1991 12 10 PCPLAhWXNG COMMX S,SXON
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall, 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
December 10, 1991
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE
NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution No. 91-062
Beginning Minute Motion No. 91-048
GALL TO ORDER — Flag Salute
ROLL C LI"T
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ................ CONTINUED - BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 91-001
Applicant ........... D & M Morgan
Location ............ 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place (existing)
Request ............. Permission to move a 1,200 square foot building
presently located at 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place to 54-
038 Avenida Bermudas.
Action .............. Resolution 91-
PC/AGENDA
1
2. Item ................ CONTINUED - PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-068 &
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 91-039
Applicant .......... Valley Land Development
Location ............ Northeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and
Washington Street.
Request ............. A change in the boundaries for the zoning
classification and a new zoning classification and land
use designation for a portion of the property adjacent
to Washington Street.
Action .............. Request to continue to January 14, 1991.
3. Item ................ CONTINUED - PLOT PLAN 91-466 & VARIANCE 91-019
Applicant ........... Simon Plaza, Inc.
Location ............ Southeast corner of Washington Street & Highway 111
Request ............. To develop a mixed use commercial complex which will
include the development of multiple story buildings
and a three story parking structure on 5.5+ acres
zoned scenic highway commercial. A variance is
requested from the off street parking standards to
deviate from the setback requirement of the Municipal
Code.
Action .............. Resolution 91- . Minute Motion 91-
4. Item ................ PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-012
Applicant ........... Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley
Location ............ Northwest corner of 50th Avenue and Park Avenue
Request ............. For a 24,000 sq. ft. clubhouse, administrative offices,
and future outdoor swimming pool.
Action .............. Resolution 91-
5. Item ................ STREET NAME CHANGE 91-002
Applicant ........... Wilma Pacific
Location ............ Lake La Quinta, TT 26152, east of Washington Street
3/4 mile south of Highway 111.
Request ............. To change the street name Via Marquessa to Lake La
Quinta Drive
Action .............. Resolution 91-
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on
matters relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items.
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
address. The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting are recorded
on tape and comments of each person shall be limited to three minutes.
PC/AGENDA
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ...............
Applicant ...........
Location ............
Request.............
Action ..............
CONSENT CALENDAR
SIGN APPLICATION 91-159
Simon Plaza, Inc.; Mr. Philip Pead
Southeast corner of Washington and Highway 111
Request to install a shopping center identification
sign, directional signs and multiple building signs for
a future office/commercial facility planned on five and
one half acres.
Minute Motion 91-
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held
November 26, 1991.
OTHER
Discussion of City setback requirements.
ADJOURNMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1991
City Council Chambers
DISCUSSION ONLY
4:00 P.M.
1. All Agenda items.
2. Larger lot sizes - sideyards for two stories.
ITEMS IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE AGENDAS
a. Height limits along Washington Street - Specific Plan Amendment
b . PGA West Specific Plan - review
C. Guest houses, -- draft regulations
d . Satellite Dishes - Commercial & Residential zones
PC/AGENDA 3
PH-1
I i
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
SUBJECT: BUILDING MOVING 91-001
As the time of writing this memorandum, the application fee of
$835 for this project has not yet been received from the
Applicant. Please note this fee is needed to defray the
expense of investigation and processing of the application.
Chapter 14.20 of the Municipal Code, which addresses building
moving, stipulates that this fee must be paid prior to the
Planning Commission making a decision on this matter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission
continue BM 91-001 until the January 14, 1992 meeting or table
this matter.
Attachments:
1. Staff report for BM 91-001
MEMOGL.045/CS
-1-
iP 1WWA
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
M
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
NOVEMBER 26, 1991
SUBJECT: BUILDING MOVING 91-001
As the time of writing this memorandum, the application fee of $835 for this project
has not yet been received from the Applicant. Please note this fee is needed to
defray the expense of investigation and processing of the application. Chapter 14.20
of the Municipal Code, which addresses building moving, stipulates that this fee
must be paid prior to the Planning Commission making a decision on this matter.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission continue BM 91--001 until
the December 21, 1991 meeting.
Attachments:
1. Staff report for BM 91-001
MEMOGL.024
PH*2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: NOVEMBER 12, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22, 1991)
PROJECT: BUILDING MOVING 91-001
REQUEST: PERMISSION TO MOVE A 1,200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
PRESENTLY LOCATED AT 78-435 CAMEO DUNES PLACE TO
54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AT
54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS WILL BE REMOVED.
APPLICANT: D & M MORGAN
REPRESENTATIVE: BRAKE MANAGEMENT GROUP
EXISTING
LOCATION
OF BUILDING: 78-435 CAMEO DUNES PLACE - APN 617-051-031
(SEE ATTACHMENT #1)
PROPOSED
LOCATION
OF BUILDING: 54-038 AVENIDA BERMUDAS - APN 774-225-013 & 014
(SEE ATTACHMENT #2)
A. BACKGROUND:
1. This
is the first Building Moving application
request to be processed by the City in accordance
with
Chapter 14.20 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
2. The
attached information booklet (blue cover)
provides the following information as required by
Section 14.20.100 of the Municipal Code:
a.
Kind of Building: This is a single family
residential unit.
b.
Proposed Location: 54-038 Avenida Bermudas
C.
Route: See Attachment #3.
d.
Plans: See attached booklet and full scale
plans.
e.
Number of Sections: Building is to be moved
in one or two sections.
f.
Time Schedule: Late November or early
December, 1991.
STAFFRPT.064/CS -1-
g. Owner of Building: 46-485 Cameo Palms Drive,
Darrell Morgan, Jr. & Marian Morgan
54-038 Avenida Bermudas (in escrow)
John Brake to Darrell Morgan, Jr. &
Marian Morgan.
h. Age of Building: Unknown
i. Present/Prospective Value of Building:
Present Value: $150,000
Prospective Value: $250, 000 to $275,000
(The home will be remodeled & enclosed.
A pool &surrounding landscaping will be
added.)
3. The building to be moved presently forms part of a
group of buildings on 6 lots all under one
ownership. Other structures on the site include a
main house, bath house and swimming pool. No Lot
Line Adjustment or Parcel Merger has been filed for
this property to date. The Applicant intends to
retain the pool located alongside the building to
be moved. Once the house in question has been
moved the intent is to file a Lot Line Adjustment
application to resubdivide the existing 6 lots.
4. The existing trailers at the property on Avenida
Bermudas will be removed prior to the house moving
taking place.
B. ANALYSIS:
1. This proposal was distributed to a number of City &
County Departments. Their responses are as follows:
a. Engineering Department: See Attachment #4
The above Department requests a number of
conditions be attached to the approval of
this request:
1.) An encroachment permit is required same
as Condition VA.
2.) The move shall take place within two
hours after dawn on a Sunday morning or
at a time stipulated by the Engineering
Department.
3.) The building shall be moved in two
sections and shall not block oncoming
traffic except as outlined below.
STAFFRPT.064/CS -2-
4.) Pilot and follow cars with appropriate
lights and markings shall accompany the
building along the collector and
arterial portions of the route
(Washington and Eisenhower).
5.) Flag persons shall assist in routing
traffic around the building in any
location where two-way traffic is
blocked (ie: most of Eisenhower) and at
bridges, 90-degree turns and other
locations where both directions of
traffic will be temporarily blocked.
6.) In any location where vehicle delays
will exceed a minute or two, applicant
shall arrange temporary detours manned
by Riverside County Sheriff's Deputies.
7.) We request that the procession enter
Washington from the frontage road rather
than attempt the 90-degree turn from
Highland Palms onto Washington.
8.) We suggest that the Applicant select a
route from Eisenhower to the destination
property that does not have
cross -gutters (Madrid or Nogales). We
also suggest that this portion of the
route and any narrow streets in the
Highland Palms area be posted no -parking
the night before.
The Engineering Department also notes that
inspections fees will also be required for
the house moving process as stipulated in
Section 14.20.180 and 14.20.190 of the
Building Moving Ordinance (see Attachment #5)
b. County Sheriff Department: (See Attachment
#6)
The County Sheriff suggests that the City
consider requiring the applicant to contract
with the Sheriff Department for the possible
use of Deputies for traffic control during
the move.
C. Building & Safety Department:_ This
Department states the following:
1. The moving contractor must be licensed
by the State (C-21 Classification).
STAFFRPT.064/CS -3-
2. Building permit and plan review are
required.
3. The house must tie into the sewer
system, both existing septic systems
must be abandoned.
4. New electrical service must be
underground.
5. The structure must comply with the SR
Zone requirements.
2. The Applicant will be required to provide adequate
insurance coverage for the house moving process.
This shall cover possible cost of repair to City
streets, right-of-ways or other public property
encountered during the house moving process.
3. The following section of the house moving Ordinance
will have to be complied with:
14.20.130 Deposit or bond -Conditions -Forfeiture
"A cash deposit or surety bond in favor of the City
shall be deposited with the City Manager in an
amount equal to the value of the work contemplated
by the building permit, upon conditions that such
work will be fully completed in accordance with the
directions of the Planning Commission, the building
permit and all applicable City regulations within a
period of ninety days following issuance of the
building permit; otherwise the full amount of the
deposit or bond will be forfeited to the City".
The Applicant will have to coordinate with the
Building and Safety Department to establish a bond
amount.
4. Certificate of Occupancy for the house moved to
54-038 Avenida Bermudas will be withheld if the
Applicant does not complete the clean-up of debris,
concrete, foundations, and other material left at
78-435 Cameo Dunes Place.
5. The proposed building appears to comply with the
requirements of the SR Zone. A precise plan
application will have to be filed at the time of
building application filing in accordance with the
requirements of the SR Zone.
STAFFRPT.064/CS -4-
6. The Applicant intends to resubdivide the property
on Cameo Dunes Place once the house on that
property has been removed. A condition will be
attached to the approval of this house moving
permit that stipulates that either a Lot Line
Adjustment or Parcel Merger be submitted within 30
days of permit approval ensuring that the existing
pool is on a lot with a primary structure.
C. CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the house moving permit is acceptable with
the attachment of conditions that address all the issues
mentioned above.
D. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 22, 1991:
At the Planning Commission meeting held October 22, 1991, Staff
informed the Commission that the Applicant had not yet paid the
application fee for this project. The Public Hearing was
therefore continued until November 12, 1991, to allow more time
for the Applicant to pay the fee. As of the time of writing
the Staff report for November 12, 1991, Planning Commission
meeting the application fee has not yet been submitted. Staff
again recommends that if the application fee is not received by
the date of the meeting the Hearing for Building Moving 91-001
should be continued until November 26, 1991.
E. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution
91- approving Building Moving 91-001 subject to the attached
conditions and subject to confirmation that the filing fee has
been submitted for this project.
Attachments:
1. Existing location of building
2. Proposed location of building
3. Proposed route
4. Engineering Department comments
5. Building Moving Ordinance
6. County Sheriff Department comments
STAFFRPT.064/CS -5-
.......s
/9 :ATTACHMENT No. 1
D/
a® @ Z
7 Gm
OTT
SAND PL ACE
1A-0 —
F/ nWFR
CASE MAP
CAM No. BM 91-001
EXISTING LOCATION
OF BUILDING
oouz 3
e 3 ••
•
at/t4G
y (4;�(2i) 2
io
6 76
50
52
(!B1
75
61 34
\J
INI [N +M
Lot
,:.
17
74
52 05%
I�•
/6
73
rR
1
ATTACHMENT No. 2
n.w�
•. � �1
N
LIE CN►tLON
1\
�.
S
• ,A THE SITE
CASE MAP
CASE NO- BM 91-001
NORTH
PROPOSED LOCATION
OF BUILDING
ATTACHMENT No. 3
d•a.l[sro.t7u1 a" :��
Araao.I AvtS ttW0 W
AA•TO •NMI► M
No Y'<t N►Wrtlwn W
lhw ►Wr W
CAIt u cm M
tN c;;Im DO11RM N
opw A M SA Ou1RA N
cwlvtr Wt•am p
"PKA 000 N OSWtf ct
M OL UAT OW Xur ULWAf CIMA P
MAA v MWIA HOrU N
tum wu A.wDun "R1 camm W
t.WPAX P" MA 000
t•,7c-.:9ay+a0/US*N& MULL ctXttms W
w1ma L IwrtA ON W
nALM 49rA:JRA7n A CATLRIr6 M
JON. t Ktmkmt S1t.101aA• O"MA1 Mb
.A 2 WU AArWM O.AU ♦ 11111ROR w
u OLOM NLGM S •/R1. RK N
:A *. A 04010PR-cm -MT. CLRM N
:A MAWA QUAKIi W
11 aWr Otrty umm w
M MOM Ilpnt N
Q.WJ .JQJOR ► D[UCA?t9UR N
.A 0•Wi M1RS[Rt ► LAAMAPP4 N
:J 06WA nu.RrAL+ N
:AG^& 09 w PAt CA
-49DWA► WAJ WATT O011IAW N
ut.t ► fatal. aK N
►WA CAFI W
•'.AL -0 OPNL KAA SUNG G7 s
POUM•I rW 0A CARS Cat•rmt! CA,
SAAr, aOSA C04 A
t!s•• n,s1.[ss s[Rt!ct w
i
's
•1
a®
1100
S.-C-4 1.
••.+1 ! 1
19
r
eur•
YK •.7,
••,r u.01•
.. •.rf a
t
f
i
w
LaQuinta
ro•'`` � p� so
Yct►aw •.e
- S. .A•1
•
t
Rst
•+ *::
• �al.r• • �a
A.r�•v .• 1 7
1Y w •.• A01:
o
•
.+< s�..r Ga
Aa.e .• 1 7 S
STREET �; 01
: «
ia�.•:1,•r'cl
f"-.'.
....t• 0•7:.:.
as> A•
INDEX <
ci'
..�.-.. c1
•a..r GI
Y•ra► ..
r as..
• rr< •a.
V ..:n A•
vi
7 .rn •vr u'1•
`
•ra•••r •N
Y•' :f H
- f.•
r.w .a•
Y•.
+<• Y �
<•.r•y to
A G 7 : 01•l
Gi
•.r•`}r •<•"
••r •AT
`NwwV
Ir
It
'•�
•!M `f
•:
•
al ..
,••s
J :1
• SNP• !
.N N
i
(`6y/) ra•�•rw .1
.•r <Sra C<
w•r't•r4 ••:•77•f1
u r•a1. •' 11
• S•N•• •.
•.rt<• rr.fr a :
J < •arrta •.�
•.r<•rrw N
:. • ••.aw •AI
N*8
•ra•rrwla 'f
:•<•ssr• At
•.rfY rsr1�•• 1 • f f
:J'Nr •.•N O :.' L7
t
iw.•rawa 1 +•.A/a
Ca "0~4 M
C..* r O. H
�•� •r.•I G
. t f c
••r.<• a..•.a N/l
:.w rw N
C �w 0, W. 00
tew 4 0.
ZM.AA
tA.w•" N
.
•a•rsr
Grw Y N
a.rr N
C4I0 O O/
t 1
a•�s T•rrAa N
a.wr uw G
c O
A•w twat• y/AA
Na
a.r pa" Ca N
aw••yl t.<••a N.TAO
V • 0ta O N
•••.r ti NIA
ar 0— r/ W."
i.t<r A.•a N
1<.•%0-01 64WAOC4
orr O N
Mlaar•r 0 O
I<Ar. Tw 61
WM lb&W
POINTS OF INTEREST
bAl Aw w w
c.ft uwa Att
a.... s N
►tar A. N
W Ararr.A N
TM tart♦ O &At".
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE !O
t r w N
0~ t••Aa w 04
CITY HAIL dO
e+.• O.w1!nA W
npw..aw O W
LAKE CAHUILLA PARK N
t+r p!� AM
err er. AM
waalAAaa M t
rw•.►a•a Y [ia
L A OUWTA ARTS FOUNDATION
04 W �.
�
`w.,,,tl,
rST OFFICE 84
1t,'
•.t.a. •.
yA, [ • t 7. f f • 1
;•.;.:. A.
r
I.- t C.C___ Gf� !e.& G t v( `A j `i
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENT No. 4
T4hf at flll�a 4",Q
MEMORANDUM
Glenda Lainis
Associate Planner
Fred R. Bouma
Associate Engin er
October 9, 1991
Building Moving 91-001
Because of heavy traffic and narrow road sections between the origin and destination
of the building, this move will likely result in traffic hazards and undue inconveniences
to motorists. We request several conditions on the permit.
• The move shall take place within two hours after dawn on a Sunday morning.
• The building shall be moved in two sections and shall not block oncoming traffic
except as outlined below.
• Pilot and follow cars with appropriate lights and markings shall accompany the
building along the collector and arterial portions of the route (Washington and
Eisenhower).
• Flaggers shall assist in routing traffic around the building in any location where
two-way traffic is blocked (ie: most of Eisenhower) and at bridges, 900 turns
and other locations where both directions of traffic will be temporarily blocked.
• In any location where vehicle delays will exceed a minute or two, applicant shall
arrange temporary detours manned by Riverside County Sheriff's deputies.
We request that the procession enter Washington from the frontage road rather than
attempt the 901 turn from Highland Palms onto Washington.
We suggest that the applicant select a route from Eisenhower to the destination
property that does not have cross -gutters. Madrid or Nogales come to mind. We also
suggest that this portion of the route and any narrow streets in the Highland Palms
area be posted no -parking the night before.
FRB/frb
14.20.010 ATTACHMENT No. 5
Chapter 1410
MOVING BUILDINGS
Sections:
1410.010
Title.
14.20.020
Permit --Required.
14.20.030
Permit ---Issuance.
14.20.040
Application for permit --Forms.
14.20.050
Separate applications, permits required.
14.20.060
Filing fee.
14.20.070
Indemnity deposit.
14.20.080
Prerequisites to issuance --Absence of public detriment.
14.20.090
Permit upon terms --Conditions.
14.20.100
Contents of application.
14.20.110
Submission of plans to planning commission-- Public hearing.
14.20.120
Approval of plans by the planning commission.
14.20.130
Deposit or bond---Conditions—Forfeiture.
14.20.140
Clean-up bond.
14.20.150
Use of clean-up bond.
14.20.160
Plot plan --Photographs of building.
1410.170
Plans of proposed appearance of building.
14.20.180
Supervision of moving.
14.20.190
Inspection fee.
14.20100
Damage to street or property —Restoration— Cost
14.20120
Lights on building.
1410120
Hours for use of streets.
1410.010 Title.
This chapter shall be known and may be referred to as the "housemoving ordinance." (Ord. 10 11
(part),1982)
14.20.020 Permit --Required.
No person, firm or corporation shall move any building or structure constructed before or after the
adoption of the provisions codified in this chapter or any section thereof over, upon, along or across any
public street within this city without first obtaining a permit for that purpose from the city manager. (Ord.
10 § 1(part),1982)
14.20.030 Permit --Issuance.
No permit shall be issued by the city manager except upon compliance with the terms and conditions
set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.20.040 Application for permit --Forms.
Application to the city manager shall be made prior to the issuance of any permit, and the application
shall be made in writing upon blanks and forms to be provided by the city manager and filed with the city
manager. (Ord..10 § 1(part),1982)
14.20.050 Separate applications, permits required.
A separate application shall be made to, and a separate permit obtained from, the city manager for
the moving of each separate structure or building or section or portion thereof. (Ord. 10 § I (part),1982)
14.20.060 Filing fee.
There shall be paid to the city manager at the time of the filing of the application or applications; a
552
14.20.060
processing fee or fees in an amount or amounts as established by resolution of the city council to defray
the expense of investigation and processing. (Ord. 10 11 (part),1982) -
14.20.070 Indemnity deposit. (CA
There shall be deposited in the office of the city manager at the time of filing the application for a
permit a sum of money in such amount as has been established by resolution of the city council, to
indemnify the city for the expense of any repair to city streets, rights -of -way or other public property
occasioned by the applicant and chargeable to the applicant under Section 14.20.0%, for each such
application. No application shall be accepted for filing unless accompanied by the deposit. (Ord. 10 11
(part),1982)
1410.080 Prerequisites to issuance ---Absence of public detriment.
No such permit shall be issued by the city manager unless the city manager first finds that the granting
of such permit will not be materially detrimental or injurious to the public safety or public welfare, or to
the property and improvements in the district to which such building or structure is proposed to be moved.
(Ord. 10 § I (part),1982)
14.20.090 Permit upon terms --Conditions.
Upon determining that the granting of any such permit is justified and meets the requirements of this
chapter, the city manager may grant such permit upon such terms and conditions as he may deem
necessary and proper, to the end that the relocation of such building or structure will not be materially
detrimental or injurious to public safety or public welfare, or the property and improvements in the district
to which such building or structure is proposed to be moved, or to any person or property necessarily
involved in such removal, whether public or private. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982)
14.20.100 Contents of application.
Each application shall show:
A Kind of building: the kind of building or structure to be moved;
B. Proposed location: the street location or other identifying description to which the building or
structure is to be moved;
C. Route: the route over, along, across or upon which such building or structure is to be moved;
D. Plans: detailed plans and specifications showing the building or structure in its completed form
at its new location;
E. Number of sections: the number of sections in which the building or structure will be moved;
F. Tune schedule: the time proposed for the moving of the building or structure, together with the
time required to complete the removal;
G. Owner of building. the name of the owner of such building or structure;
H. Age of building: the approximate date when such building or structure was erected;
I. Present value, prospective value of building: the estimated cost or value of the building or structure
proposed to be moved, and the estimated cost or value of same when the removal or reconstruction has
been completed;
J. Other information: such other pertinent information as the city manager may require. (Ord. 10 §
I (part),1982)
1410.110 Submission of plans to planning commission --Public hearing.
The detailed plans and specifications provided for by Section 14.20.100(4) shall be first submitted to
the city planning commission. The planning commission shall thereupon provide for a public hearing to
be held in the manner provided for conditional use permits in the zoning ordinance of the city. (Or& 10
§ I (part),1982) Z( dv.�X .
