map approval: RESOPC.046 4 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval September 24, 1991 a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 ( Streets and Highways Code, Section 5820, et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways Code 22600, et seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. b . The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will be maintained, with an unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. The common facilities to be maintained are as follows: (1) Storm water retention system. (2) Perimeter parkway lot along Washington Street. (3) All common area landscaping. (4) All streets, including all street medians. 7. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities including their appurtenant signage. 8. If buried remains or artifacts are encountered during development (including grading), work shall be stopped and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted immediately at Applicant's expense and appropriate mitigation measures shall be taken. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 9. Applicant shall provide private street right of way and utility easements in Conformance with the city's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans if any, and as required by the City Engineer and purveyors of utility services, as follows: a. Right of way geometry for cul-de-sacs, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. b . 10-foot wide public utility easement behind curbline on the Washington Street frontage road. RESOPC . 04,6 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval September 24, 1991 10. Appplicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to Washington Street. Access to the site shall be restricted to the Washington Street frontage road extension, as ,approved by Plot Plan 91-465. 11. Ap-plicant shall have street improvement plans prepared by a registered civil engineer. Street improvements shall be designed and constructed for all streets within the proposed subdivision and for off -site streets as required by these conditions of approval. All street improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC and adopted Standard Drawings, and City Engineer and shall include all appurtenant components required by same, except mid -block street lighting, such as but not limited to traffic signs and channelization markings, street name signs, sidewalks, and raised medians where required by city General Plan. Street design shall take into account the soil strength, anticipated traffic loading, and design life. The minimum structural section for residential streets shall be 3" AC over 411 Class 2 Base. Miscellaneous incidental improvements and enhancements to existing improvements where joined by the newly required improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer to assure the new and existing improvements are appropriately integrated to provide a finished product that conforms with city standards and practices. This includes tapered off -site street transitions that extend beyond tract boundaries and join the widened and existing street sections. The following specific street widths shall be constructed to conform with the General Plan street type noted therewith: a. WASHINGTON STREET 1. Install 1 / 2 width Major Arterial, refer to La Quinta General Plan, Figure VII-2. b. ON -SITE STREETS - WASHINGTON STREET FRONTAGE ROAD 1. Lot A-1 - full width Local Street, 36 feet wide, refer to Std Dwg #106; 12. Applicant shall construct, or enter into agreement to construct, the site grading, off -site public improvements and utilities, and on -site common area improvements before the final map is recorded. Applicant shall pay cash, in lieu of and equivalent to the respective fair -share construction cost, for those improvements that the Applicant has partial cost responsibility and construction must be deferred until the full complement of funding is available. Payment of cash may be deferred to a future date mutually agreed by Applicant and City, provided security for said future payment is posted by Applicant. REsopc'. 046 6 Planning Commission Resolution 91- ConditioELS of Approval September 24, 1991 13. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and/or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy of the grading plan. A statement shall appear on the final subdivision map that a soils report has been prepared for the tract pursuant to Section 17953 of the Health and Safety Code. 14. The map grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. 15. The map shall be designed and graded in a manner so the difference in building pad elevations between contiguous lots that share a common street frontage or join lots with adjoining existing tracts or approved tentative tracts does not exceed three (3.0) feet. The pad elevations of contiguous lots within the subject tract that do not share a common street shall not exceed five (5.0) feet. If Applicant is unable to comply with the pad elevation differential requirement, the city will consider and may approve other alternatives that satisfy the city's intent to promote and ensure community acceptance and buyer satisfaction with the proposed development. 16. The parcel map shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the retention basin capacity to flow out of the map through a designated emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route. Similarly, the map shall be graded in a manner that anticipates receiving storm flow from adjoining property at locations that has historically received flow. 17. Storm water run-off produced in 24 hours by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in landscaped retention basin designed for a maximum water depth not to exceed six feet or directed to an approved water retention area. If a. retention basin is constructed, the basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour unless Ap, licant provides site -specific data that indicates otherwise. Other requirements include, but are not limited to, a grassed ground surface with permanent irrigation improvements, and appurtenant structural drainage amenities all of which shall be designed and constructed in accordance with requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of any public street contiguous to the site. RESOPC. 046 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval September 24, 1991 18. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped lots. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. 19. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 20. Applicant shall maintain the landscaped areas of the map such as the landscaped lot and retention basin until accepted by the City Engineer for maintenance by the homeowner's association of the subdivision. 21. All existing and proposed electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, and are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 22. All underground utilities shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to construction of any street improvements. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 23. Applicant shall cause no easements to be granted or recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording of the final map without the approval of the City Engineer. 24. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount(s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 25. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the map grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: a. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all (grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". RESOPC. 046 8 Planning Commission Resolution 91-_ Conditions of Approval September 24, 1991 b . Prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each lot in the map, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall be organized by tract phase and lot number and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. c . Provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. GENERAL, 29. Approval of this map is subject to final approval of General Plan Amendment 91-037, Change of Zone 91-065, and Plot Plan 91-465. RESOPC.046 9 u r Q �r U l� F �1 �b ! Zl 114 � •ob yy • e • O � O P La C,� \ {I � � Y Y � Z • L � �V tt� i ��� �° •y3 i a ED:j 3 i� � i � �a3 � of �_�� y a.�d � C�kkhi a .. ► e N � € � e.a�� � i h MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 25154, AMENDMENT #1 SPECIFIC PLAN 84-004, AMENDMENT #1 Attached is a letter from Thomas Thornburgh, Applicant for the above tract, requesting a continuance of the following items: ITEM: Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #1 Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1 APPLICANTS: North Star Corporation & Valley Land Development LOCATION: Northeast corner of Sagebrush Drive and Date Palm Drive intersecidon +1, 320 feet east of Washington Street. RECOMMENDATION: Continue this matter to your next meeting of October 8, 1991. MEMOJii . 13 6 September 17, 1991 City of La Quinta P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, Ca 92253 Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director RE: Tentative Tract 25154 La Quinta Dear Jerry: Request for continuance of tae following item: ITEM: Specific Plan 84-004, Amendment #1 Tentative Tract 25154, Amendment #1 APPLICANT: North Star Corporation & Valley Land Development LOCAT--LON: Northeast corner of Sagebrush Drive and Date Palm Drive Intersection + 1,320 feet East of Washington Street We hereby request the Public Hearing to be continued from September 24, 1991 to October 8, 1991 at the La Quinta Planning Com-nission. Very -=uly yours, VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. Thomas A. Thornburgh President TAT/d ' "'"` 42-600 COOK ST. / SUITE 160 / PALM DESERT, CA 92260 / (619) 5N BI=1 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 APPLICANT/ OWNER: M. J. BROCK & SONS, INC. PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 25389-3 & 25389-4; REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION LOCATION: EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET BETWEEN 50TH AVENUE AND CALLE TAMPICO EXTENSION, AND CALLE RONDO AND PARK AVENUE ALIGNMENT (SEE ATTACHMENT #1). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TT 25389 IS A SUBDIVISION OF 63.6 ACRES INTO 255 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS FOR SALE, PLUS NUMEROUS STREET LOTS. NOTE: SURROUNDING GOLF COURSE IS NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4-8 DU/AC SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY DESIGNATION: 5 DU/AC (THIS AREA IS IDENTIFIED AS PHASE 8 OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001-DUNA LA QUINTA-WITH A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 300 UNITS). DENSITY OF PROJECT: 4 DU/AC (TOTAL NET ACREAGE OF TENTATIVE TRACT 25398 IS 63.6) EXISTING ZONING: R-2, 7,000 (EXISTING GOLF COURSE R-5) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 25389 IS A PORTION OF SPECIFIC PLAN 83-001, AMENDMENTS #1, 2, AND 3, DUNA LA QUINTA, FOR WHICH A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WAS PREPARED BY LANDMARK LAND COMPANY AND CERTIFIED BY THE LA QUINTA CITY COUNCIL AS BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST. THEREFORE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS NOT WARRANTED. STAFFRPT.051/CS -1- ANALYSIS: Staff has no required changes to the existing Conditions of Approval for TT 25389. It is therefore recommended that the Conditions of Approval for TT 25389 are acceptable and should be attached to the approval of this First Time Extension. FINDINGS: Findings for recommendation of approval of Tentative Tract 25389-3 and 25389-4, First Extension of Time can be found in the attached Planning Commission Resolution. RECOMMENDATION• By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution 91- , recommend to the City Council concurrence with the Environmental Analysis and approval of Tentative Tract Map 25389-3 and 25389-4, First Extension of Time subject to the attached conditions. Attachments: 1. Locality Plan 2. Tentative Tract 25389 3. Planning Commission Resolution 91- 5. Conditions of Approval STAFFRPT.051/CS --3- G.Q i-G. e E CASE No. L 119 A/"tE?5 ATTACHMENT No. 1 507'" 4VE7 ut 4A 7UeAe6?5 V1 Co /&// 70'r MA /' NO SC.4LE TT 25389 i Q I . eov?0&.jc-c 0 s ORTH ,IEKrATwE TRACT No. A'rTACHMENT No.. 2 �.s • .••.•r.. w w r�.•r+ • v r . s s• • . Noyes! 1l81 TT 25389-2 PARCEL' 3 15.5 At GOLF 6W =$a 4F�Et{738PSoe!`I Iwo, I r 4WD as an in v yid. TT 25389-3 TT 25389-4jaws- _r �_._ _ r- � -'.ems• • �.. � � .. r , • , r w �- iT "WM _�yA�w r•. • a .., -- nws a o • •-,�%=- r-u• -r •.w re u. �i. • • RESOLUTION 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF'LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 25389, PHASES 3 & 4, FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME CASE NO. TENTATIVE TRACT 25389-3 & 25389-4 M.J. BROOK & SONS, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 9th day of January 1990, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. to subdivide 63.6 acres into 255 single family lots and numerous street and common lots, generally located between 50th Avenue and the Calle Tampico extension, and Calle Rondo and Park Avenue alignment, more particularly described as: A portion of Section 6, Township 6 south, Range 7 East, SBBM; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 6th day of February, 1990, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract 25389 and made findings to justify the approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, did on the 16th day of July 1990 and 22nd day of May 1991, approve the final map for Tract 25389-1 and 25389-2 respectively; and, WHEREAS, said tentative map has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution No. 82-213, adopted by reference in City of La Quinta Ordinance No. 5), in that the Planning Director has determined that the proposed tentative tract has been previously assessed in connection with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan for which an Environmental Impact Report was approved; and, WHEREAS, mitigation of various physical impacts have been identified and have been incorporated into the approval conditions for Tentative Tract 25389-3 and -4, First Extension of Time, thereby requiring that monitoring of those mitigation measures be undertaken to assure compliance with them; and, WHEREAS, the owners, M.J. Brock & Sons, Inc. have applied for this first extension of time for Tract 25389-3 and -4, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta Municipal Code relating to time extension on tentative maps First Extension of Time; and, RESOPC.024/CS -1- WHEREAS, at said Public Meeting, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify the approval of said Tentative Tract Map First Extension of Time: 1. That Tentative Tract 25389-3 and -4, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan, the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan, and the standards of the Municipal Land Division Ordinance. 