14.20.120 Approval of plans by the planning commission.
The planning commission, after holding the public hearing provided for by Section 14.20.110, shall
make a determination to approve or disapprove the housemoving permit applied for. The planning
553
14.20.120
commission shall make a finding as to whether the move of the building to the proposed site in the
application will be compatible with the best interests of the public health, safety, morals and general
welfare. If the planning commission does grant a housemoving permit, the planning commission may
impose such conditions as are necessary to protect the public health, safety, morals and general welfare.
(Ord. 10 § 1(part),1982)
1410.130 Deposit or bond--Conditions--Forfeiture.
A cash deposit or surety bond in favor of the city shall be deposited with the city manager in an amount
equal to the value of the work contemplated by the building permit, upon conditions that such work will
be fully completed in accordance with the directions of the planning commission, the building permit and
all applicable city regulations within a period of ninety days following issuance of the building permit;
otherwise the full amount of the deposit or bond will be forfeited to the city. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
1420.140 Clean-up bond.
In addition to the bond required pursuant to Section 14.20.130, an applicant shall post with the city
a cash bond in an amount to be determined by the city manager, not to exceed such maximum amount
as may have been established by resolution of the city council, to insure clean-up of debris, concrete,
foundations and other materials left at the site. This bond shall be required only of an applicant desiring
to move a building or structure from a point within the city to a point outside the city limits. (Ord. 10 §
I (part), 1982)
14.20.1S0 Use of clean-up bond.
An applicant desiring to move a building out of town shall have a period of thirty days in which to
clean up the site in accordance with the instructions of the city manager. If the site is cleaned in accordance
with the instructions of the city manager within thirty days, the entire cash bond shall be returned to the
applicant or person posting same. If the site is not cleaned in accordance with the instructions of the city
manager, then the city manager shall be empowered to use all or a portion of the cash bond to accomplish
the remaining clean-up requirements. If all the bond is not used by the city manager, then that portion
remaining shalt be returned to the applicant or the person posting the bond. Should the cleaning up of
the site require an amount in excess of the bond posted, then such cost shall be a claim against the
applicant, due and owing to the city. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.20.160 ' Plot plan --Photographs of building.
Each such application shall be accompanied by a plot plan showing the location and size of the lot to
which the building or structure is to be moved together with photographs of all sides of the building or
structure, showing the general architectural design and appearance of the building or structure proposed
to be moved. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
1420.170 Plans of proposed appearance of building.
In the event that any material alteration, repair or otherwork is proposed tobe done upon the building
or structure after removal has been completed, then plans shall be furnished showing the general
architectural design and appearance of the building or structure on all sides after such work has been
completed. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
1420.180 Supervision of moving.
Every building or structure or portion thereof moved over, upon, along or across any street shall be
moved under the inspection and supervision of the city manager. (Ord. 10 § I (part), 1982)
1420.190 Inspection fee.
The applicant shall pay to the city an inspection fee in an amount as established by resolution of the
city council, in addition to the fees and deposits otherwise mentioned and required in this chapter. (Ord.
10 § 1(part), 1982)
554
14.20.200
14.20.200 Damage to street or property —Restoration --Cost.
In case of damage to any street or other public property by reason of the moving of any building or
structure or portion thereof, the city manager shall do such work as may be necessary to restore the street
or other public property to as good condition as same was in prior to such damage and shall charge the
cost thereof to the applicant for permit, and deduct the costs from the indemnity deposit required by
Section 14.20.070. (Ord.10 § I (part), 1982)
14.20.210 Lights on building.
No person moving any building or structure or portion thereof over, upon, along or across any street
shall fail, neglect or refuse to keep a red light burning at all times between sunset and sunrise at each
corner of such building or structure or portion thereof and at the end of any projection thereon while the
same or any part thereof is located in or upon any street or other public place. (Ord.10 § 1(part),1982)
14.20.220 Hours for use of streets.
The hours during which moves are to be made on public highways shaU be determined by the city
manager. (Ord.10 § 1 (part),1982)
555
ATTACHMENT No. 6
RIVERSIDE COUNTY if
COIS BYRD, SHERIFF.— �%��
Sh f
0 t+_-hv� 4 Dk CARREON BL% D. • INDIO. CA 92201 • (6191 2-87
October 1, 1991
Ms. Glenda Lainis
City of La Quinta
Planning Department
78105 Calle Estado
La Quinta CA 92253
RE: BY, #91-001
Dear Ms. Lainis:
Our only suggestion reference the building moving is that
you consider contracting for Sheriff's Deputies to provide
traffic control during this move.
CB: RD:gt
Sincerely,
COIS BYRD, SHERIFF
Ronald F. D�e, Lieutenant
Indio Station
r -
It
f-yC T 0 2 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 91-001 TO MOVE A BUILDING
FROM 78-435 CAMEO DUNES PLACE TO 54-038 AVENIDA
BERMUDAS
CASE NO. BM 91-001 - D.W. & M.C. MORGAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, and November 12, 1991, hold duly noticed
Public Hearings to consider the request of D.W. and M.C. Morgan to move a 1200
square foot building from 78-435 Cameo Palms Place, La Quinta to 54-038 Avenida
Bermudas, La Quinta; more particularly described as:
LOT 12, TRACT 2043, M.B. 41 /6-7
AND
LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 293, UNIT 27,
SANTA CARMELITA AT VALE LA QUINTA
MAP BOOK 19/82 RESPECTIVELY
WHEREAS, said Building Moving Permit has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act
of 1970" (County of Riverside, Resolution 82-213, adopted by reference in City of
La Quinta Ordinance No. 5) , in that the Planning Director has determined that the
proposed Building Moving request will not have a significant adverse impact on the
environment and is therefore exempt under Section 15061(3) of CEQA; 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
Building Moving Permit and ensure that the above is not detrimental to public health,
safety, morals, and general welfare:
1. That conditions have been imposed on the proposed building moving permit,
requiring the house to be attached to the public sewer and water system once
moved.
2. That the proposed Building Moving Permit has conditions attached requiring
safety standards be met during the moving procedure.
3. That the proposed Building Moving as conditioned, provides for adequate
clean-up of debris, concrete foundations and other materials left at the site.
4. That the proposed Building Moving as conditioned provides for adequate
insurance coverage to indemnify the City for any repair to City streets,
rights -of -way or other public property damaged by the Applicant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California as follows:
RESOPC.057 1
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 conclusions of the determination of the
Planning Director relative to the environmental concerns of this Building
Moving application.
3. That it does hereby approve subject Building Moving Permit 91-001 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 12th day of November, 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.057 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
BUILDING MOVING 91-001 - PROPOSED
NOVEMBER 12, 1991
1. The applicant shall comply with all requirements and
standards of the La Quinta Municipal Code, in particular
Chapters 14.20 (Moving Buildings) Title 9 (Planning &
Zoning and Title 11 (Subdivision Regulations) unless
otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. The applicant will be required to provide adequate
comprehensive insurance coverage for the house moving
process naming the city as co-insured. This should cover
possible cost of repair to city streets, right-of-ways or
other public property encountered during the house moving
process.
3. A cash deposit or surety bond in favor of the city shall
be deposited with the City Manager in an amount equal to
the value of the work contemplated by the building
permit, upon conditions that such work will be fully
completed in accordance with the directions of the
Planning Commission, the building permit and all
applicable city regulations within a period of ninety
days following issuance of the building permit; otherwise
the full amount of the deposit or bond will be forfeited
to the city.
The applicant shall coordinate with the Building and
Safety Department to establish a bond amount.
4. The Building Department has the following requirements:
a. The moving contractor must be licensed by the State
(C-21 Classification).
b. A building permit and plan review are required.
C. Once located, the house must tie into the sewer
system. Both existing septic systems must be
abandoned.
d. The new electrical service must be underground.
e. The structure to be moved must comply with the SR
Zone requirements.
5. A Lot Line Adjustment or Parcel Merger must be submitted
and provisionally approved by the Planning & Development
Department ensuring that the existing pool on the site is
on a lot with a primary structure.
CONAPRVL.023/CS -1-
M
The Engineering Department has the following requirements:
a. An encroachment permit is required for the
following; 1) the building to be moved from 78-435
Cameo Dunes Place; 2) the trailers to be moved from
54-038 Avenida Bermudas.
b. The move shall take place and be completed within
the first two hours after sunrise on a Sunday
morning or at a time stipulated by the Engineering
Department.
C. The building shall be moved in two sections and
shall not block oncoming traffic except as outlined
below.
d. Pilot and follow cars with appropriate lights and
markings shall accompany the building along the
collector and arterial portions of the route
(Washington and Eisenhower).
e. Flag persons shall assist in routing traffic around
the building in any location where two-way traffic
is blocked (ie: most of Eisenhower) and at bridges,
90-degree turns and other locations where both
directions of traffic will be temporarily blocked.
f. In any location where vehicle delays will exceed a
minute or two, applicant shall arrange temporary
detours manned by Riverside County Sheriff's
deputies. The applicant shall contract with the
Sheriff's Department for the use of Deputies, if
necessary, for traffic control during the move.
g. The procession shall enter Washington from the
frontage road rather than attempt the 90-degree
turn from Highland Palms onto Washington.
h. The applicant shall select a route from Eisenhower
to the destination property that does not have
cross -gutters (Madrid or Nogales). This portion of
the route and any narrow streets in the Highland
Palms area shall be posted no -parking the night
before.
i. The Engineering Department shall approve the
detailed moving schedule, supervise and inspect the
moving process and the applicant shall pay the
appropriate inspection fees required thereof.
7. Once the house is removed from 78-435 Cameo Dunes Place
the applicant shall immediately comply with the safety
fencing requirement for swimming pools as stated in
Chapter 8.06 of the Municipal Code
C®NAPNVL.023/CS -2-
B. No person moving any building or structure or portion
thereof over, upon, along or across any street shall
fail, neglect or refuse to keep a red light burning at
all times between sunset and sunrise at each corner of
such building or structure or portion thereof and at the
end of any projection thereon while the same or any part
thereof is located in or upon any street or other public
place.
CONAPRVL.023/CS -3-
PH-�
4 MEMORANDUM
Of
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
SUBJECT: PREANNEXATION ZONING 91-068 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
91-039
Planning has received a request from the Applicant to continue this matter to your
meeting of January 14, 1992. We therefore request that you move to continue this
matter to January 14, 1992.
MEMOJH.147
December 4, 1991
City of La Quinta
P. O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Mr. Jerry Herman
Planning Director
RE: 145-Acres
Fred Waring & Washington Street
La Quinta, CA
Dear Jerry:
Request for continuance of the following item:
ITEM: Change of Zone 91068
General Plan Amendment 91039
APPLICANT: Valley Land Development Co.
LOCATION: Northeast corner of Fred Waring
and Washington Street
We hereby request the Public Hearing to be continued from
December 10, 1991 to January 14, 1992 meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission.
Very truly yours,
VALLEY LAND DEVELOPMENT CO.
Thomas A. Thornburgh
President
TAT/mk
mom.
�;,d 42 600 COOK ST. !SUITE 160 /PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I (619) 568
PLANNING COMMISSION PH-3
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 26, 1991
PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91-466 & VARIANCE 91-019
REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE
A RESTAURANT/BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE
STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE
WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED
STRUCTURES.
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON
STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT,
+5.5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE
EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY
111.
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT
ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH
OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL
EXISTING
ZONING: CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE:
NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven
La Quinta Shopping Center)
SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington
Square Commercial Center)
EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors
WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quinta
Shopping Center & Point Happy Ranch
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-211 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATIOI
THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED 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.
BACKGROUND:
The property was subdivided in the early 1980's for the development
of Simon Motors Automotive Dealership as well as to establish
commercial lots which could be sold or developed with commercial
land uses. On October 22, and November 26, 1991, the Planning
Commission continued action on this case because the traffic study
had not been completed.
STAFFRPT.060/CS -1-
DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
The proposed +5.5 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat
and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under
Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on 3 streets
with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111,
and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington
Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level.
The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional
widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the
City's adopted Washington Street Specific Plan Alignment program. A
future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street
and Highway 111.
INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (Prior to November 27, 1991):
Prior to November 27, 1991, the developer had proposed a mixture of
building types similar to the attached plans. However, the
applicant was pursuing a six level parking structure on the property
versus the new proposal five level structure (basement, 3 covered,
and open parking on the top level).
NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
A.
Bank/Restaurant
8,000
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
B.
Fitness Center
12,000
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
C.
Restaurant/Bowling Alley
42,240
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
D.
Office Buildings
105,560
sq.
ft.
of
floor
space
167,800
sq.
ft.
total floor space
PARKING ANALYSIS:
* A. 2 Restaurants
(20 sp/1000 sq.ft. of pub. area)=
130
pk.
spaces
**B. Fitness
Center
(1 sp/150 sq.ft. pub. area)=
53
pk.
spaces
C. Bowling
Alley
(3 sp/Alley)=
120
pk.
spaces
D. Office
Building
(1 sp/250 sq. ft.)=
----------------
422
pk.
spaces
Approximate Total Required
725
pk.
spaces
Total Provided
571
pk.
spaces
* Assumption
- Half
the restaurant will be used for
public dining.
** Assumption
- 2/3
of the Fitness Center will be for
public
purposes.
The new development plan has deleted approximately 96 parking spaces
by eliminating one level of the parking structure. This change has
impacted the parking ratio of the project because the square footage
of the building complex has not been reduced proportionally. The
new parking ratio for this project is one on -site parking space for
every 293 square feet of leasable floor area (167,800 squar
feet/571 parking spaces). This ratio would vary depending upon
whether the building at the intersection was a bank instead of a
restaurant as noted above. One way to resolve this problem would be
to increase the below ground parking or reduce the total square
footage of the commercial center to correspond to the proposed
parking program.
STAFFRPT.060/CS -2-
INITIAL BUILDING HEIGHTS (Prior to November 27, 1991):
The proposed building heights for the project were:
1. Restaurant/Bank:
26-foot building + 22-foot tower = +48-feet
2. Offices along Washington Street: 29-foot building
37-foot building & tower
3. Offices along Simon Drive: 22-feet (2 st.) & 49-feet (4 st.)
4. Bowling Alley & office: 26-feet to 40-feet
5. Parking structure: 47-feet
NEW DEVELOPMENT REQUEST:
On November 27, 1991, the applicant submitted a new development plan
for the site. It includes revisions which include reducing the
parking structure to four levels (with one story below grade),
reducing the four story building on Simon Drive to two stories
overall, minor architectural modifications, reduction in the amount
of office square footage, and a reduction in the number of on -site
parking spaces.
The proposed building heights for the project are:
1. Restaurant/Bank:
26-foot building + 22-foot tower = +48-feet
2. Offices along Washington Street: 29-foot building
37-foot building & tower
3. Offices along Simon Drive: 28-feet to 31 feet (2 story)
4. Bowling Alley & office: 26-feet to 40-feet
5. Parking structure: 37-feet (four levels above ground)
ARCHITECTURE:
The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepares
a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the sitE
with parking in the center of the facility. A parking structure
will be located on the east side of the property.
The proposed Mediterranean design (Spanish style design motif) is
consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough
stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.).
STAFFRFT.060/CS -3-
CIRCULATION/PARKING PLAN:
The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public
street. The driveways on Highway 111 and Washington Street will
service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 91
parking spaces). The driveways lead to the parking garage located
at the southeast corner of the site. The parking garage will house
approximately 480 cars. The developer has prepared a traffic study
to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City
streets, and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the
future level of service of Washington Street/Highway 111.
Discussion on the traffic study will occur later in this report.
VIEW CORRIDOR:
The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element
of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City.
Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary street
image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height
limits to assure a Low Density character and appearance". The
City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in
height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property
line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and
has been a condition on all of the development cases along
Washington Street. The attached plan does not meet this provision,
and the developer has requested a waiver from the policy. A letter
from Best, Best and Krieger is attached to justify the request.
STORMWATER RETENTION:
The on -site storm water retention study from the developer is
attached to the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that
much of the site is devoted to impervious materials (buildings and
parking). The developer has requested that the City assist them in
the development of an off -site drainage system.
VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUIRED:
In the initial submittal, the architect did not meet the side yard
requirements of the CPS Zone District for the east side of the
project (i.e. parking structure). The standard states that any
building which is higher than 35 feet (up to 50 feet) shall have a
minimum property line setback of not less than two feet for each one
foot above 35 feet. However, the new submittal (dated November 27,
1991) would meet the CPS requirements. The only outstanding setbacR
problems are on Highway 111 and Washington Street because the
General Plan and Off -Site Parking Code requires a 50-foot setback on
Highway 111 (after dedication) and a 20-foot setback on Washington
Street (after dedication).
STAFFRPT.060/CS -4-
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS:
The Design Review Board met on October 2, 1991, and although, there
was not a lot of discussion of the overall project, the Committee
did express their views on two items:
A. WASHINGTON STREET BUILDING HEIGHTS
Staff recommended a one story (22-feet) height for the
buildings along Washington Street within 150 feet of the
future property line. The Board however felt
differently and justified a height higher than that
recommended by Staff because the value of the land
dictates a need to develop a dense project and the
two-story building will buffer the proposed parkin
structure. The Board's recommendation is noted below.
B. PARKING STRUCTURE
A few of the Board members voiced an objection to the
six level parking structure because they felt it was out
of character with this area and with the City's design
parameters. A few of the members thought the developer
should pursue a subterranean parking structure under the
Bowling Alley. That discussion did not become part of
the final motion.
The Design Review Board's other recommendations were:
1. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering
pedestrian/bike trail. The plans 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, i.e. palm trees, accent shade
trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature
California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle,
Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be
encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas
Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be
utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and
the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley
Water District's plant materials list prior to designing their
proposal. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along
Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light
fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt).
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.
STAFFRFT4060/CS -5-
4. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan should be reviewed by
the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A
photometric study should be developed which analyzes th
lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting
Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160
(Off-street Parking). The height of the light poles should
not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor
should reduce this height if physically possible during review
of the project.
5. The developer should contribute to the landscaping and/or
hardscape program of the future median island on Washington
Street and Highway 111.
6. A two story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained
along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the
ultimate property line (after street dedication has bee
included).
7. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all
two-way driveways into the project site. The concrete should
be stamped and colored to accentuate the propose
development. The color, design and location of the concrete
should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final
plan check review.
8. The final plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board
prior to the submission of the plans to the Building
Department for final plan check consideration. The final
plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and
irrigation, buildings, signs, mechanical, etc.
9. Bike racks should be provided at convenient areas within the
site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50
parking spaces should be provided as noted in the Off-street
Parking Code.
10. The landscape setback on Washington Street should be a minimum
of 20 feet from the new property line.
11. All open parking stalls should be screened by walls, landscape
hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42
inches.
12. A master sign program should be submitted during final plan
check review.
It should be noted that the Design Review Board did not review the
latest submittal of the applicant, since it was submitted after
their November 6, 1991 meeting, but not early enough for their
December 4, 1991 meeting.
STAFFRPT.060/CS -6-
STAFF COMMENTS (Issues):
A.
%1 P,
C.
PARKING STRUCTURE
Staff is more comfortable with the applicant's latest
submittal because it has reduced the building mass from +47 _
feet to approximately 37 feet, but part of the building will
be within 150-feet of Washington Street. This new height
would be in keeping with the height of some of the existing
buildings in the area. However, this site is not large enough
to support a four level above ground structure and maintain
the character of the area (e.g. La Quinta Shopping Plaza)
which is across the street to the west. There might be some
merit in allowing the parking structure 50 to 100 feet from
the property line because of the irregular shape of the lot,
the fact that the developer has to contend with three street
frontages and the site is zoned for a commercial verses
residential usage.
The Applicant has stated that they believe the two story
office building(s) on Washington Street will block the
exposure of the parking structure if they are permitted to
have their multiple story structures approximately +20-feet
from the new property line.
WASHINGTON STREET ALIGNMENT PLAN
The Washington Street Specific Plan (86-007) was adopted in
1988. The approved document set the street alignment schedule
for Washington Street from Fred Waring to 52nd Avenue. The
plan included provisions for a 120 foot right-of-way (six
lanes) and 140 feet right-of-way (six lanes + four turn
lanes). The intersection of Washington Street/Highway 111 is
scheduled to have a minimum right-of-way of 140 feet. The
northbound lane on Washington Street is to include three
through lanes, two left turn lanes, and at a minimum one
right -turn lane (see the attached Exhibit). The development
will be conditioned to meet these Specific Plan requirements.
BUILDING & PARKING SETBACKS (Washington Street/Highway 111)
The developer is proposing variable setbacks for both primary
street frontages. The setbacks based on the November 27, 1991
submittal are:
Washington Street: 10-feet (minimum) to 37-feet (maximum)
Highway 111: 17-feet (minimum) to 35-feet (maximum)
The setbacks are consistent with the CPS Zoning provisions
because no yard requirements are required if the buildings are
less than 35-feet high which these buildings are and the site
is not governed by an independent specific plan of development
because the site is less than 20 acres in size. However, the
General Plan and Off -Street Parking Code for the City require:
a landscape setback of 50-feet on Highway 111 and 20-feet on
Washington Street. Therefore, the proposed setbacks or
Highway 111 and Washington Street are less than required. The
applicant has requested a variance to resolve this problem.
STAFFRPT.060/CS -�-
One way to rectify the setback problem on Washington Street
would be to shift the buildings to the east onto the proposed
property line.
D. SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS ON WASHINGTON STREET
The City's General Plan currently has a policy which encourages
single story buildings along major arterials within the City. This
policy has been utilized for the projects along Washington Street.
Generally, the City has conditioned projects to be one story but the
height of the structure has varied on a case -by -case basis. As
noted earlier, the Design Review Board has indicated they feel
comfortable with allowing a two-story project which should not
exceed 28 feet in height. This type of recommendation would
definitely set a new precedence for the City and for Washington
Street in general. Staff would rather have the Planning Commission
debate the merits of the height of a building but not allow a two
story building on Washington Street within 150 feet of the new
property line. In order to facilitate review of this matter, staff
has prepared a city wide building height survey which lists the
development approvals for the City of La Quinta.
E. TRAFFIC STUDY:
The traffic study by MGA, was initially submitted on October 18,
1991, for the project proponent. A copy of the report was also
mailed to the District 11, Caltrans office. The Engineerin
Department requested revisions to that report and a revised document
was submitted to staff on November 7, 1991. The original document
was revised because the report showed left -turn movements from
Washington Street into Simon Drive (not permitted by Specific Plan
86-007), the Level of Service design parameters did not meet the
City's minimum requirements, and the travel lane design for Highway
111 was greater than needed. Based on these comments, the study was
revised. The revised report has been incorporated into the
Environmental Assessment. The new study addresses the City'
ultimate roadway improvements for this intersection per the City's
adopted General Plan and Specific Plan of Alignment for Washington
Street as well as the effects this project will have on traffic
levels on this area. The traffic consultant has reached the
following conclusions:
1. The project generates an estimated 4,743 trip ends per day.
2. The existing Level of Service at Highway 111 and Washington
Street is "F" or an ICU value of 1.60.
3. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative
traffic (including project traffic) will allow the
intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to operate
at an ICU value of 0.82 or at LOS "D".
4. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive operates at
ICU 0.59 or LOS "A" with existing traffic. The ultimate
geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic
(including project traffic) will allow the intersection to
operate at ICU 0.38 or LOS "A". The southbound approach is
assumed to exist for this study.
STAFFRPT.060fCS -8-
5. The project access (driveways) on Highway 111 and Washington
Street should be limited to right -turn in and right -turn out
only, along with necessary deceleration and acceleration lanes
6. The project access on Simon Drive is recommended as a
intersection with full access (left turns and right turns) for
entering and exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be
provided for exiting vehicles (right and left turns).
7. Pavement markings are required to indicate the direction of
flow at all three driveways, along with suitable traffic
controls installed per City guidelines.
8. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street requires
periodic monitoring to check traffic volumes, cycle times, and
phasing sequence in order to maintain at least LOS "D: or ICU
value below/equal to 0.9.
9. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive, with
cumulative traffic volumes, meets signal warrants.
On November 18, 1991, Staff received comments on the proposed
traffic study from Caltrans. A copy of the letter is in the
Environmental Assessment. The letter was based on the initial
traffic report. However, many of their comments are still
appropriate. One major change since the initial report was the
number of travel lanes on Highway 111 has been reduced from 8 to 6.
This change is consistent with the City's existing General Plan and
Washington Street Specific Plan. Another comment was the proposed
driveway location on Highway 111 and its relationship to Washington
Street. The driveway is approximately 300-feet from the
intersection. The recommendation of Caltrans was to permit right
turn movements into the site or to move the driveway to the easterly
side of the project. In discussion with the developer, they state
that since a raised median will be developed on Highway 111 a
right -turn in and right turn out access driveway would not affect
traffic circulation in this area. The City is comfortable that the
plans as proposed will work adequately provided deceleration and
acceleration lanes are installed for each driveway entrance and
certain measures are taken to prohibit vehicle parking along the
north/south through driveway to insure traffic stacking will not
block vehicle movement from Highway 111 into the site.
The Engineering Department has reviewed the attached document and
will present their comments at the meeting. However, their
recommended conditions are attached.
ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTION:
One avenue for the developer to consider would be to shift the
development to the easterly property line. This would eliminate the
setback problem on Washington Street. Another design change we
would encourage would be to eliminate the two story office building
on Washington Street, this would reduce the overall project size for
167,800 square feet to approximately 135,000 square feet, thus
bringing a majority of the project into conformity with the General
Plan policy of "Low Density" development on primary and secondary
image corridors but the parking structure would still have a portion
of its structure inside the 150-foot height limit standard.
STAFFRPT.060/CS -9-
A one story structure will create view windows through the site
thereby enhancing the City's desire to encourage low density
development along primary image arterials. Staff would further
request that the developer explore other subsurface parking areas,
off -site parking arrangements or reduce the building square footage
to conform with the City's minimum standards.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However,
the City's General Plan (Policy 6.5.8) states that the City can
consider trade-offs in the setback requirements provided imaginative
designs are considered. The Planning Commission could permit a
variance if the Commission can make findings to support the
recommendation. Further, Staff would not support the office
complex on Washington Street within 150-feet of the property line
because the buildings are too massive, too close to the street, and
would degrade the Washington Street corridor. The City's General
Plan (Urban Design Section) states the City should encourage
appropriate building heights along primary corridors to enhance the
City's image and enhance its character. The City has felt that all
buildings should be single story in character but the height of the
structure has varied based on the project design and its
relationship to abutting projects.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Planning Commission deny Variance 91-019, subject to
the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the
Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan
91-466, subject to the attached conditions; or,
2. That the Planning Commission approve Variance 91-019, subject
to the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that
the Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan
91-466, subject to the attached conditions; or,
3. Continue the project until the Applicant can restructure the
development to meet the design guidelines of the City.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Large Plans
3. Reduced Plans
4. Environmental Assessment with Agency comments
5. Traffic Study date stamped November, 1991
6. Letter stamp dated September 9th from Best, Best and Krieger
7. Zone District Excerpt (CPS Zone)
8. General Plan Excerpt
9. Design Review Board Minutes
10. City wide building height survey
11. Draft Resolution 91- , Variance 91-019 (Denial) (Approval)
12. Draft Conditions of Approval, PP 91-466
STAFFRPT.060/CS -10-
Vacant
11
Plaza La Quinta Parking
i
0
Point Happy Ranch
Existing Tract Homes
Washington Street Frontage
Road
CASE N0.
SIMON PLAZA PROJECT
LOCATION MAP
Existing,•Traffic Signal
Vacant Land
Raised Median
4 Vacant Building
SCALE:
NTS
Iro
O. T,alet C '.
Pert hot t
fo
pp Oje
I
� •'�.��lfi b � � t►1 29 BW 61 J
'see a Per;
ILI
Trader Palk v-
••,•�', 1 � _ `� .. tolkf Palk
. ` t
V ( aa•a lT sat a•a1 %•p e (f
� �/-- v— -- --'_' - • ... s..a.- '�-- —weld , •\
f
I. *well.
it
h1
• x' 01 p tow
�� :a •� 3•J � � 32 ��
y .o CJ1SE NO y 1 " 0
.. e I I •
e , . of Av[
Well so we . 0 .
we
' .
/ O v+++yyy O;1 :• a J`aa+rs a.r�=
••: J �. ,a 6 LA QU. TA, - ALI
;
. • ... NE/4 PALM OESEAT 19' ADRAI
• e
N3337.5—W116]'Y7.5
I 1959
�: ; • . a . • • •• a PHOTOREVISEO 1680
• �� a DMA 2751 111 NE —SERIES V!
� •r Q er .i ' ice•`'• � •
y v
RIGHT
TURN
ONLY
LANE
(TYPICAL)
FAR
SIDE
®us
ZONE
(TYPICAL)
TYP
of
YP. 3 $
1 1 t • 1400-CRO.&-7[r
SECTION
11 11
11 11
3
I I 1 1-i...---j 'L 1 Z•
1 I
1 1 I go,CTION
1 1 1
CASE No. Plot Plan 91-466
Specific Plan 86-007, Resol. 86-14 (Exhibit)
WASHINGTON STREET/MIGMWAY III
INTERSECTION WIDENING
Inn I Hillis
Uj
top
C"CM
1
,(C-- - .27-- 3. 1 Is E
0
jil A=� Ut11�1lR F,i I r4G'Wlp' JM
:s
�
�tt
Zvi
+
a~e
=R
r
i N
CA-
i tyf
s.
W
rL t
1� flit
ra.N �.- •vac-.evrr$sws.0 s
—4-31
L&J
'art t -
1
taw .:.�,czua'a•r�s.-b
0
z
W
s�ti��+ r•wa.�
l�Jallf
um .1 I=
�I
i1JIU t WIN F.
�', ' r.eu.r�... n••ruorr
moAbfftw at -so
---, s- tilti��! N �:X U
1
l
7
ri �
C4
Ln
C .-.
L ;
c�
41 4)
O nc
L dO
O u 3
4J •.- O
NV-r
4-
cm 0 CO
L W
4) •�- 1
� o �
V) A o
Im o W
C N
L
fa
(L N t
m
li
MIN
14
J
•
a�
4
1•
�L
A A.
; -•it
1:sIt
�c
it: i
sr
0�
�— 6 c�z Of Li QUMA 773 _ .� �5
d� CHECKLIST FORM
op ENVIRONMENTAL
I. BACKGROUND <,,.
1. Name of Proponent: 0/MO ar 61"o 2,4 zoic
. _ �P-AD
IRA71V
2. Address and Pho a Number of Pro onent: A �-
'!'�C+
3. Date of Checklist: JJ/
4. Agency Requiring Checklist: ell,( U< �/�
C1�v ."1 i �7--
S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: ��iy awt ►�%:�
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 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?
t" _
d. The destruction, covering or modification of
any unique geologic or physical features?
_ `F
e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or
stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay,
inlet or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, 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?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
_
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements, in either marine or fresh
waters?
b. Changes 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?
_
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?
rzt
Yes Maybe No
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
_ g/
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?
La _
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?
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?
8.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial
alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area?
j/ A
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,
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?
L�
13.
Transportation/circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Ls'`
b. Effects on existing -parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
14
15.
16.
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. 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 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?
1✓'
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 aninal 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
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. DISCUSSI014 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.
1_ ' find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not be
a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added
to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
_ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date: � ✓���
CITY OF LA QUINTA
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
CASE NO. PP91-466 (EA91-211)
SIMON PLAZA
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed complex will include a mixture of
offices, restaurant/bank, and other recreational facilities (e.g.
40 lane bowling alley). The vacant 5.6 acre property is located
on the east side of Washington Street, south of Highway 111, and
north of Simon Drive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as
Coachella Sand/Loam. This type of soil has rapid permeability and
it can be used for crop production, homesite or other urban
development. The property (6 lots) is flat and vacant at this
time.
The general elevation of the site is approximately 60 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)." Earthquake damage should
not be a major problem at the site.
MITIGATION MEASURES: 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. All building structures shall
be designed pursuant to the standards as prescribed by the Uniform
Building Code based on the code which is in affect at the time of
plan check consideration, and the plans shall be prepared by a
licensed architect or structural engineer.
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 an increase in the overall mobile emission
releases because of personal vehicle usage by employees or
customers. The levels will be consistent with other projects in
the area and no abnormalities are expect by the implementation or
development of this project. It is assumed that vehicle trip
generation figures would be lower for this type of project if
public transportation was utilized more and people did not rely on
their private automobiles to get from place to place. Public
transportation is available in this area along both street primary
streets.
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.
4). Public transportation should be encouraged.
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 basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer) for the
collection of storm water and nuisance water run-off. The project
engineering firm, Sanborn and Webb, has prepared a preliminary
study which identifies the on -site needs of the facility. The
plan does is not proposing on -site retention but the developer
would like to work with the City in developing a joint project
between abutting owner's and the City to install an off -site
drainage system in the area to meet the anticipated needs and
future problems this area will experience from seasonal rain
storms. This program will be subject to Planning Commission and
City Council approval.
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: The project shall comply with all
applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance
water. The drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer.
4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of
any significant plant life. The site has been graded and it is
assumed that the grading occurred during the construction of the
off -site improvements in the early 19801s. 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.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1. The applicant/developer shall contribute at the time a
building permit or grading 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.
2. All the requirements of the State Fish and Game Department
shall be met. This shall include, but not be limited to, the
payment of fees for necessary environmental filing paperwork with
the County of Riverside (i.e. Negative Declaration processing,
etc.). The fees shall be collected after the project has been
reviewed by the City Council.
6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent
operation of the commercial 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 and from the site since the use of the property will be for
indoor commercial activities (offices, restaurant, bowling alley,
etc.). It is anticipated that no internal noise will be projected
externally outside of the building mass, however, a noise study
will examine both projected noise and external noise and its affect
on the project and on abutting properties.
MITIGATION MEASURES: 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 met. The study shall examine
all proposed commercial uses, especially the proposed bowling alley
which might require special acoustical walls to mitigate sound
transmission to the property to the east (Simon Motors Auto
Dealership). The study shall be completed prior to acquiring a
building permit from the Building Department.
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. Exterior pole light fixtures should be low
level fixtures in order to maintain both human scale to the project
and reduce glare from the fixtures on to abutting City
thoroughfares.
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. Light poles less than 20
feet in height shall be encouraged.
8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as
fit for commercial development. The plan is consistent with this
intent, and the Planning Commission will review the development
plan in the next few months.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required because the project, if
approved, will be conditioned to meet the City's requirements for
on and off -site improvements commensurate with the level of
development which is proposed.
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. This shall include compliance
with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code relating
to conserving energy resources which is handled by the Building
Department during 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. However, the
development of the site will increase the need for the City to
provide housing opportunities for its residents to support this
commercial venture. At this time, the City has approximately 55
percent of its land designated for residential needs.
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 commercial 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 at this time with 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.
Approximately half of the City is designated for residential
development or growth.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The site is located at the
southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway Ill (a State
roadway). 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 two existing
partially developed major arterial streets of the City which are
planned to have divided median islands to discourage cross traffic
vehicular movements. This intersection is one of the primary
areas of the City which is currently impacted by vehicular traffic.
Studies have shown that the Level of Service at this junction are
functioning at a Level D (A being the best and F the worst) . This
rating means that the intersection is experiencing traffic delays
because of traffic congestion and, projections for this area
indicate that in the next ten years this intersection will be
operating at a lesser level if the population of the city gets
proportionally larger at a constant rate. The Engineering
Department (and Caltrans) has expressed a need to mitigate traffic
problems in this area through various means, which can include:
additional traffic lanes, right -turn medians, center island
medians, and other options which might assist traffic through this
area in a faster pace thus reducing delays for either north/south
or east/west travel. At the request of the Engineering
Department, the applicant is in the process of preparing a traffic
study to analyze their project as it relates to this major
intersection and to future growth in the future.
The site is served by the Sunline Transit bus system and no impacts
to the Sunline serves are anticipated by the development of the
project.
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). A bus stop (with turnout) and shelter shall be install along
the frontage of the site along Washington Street and Highway 111 in
a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineering
Department unless another site can be developed which is more
effective to Sunline. Discussions have been made which indicate
that Simon Drive might be more appropriate for a transit site
and/or facility than Washington Street or Highway 111 because a bus
stop on either of these streets could hinder or impede traffic
circulation in this area. A transit site on Simon Drive should
be pursued. The developer should contact Sunline Transit in order
resolve the Transit Authorities problems in this area. A solution
had not been secured as of the writing of this report.
4). Any work on Highway 111 shall require permission by Caltrans
since the roadway is a State Highway.
5). The requirements of the traffic study shall be met as
determined by the City Engineer and the Planning Commission/City
Council. This could include such features as: additional travel
lanes on Washington Street, street island medians, deceleration and
acceleration lanes, right turn in and out driveways, traffic signal
modifications, transit facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalk, or
other improvements which are commensurate with the proposed project
and, as condition, will improve transportation in this area and
assure the level of service at this intersection will not be
reduced less than Level D.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for
additional fire protection, police protection, solid waste
collection, 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.
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 prior to building permit
issuance.
3). The School District mitigation fees shall be paid prior to
permit issuance pursuant to the adoption of AB1600 in 1986.
4). The project developer shall make provisions with Palm Desert
Disposal/Waste Management to have the project serviced to assure
waste products are disposed of without creating health hazards to
the community. Necessary facilities shall be built to dispose of
product waste.
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. Copies of
the Agency Comments are attached.
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.). The preliminary hydrology study has been submitted and the
recommendation of the project engineer was for the developer to
pursue and off -site drainage system for their water runoff.
The City Engineer is examining the study at this time and his
recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission.
18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant, the construction of
buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing views of
this area because the applicant is proposing multiple story
facilities. The City presently has a policy which discourages
multi -level building along Washington Street which are greater than
21 feet (average) within 150 feet of the future property line.
The applicant has proposed a plan which does not meet this
provision, and it will be up to the Planning Commission and City
Council to determine if an exemption should be granted.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements
of the City's Zoning Code or CPS District mandates unless otherwise
approved by a Variance application.
2). Buildings along Washington Street should be low level
facilities pursuant to the policies of the General Plan which
encourages "low density" development along image corridors. The
City policy has been to encourage single story facilities within
150 feet of the property line.
3). 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.
19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in
this area.
MITIGATION MEASURES: None required.
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: 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. The City shall review and approve the study prior to
the acquisition of a building permit or grading permit.
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
Letter from Best, Best and Krieger
Applicant prepared Hydrology Report
Applicant's prepared Traffic Study
TRAFFIC RvIPACT STUDY
FOR
A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE
SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA"
IN THE
CITY Of LA QUINTA
;wlzw
REVISED
NOVENMER 1991
maq
• Grover& Associates
W7. A
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
r•A
A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE
SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA"
IN THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PREPARED FOR
REVISED
NOVEMBER 1991
"M"mlk
u"ricl
f & Associates
TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY
FOR
A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE
SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA"
CITY OF LA QUINTA
PREPARED FOR
255 NORTH EL CIELO ROAD, SUITE 315
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
(619) 325-2245
ty F
REVISED
* N . 692
t
NOVEMBER 1991 IPA clv l\ z
i� �s
4TF QF CAV
TRAFFIC Na 0890
DATE. /cloy. '% i 0 2 /
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1 Study Requirements
1
1.2 Proposed Project
1
2.0
EXISTING CONDITIONS
5
2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions
5
3.0
TRAFFIC FORECAST
7
3.1 Growth Factor
7
3.2 Approved Projects
7
3.3 Trip Generation
7
3.4 Trip Distribution
7
3.5 Modal Split
7
3.6 Trip Assignment
10
4.0
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIONS
13
4.1 Study Scenarios
13
4.2 Level of Service Analysis
13
4.3 Analysis of Results and Mitigations
13
5.0
OTHER RELATED ASPECTS
15
5.1 Site Access Analysis
15
5.2 Signal Warrant Analysis
15
6.0
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
16
6.1 Conclusions
16
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAQE
1 Project Location Map and Study Intersections 2
2 Site Plan 3
3 Existing Transportation System 6
4 Project Traffic Trip Distribution - 9
Inbound and Outbound
5 P. M. Peak Hour Project Traffic 11
6 P. M. Peak Hour Anticipated Cumulative Traffic 12
7 Level of Service and Mitigation Measures 14
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1 Project Trip Generation 8
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
"A" Traffic Counts
"B" Excerpts from Traffic Impact Analysis
"C" Level of Service Analysis using CAPSSI
"D" Signal Warrant
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS
Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to document the results of a traffic analysis which
was conducted for the proposed multi -use shopping center, "Simon Plaza", at
the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in the City of La
Quinta. The main objective of this study is to identify any traffic impacts that
may result from the proposed development and recommend mitigation meas-
ures, if required, to reduce any traffic impacts to a level of insignificance.
The proposed project location and specific site plan are shown in Figures 1 and
2.
1.1 Study Regpirements
A meeting was held with the staff of the City of La Quinta Public
Works Department prior to the beginning of this study to define the
various study parameters, including geographic area, study intersec-
tions, acceptable methodology, and any technical assumptions used in
the analysis.
The recommended study intersections for this project are:
Highway 111 and Washington Street
Highway 111 and Simon Drive
The scenarios addressed in this study are:
• Existing traffic conditions
■ Cumulative traffic defined as existing plus growth
factor plus project traffic conditions
The geographic study area is defined by Highway 111 to the north,
Simon Drive to the east, Washington Street to the west, and Simon
Drive to the south. Simon Drive is a loop street that connects both
Highway 111 and Washington Street, as shown in Figure 1.