2. That the subject site is physically suitable for the proposed land division. 3. That the design of Tentative Tract 25389-3 & -4 is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or injury to fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, is not likely to cause serious public health problems. WHEREAS, in the review of this Tentative Tract Map, First Extension of Time, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental resources; 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 in this case; 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the previous Environmental Impact Report for Duna La Quinta Specific Plan 83-001 assessed the environmental concerns of this tentative tract; 3. That it does hereby recommend approval of the above -described Tentative Tract Map 25389--3 and -4 First Extension of Time for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. RESOPC.024/CS -2- PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 24th day of September, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.024/CS -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT 25389; FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 GENERAL 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 25389 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State Subdivision Map Act, conditions of Dana La Quinta Specific Plan any previously recorded parcel map on this property, and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless otherwise modified by the following conditions. 2. This tentative tract map approval shall expire two years after the original date of approval by the La Quinta City Council unless approved for extension pursuant to the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance. 3. Prior to final tract approval, the Subdivider shall comply with development requests of the Fire Marshal, Public Works Department, and Coachella Valley Water District. Written clearances from these agencies must be provided to the Planning and Development Department. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 4. Subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Public Works Department, including the following: a. Dedication of all necessary public street and utility easements as required. At a minimum, the following half -street rights -of -way shall be provided: Avenue 50 .......... 50 feet Calle Tampico ....... 30 feet Calle Rondo ......... 30 feet Avenida Ultimo ...... 20 feet b. All street improvements shall be constructed to the requirements of the City Engineer and the La Quinta Municipal Code, as follows: (1) Full street improvements along Calle Tampico from Washington Street to Calle Rondo, as part of Phase One development improvements. No further improvemetns to this section of Calle Tampico shall be required of this Tract nor Oak Tree West Specific Plan 85-006. (2) Half -street improvements along Calle Rondo and Avenida Ultimo shall be constructed during Phase Four. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 1 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 (3) Half -street improvements on Calle Tampico from Calle Rondo to Park Avenue and along Park Avenue between Calle Tampico and the Tract entrance (Lot E). (4) Twenty-eight feet wide street improvement centered on Park Avenue centerline between the Tract entrance (Lot E) and 50th Avenue. This improvement is subject to reimbursement as provided by further action of the City Council. (5) Three -quarter -street improvements along Avenue 50 for the length of the tract. These improvements shall include an appropriate raised median, and six-foot sidewalk with a two percent cross slope. The Developer is responsible for half the cost of a raised median and shall provide a bond or letter of credit for that share of the cost. (6) The private streets are to be developed pursuant to City construction standards for public streets. C. Unrestricted temporary access to the entire tract shall be permitted on 50th Avenue via Lot B. Details of the temporary access shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. This temporary access shall be abandoned at such time that fifty percent (500) of the buildable lots within the tract have received occupancy permits. The Applicant shall give notice to all buyers of lots in this tract as a condition of sale that Lot B is a temporary access only. d. Subdivider shall dedicate, with recordation of the final tract map, access rights to Avenue 50, Park Avenue, Calle Tampico, and Calle Rondo for all individual lots which front or back-up to the right-of-way (except as provided in "c", above). e. Storm water run-off produced by a 100-year storm shall be retained on site in a lake, landscaped retention basin(s), or discharged to an off -site area approved by the City Engineer. Any private drainage structure that crosses a public right-of-way shall be installed in accordance with all requirements deemed necessary by the City Engineer when the encroachment permit is issued. f. The Developer's share of the future traffic signal at the intersection of Avenue 50 and Park Avenue shall not exceed 25 percent. The Developer shall provide a bond or letter of credit for his share of the cost prior to final map recordation. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 2 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 g. Provide a dimensioned, detailed Park Avenue access entry design, including access control system location and turn -around area, for the purpose of demonstrating adequate stacking area for development entry. h. The Applicant shall construct an 8-foot wide sidewalk/bikeway on the north side of Calle Tampico from Washington Street to Park Avenue, and on the west side of Park Avenue in that portion which abuts the tract. 5. The Applicant shall dedicate right-of-way as required by the City Engineer for a "branch type" turnaround near the west end of Avenida Ultimo. 6. The Applicant shall construct an aesthetically pleasing sight -restricted gate and wall or chainlink fence with suitable landscape screening, at the west end of Avenida Ultimo, if the City vacates the last 70-feet to 90-feet of the street at the west end. 7. The Applicant shall construct an aesthetically pleasing sight -restricted gate and wall or chainlink fence with suitable landscape screening, at the golf course access point near the west end of Avenida Ultimo. 8. The Applicant shall relocate overhead utilities to underground facilities along the following perimeter streets: Adams Street Calle Tampico Avenida Ultimo Park Avenue: Fifty percent responsibility only from 50th Avenue to Calle Tampico 9. The Applicant shall provide, in conformance with the City Engineer and Fire Marshal's requirements an emergency access point on Calle Rondo matching up with Avenida Tujunga. This shall be identified as a street lot on the Final Tract Map with a note "emergency access only". TRACT DESIGN 10. A minimum 20-foot landscaped wall setback shall be required along Avenue 50, 10-foot landscape wall setback along Park Avenue, and five-foot landscape wall setback along Calle Tampico. Design of the setback areas shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. Along Avenue 50, the landscaping should incorporate slope stabilization. Setbacks shall be measured from ultimate right-of-way lines; in the case of Avenue 50, the setback shall be measured 50 feet from the centerline. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 3 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 a. The minimum setback area may be modified to an "average" if a meandering or curvilinear wall design is used. b. Setback areas shall be established as a separate common lot and be maintained as set forth in Condition No. 23, unless an alternate method is approved by the Planning and Development Department. 11. The Applicant shall submit complete detail architectural elevations for all units, for Design Review Board review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. The matter will be scheduled as a Business Item before the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Applicant shall submit a copy of the draft C C & R' s to the Planning and Development Department for review. 12. All single family dwellings located on the following lots within the subject Tract shall not exceed one story (25-feet) in height: Lots #1-5, 17, 18, 31-48, 91-116, 203, 204, 207-211, and 238-255. PHASING 13. All perimeter tract boundary walls, landscaping, and streets shall be installed/constructed as part of Phase One improvements, except as noted elsewhere in these conditions. 14. Provide temporary turnarounds at all dead-end streets. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 15. The Subdivider shall comply with the requirements of the City Fire Marshal. 16. The Subdivider shall comply with all requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District. Any necessary parcels for district facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the Coachella Valley Water District, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING 17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Subdivider shall submit to the Planning and Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control. 18. Prior to final map approval, the Subdivider shall submit to the Planning Division for review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following: a. Landscaping, including, but not limited to, plant types, sizes, spacing locations, and irrigation system for all common areas. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 4 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls. C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing mitigation of light and glare impacts to surrounding properties. 19. Prior to final map approval, the Subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide for two trees and an irrigation system. MISCELLANEOUS 20. Provisions shall be made to comply with the requirements of the City's adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 21. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to final map approval. The study shall concentrate on noise impacts on the tract from perimeter arterial streets, and recommend alternative mitigation techniques. Recommendations of the study shall be incorporated into the tract design. The study shall consider use of building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers (berming and landscaping, etc.), and other techniques with attention given to avoiding the isolated appearance given by continuously -walled developments. 22. The Subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all common areas by the following methods prior to final map approval: a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter 26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets & Highways Code, Section 5820 et seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets & Highway Code 22600 et seq.) to implement maintenance of all perimeter street and landscaped buffer areas. It is understood and agreed that the developer/Applicant shall pay all above costs of maintenance for said improved landscaped areas until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property. b. The Subdivider shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the lot owners of this subdivision, in order to insure that private streets and common lots/facilities including retention basins will be maintained. A homeowner's association shall be created with the unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual lots for reasonable maintenance costs. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 5 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 The association shall have the right to lien the property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments. 23. The Applicant acknowledges that the City has formed a City -Wide Landscape and Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the District. Any assessments will be done on a benefit basis, as required by law. 24. The developer shall retain a qualified archaeologist immediately upon discovery of any archaeological remains or artifacts and employ appropriate mitigation measures during project development. 25. The Applicant shall provide an acceptable alternative to the park dedication as required in the Duna La Quinta Specific Plan. The alternative shall include (1) dedication of parkland elsewhere, or value in -lieu fee, or a combination of the two; or (2) pay the value equivalent in development of an existing City park or proposed park. The value shall be determined consistent with the procedures of the Subd-vision Ordinance. An agreement to satisfy the condition must be reached prior to recordation of Phase One. 26. The appropriate Planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the following uses: a. Temporary construction facilities; b. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage; C. On -site advertising/construction signs. 27. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Tentative Tract 25389 and the Environmental Impact report for Specific Plan 83-0C1, which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval and mitigation measures of Environmental Impact report for Specific Plan 83-001 and Tentative Tract 25389 which must be satisfied prior to the issuance of a building permit. Prior to final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 6 - Conditions of Approval TT-25389 approval and report for 25389. The inspection mitigation measures of Specific Plan 83-001 Planning and Development Cyr other monitoring to ass Environmental Impact and Tentative Tract Director may require Lre such compliance. BJ/CONAPRVL.034 - 7 - BI-2 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 PROJECT: CLIFFHOUSE RESTAURANT - SIGN APPLICATION 91-152 (TS RESTAURANTS) REPRESENTATIVE: MR. SANDY SAXTEN, TS RESTAURANTS APPLICANT: MR. JESSE CROSS, BEST SIGNS, INC. LOCATION: 78-250 HIGHWAY 111 (NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111, 1400 FEET WEST OF WASHINGTON STREET) ZONING: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CPS) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICATIONS FOR SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA (SECTION 15311, CLASS ELEVEN) BACKGROUND: The Cliffhouse Restaurant project (restaurant and future office building) was approved by the City Council on May 8, 1990 (Plot Plan 89-417) . Pursuant to the approval, Condition #12 requires the Applicant to obtain approval of their sign program. The project is presently under construction. The Applicant's package is attached. SIGN REQUEST: The Applicant has proposed three signs for this new development which include one monument sign and two directional signs. The monument sign is located on the easterly side of the site abutting the rocky hillside. The freestanding sign is positioned to attract attention from eastbound traffic and not to attract west bound traffic because of the mountain terrain. The sign is approximately 11 feet from the street property line and situated approximately 12 feet above Highway 111. The sign is eight feet high by six feet (48 square feet) and the sign is made of 12" X 12" vertical laminated Douglas Fir beams with sandblasted letters. The color tones will consist of a whitewash background. with black lettering and a blue logo. The exhibits are attached. The directional signs (4+ square feet each, 3+ feet high) will consist of a iron logo and name attached to natural rocks on each side of the two-way entrance into the facility from Highway 111. These two signs will be used to accent the entry and will include traffic direction information. PCST.012 SIGN ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: The Applicant is allowed one freestanding sign which is not to exceed 50 square feet. Directional traffic signs are permitted provided the size of the sign does not exceed three square feet and three feet in overall height. The signs should be used for traffic safety reasons. SIGN ADJUSTMENT: The Applicant is asking for a minor sign adjustment to allow his sign program. An adjustment would be necessary because the size of the directional signs are larger than the 3 square feet allowed and the height exceeds 3 feet. STAFF COMMENTS: Initially, Staff had requested that the Applicant bring in a master sign program to guide development of the site now and in the future. We had anticipated that the Developer would bring in a sign concept for both the restaurant and the office building which is planned for the northerly portion of the site. However, the Developer has indicated that the restaurant is under a short time schedule at this moment. Therefore, the Applicant/Developer would prefer that the Planning Commission condition the approval so that they can work this matter out at a later date with the Design Review Board. Staff is receptive to the Applicant's request. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RECOMMENDATION: The Board reviewed the project on September 4, 1991, and as a group, recommended approval of the sign application as submitted with one minor change. The Board thought the term "Circa 1920" was misleading advertising because the restaurant (or restaurant chain) has not been in operation since 1920. It was noted that the La Quinta Hotel has only been in operation since 1926. It was recommended that the "Circa 1920" sign information should be removed from the freestanding monument sign. The Applicant has agreed to remove this element from the sign request. The Board further discussed with the Applicant the placement of the freestanding monument sign on the slope of the mountain. The Board wondered why the Applicant would place the sign so that it can only be seen from traffic going eastbound on Highway 111. Mr. Sandy Saxten, representing TS Restaurants, stated he thought his directional signs would help advertise the project and eastbound traffic would be more important. He said that if a customer missed his driveway entrance they would merely have to make a U--turn to get back to the restaurant. The Design Review Board did not request that the sign be moved to another location on the property since the Applicant did not seem to believe westbound traffic movement was as critical a feature to the project as they felt it was. They hoped the Applicant was not turning his back on the City of La Quinta by placement of the sign. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS: 1. That the incandescent lighting information for the signs be submitted to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to submission to the Building Department. PCST.012 2 2. The sign letters shall be sandblasted into the sign a minimum distance of 1 /4 inch or greater. 3. The rock boulders which are proposed to accentuate the sign shall be a minimum diameter size of 2 feet and grouped together in an informal setting to make the sign look as though it is part of the natural environment. The boulders shall be the same type and texture as the surrounding existing rocks. 4. The term "Circa 1920" on the freestanding sign shall be removed. 5. The future building sign program shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. 6. The location and size of the directory signs shall be approved by the Engineering Department to ensure that motor vehicle sight visibility is not obstructed. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 91- approve the sign adjustment request provided the above - mentioned Design Review Board and Staff conditions are required. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. Sign program 3. Preliminary landscape plan (excerpt) PCST.012 3 6 3 R1i r�R w4w:y Project Location 0 MAJOR ARTERIAL � 120' R.O.W. QPRIMARY ARTERIAL 100.110' R.O.W. (" SECONDARY ARTERIAL �......�i 88' R.O.W. QCOLLECTOR 64•12' R.O.W. 0 Ul 1.1.1 ` MVU 7pv Se. II ���'1"f�NG� MONUf�I�NT �A�►�T�� PoUO rrR 9PAM5 0 1- TTP(4N(-T 4ASi-E0 lNi-0 WOOD - PAIM T FIL F01I Pest signs, inc. 2600 S. CHEROKEE WAY PALM SPRINGS, CA. 92264 AU& WI ;Ll o •y N y a y Ug a OIJ ._r - •• • r 1 tom• V�• ; � •" � � .�:... lfi� 10h pie s TSEQQcsr EXHOr ,S_ScASE NO. es Z'— Two (2) .DWG-'DPNRL- Iron attatched to rock pf000r RECEIVIEV AUG 23 10a' CITY 01- LA kjUINTA DEVELOPMENT DEFT• PLANNING & PROPOSED PLANT PALETTE mbol Botanical Name Common Nbme{Q T R E E S AS Acacia stenophvlla Shoestring Acacia 24"/*'6" BX AP Arecastrum romanzoffianum Queen Palm VARIES BR Beaucarnea recurvata Ponv Tail Palm 24" BOX CM Caryota mites Fishtail Palml 36" BOX CH Chamaerops humiIis Mediterr. Fan Palm 24"/S6" BX CIT Citrus Citrus 48" BOX CR - Cycas revoluta Saqo Palm 24" BOX LT Lysiloma thornberi Feather Bush 15 GAL PA Parkinsonsa aculeata Mexican Palo Verde :,60/48" BX PC Prosopis chilensis Chilean Mesquite 24"/36" BX SR Strelitzia nicolai Giant Bird of Para. --4"/36" BX WR Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm HT. VARIES S H R U B S A N D C A C T U S AV Agave vilmoriniana Octopus Agave 5 GAL BC Baccharis 'Centennial Coyote Brush 1/5 GAL. BS Bougainvillea 'Rosenka' Eougainvillea 5 GAL CA Cassia artemedio,.des Feathery Cassia 5 GAL DW Dasylirion wheelers Desert Spoon S GAL ES -' Echinocactvs grusonii Solden.Darrel 5 GAL EF Encel i s f ar i nosa fir. i t t I ebush 1/5 GAL FA f erocactus acanthodes Fire Barrel Cactus 5 GAL FS Fouquteria splendons Octillo 3-5 CANES HP Hesperaloe aara•viflora Red .Yucca L/5 GAL.. LT Larrea tridentata Creosote Bush 1/5 GAL. _ LW Leucophyl I um _ 'White CloAd ' Texas Ranger 5 GAL 06 Opuntia basilarrs Beaver Tail 5 GAL•. R -Rosa Varies _ _ S SG Salvia,greggeii Red Salvia 1 GAL ..SL Salvia leucophylla Mexican Sage 1 GAL SR Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise 1/5 GAL TL '� Tegatet lemmonii Mt. Lemmon Marigo}d 1 GAL YS ..Yucca brevifolia Joshua Tree VARIES YE Yucca elata Soaptree Yucca 5 GAL ,. YR "` Yucca restrata Yucca 5 GAL YP Yucca pendula Soft Leaf Yucca 5 GAL E S P A L I E R SK Bougainvillea Rosenka' Bougainvillea 5,-GAL . Wire to Wall GROUN COVER ac , �Snual dolor DG ea greggii LS : ,`Lantana "Spread. ' Sun' OS 70enothera stubbei VP . Verbena p. St. Paul' 6SGF ••Pales Springs Gold Fines Desert Wi 1 df I ower Mix Seasonal Color WARTS Trailing Indigo 1 GAL Yellow Lantana 1 GAL Baja Evening Flats/12" Pink Verbena Flats/12" PSGG Pals Springs.Gold Gravel, 30 a 42 raw?ja Oa.A 100004 CILAROww,T. BI-3 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 PROJECT: SIGN APPLICATION 91-151 REQUEST: APPROVAL OF SIGN ADJUSTMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL NUMBER AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF SIGNS APPLICANT: SHELL OIL; MR. DON ADOLPH REPRESENTATIVE: URRUTIA ARCHITECTS; MR. DAVID PREST, ARCHITECT LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 & ADAMS STREET (SEE ATTACHED LOCATION MAP) ZONING: GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CPS) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MIXED COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: APPLICATIONS FOR SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA (SECTION 15311, CLASS ELEVEN) BACKGROUND• The Shell Gas Station project, located within the One -Eleven La Quinta Center, was approved by the City Council on May 21, 1991 (Plot Plan 91-460). The Design Review Board reviewed the building plans on May 1, 1991. Pursuant to the approval, Condition 29 requires the applicant to obtain approval of their sign program by the Board prior to submission to the Building Department. The applicant's package is attached. PROPOSED SIGN PACKAGE: The service station includes various signs which identify the different uses on the property. The mini -market is identified with a "FOOD MART" sign for the building elevation facing the interior of the site. The attached car wash has one sign on each of the openings of the facility with additional customer service information (e.g. Car Wash - Entrance). The covered gas service island canopy has signs also on the east/west elevations identifying the station as being "SHELL" with additional logo signing. A "SHELL" logo is proposed on the east and west wall of the building. A summary of the signing request is as follows: STAFFRPT.049/CS -1- Total Sign Location Number/Type Square Footage (171) A. Canopy 2 Shell, 2 Shell logos 40 (2' x 2' logos & 2' x 81) B. Building 1 Food Mart 22 (2' x 11') C. Building 2 Car Wash 40 (2' x 10' each) D. Building 2 Car gash (Entrance & Exit) 7 (1' x 51 & 1' x 2' ) E. Building 2 Shell logos 18 (3' x 3' each) F. Gas Island 4 Service Info. 12 (1.5' x 2' each) SUBTOTAL 139 G. Freestanding 1 Monument 32 (4' high x 8' wide) TOTAL 171 The applicant has also proposed lighted spandrell island signing over the gas dispensing units which are not included in the above total. The spandrells are counted as signs because they include company identification information. The sign colors will be the corporate colors of the Shell Corporation which will include white for the Food Mart, Car Wash and Shell identification and yellow and red for the Shell logos. All signs are proposed to be internally illuminated. SIGN ORDINANCE PROVISIONS: 9.212.110 Gasoline Service Stations - Freestanding Use. Each service station use, not ancillary to the principal use of the site, is permitted signage as follows: a. One double-faced freestanding monument sign not to exceed twenty-four square feet in area or not to exceed eight feet in height, and advertising the company name; b. One ten -square -foot wall sign advertising the company name and/or operator; STAFFRPT.049/CS -2- C. One wall or ground sign, not exceeding eight -square -feet in area or eight feet in height or a ground sign, advertising the actual lowest price per gallon, including all taxes, at which regular, premium, and unleaded gasoline are currently being offered. Any special conditions required for sale at such lowest price shall also be indicated. SIGN ADJUSTMENT: A total of 42 square feet is permitted by Code. Signage beyond that noted under Sign Ordinance provisions requires approval of a sign adjustment by the Planning Commission. STAFF COMMENTS• Monument Signs - The monument sign location and design of signs are consistent with the City's Sign Regulations. However, the total square footage of the sign program is not consistent with City Sign Ordinance. The monument stand will be stucco painted to match the building and designed to match the "stair step" feature used in the structure. Building Signs - The proposed sign locations on the buildings are permissible. However, the number of signs proposed and their combined square footage totals are not consistent with City regulations. Staffs recommendation to the Design Review Board was as follows: 1. No Shell logo signs should be allowed on the gas island canopy because they do not compliment the building design. Further, they are not necessary to identify the facility as there are other signs which convey this same message. 2. All lighted spandrells located above the gas island dispensers should not be permitted because it will not be consistent with the proposed architectural theme or embellishments of the project not does it complement Highway 111, a scenic corridor. The spandrells should be removed. 3. The "self" service signs should be non -illuminated because the canopy will be lighted and the above lighting should be adequate to identify these secondary information signs. 4. The monument sign should be situated a minimum distance of ten feet from all property lines and the proposed landscape plan should be designed to accommodate the proposed structure. STAFFRPT.049/CS -3- 5. Temporary window signs, if utilized, shall be limited to 10% of the window display area. 6. The base of the monument sign should be twice the width of the sign or 24" whichever is greater in order to create a Architectural Statement at this main intersection (Highway 111 and Adams Street). The architectural material of the sign should emulate the building program. 7. Site address numbers should be on the monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches. 8. Any and all proposed illuminated signs should be installed to avoid undue brightness and/or create glare and do not distract either pedestrians or motorists. The sign permit should be conditioned whereby Staff will have the authority to review the sign(s) in the field once installed. 9. The attached building signs should not exceed 2/3 the vertical width of the building fascia to ensure that the sign does not overburden the affected building elevation. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION: The Design Review Board reviewed the project at their meeting of September 4, 1991. The Board determined the corporate sign package was consistent with the architectural elevations of the proposed project. However, they recommended that the island spandrells should not be internally illuminated and the yellow corporate colorband on the gasoline canopy should be permitted. The Board discussed the possibility of relocating the logo signs on the gasoline canopy so that they were next to the proposed shell sign, however, this discussion did not become a recommendation from the Board. Mr. Adolph, with the Shell Oil Company, stated that the gas pricing sign provision of the Sign Ordinance is not consistent with the State Weights and Means requirements. He requested that the Design Review Board consider their proposal because if you conclude that 32 square feet (24 square feet for name and 8 feet for pricing) is the largest freestanding sign permitted (independent of type of sign), they meet this provision. They hoped the Design Review Board would look favorably on this feature. STAFFRPT.049/CS -4- Staff is of the opinion that a sign adjustment should be allowed for this proposed sign since it is: 1) located on a major thoroughfare and sign visibility is important because travel speeds in this area are over 45 mph; 2) compatible with building architecture; 3) similar in size to other signs in the area; 4) the sign size in terms of allowable area (32 square feet) is allowed by the Sign Ordinance; and 5) the State of California requires gas pricing signs to be legible and readable pursuant to State statutes. The Design Review Board approved recommended approval of the sign package subject to the (modified) Staff recommendations as noted in the attached Conditions of Approval. CONCLUSION: There are a number of signs proposed for this new gas station and it would seem appropriate to limit the number of signs in order to not set a precedence for this case or other future commercial users be they a gas station or other type of business venture. RECOMMENDATION• Approve by Minute Motion Sign Application 91-151 as recommended in the attached Conditions of Approval. Attachments: Location Map Sign Application submittal STAFFRPT.049/CS -5- SIGN APPLICATION 91-151 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED September 24, 1991 1. The Shell logo signs shall be deleted on the gasoline island canopy. 2. The gas island spandrel(s) should not be internally illuminated. 3. All "Self Service" signs shall be non -illuminated. 4. The monument sign shall be situated a minimum distance of 10 feet from all property lines. 5. Temporary window signs, if utilized, shall be limited to 10% of the window display area. 6. The base of the monument sign should be twice the width of the sign or 24" whichever is greater in order to create an Architectural Statement at this main intersection (Highway 111 and Adams Street). The architectural material of the sign shall emulate the building program. 7. Site address numbers should be on the monument sign as a supplemental to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches. 8. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue brightness and/or create glare and do not distract either pedestrians or motorists. The sign permit shall be conditioned whereby Staff will have the authority to review the sign(s) in the field once installed. 9. The attached building signs should not exceed 2/3 the vertical width of the building fascia to ensure that the sign does not overburden the affected building elevation. 10. The maximum sign area of the monument sign shall be 32 square feet (one side) and include only the identification of the station plus gas pricing information as required by the State of California. CONAPRVL.021/CS CASE No. SHELL OIL COMPANY SIGN APPLICATION 91-151 ORTH SCALE: Iit r 1561:b1 _vwvk ii �gg irl �f{j{ 21IN! +;. 1 f ,tltl I:l��ilill:�.l!�l� � •� .wQa+.ona»at�r�w 1 -W� 11#41 a111 8 Lu4mww -M 1-1 it JIM r 4-4 �! •' r g M y P se` � N N r . m r ✓•L Q r• Qn V i rea�� BI-4 STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 1991 ITEM: GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY REVIEW OF PROPOSED COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS. APPLICANT: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (CVWD) LOCATION: CITY-WIDE BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Section 65401 of the State of California Government Code, government bodies and special districts are required to submit a list of public works projects proposed to be undertaken during the ensuing fiscal year to the appropriate governing jurisdiction for General Plan consistency review. CVWD has submitted a list of public works projects it proposes to undertake within the next three to five years. The list is attached for your review, along with maps showing their general location. PROPOSAL: The improvements are spread throughout the City and consist of varied water and sewer projects. The list notes 18 projects and includes water main replacements in the Cove and other areas, middle and upper Cove (south of Tecate) reservoirs, and Calle Tampico trunk sewer (Washington Street to Avenida Bermudas) . Since the capital improvement program includes projects for the next three to five years, a number of them were included in last years' General Plan consistency review. ANALYSIS: The plan. proposes an upgrade of a portion of the City's water system as well as a sewer trunk extension to the Village area. Relative to consistency with the City's General :Plan, the program complies as noted below: Hazards Element: Policy 3.3.1. "More adequate fire protection should be assured by implementation of new facilities as soon as feasible, including water system improvements and adequate staffing". D0C\STAFFRPT.001 Infrastructure Element: Water System: Policy 7.1.2. "Upgrading of the water system for the Cove area will require: 1. Replacement of all undersized and unlined distribution pipes and establishment of a grid system. 2. Replacement of the Cove area wells with new wells, with an output of approximately 1,500 GPM each. 3. Addition of a large capacity elevated reservoir." Sewer System: Policy 7.2.4. "Regional collection facilities should be extended to the Village area as soon as possible to facilitate new commercial development. FINDINGS: 1. The Coachella Valley Water District's proposed list of public works projects is consistent with the adopted goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan. 2. The proposed list of Coachella Valley Water District public works projects will promote the health and safety of La Quinta residents. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the above findings, the Planning and Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission, by Minute Motion, determine that the proposed list of public works projects proposed by the Coachella Valley Water District for the City of La Quinta is consistent with the La Quinta General Plan. Attachments: 1. Letter from CVWD dated August 13, 1991 DOC\STAFFRPT.001 2 gATESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 105E • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLISCODENAS. PRESIDENT THOMAS E LEVY. GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS. VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY JOHN W McFADOEN OWEN McCOOK. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS August 13, 1991 REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH City of La Quinta Planning Commission 78105 Calle Estado La Quinta;, California 92253 Gentlemen: File: 1150. 