1.2 Proposed Project
The proposed project is to develop a multi -use shopping center at the
southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, as shown in
Figure 1
The project has primary access (driveways) on Highway 111, Washing-
ton Street and Simon Drive, as shown in Figure 2.
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - ?IS
Introduction
a_
Q
Z
0
F=
Q
0
J
U
w
0
m
L
rl
W
Q
0
LL
CO
Z
0
F-
0
w
CO
zW
Q�
Z
CO
c
u
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS
Introduction
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 2
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS
Introduction
The proposed project includes the following (Figure 2):
Office - I
Office - II
Office - III
Restaurant - I*
Restaurant - II
Fitness Center
Bowling Center
60,560 Square Feet
34,750 Square Feet
18,150 Square Feet
8,000 Square Feet
5,000 Square Feet
12,000 Square Feet
37,240 Square Feet
* On the site plan this is marked as a possible site for a bank. For
analyzing "worst case" scenario under trip generation and Level of
Service, the "restaurant" is considered. This aspect was discussed with
the City staff.
2
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TM Existing Conditions
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The surrounding areas near the project site are currently undergoing develop-
ment. The road network is being expanded in order to handle anticipated
growth in the area. The major access roads to the project site are Highway
111, Washington Street, and Simon Drive.
The existing transportation system is shown in Figure 3. The following briefly
describes the major access roads to the project site:
Highway III (east -west): A State Highway along the northern boundary of
the project site. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street is
signalized. Currently, the highway has two lanes in each direction. The
highway will be converted to six lanes due to the anticipated growth in the
region. The Caltrans recorded 24-hour volume on SR 111 in 1990 at Wash-
ington Street was 23,820 vehicles per day.
Washington Street (north -south): A major arterial with two lanes in each
direction. Washington Street has an interchange with Interstate 10 to the north
of the project site. This street carries over 22,000 vehicles per day.
Simon Drive: A local street oriented north -south intersecting with SR 111 and
oriented east -west intersecting with Washington Street. Both intersections are
unsignalized. This street provides a direct link between SR 111 and Washing-
ton Street.
2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions
a
The 24-hour bi-directional traffic volumes on SR 111 and Washington
Street were obtained from Caltrans annual traffic count records and
City traffic count records, respectively. As mentioned above, SR 111
carries over 23,000 vehicles per day and Washington Street carries
over 22,000 vehicles per day.
The existing turning movement counts at the study intersections were
obtained from the City of La Quinta. The turning movement counts
for the intersection of SR 111 and Washington Street were obtained
from City records. For the intersection of SR 111 and Simon Drive,
the turning movement counts were obtained from a previous study
conducted for the Washington Square Shopping Center by Barton-
Aschman Associates in February, 1991. This study is presented in
Appendix "A". The traffic counts are presented in Appendices "A"
and "B".
Sanborn/Webb Ino. • TTS
Existing Conditions
1/L
r�=
171
(0660
.is
0
i
1S MMONMVM
�O
Z
W
W
LL
W
CD
Z
0
Q
0
CD
cr
F-
0
Z
X
W
s
3
0
N
L" W
^
yLd �
2
W
N
v
J 05
s
z r
l-J
Sanborn/Well Inc. -.TIS
Traffic Forecast
3.0 TRAFFIC FORECAST
This section details the procedures adopted in estimating the future traffic
generated at the site and impacting the study intersections.
3.1 Growth Factor
The growth factor, as recommended by the City staff, was applied to
the existing turning movements at the study intersections as follows:
Highway 111 4 % per year
Washington Street 10% per year
Simon Drive 5 % per year
The project is expected to be completed in one phase by the year 1992.
3.2 Approved Pro acts
The approved projects traffic volume at the study intersections for
Level of Service (LOS) analysis were not considered in this study and
this item was discussed with the City staff.
3.3 Trip Generation
The trip generation rates for the project were obtained from the Insti-
tute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E.) Trip Generation Handbook,
1991. Table 1 shows the proposed development trip generation. The
project generates an estimated 4,473 trip ends per day, excluding those
generated by the Fitness Center. The Fitness Center 24-hour trip rates
are not currently available in the I.T.E. Handbook. Using the Barton-
Aschman 24-hour trip rates (Appendix "B "), the Fitness Center gener-
ates an estimated 270 trip ends per day with a trip rate of 22.5/1,000
S.F.
Therefore, the estimated total trip ends per day from the proposed
development will be 4,743.
3.4 Trip Distribution
The trip distribution of the project generated traffic was conducted
considering the major access roads and driveway locations. Also
considered were the turning movement and 24-hour traffic counts in
the study area. Finally, the trip distribution was developed in consulta-
tion with the City staff. The regional trip distribution of the project
traffic is as shown in Figure 4.
3.5 Modal Split
All trips to the project site are expected to be made by passenger cars.
Hence, modal split is not applicable for this study.
7
Sanborn/Well Inc. • TIS
Traffic Forecast
r.+s �r
m
9
a
H
n
m
n
+
v
ass
IN►
Ql
�D
A
n
V
N
V
N
.N
i
O
V
r'1
A
N
Cl
Ol
ri
N
x
a
m
N
V
Dl
A
V.
rl
A
n
M
N
rl
V
N
19
M
�
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
O
x
�a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
Dl
to
Q
mIn
!7
In
n
v
N
N
04
n
V
1G
�D
�D
�O
rl
rl
111
NI
(ri
m
!0
CO
Ip
It1
A
N
V
an
to
In
10
%D
N
PI
ri
N
M
�4
r1
A
4A
an
m
W
C1
O
m
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
y a ae
p
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
o
m
1-4
O
p V
N
a
ro
N
N
O
O
O
14
O
r1
na
M ry C X
a
D►
DI
m
m
x
rl
rl
ado
.�+
:: e
.�
M
rl
-4 IL
O
0 31 Q
E
tyw
�y+
ta.
tapm
ttk
aoww
1a
C S
O +
E.
t
C
e4 W
~
%D
Co
0
40
In
�
N
�
4 t0 W 'O
N
s
1r V a
n
r+
Iq
�D
PI
%D
M
N
a
M� W
W
Q
s
•
fa
m0
M
M
14
gG
M
i
1
14144
E
14 0
M
N
M
F
S
C�
a
M
I
1
1
M
14 tp 7 C
V
V
V
m
M
E
[~ G+
p
4
r7
la,
Iq
W
tpo�
E
�C
m
O NCm
si
pN�
pV�
D
r� m m a1
O
O
O
14
iR
14
R1
rl
Cl
M
V
kn
n
(A
o f F L
8
Sanborn/WoU Inc. - TIS
Traffic Forecast
OF
e i
k
lk
emov
i1
W
U.
0
F
m0
Z
�0
pm
IL
0
'~c
Um
L�
<?
~0
U?
Lu
0
L
Sanborn/Well Inc. - TIS
Traffic Forecast
3.6 ffiic Assignmen
Project trips were assigned to the existing roadway based on trip distri-
bution. The project trips were assigned to the study intersections as
shown in Figure 5. The cumulative traffic is shown in Figure 6. The
cumulative traffic for this study is defined as the summation of existing
plus growth factor plus project traffic.
10
Sanborn/Well Inc. - TIS
Traffic Forecast
�O
171
SMOV
ttl
U)
W
cc
0
IL
A
�LL
0cc
WU
5- W
20
�q:
a_
Sanborn/Well Inc. - TIS
Traffic Forecast
19)
9
z
0
•
SMCV
is — NO WFM-BVM
6n
UZ
*ot�. r
90Z�
�1
7•1,
W
D
0
LL
c
E
12
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - T1S Traffic Impact Analysis and Mitigations
4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIONS
The following section deals with traffic impact analysis and proposed mitiga-
tion measures at the study intersections.
4.1 Study S_cenios
The study scenarios for Level of Service analyses were the following:
a Existing traffic conditions with existing geometrics
Cumulative traffic defined as existing traffic plus growth factor
plus project traffic conditions with ultimate intersection geo
metrics
Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for the
through lane(s) and 1,700 vphg for the left and right-tum lanes were
used, since a capacity of 1,700 vph per lane, as recommended by the
City to be used for analysis, equals 1,800 vphg saturation flow rate.
The saturation flow rate of 1,700 vphg for the left and right -turn that
was used is highly conservative.
It is important to note that the study referred to in Appendix "B" of the
Barton-Aschman report is based on capacity, not on saturation flow
rates.
4.2 Level of Service Analysis
The Levels of Service (LOS) at the study intersections were determined
using both Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology and
delay methodology per the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The
software used for the Level of Service is CAPSSI, developed by MGA.
The LOS outputs for the two scenarios listed under Section 4.1 are
given in Appendix "C".
4.3 Analysis of Results and Mitigation
The results of the LOS analysis using both ICU and delay methodolo-
gies are shown in Figure 7. The City established minimum LOS is
"D"
Highway 111 and Washington Street currently operates at an ICU
value of 1.60 or at LOS "F" with existing traffic conditions and
geometrics. The intersection operates at an ICU value of 0.80 or at
LOS "D" with cumulative traffic and ultimate intersection geometrics.
Highway 111 and Simon Drive currently operates at ICU 0.59 or at
LOS "A". The addition of growth factor and project traffic results in
an ICU value of 0.38 or a LOS "A" with ultimate geometrics.
The ultimate geometrics for the intersection were provided by the City
staff for conducting LOS analysis.
13
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS
Traffic Impact Analysis and Mitigations
w Q w a W
� * o cc
Q ,. , -• -- It
W lL
Q in
X Q i `--- Q i
w (j)
U ---- V C Q
0 W
a
+ Z
U
0
K
G.
+ QQ H
N _
U U N U U O a
Cz
a � QW
0 Z U --------
N Z X 0< Q
w Ln
xLAJ
�� W
v
W'^
VJ
LL
H 0
W Z
o r 0 r > v 3 5 ►-
Q P .� Z i x /
U �Q Z �zn O W
N Q ® W N p N yWj
W z W
Q < it O
= = Q i 4
CDuj
U --
_ CO
Z
14
Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS Other Related Aspects
5.0 OTHER RELATED ASPECTS
The following sections deal with the project access (driveways) and signal
warrants.
5.1 Site Access Analysis
The project site has three driveways. They are located on Highway
111, Washington Street and Simon Drive, as shown in Figure 2.
Highway 111
The access for the project is located slightly east of the intersection of
Highway 111 and Washington Street, on Highway 111. This access is
a limited access with right -turn in and right -turn out only. Due to the
proximity of the driveway to the intersection and the large cumulative
volumes, it is recommended that deceleration and acceleration lanes be
provided for this driveway. This will allow the through traffic to
proceed without any obstruction.
Washington Street
The access on Washington Street is located to the south of Highway
111. The access is close to Simon Drive. This access is a limited
access with right -turn in and right -turn out only. Due to the proximity
of the driveway to the intersection and the large cumulative volumes, it
is recommended that deceleration and acceleration lanes be provided
for this driveway. This will allow the through traffic to proceed
without any obstruction.
Simon Drive
The access is located on Simon Drive, which has an east -west orienta-
tion near the access, as shown in Figure 2. As Simon Drive is a local
street with moderate volumes, this access could operate fully with all
possible movements in and out of the site. It is recommended that
adequate left turn pockets be provided, with separate lanes for entering
and exiting vehicles. Also, it is recommended that the Simon Drive
access should be used for trucks traveling to/from the project site.
5.2 Signal Warrant
The signal warrant analysis was conducted using the cumulative traffic
volumes shown in Figure 6 at the intersection of Highway 111 and
Simon Drive. The signal warrant is met considering the westbound
left -turn volumes added to the northbound left -turn volumes. The
cumulative through volume on Highway 111 exceeds 2,000 vehicles
per hour. The signal warrants for the peak period only are shown in
Appendix "D".
15
Sanborn/Wells Inc. - TIS Summary and Conclusions
6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The following are the conclusions of this traffic impact analysis for the
proposed mixed -use shopping center:
1. The project generates an estimated 4,743 trip ends per day.
2. The existing Level of Service at Highway 111 and Washington
Street is "F" or an ICU value of 1.60.
3. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative
traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection of
Highway 111 and Washington Street to operate at an ICU value of
0.82 or at LOS "D".
4. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive operates at ICU
0.59 or LOS "A" with existing traffic. The ultimate geometric
design recommended for the cumulative traffic (including project
traffic) will allow the intersection to operate at ICU 0.38 or LOS
"A". The southbound approach is assumed to exist in this study.
5. The project access (driveways) on Highway 111 and Washington
Street should be limited to right -turn in and right -turn out only,
along with necessary deceleration and acceleration lanes.
6. The project access on Simon Drive is recommended as an intersec-
tion with full access (left -turns and right -turns) for entering and
exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be provided for exiting
vehicles (right and left turns).
7. Pavement markings are required to indicate the direction of flow at
all three driveways, along with suitable traffic controls installed per
City guidelines.
8. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street requires
periodic monitoring to check traffic volumes, cycle times, and
phasing sequence in order to maintain at least LOS "D" or ICU
value below/equal to 0.9.
9. The intersection of Highway Ill and Simon Drive, with cumulative
traffic volumes, meets signal warrants.
16
APPENDIX "A"
Traffic Counts
INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT
NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA.
NORTH -SOUTH STREET: WASHINGTON
EAST -WEST STREET: HWY 111
TIME: 5:30-6:30 P DATE: 03-29-90
NORTH LEG
------------------
170 ; 872 ; 208 ; Total
39 ; 198 ; 47 ; 1st
41 ; 207 ; 53 ; 2nd
43 ; 221 ; 59 ; 3rd
47 ; 246 ; 49 ; 4th
'---------- '
Rt. ; Lt.
V EAST LEG
total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
__________________________ ;
326;; 76; 89; 94; 67: Lt.
907;; 201: 231; 246,'229; --- >
738;; 193; 201; 177; 167; Rt.
--------------------------
WEST LEG
'----------------- '
Rt.; 26; 34; 14; 16;; 90;
<-- 204; 237; 215; 173:; 829;
Lt.; 42; 51; 39; 27;; 159.
'--------------------------
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
Lt. ; Rt.
-----------------;
1st ; 43 ; 147 ; 16
2nd ; 51 ; 151 ; 22
3rd ; 37 ; 114 ; 19
4th ; 32 ; 124 ; 27
Total ; 163 536 ; 84
----------------'
SOUTH LEG
NLWPUR'f TRAFFIC S'fUUItS
15 MINUTE; COUNTS
STREET : WASHINGTON
LOCATION:S/O HWY 111
P
DATE; 02-06-90
m
NORTH
SOUTH
TOTAL
TIME
NORTH
SOUTH
TOT;
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
BOUND
19
19
38
-----
12:00
-----
159
-----
159
----
31
5
15
20
174
155
3:
8
12
20
149
122
2,
5
12
17
137
158
2!
5
11
16
1:00
142
140
2(
2
5
7
145
156
3(
3
7
10
161
148
3(
2
6
8
137
145
21
4
6
10
2:00
156
175
3:
3
9
12
187
192
37
7
5
12
204
175
37,
1
7
8
176
171
3,d
4
3
7
3:00
207
216
4:
4
4
8
203
203
4(
2
1
3
220
195
41
2
8
10
218
196
4:
4
6
10
4:00
168
226
3!
9
5
14
_
191
211
4(
9
5
14
161
205
3(
7
2
9
185
191
37
23
6
29
5:00
198
266
44
27
18
45
183
261
41
33
17
50
157
235
3!
52
30
82
155
225
31
90
65
155
6:00
119
204
3:
115
79
194
106
145
2!
162
93
255
120
161
21
172
121
293
87
162
21
149
127
276
7:00
89
118
21
224
137•
361
81
127
21
281
135
416
71
101
1'
237
187
424
50
93
11
199
158
357
8:00
84
73
1
217
139
356
51
91
1.
227
130
357
41
87
1;
181
121
302
36
83
1.
159
128
287
9:00
44
91
1:
169
117
286
33
73
11
178
113
291
56
86
11
207
119
326
115
77
1'
182
131
313
10:00
37
67
11
171
128
299
29
49
175
116
291
41
50
146
140
286
25
36
153
131
284
11:00
21
30
141
161
302
23
30
153
151.
304
19
24
159
147
306
21
24
APPENDIX "B"
Excerpt From Traffic
Impact Analysis
�740;,71 �wx iv - - - m
Febtuary 1991
a
alit
e<
r
W
H
W
• � a
•
a Y
. � C Con
• 6 0
•
i « C
• M Y
u
i s �
Y
is a
+
•
• °L e a
• 7 �
• > y r+
• J _
O
• Q V
•
•
•
•
•
• o
• O
•
• a
•
a `
•
• � P
•
i
• S
•
•
• _ e
• O �
r �
• = G o
w
Y
• � et v
•
•
• w
e
W Y `
a a
•
• o
• e
• s
•
• +
•
•
•
a
•
0
a
a
a
a s
a
a _
• N
a s
• W
i 0
•
•
•
a
•
•
•
•
• W
i
• 2
a
• J
�N
0
go
io��
$•Q
Pr. M
A A
•�
0 0 0 0^
O r
0 0
e +
0 o
ass
3
\\
� M
N -O
P
N
O
0 0
O coo
O
p P P
P P
W% in a
O• N
U% W%
M .I
Cal
r r
r r
a
s � h $ e
a •s
�7
r C
N N
P P
YM1 N N
P
<
at
� w
jY; e
Q C
.�
low
3
42 s O
s is
et a r
w 3
O
4-) i
N
> a
0 U
b
m C
4-) CL
E=O
4- (A u
N N
rtf r— O
4-) CL
3 E
i N GJ
4-3 = Q1
c0� � •L
r�
ro L
� O 7
N 4-i
U •i CL
4 i
ram- � O
� Z �
M• C
i N •r-
w��
W +J +J
b 4J V
S. NC
d.0 C
4J CA C
c d)
S- r- ci
�+t�-).0
= E LA
tn
ct+�s
N O to
n
L{ y
to
APPENDIX If
Level of Service Analysis
Using CAPSSI
Highway 111
and
Washington Street
Existing Traffic
Existing Geometrics
$4
O
O
x
x
�a
a
*
w
�
oow
a
H
U
tW
az
O
WH
!~ $4W
•O
HU�O
OH
0xa
cnaN
Wza
ama
aW(D
44 a
oz
H to
> . t7�
Uun
41ao
wa
u z
a
av
Ua
W
a
w
goX .x
z
Co . . 0 X
z
co . . . X . .
z
3
z
CA
3
0 . .x
W
g . X
w
CQ X . .
w
W • X o • • s
W
mmmmmm
U U U U U U
4! 41 41 41 d 4)
mmmmmm
r♦�OrINOO
Ntn%DM
C I I{ I I{
�r�NM•cTtn1C
OO4)414141d
0 0 0 m �
zaaaaaa
a000r+��nr+oe�0 rvoor-of-4cov MOO
>4
riNO 11
e COVON000 %orlm
%000mmmr-401nw 01rA
r+r • '
rINO H
•It woomoNmom r00
•It moowmmNowwvoz
�t ri N rl i••I
O '�3
In
moovor oov Pl. coW
If)OOOOriNe•�O r W C►P4
rl r • • '
rl N O e••0
01000d'�DlnOc�♦tnNW
NOOpptntnNOd'WH�1>4
co%D °
N1 N O H
CFO
er•1� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
m
WOOtnMHOON 1pd't�
doomm%or oma r�
Nr • • •
rl N O r"I
It NOOrGlrltnOc•1 OOO
is roo�Oln�Ot�loNww0z
4c CO 00 • t" '••1
•It e•1 N rl r {
co 10
� Z I I I I I I I I{ I I
W
�c tt)OONO�H000 HOO
it NOOrr�NrlOd'wc')Oz
c•�r •OD H
is rl N H e�
roo•r�+clnor moo
* OOOVMMNorwvoz
•K N N rl r♦
% .� 'Ci I•I .. C
•*K G� G4 4U1 X - -r4 U > e P
N 0 3 it w I4 •n U $4 -� 41
F.r1O $441m41V �MQLH
a)wH 0-4) m� �.�41 aU
0Z rao �rA-@41 �iOmm,.Nm
z...i 9 w0 0H m 0 0M m al
r.
r-4z 0 F. 41mOWH to U
0 to 4-) -1-4 > H 9 «i (0 4) O \ 41 ••
UH AH•,-' 41H 41 tT • HA
.,.1 $4 4J $4 br♦OIU 41
41 x a 4.) (0 • tr $4 4) % >
•.gto41toH4)>004)> .0
�4)M34))4O.�w> >4)0
vacs xc�zzaas'4>O
41
II 11
N
41 d o
•�
U U kC
11
•� •�
to
rr
to
4) 4)
A
II
44 44
4-)
O O
0
U
v
a
•0-1
to
V
p► rl 10
F
rl CO N
•+-1
.0in
4j
11 II
�
4
O
41
4) 4) >
to 41
y
•tA
--
to
14
c
�P4a
o
R
GGU
to
�
41
44-4
U
rt
�
•O 'Q
41
A .0 Im•+
41
C
•� •tr
H
33Hq.
A
1 I I
v
•° c
V
U rl-
d x
•rl
C r+
1-4 to
d
V
O
R3
3U
a
Existing + Growth Factor +
Project With Ultimate
Intersection Improvements
s� to
AO
z
O •r1
td �1
ex • • •
z
wm
0 . . x .
z
m
$4
•xx .
O
3
x
ro
MX .
a1
3
a
z
Ea
w
a
m •x
H
3
E-4
MX •X •
U
cA
cd >4
$U
. . x .
a a°a a
c°°n
H
001 W
E-E
waa
M •x
N
z
>, z
—
uacn
w .xx .
z
0
H
a
wx.
O
.x .
W
EE
z
ca Lo 0
0 0
H
0 0 0
I4)lt0A4)
AV4)t0A0
3
tnlntotn00
r1NNH
O
J 1 1 1 1 1 1
z
HrINM�I'tn�0
rig
r-I
> IA IA IA OIA IA IA
O b to to Id it td
zaaaaaa
e-IOOtt1tC0000C1 NMt/�
MOONNNriON OD
� • • • >I
r1 N O r-1
m o o w v w o o H m w m
V O O M N N H O M O ON
N V • •
M N O 4
moowmtomow I-oo
NOOOr�r�NOOO W oz
10 d'
Ln N r-i r1
NOOe-Id'tflr�lOe-IU �O>4 r1 • • •
r1 N O r-i
NOOWMtnOOw I
MVw
�oOel�e-irlr-1OMO
01�
M N O H
tnoowm ntnoo+Ot-m
Moo W NNNo V w
0194
CO d' • •
to N O •-I
�t woomomoom
MOW
�t OOOtoNNr•IOMO
COW
ie N !� • •
�
It H N O r-I
MOOr•IVWOON
d'I-N
I�OOVNNr10MO
CON
N -W
M N O H
* V000c•'fmnoko
Moo
�t to0000r-Ir-INO�oWMOz
oW
-It r•1 In N ri
4 rgoom r-goOM r00
4 w000d•oHowpkHoz
-It ri N r•1 ri
Noomm oov tncmin
t000mf-IHHokow ON
cn d'
M N O H
it moor-MMMON MOM
�t ri000�NNNOIo W C►�
1u O V
* r-I In N O H
* ..^.•.
•*K x
Qad�F4
• -•0 > dP
-K > > to 04J W 0\ Wv0•
O U 01 G4 U O
001 O 3 b w 1I •-N 0 k -r01 0
0r-40 140)N4)'0 bar•I
>w W �v0 O4 td IA O 04 U
O C 0 to •ri I C r-i 01 W iJ N
z•r10 E-4 W 00U) N01
ri z H 0'
0 0� V �, tA O W r-4 to 0
to in 4.) •r-I > EH r. •r1 N 0) O \ 0 --j
0 H cc Ea •r1 01 E4 01 1T • r-I .0
-r1 $4 4J G A k Id r4 Cl 0 01
V 9 0 V td 01 01 • IT $4 0) % •r1 >
•r1 0 4.) to r-4 4) > r. O 01 > .0
$44)90 4)$40•Hk> > 0 0
004M xcnzzaa0'a>O
ww
Ci Gi N •r1 s~
co
O 41 >4
m w II N -r
oo� a
r-I r-i H b U
> >33
Q
4
1-4 Go to
NM� .S In
If 0 co
41 -r4 0i
IA to 4Jj 14 W
v v.
O
to to PA to ON
r-I r-4 to IO
a n O O
O 0 V
�a4
4J
4J 4-)N co z
•� H 4j .0-4 r-4
4) 4)
4 OO
1 1 1 tr
O O
•� 0 v
aui 4) % v as
k O U 1
4 10 ••
H flo k
rO-I 4.) % •rA
& to
'w a tv
A 4)i
x U
a
H
y
a
U
Highway 111
and
Simon Drive
Existing Traffic
Existing Geometrics
N
H
E-t
fU
aH
o
z
ina
pow
>4
01 =
�
01
2 Z�
4 z
w Do p4
�Hm
>1 .Z
m
41AlH
CA
CA
vHi
H
ua
a
a
o
o
m
w
z
a
m X .
z
go
X
.
.
z
x
3
ax
10
.
.
•
3
x
-
3
m X •
m
go X
m
W
aX
W
W
N
W to to to N to
N U U U U U
o ar ar ar of
ramtAcnlAm
Hinoo00
40 N
41 1 1 1 1 1 1
� rI N t•1 sr to tG
ar ar Or Or Or Or ar
Ototot00to(at!
zawaaaa
y l l i l i i l l l i l
it Ooorimtnmom Ne-Im
it ricomNNNOMW 01pg
�t "W • • •
it ri N O r1
e•10CFO
ori0%ri00N Otnm
O O O d' to ri 0 iQ'i e-I W
. r♦ ri 0 >4
H o r-4
OOOt-09.4 om mom
A C O N V M N O a NW
co t0 . ri H •
!n N 0 r"1
CFO
N l l l l l t l l l l i
� ro
14
rl I I I I I I I I I 1 1
000�oehtntnaN - rio+m
.-IOOr-INNNOtnW O�
ri N 0 r-I
d' 10
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
000NOV-40ON O%om
e-I O O O v m rA
>+
to • • ri H
N O ri
it woovmr4mov qrr+m
* d'OOwvtoNO 4 er1W
ri ri • �+
* �HNO ri
k
it �..... Or d O A
* >>toOU 0194U Ova'
v v v v
OCr03 tow >•+-n(aG01L4i144)
H 0 w 01 N Or '0 -►i 0 04 H
4J 04 U
pw (d-� 1'C,-��01��
aFAN
0 4) is 4) -r♦ G m O to H
r..t ..I g W -•.i 4•1 a rA W r♦ N U
A to 41 -V4 > E+ O ••i to 03 O I
U ri to E 4 -4 ar E-+ 0 ON
•r1 w y c a w to ri of o 0
v ae 0 .N to 01 ar 0% w Or - ".4 >
-V4a41tor4ar>c00> aC
warts dw> >aro
Uams%0ZxN4 4>0
0. ri
11 II � 0
-ri to
O -rt
U
0 O U $
r-t ri H ci
0 01 � to
>a -rq
4J UN
in r-
to
Go
I! I1 4-) -H
mt°rn� a a
U
GOU O O
C U 'CS
>0
4,J to r-fi
33H .0 G
1 1 1ON
0
o4J b
o 0- r-4 to
N > - >4 m
4-) 'o 1
H t0 w ri
ri ij -
,°e 'i a a`oi
3 U r"1
d
a
H
m
a
U
Existing + Growth Factor +
Project With Ultimate
Intersection Improvements
W
H
E-4
W
U
to >4
OOW
o1 x H
aroa
oaa
>1 0 Z
41 a H
U �
z
O
H
E-4
a
O
ul
r-
m . OX . . .
z
M . O X
z
M .
z
M ex . .
3
M X
3
pE'q .x
3
Co X
w
W
NNtAfAfANI
U U U U U U
NdNCICIGI
N N to N N N
o0in000
N r, N
41 1 1 1 1 1 1
�riNM�f'tn�
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
zaaaaaa
v 'd
r-IOoOMinOOm♦HmM
tn0OriNC,4H0N0
OW
r♦ N O r4
* HOOOMtnInOMIHMM
1t HOONNNNONOpa
11 'W • • •
1t ri N O r 1
H
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1
M
* 0100mmoo01n
H%ow
11 d001�r1Nr�O�Ow
0►>4
11 d' • • •
inooaoaooino0►+�rO�U�
tCO W �00N�D1�N0 a1 a1'>4 •
LL1 N O r�
ri 10
H .00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
co
r-I00gvm n00w ♦ 0rIg0
rI000NNHONG Cow
V . . •
r-I N O H
ri0000MU1111OCO ♦ r�r♦U)
r-IOOONNNONG C0�
d' . . •
c�
N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
riOOvmo00N O1ow
r400r-4r4NHom co
in
N O r�
� 0000�raooino0�+inr•+cn
�t �OOOM�01�N0 ai �>4
It O d' •
�1 r♦ to N O H
w '0 i+ �• O
_
04 04 d X -� H 0 > dP
*>>NOU �WU OCl* vv v v v
O r0•1 0 N awi m a4) ro itis
dwri >1 41f-LU
09 bN IOGrroIGlcv+1(a
" •rl C N V1 4) Ei N 0 CI U) m 41
r-I ,1 0 al ,j � -N O W r4 to U
(0 to 4.) •r4 > E4 0 •r+ N ai 0 v
U to E-4 •r+ 0) H 41 tP
•r4 W 4.) Q 0 W ro ri Cl U QI
43 41td4)4) •ITWOv •4>
•ri ro i� M r4 4 > G O GI > .0
�Clro 4)w21r4w> >4)0
Uacn�go zaa404>0
m ca
r4
li it O �
.r -� ": TA z
Oo ro
41
N U) 11 In •U
w w
O O U c0
r-1 ri H U
O al � sn
O 3
4 ON
N N ro I
e� ci •N � .°3".
r-i -r1 in
n u -� •P4 o
p r-I
IAtoV � d
(D v
°F� b 0
pGU O 0
s„ U 'O
>�V 41
FOd4) r
.rjFA f-4
-Pi }, ON °' -� pq
33fO+ 4-) �
1 1 1 0
a 4)
$4 O U 1
� '0
rl
H ro OH
3U �
a
H
U)
a
U
APPENDIX "D"
Signal Warrant
Traffic Manuel TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 1
tt-t
Figure 0.1 C
TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS
WARRANT 8 - Combination of Warrants
SATISFIED YES ® No ❑
RECUIREMENT
WARRANT
✓
FULFILLED
TWO WARRANTS
SATISFIED
80%
1 - MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUME
YES NO
2 - INTERRUFnON OF CONTINUOUS TRAFFIC
3 -MINIMUM PEDESTRIAN VOLUME
WARRANT 9 - Four Hour Volume
Annrnanh Lanes
Bath Approaches . Malor Street
Highest Aoaroaches . Minor Street
SATISFIED- YES ❑ NO
2 or
One more Hour
-Refer to Fig. 9-2A (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9-2B (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied
WARRANT 10- Peak Hour Delay
SATISFIED YES Q NO
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach controlled by a STOP
sign equals or exceeds four vehicie-hours for a one -lane approach and five vehicle -hours
for a two-lane approach; and YES Q NO
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 vph for one
moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; and YES ❑' NO
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 800 vph for
intersections with four or more approaches or 650 vph for intersections with three approaches.
YES
❑ NO
WARRANT 11 - Peak Hour Volume
Onnrnach Lanes
2 or
One more
SATISFIED- YES t3 NC
Bo+n Aooroecnea Melor stre.t 1990
Hlphest Approaches . Minor Street 100
Hour
P.M Peak
Hour
-Refer to Fig. 9-2C (URBAN AREAS) or Figure 9.20 (RURAL AREAS) to determine if this warrant is satisfied
The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily Justification for a signal. Delay. congestion. confusion or othi
evidence of the need for right of way assignment must be shown.
HIGHWAY 11.1 and SIMON DRIVE
*Cumulative Traffic Volumes
(EXisting + Gr. FActor + PRoject Traffic
Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-13
92-IM
* 4
W
Z
49
W
W
2
z
Q
J
J
w
V-
z
J
N
W
W
z
O!
J
aZ'
�
Q
N
O
W
N
z
J
W
ac
O
O
N
0 O O 0
Q (7 N
HdA--HOVOdddV 3wn 1OA HOIH
133UIS WONIW
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
Os
0
Co
O
0
0
m
O
O
O
O
IV
O
O
CO
49
SunLine Transit
MEMBER AGENCIES
Cathedral City
Coachella
Desert Hot Springs
Indian Wells
Indio
La Quinta
Palm Desert
Palm Springs
Rancho Mirage
Riverside County
Mr. Greg Trousdell
Associate Planner
CITY OF LA QUINTA
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: Plot Plan 91-466
Dear Mr. Trousdell:
August 21, 1991
AUG ?.. 7 •c,r,',
}.Tp'
,iJ��I�IPlE � RE".`�D�•""dT CEP;
Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for the commercial
development to be located on the southeast corner of Washington Street
and Highway 111. As you may know, SunLine operates Line 19 on
thirty -minute headways (fifteen -minute headways during peak hours)
alone Highway ill, and Line 4 on sixty -minute headways along
Washington Street in the vicinity of this project. Beginning in the
fall, SunLine will operate Line 4 in the La Quinta area on
thirty -minute frequencies during peak hours.
We request that bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters be
included in the project. These amenities should be located on
Washington Street and on Highway 111. SunLine has suggested standards
for bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters. As an alternative,
we would like to see a transfer center on Simon Drive.
In this vicinity, SunLine currently has a large volume of passengers
utilizing Lines 19 and 4. A project of this size can only increase
the number of ridership, therefore, a transfer center would be most
advantageous. We request an opportunity to meet with the city and the
developer to discuss our needs.
We will contact you the week of August 26th to schedule an appointment
date that will be convenient for all parties.
I apologize for the delay in my response but please be assured we are
very interested in this development.
Yours very truly,
41A'4_" &ZZ7
Debra Astin
Director of Planning
DA/kh
32-505 Harry Oliver Trail . Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343-3456 . FAX (619) 343-3845
A Public Agency
Q �
4
�6 78-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA. CAUFORNLA 92263 (619) 564-2246
of fAX (819) 684-6617
FROM:
PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: �
Y C y Manager _�peral
a Management �incipal
lic Works/Engineering
Telephone 1anner(s)
_F Marshal (emo t/ Cable Vision koAssociate
uilding i Safety ne Transit Planner(s)
__Ch r of Commerce s,CSltrans (District II) Assistant
Agricultural Commission Planer
utrial Irrigation City of Indian Wells t anning
hern California Gas Cj ty of Indio Director
serf Sands School Dist. S Postal Service
Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County:
CV Archaeological Society Planning Department
Property E ironmental Health
Owner's Association heriffIs Department
LA QUINTA CASE NO(S) : �� 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 794_ l s 7 4k-V PAnt�? 117
lei r
PROJECT LOCATION: s r- 5�Z4`11492 42E &;1414 A y i; /
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 by '4WW.0— /9, 101 and return the
maps/plans if not needed for your files. Yost are invited to attend the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for:
Date: o% Time: i
Contact Person: �,�FI� — — ��G ?L/
/�Au.S D,e"{ _ Title: o .� '•-r.�
Comments made by: Title: 6wra
Date: /L'q/ Phone:�� �331-5%Ytt Agency/Division
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Attention: Greg Trousdell
_tIVERSIM, COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACIM AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
August 13, 1991
CFtaf:1,
QUG?5ta(..
Re: Plot Plan 91-466
Simon Plaza, Inc. r yr 1-1, WINTA
'�
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the abovec�referenNrorNca°cei°;fgfWl n,
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. Fire flow is based
upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
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 the building(s) will be automatically fire
sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans.
t3 INDIO OFFICE
79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(619) 342MM 0 FAX (619) 7752072
PLANNING DMSION
13 RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Strvet, RivemW CA 92501
(714) 275.4777 0 FAX (7I4) 369.7451
O Te&CULA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 22S, Temecula, CA 92390
(714) 694.5070 0 FAX (714) 694.5076
`bd' printed on recycled papa
City of La Quinta 8/13/91
Re: PP 91-466 page 2.
Simon Plaza, Inc.
5. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the
Uniform Building Code.
6. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans
must be submitted, along with a plan check/ inspection fee, to the Fire
Department for review.
7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not
less than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for
proper placement of equipment.
8. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
5503.
9. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire
lanes.
11. Install a Class I Standpipe System.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan
check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are
submitted.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to
the Fire Department Planning 6 Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
BY e
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
Np►TES POSTq_
C N
W T
F� t
u aNwL
United States
Postal Service
The United States Postal Service requests that the final map shall show
easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized
mail delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the
satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department.
zTRI
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
JOHN W. RAYMOND
R. RU MONDS, VICE PRESIDENT August t 12 1991 BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
g 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
Cklvtu
AUG 16 ?Qc
01 Y ur UM VuiNTA
Subject: Plot Plan 91-466, Portion of North ING&DEVELOPMENT DER
Quarter, Section 30, Township 5 South,
Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater
Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare
instances.
This area is designated Zone % 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,
C
Levy
General Manager -Chief Engineer
RF:lmf/e8
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
T •
f 4
C 78-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92253 - (8191 684-2246
°F FAX (619) 564-6817
FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE:
12
i� C00'i y Manager _ �tt�sta Management 7-zrincipal
lic Works/Engineering cue eral Telephoneanner(s)
f Marshal (DaN!) t� r Cable Vision Associate
ttb
wilding i Safety u�n..i ne Transit Planner(s)
�Frial
r of Commerce s•Caltrans (District II) Assistant
gricultural Commission Winer
Irrigation City of Indian wells I anning
hern California Gas Cj.ty of Indio Director
EFsert Sands School Dist. S Postal Service
Coachella Valley School Dist. .,'..;` Riverside County:
CV Archaeological Society Planning Department
Property AUG�� E�rironmental Health
owner's Association T�heriff Is Department
LA QUINTA CASE NO (S) : Z� { u & �'' ' T �` *•
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: & US S 7 &W_aae LJ-
ol,4 pa
PROJECT LOCATION:
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
J 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 by 71906 U.r7—./9 and return the
maps/plans if not needed for your files. Yod are invited to attend the
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for:
Date: &0/ gs� Time: Ae
Contact Person: A P.S _dL Titles-SoGAT.� ��'•-tom
Comments m e by: C� Datesf� Phone:J Y`-/,4/LAgenritle:
vision
0yi^`
C 78-105 CALLS ESTADO - LA OUINTA. CAUFORNW 92259 - (819) 564.2248
°f F/10fAX (618) 5846817
FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATES I
YCjj.�tty Manager �iFl�ste Management
incipal
_;Public Works/Engineering vie eral Telephone Planner(s)
if Marshal (paAu�) t/ � r Cable Vision Associate
wilding 4 Safety �5un-, ne Transit Planners)
__Ch r of Commerce transs.C�� (District II) Assistant
Agricultural Commission P er
�V::�=rial Irrigation City of Indian Wells I anninq
thern California Gas �y of Indio Director
sert Sands School Dist. S Postal Service
Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County:
_CV Archaeological Society Planning Department
Property ironmental Health
Owner's AssocEiation heriffIs Department
LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): T
4,L-u PROJECT DESCRIPTION:,7gC7�uo S
AUG 6 TQo' S(0
CITY UI' UI T ATION: r.�� s r �, Ai A9 e � , A;/�;0 a v
)TANNING & D
The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initia
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; �/otic
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 Non/t�
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. v-o^.4M'
Please send your response by A)e s7- IR to and return the
maps/plans if not needed for your files. Yod are invited to attend thi
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for:
Date: /Vo% Time:
Contact Person: � ��� auSD. - Titles 05&2!-.c= r�•' 151.4
Comments made by: e�-Title:, + &n: LrZ-
Date: Phone: ,- 77 Y Agency/Division •
STATE OF CAUFORNIA' BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE wksm. Gomm
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11. P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186.5405
(619) 688-6968
November 14, 1
City of La Ouinta
Planning and Development Department
P. 0. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Mr, Greg Trousdell
ate-►act-�c� s"��r:'''ti`
00
I 4
NOV 1 8 1991
�,sc �s•n• ss a -�rt.+ r.wt�.
PM 33.1/34.2
Simon Plaza
We have reviewed the traffic impact study report for the proposed Simon Plaza
development located in the southeast comer of the State Route 111 (SR-111) and Washington
Street intersection in the City of La Ouinta and have the following comments:
On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) for improvements on
SR-111 between Washington Street and Adams Street was approved by the District. The
proposed improvements were designed to accommodate Year 2010 traffic generated by
proposed commercial developments north of SR-111, but did not include traffic generated
from the proposed Simon Plaza development. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing
four lane highway to a six lane conventional highway through this area was included in that
report.
The traffic impact study report contains several significant differences in the Year 2010 peak
hour turning volumes at the SR-111/Washington Street intersection when compared to those
shown in the PSR/PR. Of particular concern is the eastbound SR-111 to southbound
Washington Street right turn volume; the eastbound SR-111 through volume, and the
northbound Washington Street to westbound SR-111 left turn volume. These volumes, as
shown in the traffic impact study need to be resolved since they are approximately twice as
high as those in the PSR/PR. The traffic growth rate factors used by the consultant may need
to be adjusted at this location.
The traffic study includes an intersection schematic for SR-111 at Washington Street
(Figure 7) showing eight lanes on SR-111. This is not consistent with the Route Concept
Report (RCR) for SR-111 and is probably unnecessary because the traffic volumes assumed
in the study may be unable to reach the intersection due to upstream controls. The City may,
however, elect to reserve additional right of way to allow for additional channelization on SR-
111 in the vicinity of Washington Street. The developer should be required to mitigate traffic
impacts on SR-111 associated with the proposed development.
Driveway access location from SR-111 to the proposed development should be prohibited,
if possible, or limited to a single opening for right turning traffic only and should be located
midway between adjacent intersections.
City of La Ouinta
November 14, 1991
Page 2
For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way requirements, please
contact Bob Lowrie at (619) 688-3211.