11"rECE1VEU AUG 16 !Oc• C11 Y Ur Lh quINTH ALANNINC & DEIIELUMENT DEN. In accordance with the provisions of Section 65401 of the Governmeut Code, this district hereby advises your agency that it proposes the following projects in your jurisdiction as stated on Attachment "A". The projects are included in the budget and the capital improvement program. The capital improvement program reflects our proposed activities over the next three to five years. Enclosed are maps indicating the locations of the proposed projects. After the completion of your review, please forward this information to your public works department so our work can be planned and coordinated with your proposed projects. If you have any questions call Dale Bohnenberger, deputy chief engineer, extension 262. PC:kb/e8 Enclosures/as Yours very truly, ,,ev Tom Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ATTACHMENT A 35.2 La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 3 35.4 La Quinta Well and Pump Plant 5710 35.11 La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 4A 35.12 La Quinta, Phase 4B Surcharge Area Mains 35.13 La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 4C 35.14 La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 4D 35.15 La Quinta Golf Estates Mains 35.16 Yucatan Peninsula Main Replacements 35.18 Sagebrush and Bottlebrush Back of Lot Mains 35.43 Energy Upgrade Program 35.49 La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 5A 35.50 La Quinta Main Replacements, Phase 5B, Including Tampico Main 35.61 Upper La Quinta Zone Reservoir 35.83 Middle La Quinta Zone Reservoir 35.84 La Quinta Zone Well and Pump Plant No. 2 55.4 Jefferson Street Lift Station and Force Main 55.5 Calle Tampico Trunk Sewer, Washington to Avenida Bermudas 55.7 Lift Station Polling taus. I ►•• G � f I cov— ' 2' 1 '-iO1" fw• COUNT C t t r' „ F. wus A1_`VIESEI s ' f ? (pr ' Isusws F taic op �U < 6t" fi4v s " ::s,- - iYDQiIY!`Wa' "�� y - 'i' - -{i•- - �`' - �IITA'OJI� - - I I � •a .. roow.t((N ..' a I 6 - .-y �S .� ` � .1 1 S w I J• '� wowo �YC�i_ rr ff' • i L-�- -) - - - - - 1 �'}R r "t.- •^�j-`.'_ ` T- ,�aa•. +^tay~ ';!' I i� �`��c ` i �� ►} PROJECT LOCATION 'a^ r.sw nrstslt�� ' • 1 �•ff-„ - - - + •-F-1•r - -� - T.- - _ R, - - '*'.;,`r.:,n?•v'"'M+�• - r; :+Te=�:Ri --' ..-- -i -b:,• �• I �� I�ifa�`p V,• j� t`t � fc•sow. I ,-/^ I �% ,�i� �'S�,aa-i nut �,$ ��t R�r a 1 f,nam - 1 3'_ r."` F �u� -�' 1 t r artln -_ � I 1 •�..r��l WAR »an - brtxar ntus t ....• e ' I i fk' ' I c i? w r...7-7 asps Isar I I .Vrf IL 24 wasA w � �1'fr, I tm `^� __�yrr jam.• � ���aro s n ti''j �I °cs .4yofl.no atf +-- apya.aarwca----i --tt-��-,--- -t--'f'---- + It,• 41 '. e,r: r::"r' I I Lb('°w a �t•is.•"s...,: �I I , OR - --- - �� ,,ort�pge - ------------ -- -- I I I I �yiy , aw TwgiSGlc- ' p r -,-i-= Y "tJlfwaY;. I. '+---- W -u-was_-. F------'----- - cover#, I I s t�4 ` - G - --..•.y' ���Ea� � '� rE ua�t � a, ••t� sue'----,--.� st°s••9. - -d- _ • _ Les, - �{v 9a4 , `! •,_ '1 �' BOn ice•. l. as a s p I C } .t ..G • b �y Y _.['.tea �� 4o��1.!sw �: , 1 s Ica 490. Ljji . _ /,, : i .: i_ _ :� = sue.— • ��`•n •�i • t.f' t E•ta.SJ•.+ •- 1.1 Lb/r�.�i !'^ � . �--�— Fu- . NHS �• ,;,,..,,t. g•. : Cam: 'ttst•l:sti6t:!'1'if?. 1'.t.iY .F ��;�k.•• .. : i•. � jo'.�:J Lam: t�,:t-`s Y � i - - M f c CW F W 4 r PROJECT LOCATIO n 0 "aJ NS 1ACy_ _. .r I i -PROJECT ARE, l'-t - �—= IWO r_V.ttl.rw � 1 •C'•�in>�, �+ D'Y1' r I a6•. {,'`• •iw\, � � K � � L-Y- ` • _ . �. - ..::o:C �>rJ I I .7 .....rst,- � E�� �g, •�SVNA11!19 s prig F•��°��,�s _ .30DM.. !�• - `� __ I _S� .; ,•..ur--tt------L=�-i i r — —a. tF•;..�d%�Jifr• .r •— fir., t �• c 4 ... • e � � +• •ois•+.�tnwfi7q�r-•-+ It ��> - ry:.r. yl�� .�� '' S "; �,rus 'p]�y03s .c >• � •o • Lta. q y - "M 119 I t.i 7'��I .T'_ R'w. /� LIr:• aJc .!q�,• air �T""A .�42AT 1 e ! I _ _ .arN3M S'!",'•'-•�.^ .11tlow oTM3iV tfu OWN.s ..v'.Tw his•• t .�,� :r ----------- •---------------------- -^-.— •7.. r. G c>c �f••`� Y •ram ♦k� .�.w.< __ G Ir ! I --- I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- ------ -- s -_�_-'mil--_ ,♦ w+ �------__.......��r..--.-.--.-.__. .r-.----� -�-�._-....-.� `. sue`-_ _--^-� ?_ • . • r9'33c ' i .� -aye t l .�,nrMJICY��l�31 t~ � n• �MM1w� I ca S H d t NV o.ww7"' •=,f% m• - '°` + -kCIDNIHSVM I, Ir $ ../� •' i •�! Tl` «• i Y ' • � ... �Sk�� :8. w i = r���h`•_' i ' { ro sri�er nnr ..XX '� ..r w3�� t � �wa6 �•R a �-¢ 'r' ',. ; � � �� -9� � i ;•"ftr'•s � It•' '.}�±.or.S .ogt+ � _ .=)q0.. 4�j�* �I� . ��P� P �J� .cgnw3 1d or,n•tre: y3N3M 23t•lnttt M+M3er Loa— W&4 'Rot .e�� 10' Y_i gr•e r ��'+.�`�, aid. s• I .D Sri z M Q .r 6 •`- __ t C u z � w ��vrsr� - --------------------•- --�-------'---�'�'-- ® �. I � c Tc- t w a a .4 u u 0 b C to aO ILI 01 0 — Ms I I ? � � 1 � ,� L R Iwo who L .I �,---...- \-- 1, � �—y `h 1 �•, —1--T g¢e '{, r<w• ^ ' erl�L I Mai 3 u < ? S1f11AVrt� .53 11t/1 • 1 Ya 4P33s I � rry l.. vS+ �nOwrC7j 1 YwwaNb �t 1 't. z ♦imeidfC jI�/ ^P_ 1 O 15 rvy l ✓ IM VM �,rd t ' c c c +.• otw♦, �i3.i•� _ - - 4�' . r I r _ - _ _ rwrowrYW�N57 •'' _ _ _ nrrr -!>• - - - __yi �. •psd,� r�`'. }• i. 3w3N3 "' �+�('{'�� �� •�� � ° � i��� 1�W4iy.;�:it_` 1 1, a,r+♦wr�♦wo�- '� a S.1 �9 S3� �i•�'' I was 3 L91 =; p 1 1 •• t I T�4 t r ornw♦r< +moan a. JAW .. _ _ _ _ ♦ - r _ - - - _ _ .� r - _ tlO tl3MONN3S13 1 al � I 1 F ' ,..uumd°... f . I � a• ej � �2- 1 � a,,,,,,Y�u.- 3 • I i � 1 I � , , ,± ^ TiS_J S Q 3 C � �Y 1 � � � r101tq�7 °"• � , %�• 1 m� I _ .spa t / � r `♦--• d l +� ?T Sr, ��`��i �`► i � . k 1 0 ��. 1' "" � err►^' / irir _ I li , ...... ,� "r I • r.. I cn a I I IT 1 i' I •E V I • 1� I a 1 x a; s Z M a • i G A ojjLV of , j331rONd .f. . : E-i cr ak IL AV -t17 ymec I r•vw" arr I a �• x C 1 .LNin I IQ ` I �O C I D j r' S '! I 1 G � •: I Ivtl I I I I �!� n ,ruafn7 c v �• w. I i I I I i 1 _ 0 ���: 4� 1: �wto r ' - I _ AMOV tarno n I' .runty vnauna n s i : '0. PM Jamn I i I 61 otAl�� \/ 'MUM��) .�' �t '��-•Oidt►�S''�� -.moo �. � �. 6d ..�± i TilAi6iw-r71� �'1�• i n NYMNI r I � I • I I L ' b�OP•IA. 11� �-I•�.•� e Af 1`\ /9allf7 w' Y✓<M I � i•_ 1 4 AIt41rq `..... =w. taw '�® .SNrO�'r�7t.t.• � t+O SIOfDO• .-_S �•�°Oi�.i a - i+ �•�� ,� 77 1„A s'QUINTA .. (. 1 r 1 II ■ I' a Ip , a+'� QUIN ( I 1 I I I I I 1 I I o —t----- _ I "LA Q 'tf I i 1 rr•• � I se I Kv do 7=777 Air - tat, to W. z PROJECT LOCATION R----------------------- ----;---- - -- --•-------- cu cr -•-------•------------ 'y�;V ....�.,.•--. L_ -1-•..._. - *---._-�,-••-� --- --- �•-----__ C it cj .�.,� /S•. i/• it. INDIAN A l:. ''� . _Jw L,.. ti�a�r- i 1.. • �;: N .' �. WELLS .� __ ; ,""•-- •;Y ,B„rm b «. iDun rl_� LA - -------------------- IN 10 61 „1 _INDIAN ` n� �' --- ---- • - -- , ' t t J - -+► ...•---•e------- — ----♦ �-------�►••---�—fi�t—• T------�.-•.-------r•---- !1•i--� Ul TA LA --=----------- ----/��+�� - -----,d-----------•- -------------- --- - -�• ►. ':► 1 1' -: a4' DU A 1 1 ( ,Nt1 .r I 1 �'--------- - — -- _ -�-----=----------------- ---- I--------�----------fir 1 I 1 .•o ... i� 1 ., r --------------- !! I 1 INDIAN 1NELL.S -_ 1 1 1 1 I ------ ------ ---1--------------..-..---'-- 1 1 1 I 1 i 1 i W GUINTA 1 I .,__s.•..►----------- --- - ----------•------- - - TT 1 I 1 1 1 • � 1 _ •�iC'� ei i'oi ,a I ! I •cc 1 .• 1 1 1. 1 1 pion i I .. POD IO.LDNIHSVMIm iMir i� < so �••w•t•M A "M17AT WGIGN W1• 4 V M30 Y orr V- E zkwm y Y 00.11•IIT d,• omm CAI Im , DY.N IN ••+•. T • a. _.. _ — 3 I H 1—i♦•'tfl�a c b I t ' tic tl N vl I I 1 I I I I I I • I _ s I � I ' J I i I I I I • � I 1 I I I 1 I I I t I ' I I I I t I I I I I —� — -- _ — ..�...-- ...— .�— .—.—t--'----.— I 1 I i 1 1 I I I I •Is - a a , 1 Y�• 1 = 1 1 ' •1�1 1 1 � 1 I (T