If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Jim Buksa of our staff
at (619) 688-6968.
JESUS M. GARCIA
District Director
BY�t
BILL DILLON, Chief
Planning Studies Branch
oa CRWest
AKosup
JBuksa
T/P File
STATE OF CALFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
PETE WLSON, Govern
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186-Se06 .1
(619) 688-6968 �.; r -` n
cEP
September 11, 199 v i y j �- Lr ; y u `N,T A
J�u'-i f;?VrNT n[F11-RIV-111
Washington Street
PP 91-466
City of La Quinta
Planning and Development Department
P. O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell
We have reviewed Plot Plan 91-466 for Simon Plaza located at the comer of
Washington Street and State Route 111 (SR-111). We have the following
comments:
A traffic study should be prepared for this development which identifies
impacts and appropriate mitigation.
On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR), for
improvements to SR-1 I 1 (PM 33.1 - 34.2) was approved by Caltrans District 11.
The proposed improvements were designed to accommodate traffic generated by
proposed commercial development north of SR- 111 between Adams and
Washington Street, as well as the anticipated growth to the year 2010. A
conceptual plan for upgrading the existing highway to a six lane conventional
highway through this area was also included in this report.
Any improvements necessary to SR- 111 due to the proposed development must
meet Caltrans standards and also be in conformance with the PSR/PR referenced
above. Access to this development from SR- 111 should be restricted to one
driveway located midway between Washington Street and Simon, with right turn in
and right turn out only.
A bus turnout should be considered, to conform with the bus turnouts being
proposed on the north side of SR-111.
Additional right of way may be required. We have specified a 30 foot setback to
the right of way line from the ultimate edge of the travelled way for the commercial
development on the north side of SR-111.
Any proposed access or work within Caltrans right of way will require an
encroachment permit. Information regarding encroachment permits may be
obtained by contacting our Permit Office at (619) 688-6843. Early coordination
with our agency is strongly recommended for all encroachment permit
applications.
For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way
requirements, please contact Project Engineer Paul Hardin at (619) 688-6712.
City of La guinta
September 11, 1991
Page 2
If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa of
our staf% at (619) 688-6968.
JESUS M. GARCIA
District Director
By 7re-'
/c /
BILL DILLON, Chief
System Planning Branch
cc: CRWest
JBuksa
T/P File
September 27, 1991
Mr. Jerry Herman
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estrado
La Quinta, Ca. 92253
Re: Simon Plaza
Dear Mr. Herman:
91-224
SEP 11 1991
CITY 4� LA (11 14TA
PLANN.yv
Attached are two (2) copies of the hydrology report for the
Simon Plaza project.
Based upon the proposed project and the on going area wide
drainage problems. We recommend that the City and the project
proponents work together to solve there collective problems by the
installation a storm drain system along Washington to the
Whitewater River.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
, INC.
L. Sanborn
JLS:lm
Encl.
c.c. Fred Simon - W/Encl.
255 N. El Cielo Road • Suite 315 9 Palm Springs, Ca'.ifornia 92262 • (619) 325-2245 • (619) 325-9426 0 FAX (E19� 325-5130
aIC & HYDROLOGY REPOR 'r +►• � � '
FOR SIMON PLAZA 51 21 1991
CITY Of !A Q U N TA
PLANN;NC DEPARTMENT
CONDITIONS
The project is a 5.7 acre Office/Retail complex located at the
southeast corner of State Highway ill and Washington Street in the
City of La Quinta. A site plan is attached.
PURPOSE
To determine the peak run-off and the required volume of retention
for the 100 year storm.
METHOD
Peak run-off and volume of retention were calculated using the
"Unit Hydrograph Analysis". The analysis is attached.
CALCULATION RESULTS
The results of the Unit Hydrograph Analysis are as follows:
1. The peak run-off rate is 2.58 cubic feet per second.
2. The required volume of retention is 1.34 acre feet.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the configuration of the proposed site, the ability to
retain storm run-off on -site is hampered. It's recommended that
the developers of Simon Plaza attempt to participate in a
redevelopment type program to eliminate their problem as well as
larger regional problem of storm water flooding at the corner of
Washington Street and Highway 111. Currently approximately 150,
acres drain to this corner and preliminary hydrology studies
suggest that the peak run-off of a 10 year storm could be as great
as 150 c.f.s.. There exists a small sump pump to handle nuisance
water at this location but the capacity is inadequate during
significant storms. It is recommended that the City enter into a
redevelopment program to install•a gravity storm drain from the
Simon Plaza project north under Highway 111 to the Whitewater River
Channel.
QRpfESS1ONq
t NO.43880 J
ev- C - 3a •93 / *�
Jt civiv
qTf OF CAkA
0)A'-da,
'J n i t H y d r o g r a o tl =; n a I v s i S
Copyright (c) CivilCadd/CivilDe ign. 1990. Version 2.1
Study date 9/26/91
+++++++-l-++++++•}+++++++i-++++-h+++i--I-i-.++i--F++++++-1--l--h-I-.•i-i-+-I-+••F•++-F++++.++^�
Riverside County Synthetic Unit �: HvdrologMethod
RCFC & WCD. Manual date - Aori 1 ?79 -
Drainage Area = 5.66 Acre_. _ 0.009 Sa. *Mi .
Length along longest watercourse - 600.00 Ft.
Length along longest watercourse (measured to centroid = 400.00
Length along longest watercourse = 0.114 Mi.
Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 0.076
Difference in elevation = 1.50 Ft.
Slope along watercourse = 11.2000 Ft./Mi.
Average Manning'_ 'N' _ 0.015
Lag time = 0.036 Hr.
Lag time = 2.17 Min.
Z 5% of lag time = 0.54 Min.
4 0% of lag time = 0.87 Min.
Unit time -= 15.00 Min.
,s_-ation of storm = 24 Hour(s)
A -ea rainfall data:
Areo(Acres.)111 Rainfall(In.)123 WeightingEI*23
5.66 3.50 19.81
Point rain (area'averaged) = 1.500 (In.)
Area! adjustment factor = 100.00
Adjusted average point rain = 3.500 (In.)
RI Infil. rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area% F
(In/Hr) (Dec.%) (In/Hr) (Dec.) (In/Hr
77 .0 0.279 1.000 0.026 1.000 0.02E
Sum (F) = 0.028
Area averaged mean soil loss (F) Qn/Hr) 0.028
Minimum soil loss rate (In/Hr) _ 0.014
( for 24 hour storm duration)
Soil low loss rate (decimal) 0.800
--------------------------------------------------------------------
U n i t H y d r o g r a p h
Foothill S-Curve
Unit Hydrograph Data
-------------------------------------
Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph
(hrs) Graph 7. cfs-hrs/in
------------------------
1 0.250 690.666 80.717 4.6
2 0.500 13e l . 332 19.293 93 1 . 1
Sum = 100.00 Sum= 5.7
Wr.'
Percent
(in./hr.)
Max |
Low
(in./hr.)
1
0.25
0.20
0.028
0.049
0.022
O.D1
�
0.50
0.30
0.042
0.049
0.034
0.01
3
0.75
0.30
0.042
0.048
0.034
0.01
4
1.00
0.40
0.056
0.048
---
0.01
5
1.25
0.30
0.042
0.047
0.034
0.01
6
1.50
0.30
0.042
' 0.047
0.034
0.01
7
1.75
0.30
0.042
0.046
0.034
0.01
8
2.00
0.40
0.056
0.045
---
0.01
9
2.25
0.40
0.056
0.045
---
0.01
10
2.50
0.40
0.056
0.044
---
0.01
11
2.75
0.50
0.070
0.044
---
0.03
12
3.00
0.50
0.070
0.043
---
0.03
13
3.25
0.50
0.070
0.043
---
0.03
14
3.50
0.50
0.070
0.042
---
0.03
15
3.75
0.50
0.070
0.042
0.03
16
4.00
0.60,
0.084
0.041
---
0.04
17
4.25
0.60
0.084
0.041
---
0.04
18
4.50
0.70
0.098
0.040
---
0.06
19
4.75
0.70
0.098
0.040
---
0.06
20*
5.00
0.80
0.112
0.039
---
0.07
21
5.25
0.60
V084
0.039
---
0.05
22
5.50
0.70
0.098
0.038
---
0.06
23
5.75
0.80
0.112
0.038
---
0.07
24
6.00
0.80
0.112
0.037
---
0.07
25
6.25
0.90
0.126
0.037'
---
0.09
26
6.50
0.90
0.126
0.036
---
0.09
27
6,75
1.00
0.140
0.036
---
0.10
28
7.00
1.00
0.140
0.035
---
0.10
29
7.25
1.00
0.140
0.035
---
0.11
30
7,50
1.10
0.154
0.034
---
0.12
31
7.75
1.20
0.168
0.034
---
0.13
32
8.00
1.30
0.182
0.033
---
0.15
33
8.25
1.50
0.210
0.033
---
0.16
34
8.50
1.50
0.210
0.032
---
0.18
35
8.75
1.60
0.224
0.032
---
0.19
36
9.00
1.70
0'238
0.031
---
0.21
37
9.25
1.90
0.266
0.031
---
0.24
38
9.50 '
2.00
0.280
0.031
---
0.25
39
9.75
2.10
0.294
0.030
---
0.26
40
10.00
2.20
0.308
0.030
---
0.28
41
10.25
1.50
0.210
0.029
---
0.18
42
10.50
1.50
0.210
0.029
---
0.18
43
10.75
2.00
0.280
0.028
---
0.25
44
11.00
2.00
0.280
0.028
---
0.25
45
11.25
1.90
0.266
0.028
---
0.24
46
11.50
1.90
0.266
0.027
---
0,24
47
11.75
1.70
0.238
0.027
---
0.21
48
12.00
1.80
0.252
0.026
---
0.23
49
12.25
2.50
0.350
0.026
---
0.32
50
12.50
2.60
0.364
0.026
---
0.34
51
12.75
2.80
0.392
0.025
---
0.37
52
13.00
2.90
0.406
0.025
---
0.38
53
13.25
3.40
0.476
0.024
---
0.45
54
13.50
3.40
0.476
0.024
---
0.45
55
13.75
2.30
0.322
0.024
---
0.30
56
14.00
2.30
0.322
0.023
---
0.30
57
14.25
2.70
0.378
0.023
---
0.36
58.
14.50
2.60
0.364
0.023
---
0.34
59
14.75
2.60'
0.364
0.022
---
0.34
60
15.00
2.50
0.350
0.022
---
0.33
61
15.25
2.40
0.336
0.022
---
0.31
62
15.50
2.30
0.322
0.021
---
0'30
Vv
a - . _ .
t_, ....F1_!
U . U56
U . UZU ---
0.04
67
16.71
0.30
0.042
0.020 -- -
O C:
6S
17.00
c"] , ai_'
0.042
0.019 ---
.
0.02
69
17.25
0.50
0.070
0.019 ---
0.05
70
17.50
0.50
0.07o
o . o 19 ---
0.05
71
17.75
0.50
0.070
0.019 ---
0.05
72
18.00
0.40
0.056
0.018 ---
0.04
73
18.25
0.40
0.056 -
0.018 ---
0.04
74
18.50
0.40
0.056
0.018 ---
0.04
75
18.75
0.30
0.042
0.017 ----
0.02
76
19.00
0.20
0.028
0.017 ---
0.01
77
19.25
0.30
0.042
0.017 ---
0. O._,
78
19.50
0.40
0.056
0.017 -- -
0.04
79
19.75
0.30
0.042
0.017 ---
O.Oz
80
20.00
0.20
0.028
0.016 ---
0.01
81
20.25
0.30
0,042 042
0.016 ---
0 . cj"
82
20.50
0.30
0.042
0.016 ---
0. W
63
20.75
0.30
0.042
0.016 ----
i . Oz
84
21.00
0.20
0.028
.0.015 -----
0.01
65
21.25
0.30
0.042
0.015 --. __'
0. i1
86
21.50
0.20
0.028
0.015 ---
0.01
87
21 .75
0.30
0.042
0.015 ---
O.O
88
22.00
0.20
0.028
0.015 ---
0.01
89
22.25
0.30
0.042
0.015 ____
0. . W
�i
22 ,._�;
r, t:i
2
0,028
0.015 ----
0.01
91
22.75
0.20
0. 022
0.014 ---
0.01.
92
23.00
0.20
0. 028
0.014 - - -
0.011.
93
23.25
0.2C
0.028
0.014 ---
0.01
94
23.50
0.20
0 2.1:-:'
0.014 ----
C.01
95
23.75
0.20
0. l_! `E,
0.014 - _
0.01
96
24.00
0.20
0.022,
0.014 ---
0.01
Sum =
10 1.l_i
Sum tin =
11.4
Flood
volume =
Effective rainfall
2.85 (in.)
times
area
5.7 (Ac.)/12 =
1.3 Acre Feet
Total
soil loss
= 0.65 (In .
)
Total
soil loss
= 0.305 Acre
Feet
Total.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
rainfall
= 3. 50 (In. )
++++++++++-F+++++++++++++i-h++++++++.++++++-h+++++-I-++++•i 4 -I-+++++++-I-++ F
24 - H O U R S T 0 R M
R u n o f f H v d r o g r a p h
Q _iroarsph in 15 Minute intervals (CFS)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Time (h+ITS) Volume (AF) VFS! `? 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.
0+ 1 5
0.0005
O. Oz
Q
0+30
0.0015
0.04
Q
i t+45
0.0024 i ri r24
0.05 r5
1+ 0
0.0034
0.05
(0 Q
1
1
1 + 15
0.0044
0.05
Q
1+30
0.0054
0.05
Q I
'
1 1 i
1 +45
0.0064 ri r64
0.05 r5
Q 1
1
I 1 1
1 1 1
2+ 0
0.0076
0.06
Q 1
'
1 I 1
2+ 15
0.0089
0.06
I
Q I
1 I 1
I 1 i
2+30
0.0103
0.07
Q 1
I 1 1
2+45
0.0130
j
0.11 �1T
Q
3+ i t
0.0162
0.15
Q 1
I
1 1
3+15
ir.0194
0.16
Q I
1
1
1
3+;30
0.0227
0.16
Q
3+45
0.0260
0.16
Q
4+ 0
O.OZ07
0.2Z
Q
4-45
0.0492
0.33
|Q
| |
| |
5" 0
0.0575
0.40
|Q
0+15
0.0634
0.29
|Q
| |
| |
5+30
0.0702
0.33
|QV
| |
| |
5+45
0.0786
0.41
|QV
| |
| |
6+ 0
0.0874
0.43
|QV
| |
| |
6+15
0.0977
0.49
|QV
| |
\ |
6+30
0.1082
0.51
| QV
| |
| |
6+45
0.1202
0.58
QV
| |
| |
7+ 0
0.1326
0.60
| QV
| |
| |
7+15
0.1450
0.60
| Q
V
7+30
0.1588
0.67
| Q
V
| |
| |
7+45
0.1743
0.75
Q
V
8+ 0
0.1915
0.83
{ Q
V
B+15
0.2117
0.98
| Q
V
8+30
0.2327
1.01
|
Q V
| |
| |
8+45
0.255C
1.08
|
Q V
9+ 0
0.2790
1.16
|
Q V
9+15
0.3060
1.31
|
Q
V| |
\ |
9+30
0.3351 '
i.41
|
Q
V| |
| |
9+45 `
0.3659
1.49
\
Q
V
10+ 0
0.3984
1.57
|
Q
1V
10*15
0.4219
1.14
)
Q
| V
10+30
0.4432
1.03
1
Q
| V |
| |
10+45
0.4713
1.36
|
Q
| V |
| |
11+ 0
0.5010
1.44
|
Q
| V
11+15
0.5294
1.38
|
Q
| V |
| |
11+30
0.5575
1.36
|
Q
| V |
| |
11+45
0.5631
1.24
|
Q
V |
| |
12+ 0
0.6093
1.27
|
Q
| V i
| |
12+15
0.645Z
1.74
|
Q
| V|
� |
12+30
0.6848
1.91
|
Q
| V
| |
12+45
0.7274
2.06
|
Q | V
\ |
13+ 0
0.7720
2.16
|
Q | | V
� |
13+15
0.8237
2.50
| V
| |
13+30
0.8769
2.58
|
Q |
V � |
13+45
0.9156
1.87
|
Q
! |
V | |
14+ 0
0.9508
1.70
|
Q
| )
V | �
14+15
0.9913
1.96
|'
Q
|
V| |
14+30
1.0319
1.96
)
Q
| |
V |
14+45
1.0721
1.95
Q
|V i
15+ V
1.1111
1.89
|
Q
| |
| V |
15+15
1.1485
1.81
|
Q
| |
| V |
| V |
15+30
1.1842
1.73
|
Q
| |
15+45
1.2144
1.46
16+ 0
1.24Z3
1.40
|
Q
| |
| V |
16+15
1.Z522
0.43
\Q
| |
| V |
16+30
1.2565
0.21
Q
| |
| V |
16+45
1.2594
^
0.14
Q
| |
| V |
\ V |
17+ C
1.2621
0.13
Q
| |
|
� V |
17+15
1.2674
0.26
|Q
\
| V |
17+30
.
1 2735
0.29
|Q
| |
|
� V |
17+45
1 ^ 2795
0.29
)Q
|
|
V|
|
18+ 01.2843
0.23
Q
|
|
) V |
18+15
.
1.2887
.
0 22
Q
|
|
| V|
18+30
1.2933
^
0.22
Q
|
|
| V )
18+45
1 ^ 2965
0.16
Q
)
|
| V |
19+ 0
1 ^ 2980
0.08
Q
�
|
\ V |
19+15
1.3007
0.13
Q
�
19+30
1.3050
~
0.21
Q
|
|
| V |
19+45
^'� '~
1 3083
.
- -'--
.
0 16
Q
� �
|
| V|
20+ 0
1.3100
^
0 08
^
Q
\
| V|
�0+15
�
1.3127
0.13
^ ^~
Q
�
|
. |
| y|
21+15
1.3235
0.14
Q
|
21+:�0
1.3253
0.09
O
|
.21+45
1.3282
0.14
Q
|
22+ 0
1.3301
0.09
Q
|
22+15
1.3330
0.14
Q
|
22+30
1.3349
0.09
Q
|
22+45
1.3365
0.08
Q
\
23+ 0
1.3381
0.08
Q '
|
23+15
1.3397
0.08
Q
|
23+30
1.3413
0.08
Q
i
23+45
1.3430
0.08
Q
|
24+ 0
1.3446
0.08
Q
|
24+15
--------------------------------------------
1.3450
0.02
Q
|
| |
V|
| |
V|
| |
V|
| |
V>
| |
V|
| |
V|
| |
V|
� |
V|
| |
V|
� |
V}
|
|
V|
_______________________
BEST, BEST
& KRIEGER
A ►MITWFAHIP OCI000 NKWVWIONAL COWCp TKVA
LAWYERS
600 EAST TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY
ARTHUR L LITTLEWORTH• DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS•
WILLIAM D DAHLING, JR.
TERESA J. PRISTOJKOVIC
KENNETH R WEIS$
J. CRAIG JOHNSON
POST OFFICE BOX 2710
GLEN E. STEPHEN$*
WILLIAM R. DeWOLFEP
ANTONIA GRAPHOS
GREGORY K. WILKINSON
VICTORIA N. KING
SUSAN C. NAUSS
PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 92263
BARTON C GAUT•
WYNNE S. FURTH
MATT H. MORRIS
CHRISTOPHER DODSON
TELEPHONE (619) 325-7264
PAUL T SELZER*
DAVID L. BARON
JEFFREY V. DUNN
STEVEN C DOBAUN
MARK R. HOWE
BERNIE L WILLIAMSON
TELECOPIER (619) 325-0365
DAL LAS HOLMES• VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS
CHRIS70PHER L. CARPENTER' EUGENE TANAKA
BRANT H DVEIRIN
ELAINE E HILL
RICHARD T. ANDERSON•
BASIL T. CHAPMAN
TIMOTHY M CONNOR
ERIC L. GARNER
DENNIS M COTA
WILLIAM J ADAMS
WANDA S McNEIL
JOHN D WAHLIN•
MICHAEL 0. HARRIS-
VICTOR L WOLF
JULIE HAYWARD BIGGS
RACHELLE J NICOLLE
KEVIN K RANDOLPH
EUGENIA J MOREZZ1
OF COUNSEL
W CURT EALY'
THOMAS S SLOVAK•
DANIEL E OLIVIER
DANIEL J McHUGH
ROBERT W HARGREAVES
JAMES 8 GILPIN
JAMES M KEARNEY
JAMES 8 CORISON
JOHN E BROWN*
HOWARD B GOLDS
STEPHEN P. DEITSCH
JANICE L WEIS
CHRISTIAN E. HEARN
MARSHALL S RUDOLPH
RICHARD A OSHINS"
MICHAEL T. RIDDELL'
MEREDITH A JURY'
MARC E. EMPEY
SHARYL WALKER
W PEARCE
KIM A BYRENS
CYNTHIA M GERMANO
RONALD T. VERA
MICHAEL GRANII•
FRANCIS J. BAUM•
JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER
MARTIN A. MUELLER
PATRICK
KIRK W. SMITH
MARY E GILSTRAP
-AANA TEO w I. ,— MEVAOA
WA6M04aTOH GJ; CST Of CLAMn
ANNE T. THOMAS•
J. MICHAEL SUMMEROUR
KLYSTA J. POWELL
D. DABAREINER
GINEVRA C. MARUM
DANIEL C. PARKER, JR.
0 MARTIN NETHERY•
GEORGE M. REYES
JEFFERY J. CRANDALL
SCOTT C SMITH
JASON
HAYDN WINSTON
NGUYEN O. PHAN
WILLIAM W FLOYD. JR.
JACK 8. CLARKE DAVID A. PRENTICE
JEANNETTE A PETERSON KYLE A. SNOW
PAUL G GIBSON
CRAIG S. PYNES
MICHAEL A CRISTE•
GREGORY L. HARDKE
BRAAN M LEWIS
MARK A. EASTER
CHARLES E. KOLLER
OFFICES IN
KENDALL H MacVEY
BRADLEY E. NEUFELO
GEOFFREY K. WILLIS
DIANE L. FINLEY
MICHELLE OUELLETTE
RAYMOND BEST (1868-1957)
RIVERSIDE (714)686-1450
RANCHO MIRAGE (619)568.2611
CLARK H ALSOP
DAVID J ERWIN'
KANDY LEE ALLEN
PETER M BARMACK
JAMES H. KRIEGER (1913.1975)
EUGENE BEST (1893-1981)
ONTARIO (714) 989-BS84
MICHAEL J ANDELSON•
ELISE K. TRAYNUM
DAVID P. PHIPPEN
•A PAOfEW ONK CORPQRATW
t t
September 5, 1991
SEP C
l`tT``� `��
John
J. Pena, Mayor
'�-1 ,i
%(�Rt'�!';1?' v. t�FI1r;�JQAA.�iT nEPi
City
of La Quinta
P.O.
Box 1504
La Quinta, California
92253
Dear Mayor Pena:
As you are no doubt aware, Simon Plaza, Inc. has a design
review application pending before the City to allow construction of
a restaurant/banking facility, a three story medical office
building, a two story recreational facility, as well as an
attendant parking structure to service each of the foregoing
buildings. This parcel, currently in escrow, is owned by 3S
Partnership which consists of Fred Simon, John Sanborn and myself,
and Pomona First Federal. In general, the proposed development has
been well received by the City staff, as well as many other
residents and officials of the City with whom we have shared it.
The staff has requested additional information which is currently
being assembled and will be forwarded to them promptly. In
addition, Simon Plaza and City staff are having ongoing discussions
dealing with the City policy, contained in the General Plan, which
provides that the City should pursue low density (low level)
structures along major arterials. We understand that the City
policy is to require one story structures within 150 feet of the
property line. It is further our understanding that under
appropriate circumstances the City Council may modify that policy
if such modification, on balance, serves the interests of the City.
I am writing this letter to you because of the long
history of discussions and correspondence you, Mr. Simon, Pomona
and I have had with respect to the property and the Washington
Street Corridor Plan of the City. The purpose of this letter is to
review that history and to point out why we believe a modification
`154s2
LAW OFFICES OR
BEST, BEST & KLIEG`..
John J. Pena, Mayor
September 5, 1991
Page 2
of the City policy with respect to building height, in this case,
serves the interest of both the City and the developer.
As you will recall, this property was subdivided pursuant
to the terms of Parcel Map 18418 in 1982, shortly after the
incorporation of the City. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of
that Map, the 3S Company, and Pomona, the owner of Parcel 6 of that
Parcel map were required by the City to make certain dedications of
rights of way along Washington Street and Highway 111 and to
improve those rights of way with paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
and traffic light modifications. In addition, of course, we were
required to install water and sewer improvements to serve not only
our property, but also other properties in the area. Those
improvements were later installed at substantial expense to us.
In early 1986, we became aware that the city was
considering an amendment to its General Plan which would adopt as
a part thereof the Washington Street Corridor Plan which would have
a significant impact upon our properties. As the attached
correspondence will attest, we violently objected, and informed the
city that we believed that they city could not exact additional
rights of way and improvements from us, and that if it adopted and
implemented the proposed plan, it could not count on our project to
voluntarily, or as a condition of development, dedicate or improve
the rights of way which would have been required to implement the
plan. We had several meetings with the staff at that time, and
went to considerable time and expense in preparing and presenting
plans which were alternatives to those set forth in the Washington
Street Corridor plan. We were assured that nothing would happen
without further discussions with us.
Unfortunately, in 1987, and without notice to us, the
City adopted a plan which resulted in a proposed widening of
Washington. When we became aware of the change, we immediately
contacted you and the City Manager, and again reiterated our
position that we did not intend to dedicate or improve any addition
right of way along either Washington Street or Highway 111; that we
had an absolute vested right to develop our property in a fashion
consistent with our approved Parcel Map and the zoning applicable
to the property at the time we began development, and that if the
City really intended to implement its plan for Washington, it
should plan on condemning the property, because we would not
dedicate it. We also pointed out that with the Washington Street
Plan in place, and the set backs required along both Washington
Street and Highway 111, the parcel owned by Pomona, and our parcel
situated adjacent to Washington Street had become virtually
undevelopable, and would result in a claim by us and Pomona that
the remainder of those parcels not taken for street expansion had
115482
LAW OFFICES OF
BEST, BEST & KRIEGE.
John J. Pena, Mayor
September 5, 1991
Page 3
been rendered virtually useless resulting in a claim by us and
Pomona that the remainder had been taken by inverse condemnation.
Thereafter, we had several meetings with both you and the
City Manager. At a meeting held on October 1, 1990 with
Mr. Kiedrowski, the City Manager, we informed him that we had
several potential buyers for the property, but that we were unable
to proceed with any one of them until the issue of the Washington
Street right of way and set backs had been resolved. He told us
that it was unlikely that the matter could be resolved without
specific development plans being submitted to the City, and he
encouraged us to prepare a plan which would accommodate the needs
of both the city and the owner of the property. He specifically
told us that he thought that the matter could be resolved to the
satisfaction of both the city and us if each of us was mindful of
the concerns of the other. He acknowledged that the right of way
issue was of concern to the city, and suggested that if we were
willing to compromise with respect to the dedication, the city
might very well be willing to compromise with development standards
which might otherwise be applicable to the property. He urged us
to keep in touch with the City as our plans progressed.
Based upon our discussions with both Mr. Kiedrowski and
you, we have worked assiduously to plan a development for the
corner which will serve the interests of both the City and
ourselves. That plan is embodied in the documents which we have
submitted to the City for review and approval, and includes the
dedication by us of Washington Street to its planned width as
desired by the City. It should be noted that in order for us to
accomplish the plan, we have agreed to purchase the Pomona parcel
so that we can offer the dedication and develop the property as an
integrated project. In return, we are requesting that the city
policy regarding height in this area be modified. We believe that
our proposed development will be a significant asset to the city
and will result in a project on this most important intersection at
the entrance to the cove in which the city may well be proud. We
think that this is truly a win -win solution to our mutual problem.
The City gets its right of way, and both we and the city get a
quality development with which we may both be very pleased and
satisfied.
In the event the city is unwilling to modify its policy
regarding height in this area, we will have no alternative other
than to return to development of our portion of the property within
the parcels as set forth in our approved map, and consistent with
the applicable zoning ordinance and policies in effect at the time.
In such event, we will not be in a position to purchase the Pomona
parcel or to dedicate the Washington Street frontage. Pomona will
4W
LAW OFFICES OF
®EST, ®EST 6 KRIEGE..
John J. Pena, Mayor
September 5, 1991
Page 4
undoubtedly develop its parcel independent of us. Furthermore. we
are of the legal opinion that the City may not, in such event,
require the dedication as a condition of the development. We
believe that this alternative is a lose -lose proposal. The city
does not get its right of way, and both the city and we get a
development which will not match what we are currently proposing in
terms of quality. We hope that we are not left in this position.
As always, we remain ready, willing and able to meet with
you, the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff at any
time to discuss the matter further. If additional information is
desired, please give me a call, and we will respond immediately.
We are most anxious to have this matter resolved at the earliest
possible time. Since 1986, we have entered into agreements to sell
the property to three separate buyers. Each one of them has walked
away from the transaction because of the uncertainty surrounding
the dedication and set back issues. We hope that we can finally
put this matter behind us.
Thank you for your consideration of this most important
matter.
Yours very truly,
Paul T.
PTS/ssk
Enclosures
cc: Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
✓Jerry Herman, City Planner
Gilbert F. Smith, Pomona First Federal
Philip M. Pead, Simon Plaza, Inc.
Fred Simon, 3S Partnership
John Sanborn, 3S Partnership
15482
July 22, 1986
Mr. John J. Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear John:
I would like to acknowledge your correspondence of July
18, 1986, in reference to the road design of Highway Ill/
Washington Street Intersection.
We are in the process of the final negotiations of selling
the property to a developer and it would certainly be
beneficial .to get some commercial property established
on that corner as soon as possible. I am sure that with
the interest you have expressed in your letter, once we
have a Developer's Plan suitable for submission, we can
move ahead for final consideration.
I will continue in my efforts and hope we can get develop-
ment started with the City's assistance. -
Sincerely,
SIMON MOTORS, INC.
red J. Simon
President
FJS:mec
cc: City Council
Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Larry Stevens, Community Development Director
Robert Weddle, City Engineer
John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb
Paul Selzer, Best, Best & Krieger
Bob Nichols, Pomona First Federal
"The Home of Personal Service"
P. 0. Box 1461, 78-611 Highway 11 1, La Quinta, Califomia 92253 (619) 346-2345
78-105 CALLE ESTADO - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564.2246
July 18, 1986
Fred J. Simon,
Simon Motors,
P. O. Box 1461
La Quinta, CA
Dear Fred:
President
Inc.
92253
Pursuant to your request, the Community Development Department has
reviewed both of your proposed revisions to the road design at the
Highway 111/Washington Street intersection. The City appreciates
your efforts in preparing alternative designs for the area which
take into consideration both your concerns about additional
right-of-way and community concerns relating to traffic safety.
With regards to the designs proposed by Sanborn/Webb, they represent
acceptable design possibilities for the Washington Street corridor
near the Highway 111 intersection. Each generally provides for
adequate capacity and uses accepted traffic design standards. Each
would also be considered as consistent with the adopted Washington
Street Specific Plan.
You should be aware that it was not the purpose of the Washington
Street Specific Plan to select a precise road design and no such
design has been determined at this time. The Specific Plan was
intended to provide general design and right-of-way criteria for
the corridor and any number of design alternatives, including those
prepared by Sanborn/Webb, will be considered in the upcoming phases
of plan implementation. While it is premature to select a particular
design at this time, please be assured that it is certainly the
City's intent to minimize potential right-of-way acquisition to give
due consideration to existing improvements, to carefully evaluate
impacts on affected property owners and to minimize road improvement
costs in the ultimate improvement of this important road corridor.
The City is currently preparing a precise alignment study and a
financing feasibility study and, following that, experts to prepare
improvement plans in its efforts to improve the Washington Street
corridor to at least a four -lane condition as soon as possible.
In the event that your desire to secure approvals for and develop
the Washington Street frontage parcels would occur prior to the
completion of these studies, the City will attempt to resolve the
MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
Fred Simon, President
Simon Motors, Inc.
July 18, 1986
Page 2.
precise design issues as part of any development application that
would be submitted for the affected parcels. It is expected that the
general comments on the Sanborn/Webb revisions would provide adequate
guidance to prepare site development designs suitable for submittal.
In preparing those plans, you should feel free to work with Larry
Stevens, Community Development Director, and Bob Weddle, City
Engineer, in order to minimize the impact of changes that typically
occur through the development review process.
It is hoped that this response gives you adequate assurance that we
can work in concert in resolving mutual concerns along this very
important corridor. I believe that we can achieve our common goals
best by continuing to work together. Your interest in resolving any
differences and continuing to progress towards mutually acceptable
solutions is appreciated.
Sincerely,
?ohn J. ena
Mayor
JJP:LLS:dmv
cc: City Council
Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager
Larry Stevens, Community Development Director
Robert Weddle, City Engineer
John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb
Paul Selzer
Bob Nichols
Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association
Since1892
July 3, 1986
Mr. John Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, Calif. 92253
Re: Widening of Washington Avenue
Dear Mayor Pena:
Pomona First Federal has received a copy of the
plans submitted on behalf of Simon Motors, Inc. in regard
to the proposed Washington Avenue widening. Although this
would still have a detrimental affect on our property, it
is much more acceptable than the previous action taken by
the City. It appears that the Groves traffic study, includ-
ing projections for traffic through the year 2035, is more
realistic than other reports received by the City.
The Plan submitted by Mr. Simons substantially re-
duces the cost to the city and permits property usage which
would result in additional taxes for the city. It also
renders our property as being immediately usable rather than
unuseable as will result under your present plan and would
result in a lower acquisition costs.
Our Board of Directors has not had a meeting to discuss
the amended plan submitted by Mr. Simon, but I feel confident
that it will meet with much more approval by the Board than
the present plan.
Thanking you in advance for consideration of the pro-
posed plan by the La Quinta City Council, I remain
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM G. BERGMAN, JR.
Vice Chairman of the Boa d of
Directors of Pomona Firs Federal
Savings and Loan Association
WGB,JR:ps
Administrative Offices: 350 South Garey Avenue • P.O. Box 1520 • Pcmona. Caldorn,a 91769 • (714) 623-2323 • (213) 625.7666 • (818) 064.7800 • t7141 972.0521
comkb@ Tq
June 26, 1936
Mr. John Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA 00
Post Office Box 1504 L . 0
La Quinta, CA. 92253
Dear John:
Enclosed is a work -up that Mr. John Sanborn has completed
after visiting with Judith Cox and Larry Allen of the City
Council, and Larry Stevens of your Planning Department. The
plan submitted to you on June 13, 1986, revised the original
plan developed by B.S.I. and your Planning Department, which
severely cut the property on the corner of Washington and
Highway 111. After submitting our revision and attending
the projected traffic study by the Groves, Mr. Sanborn and
Mr. Selzer visited with the three individuals mentioned
ab'pve, and from their discussions, Mr. Sanborn made several
additional revisions which show adaquet lanes to accept the
traffic patterns as outlined in his correspondence dated
June 24, 1986, a copy of which is attached along with revision
number 2 by the property owners.
I think this plan makes alot of sense because the median
islands are sufficiently wide at six feet, and would seperate
the traffic patterns adaquetly. The end results are that less
property is needed to accomodate the traffic patterns than on
our first revision and therefore less cost to the City would
be necessary in acquiring this land.
Even with this revision, Pomona 1st Federal would lose
4050 square feet and 3S loses 6400 square feet, in comparison
to the original plan submitted and approved by the City Council
which would be well over an acre or close to 50,000 square
feet.
I hope you will all take this into consideration and allow
us to discuss this matter with you if there are any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
S IMON MOTORS, INC.
dx�wkl
Fred J. Simon
President
"The Home of Personal Service" cc • Nichols
P. O. Box 1461, 78-611 Highway 1 11, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) NPoarn
zer
Stevens
6 6 6��c 0 poN�1AcMUCKS
June 13, 1986
Mr. John Pena, Mayor
CITY OF LA QUINTA
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, CA. 92253
Dear Sir:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of June
12, 1986, relative to the changes adopted on the corner of Highway
111 and Washington Street, that have taken such a large protion of
the land from the East side of the corner, that it renders the
parcels owned by Pomona 1st Federal, unbuildable. It also severely
disects the parcel owned by 3S on the corner of Simon Drive and
Washington Street, which again would make it questionable as to
whether or not it would be useable as a commercial site.
I have submitted a revised plan to you that has been worked up
by Sanborn Webb, Inc., which we think works. It also limits the
loss of property to the two owners and would reduce substantially,
the cost of acquiring the parcels, by the City of La Quinta, in
order to do the plan that was originally adopted. We have included
a study done by the Groves that was submitted to the City and was
accepted by you as a traffic study for Washington Street. It varies
quite drastically from the one B. S..I. is now submitting for the
Washington Street corridor. The groves projection, projects
considerably less traffic than the B. S. I., and we, for the sake
of common sense, can not see Washington Street carrying more traffic
than Highway 111 in future years, and that in essence, is what their
study and your planner have done with the configurations on the
current plan.
Our recommendations have many advantageous points that should
be taken into consideration.
1) Adequately covers the traffic project for Washington Street.
2) Allows for stacking on the corner.
3) Eliminates severe loss of property by owners of corner.
4) Reduces cost to City tremendously.
5) Logically allows solutions to problem, so we can proceed
with developing the corner immediately. ,
6) With the corner developed, we can begin to bring revenue
into the City, rather than taking revenue out of the City's
coffers.
7) Continues to solve the problem for the people at "Point Happy".
"The Home of Personal Service"
P. O. Box t461, 78-611 Highway l 11. La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 346-2343
Mr. John Pena
June 13, 1986
Page 2
All in all, this alternative plan resolves the problem at
"Point Happy". It resolves the problem of traffic stacking. It
resolves the problem logically for all concerned and limits the
need for acquiring entirely the two parcels affected.
I hope you can personally participate and I am asking Mr.
Bob Nichols of Pomona 1st Federal, Paul Selzer and John Sanborn
of 3S, to personally participate with your Planning Department
and your City Council to correct this problem as quickly as
possible so that we may proceed to develope the land and bring
revenue into the City!!
Sincerely,
SIMON MOTORS, NC.
Fred J
Presid
FJS:mer
cc: Bob Nichols
Paul Selzer
John Sanborn
Larry Stevens
LAW orricES or
..t N t t .. CA'n0 l Pnr'CN
..'
. YC'1 C:, L v...1
<
Cl It
•r'' +
C' f III f < JC
.r.
_s1 ...
••r. t•I A•�r.
�• C - •
n rr• .•{
L
S•
pr� A v,
J �{
{'E.0
• T
H
cti
u, f�•i: .1KA
_
G'r L E
J•'CL CLA •-rF
.. C=
IZGE-, A. ,ter_
L cc
C; stir A f!TE4SGN
' 'r
C^ P ♦C--H
_E Cl.t:L ..A
YEMtL
•A Ca•C _4ir_ti,. CCFr OrALU•1
April 25, 1986
Cit ; Ccl1Cil
Ci_ty of La Qainta
La Q::inta, CA 92253
Br-s•('• DEST & KRIrGEF:
I L4•yt.3riP Iwa.C•wG . .•t35 Cu. ('JtI �V. L[\f
COO EAE-T TA1-H01.-liz-MSCALLUM WAY
F. C. C-C.Y. 27:0
P/•LM. f FPIt:3S•C_AL11Or041A 922C4
TELEPFONCI•r_Io'' �:S 77G4
TE LEY. 7�-Z,73`
and }iei:ibers of the Council:
PtVClat't,E Cf'::E
F. :.:1 C-r I...L _ :LL'.
P C. EC, IC.
A{V[RS•CC, tall{C;•. a Y.C:r
Ph•.'I•G 1ACC C'rICE
C:. -
1
JA MCS I. r.F :.F t; i-..
Cl'E•.0 C t ;IE 1-3E.)•
This office represents the 3S Co-mpany and Simon Family
uro a,-e the o•.aners o PGr.cels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and Parcel r: p
184I S resp ecti.rel.,-, an.'. this letter is written itten in con.nect-ion
you-- proposed Washington 5-xeet Corrieo= l-.i-.endment to the
PIan.
t:e havZ been informed th.-'.: both the City Council and the Pla-:r.i.ns?
Co::. _:.. I have held Publ Pearings in connection with the
P1?.t Fild that vi-o City Cou:.cil has adopted that
to \'..... C-i2hrc?i }^1c'1. 17i'TL'i1tunately, neither the 3S Compeny I.Jr
the r..::C:1 rya-J.1:i Fa?:i:liC: ci:ai: recei\'eO nC`tice of any Public
to s<=} , c�-i.e:,t object vc-`ic-.-ontly to the p =,Ds..l on,
1..L:. rC`:..:..1f, li,c-,,i JL v b'.' not1 L:n-'E.tiC t0 t[:? fO11C:c�n
1:�� �icr•_' L\E':1 (�rOt�i'= 1i7L..CC ei t,Il� };t'c li._' t'._ L
the } J. l:aJ.ii�S1Cn r:_1(I C :L%�' CO:.acll ; C—ki
.' . r4,1:C' hi' 'C j 0
_ rl ; •�-O� Li: `' or t i' C, _
0 1:c:` i:.,.i' tC�:1 �;:"!-C � F_h:} th.'- SC ; t11 Sic _ C 1,i5 _ ..
has no:: l-c.cn c'.nnd,
?'ur_( en of the pYo, oSn] falls entirely i:_pen the
o:mers e_: t of 1•:ashi.ngton Strect while the benefit:
tc1 the owners of prop erty west
a!'
on St,:zoc:t; any,
11St1'.. 1'i t} study art? S'`i�i_: _-_••_-
loo. SOt rC,:- tit 1:. of fors to `•Jrciiist
1 CCL!.\''+. :1' v: :.} it �; :'•�11
City Counci.l.
April 71i, 19U06
NaEe 7vo
5. The exis:tc.nce of the General Plan Amene7ent so significantly
clou('s the ti '-lc to the properties o;.rred by my clients as to
r,rahe it unmarketable.
In view of the foregoing w � voul.d respectfully request that the City
reopen the He-irings on this matter after properly giving notice to each
o�.ner entitled thereto in order that we may have apple oppor t:ur:ity to
present evidence and alternatives to those plans reco:=ended by the
Plenn:i_nc, Com: iiissi.on and apparently adopted by the City Council in its
Spc-cif.ic Plan Nu-aber 86-007. V.1hil e vie wish to cooperate with the City
in its ndeavors to ir.1prove the area, I an sure you will understand
our: concern when ve fo-._nd out after the fact that after having already
dcc:icated 36 feet along V"a-shington Street, five feet along Highway 111
and installing curbs, gutters, sidei•.alks end traffic signals all at
si.€,nificant- expense ar..1 all within the last three years, the City no:7
v-ishes to tear out all of that work and render valueless at least two
of the parcels .•ith Parcel Map Number 18418 all without notice to us.
In vie -,a of the drastic economic effects this is having on our clients
at the present time, we would respectfully request an early response
to this letter.
Thank you for your prompt consideration of this matter.
Yo-urs very truly,
LEST, BEST & KRIEGER
F�-.ul T. ;ef�lzer
)''f Sts
CC: Jo'in Sanborn
Fre(I Sir:,Dn
)cc: Gilbert Smith, P,,mona First Federal
9.88.050
B. There are no yard requirements for buildings which
do not exceed thirty-five feet in height, except as required
for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds
thirty-five feet in height shall be set back from the front,
rear and side lot lines not less than two feet for each foot
by which the height exceeds thirty-five feet. The front
` setback shall be measured from the existing street line un-
less a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will
be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear
setback shall be measured from the existin rear lot line or
from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line ad-
joins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the
same as required for a front setback. Each side setback
shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing
C� adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted
in which case it will be measured from the specific plan
!- street line.
----IV C. All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty
-- feet in height, unless a height up to seventy-five feet is
specifically permitted under the provisions of Chapter 9.192
of this title.
\J D. Automobile storage space shall be provided as re-
T 101.3 quired by Chapter 9.160 of this title.
E. All roof -mounted mechanical equipment shall be
screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight
distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet. (Ord. 5
51(part), 1982: county Ordinance 348 59.53)
Chatter 9.90
C-V ZONE (COMMERCIAL VILLI(GE)
Section
9.90.01 Generally.
9.90015 gose.9.90:020 Peitted used-.
9.90.030 Acceory uses permitted.
9.90.040 Commer�a],a'and multifamily plot plan review
required:
9.90.050 Design,.rev' w required.
9.90.060 Development tandards.
9.90.070 S�ones. �.
9.90071 C C "The core%subzone.
9.90:072 :,,C-V-P "The park" s zone.
9.90.07,3-� C-V-S "South" subzonb4
9.90.,014 C-V-N "North" subzone.,\
9.9 j 0 8 0 U4aet ab4-e-r
186-79 (La Quinta 5/89)
xcerpt from the adopted General Plan - Urban Design Component
POLICY 6.5.4 — SPECIAL GATEWAY TREATMENTS AT MAJOR
ENTRIES TO THE CITY AND TO THE DOWNTOWN
SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
° HIGHWAY 111/WASHINGTON STREET —
ISLAND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING A
MONUMENT SIGN AND OTHER SPECIAL
FEATURES.
° VILLAGE GATEWAY — SPECIAL PAVING
AND LANDSCAPING.
POLICY 6.5.5 — SECONDARY GATEWAY TREATMENTS SHALL
INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTIONS:
° EISENHOWER DRIVE AND WASHINGTON
STREET
° CALLE TAMPICO AND WASHINGTON STREET
° FRED WARING DRIVE AND WASHINGTON
STREET
° JEFFERSON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111
° CALLE TAMPICO AND EISENHOWER DRIVE
POLICY 6.5.6 — SPECIAL THEMES INCLUDING MEDIAN
LANDSCAPING, PARKWAY LANDSCAPINGo
STREET LIGHTS, PERIMETER WALLS, SIGNING
AND RELATED DESIGN TREATMENTS SHALL BE
DEVELOPED.
POLICY 6.5.7 — ALONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREET
IMAGE CORRIDORS THE CITY SHALL
ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE BUILDING HEIGHT
LIMITS TO ASSURE A LOW DENSITY
CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE.
POLICY 6.5.8 — LARGE PARKWAYS AND SETBACKS ARE
NECESSARY TO ASSURE A HIGH —QUALITY AND
ATTRACTIVE APPEARANCE ON MAJOR STREETS.
SETBACKS FOR WALLS, BUILDINGS AND
PARKING AREAS MAY VARY, IF.PROPERLY
DESIGNED, BUT SHALL GENERALLY BE AS
`s. FOLLOWS:
MAJOR AND PRIMARY ARTERIALS — 20 FEEL
HIGHWAY 111 — 50 FEET
OTHER STREETS — 10 FEET
TRADE—OFFS FOR IMAGINATIVE DESIGNS MAY
BE CONSIDERED.
Design Review Board Minutes
October 2, 1991
6. Th a being o fur t er di s ssion, it was ove b Chai an
and conded Boar embe Curt to ad t Min to Mot' n 91
031 re c mmendin appr alto a PI a 'ng mmis ' n su Jett
to the Ap licant w king 'th St on c tern Un 'mou y
approved. ' �� \
�0Plot Plan 91-466; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for approval of a
commercial center.
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. Mr. Phillip Pead, Developer for the project, addressed the Board
regarding the project.
3. Chairman Rice stated he felt the project was an excellent solution
to the vacant corner.
' 4. Boardmember Curtis asked if there was not another way of
locating the parking structure so as not to be so close to the
street. Mr. Pead stated they had spent a great deal of time on
the layout of the buildings and this was the only workable
solution. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives for
the structure location. Putting one floor of parking below the
bowling alley was suggested.
5. Boardmember Harbison inquired if they had considered putting
any of the parking floors below grade. Mr. Pead stated there
was one floor below grade. Boardmember Harbison stated they
needed to soften the height of the building by the use of trees
and landscaping.
6. There being no further discussion it was moved by Chairman Rice
and seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion
91-032 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Plot
Plan 91-466 subject to Staff recommendations. Approved with
Boardmember Curtis voting NO.
D. PlQt Plan 91-467; a request of sert Vil s, Inc. or appr val of a
pro osed sing story ap rtment c plex .
1. ssociate nner G g Trous 11 pres ted the 'nforma 'on
co tained in a Staff port, a y of w 'ch is on 'le in t
Plan 'ng and D elopmen Departm t. \
2. Mr. Cra Bryant, A licant dressed a Boar regarding he
backgroun of the pro osed p 'ect .
DRBMIN-10/2 3
BUILDING HEIGHT SUMMARY
November 1991
1. Tract 23773, Starlight Dune (1990). 75% of the dwelling
units within 150 feet of Fred Waring Drive shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). Along the north
property line of the tract all units shall be one story
(201) except lots 117 and 135 which may be 2 story.
2. Tract 18915, Palm Royale (1983) - Approved by the County
of Riverside in 1983. Two story buildings were allowed,
however, only a few units are located within 150 feet of
Washington Street.
3. Tract 23971, Deane Homes (1990), 75% of all dwelling
units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to
one story (20 feet). No two story buildings are allowed
within 150 feet of Washington Street.
4. Tract 23269, La Quinta Highland (1988), All dwelling
units within 100 feet of Fred Waring and Adam Street
shall be limited to one story. All dwelling units
within 100 to 150 feet shall be limited to one story (20
feet) as approved by the Planning Commission.
5. Tract 23268, Acacia (1988), All dwelling units within 150
feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20
feet) .
6. Tract 24517, Waring/Adams Venture (1989), 75% of all
dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be
limited to one story (20 feet).
7. Tract 23913, Quinterra (1988), 80% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
8. Tract 25290, Rancho Ocotillo (1989), 75% of all dwelling
units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to
one story (20 feet).
9. Tract 19903, La Quinta Palms (1984), One story single
family homes were built.
10. Tract 25953, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
11. Tract 22982, Cactus Flower (1988), All dwelling units
within 150 feet of Fred Waring and Dune Palms Road shall
be limited to one story (20 feet).
12. Tract 24208, LQ Association/Williams (1989), The R1
Zoning Standards apply.
13. Tract 24950, Chong Lee (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
14. Tract 25691, Deman (1990), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
15. Tract 24197, Triad (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue, Jefferson Street and
Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet).
16. Tract 23995, Spanos, (1989), All dwelling units within
150 feet of Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be
limited to one story for the multiple family area. 75%
of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue
shall be limited to one story (20 feet) for the R-1 area.
17. Specific Plan 88-014, Transpacific, Per CPS Zoning
standards with plot plan review required. Plot plan
91-468 (Auto Club) is presently being processed at the
intersection of Washingston and Highway 111 for a one
story building (21 feet).
18. Tract 23519, Santa Rosa (1990) Amend. 1, 75% of all
dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). No two story units
shall be constructed next to each other along Miles
Avenue, and the two story units shall be on the lowest
building pads.
19. Tract 25363, Santa Rosa (1990), The R1 Zoning standards
will apply.
20. Tract 26188, Santa Rosa (1991), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
21. Tract 23935, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one
story (20 feet).
22. Specific Plan 88-011, Washington Square, Per CPS Zoning
standards. No development plans have been processed.
23. Tract 24230 and Tract 26152, Lake La Quinta (1989), 75%
of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Adams shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). No dwelling units
within 150 feet of 48th Avenue shall be higher than one
story (201) in height.
Commercial development is subject to a conditional use
permit. Building heights will be determined by the
Planning Commission. No development applications have
been submitted.
24. Plot Plan 91-466, Simon Plaza (1991), A two story
building (281) has been proposed at the intersection of
Washington Street and Highway 111 (SE). However, the
plan has not been reviewed by the Commission or the City
Council at this time.
25. Specific Plan 84-004, Pyramids, All dwelling units within
75 feet of the property line shall be limited to one
story.
26. Tracts 13640 and 20052, Conditional Use Permit 2262E,
Laguna De La Paz (1979), Single story buildings were
constructed.
27. Tract 3448, etc., La-Quinta Golf Estates, All dwelling
units are limited to one story.
28. Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta (1986 and 88), All dwelling
units on Washington Street were limited to one story (21
feet) and have been constructed.
29. Tract 25154, Valley Land (1989), The R1 standards will
apply. The two story units will be approved by the
Commission but this site does not abut an arterial
street.
30. Tract 26148, Amcor (1990), All dwelling units shall be
limited to one story (17 feet) per the SR Zoning Code
provisions.
31. Specific Plan 83-001, Duna La Quinta (1985), All dwelling
units within 200 feet of the tract boundary shall be
limited to one story (20 feet). This provision did not
apply to the LQ Stormwater channel which allowed building
29 feet in overall height. Two story units were allowed
(35 feet max.).
32. Plot Plan 91-467, Desert Villas LTD. (1991), All dwelling
units within the 109 unit apartment complex are single
story. The City Council has not reviewed the applicant's
Change of Zone request.
33. Tract 25389, Duna La Quinta/Brock (1990), All dwelling
units on lots 1-5, 17, 18, 31-48, 91-116, 203, 204, 207-
211 and 238-255 shall be limited to one story (25 feet).
See Specific Plan 83-001 for other requirements.
34. Tract 25429, Chateau (1989), 75% of all dwelling units
within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one
story (22 feet).
35. Tract 26524, Strothers (1990), 75% of all dwelling units
on 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (22 feet
max.) within 150 feet. All lots on the southerly portion
of the tract shall have homes not greater than 22 feet in
height (lots 15-21).
36. Specific Plan 84-003, Orchard (1990), 75% of all dwelling
units within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to
one story (20 feet).
37. Specific Plan 85-006, Oak Tree West, All dwelling units
within 200 feet of the property line or public street
frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet) within
a limited, defined area.
38. Tract 21880, Time Valley Land (ext. 3, 1991), All
dwelling units within 200 feet of 52nd Avenue, Avenida
Bermudas, and the tract boundaries shall be limited to
one story. Other related cases are: Specific Plan 85-
005A and B; 52nd Avenue realignment, 1985, and the
Washington Specific Plan (SP 86-007, 1989).
39. Tract 26855, Kanlian (1991), Unapproved; No action at
this time.
40. Tract 26718, Hansch (1991), Unapproved; No action at this
time.
41. Specific Plan 90-016, Landmark Land (1991), All dwelling
units within 200 feet of boundary of the site or public
street shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All
other units are limited to two story (30 feet) . The City
Council has not reviewed this case at this time.
42. Tract 24507, Steven Brummel (1990) , Building heights were
not addressed in this development approval. Existing R-
1 Zone requirements would apply.
43. Tract 26972, Dr. Darr (1991) , All dwelling units shall be
limited to one story (18 feet). The City Council has
not approved this case at this time.
44. Tract 27187, Pudney (1991), All dwelling units shall be
limited to one story (18 feet). This case has not been
approved by the City Council.
45. Tract 24774, Vista Development (1989./90), Building
heights were not addressed in the tract map approval.
46. Specific Plan 90-020/Tract 26472/Tract 26473, 75% of all
dwelling units within 150 feet of 52 Avenue shall be
limited to one story (18 feet), whereas, two story homes
shall not exceed 25 feet in overall -height.
47. Specific Plan 90-018, Tracts 26008 and 26009, Vista
Development (1989/90), The specific plan addressed 20
foot high buildings for this area.
48. Specific Plan 83-002, PGA West (1989), Amend. 1, A - The
portion of the area designated for six story (72 feet)
height south of the Airport Blvd. alignment shall be
deleted. B - All residential units shall be limited to a
max. of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. C - The
hotel shall be limited to a max. height of six stories;
and the other related buildings, not attached to the
hotel, within the Village Core shall be limited to two
stories. The original Specific Plan applies and allows
one story buildings (28 feet) within 300 feet or more of
a public arterial.
49. Tract 25500 (Madison Street, south of 54th), Sunrise
Desert Partners (1990), Amendment 1, Single story homes
were approved.
Note: Numerous Tracts have been approved within the PGA
West development per SP 83-002, however, the only two
story units in the project are west of PGA Boulevard.
50. Tract 26769, Qualico (1991), All dwelling units within
150 feet of Monroe Street shall be one story (22 feet).
51. Tract 27224, Madison Estates/Seastar (1991), All
dwelling units shall be limited to one story (21 feet).
This case has not been reviewed by the City Council.
52. Specific Plan 90-015, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units
within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street
frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All
other units shall not exceed 30 feet. The plan has not
been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the
Planning Commission).
53. Specific Plan 90-017, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units
within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street
frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All
other units shall not to exceed 30 feet. This case has
not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by
the Planning Commission).
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND OFF-STREET PARKING STANDARDS OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NO. VAR 91-019 - SIMON PLAZA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, the 26th day of November, 1991, and the loth
day of December, 1991, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings to consider the request
of Simon Plaza, Inc. for a Variance to Section 9.160.045 and 9.160.050 of the La
Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) , to allow a reduction in the setback requirements and
on -site parking standards, more particularly described as:
NORTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.5.S., R.7.E.
APN: 617-020-020 THROUGH 025
WHEREAS, said Variance request 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 conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts and reasons to justify the denying of said Variance:
1. The strict application of the building setback requirements and off-street
parking standards to the subject property will not deprive the property owner
of receiving an economic return on his development investment since other
properties in the area have met the minimum City requirements. The purpose
and intent of the Zoning Code standards is to promote health and safety
standards and provide design guidelines which are necessary to insure each
property owner has the same privileges as his/her abutting neighbor.
2. Denial of the Variance will prevent the City from granting special privileges
to the Applicant consistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property
in the area which have had to meet the minimum Zoning Code provisions.
3. The development of the property with reduced setbacks would adversely
affect the continued enjoyment of the properties in the area and set a
precedent in the City to reduce the City Design Standards to a lesser degree
than planned by the implementation of the City's existing Zoning Code and
General Plan.
RESOPC.053
4. The developer has not shown that this property has special problems which
are not unlike other properties in this area of the City. The property is large
enough to support urban improvements and no topographic problems are
prevalent on this site to warrant a reduction in City development standards
due to special merit concerns.
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 the Environmental Assessment
91-211 which indicated that denial of the Variance would not constitute a
significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 10th day of December, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.053 2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND
GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND OFF-STREET PARKING PROVISIONS OF THE LA QUINTA
MUNICIPAL CODE
CASE NO. VAR 91-019 - SIMON PLAZA, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, the 26th day of November, 1991, and the 10th
day of December, 1991, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings to consider the request
of Simon Plaza, Inc. for a Variance to Section 9.160 La Quinta Municipal Code
(LQMC), to allow a reduction in the setback requirements and deviation in the Off -
Street Parking code, more particularly described as:
NORTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.5.S., R.7.E.
APN: 617-020-020 THROUGH 025
WHEREAS, said Variance request 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 conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project
will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did
find the following facts and reasons to justify the granting of said Variance:
1. The strict application of the building setback requirements to the subject
property will deprive the property owner of receiving an economic return on
their development investment if the structures are not permitted, as
described. The purpose and intent of the setback standards is to provide
design guidance but requirements may be reasonably attained by special
conditions of approval.
2. The Variance would not constitute the granting of any special privileges
inconsistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property in the area if
the Applicant was allowed to deviate from Zoning Code provisions because the
property is irregular in shape.
3. The development of the property will not affect the continued enjoyment of the
property to the east ( Simon Motors) because both properties are owned by the
same entity. The architectural character of the multiple story buildings at
this intersection will promote view corridor windows through the project thus
creating interesting focal points for the project and for the City in general.
The design will create a unique setting for this area.
RESOPC.062
4. The Conditions of Approval will assure that the integrity of the Washington
Street Specific Plan and General Plan will be upheld and this action will not
negatively affect adjacent parcels.
5. The Variance request is consistent with the City's General Plan Urban Design
Program (Policy 6.5.8) which provides allowance for imaginative design
solutions which proposes variation in walls, setbacks, and buildings.
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 the Environmental Assessment
91-211 which indicated that approval of the Variance would not constitute a
significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact.
3. That it does hereby grant said Variance 91-019 for the reasons set forth in
this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions ( Exhibit "All).
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this loth day of December, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.062 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VARIANCE 91-019 - PROPOSED
SIMON PLAZA
DECEMBER 10, 1991
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS:
1. The Variance shall become null and void if not used in conjunction with the
development of the property pursuant to Plot Plan 91-466.
2. All requirements of the Uniform Building Code shall be met.
3. The front yard setback on Highway 111 shall be 35 feet for the Bowling Alley
complex, 17 feet for the off-street parking spaces and 25 feet for the
Restaurant/Bank building.
4. The average setback distance on Washington Street shall be 20 feet, as
measured from the future property line, for any proposed building or
proposed parking space.
RESOPC.062 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PLOT PLAN 91-466 - PROPOSED
DECEMBER 10, 1991
SIMON PLAZA
* Modified by Staff after the Design Review Board meeting.
GENERAL
1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the
exhibits contained in the file for PP 91-466, 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. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval
of the Planning Commission.
4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly
on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. 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.
5. 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. The
Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the
number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate.
6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention
basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and
placement of said fences) shall be approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code
and State requirements.
9. 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 submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of
grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise
impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the
proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation
coNAPRvL.037 1
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks,
engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming,
landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques.
10. 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.
11. Decorative screen walls (i.e., berms with landscaping, masonry walls, etc. )
provided adjacent to street shall be high enough to screen parking lot
surfaces and a majority of parked cars from view of the street. Determination
of height of walls shall be made after review of landscaping and grading plans
by City.
12. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible
adjacent to property lines and provided in landscaping.
13. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance .
14. 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
(CVAS) 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.
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.
CONAPRVL.037 2
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
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.
15. 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
o Caltrans ( District 11)
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.
16. 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.
17. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the
Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley
Water District.
18. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by
Sunline Transit on the Washington Street and Highway 111 when said street
improvements are re -installed or unless other site locations are permitted by
the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering
Department.
19. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the
Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site
which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust 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
CONAPRVL.037 3
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
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 watered at least
twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or
other architecturally matching materials.
24. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only"
25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as
follows:
A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering
pedestrian/bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design
Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the
Applicant / Developer.
B . The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation
of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn,
shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper,
Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and
Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of
flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and
CONAPRVL.037
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants
should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the
Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing
their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along
Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will
be required (less than 160 watt) .
C . The proposed retention areas on -site shall be landscaped with materials
which will support growth even though they are accepting water run-
off from paved surfaces.
D . Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design
Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should
be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and
meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter
9.210 and 9.160 (Off -Street Parking) . The height of the light poles
shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should
reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project.
E. The Developer shall contribute to the landscape and/or hardscape
program of the future median island on Washington Street and Highway
111.
* F. A one story building height of 21 feet shall be maintained along
Washington Street within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after
street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural
appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.) .
G . Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two-way
driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and
colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and
location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board
during a final plan check review.
H. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to
the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check
consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to
landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc.
I. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for
usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall
be provided as noted in the Off -Street Parking Code.
J. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20
feet from the new property line.
K. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges,
or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches.
CONAPRVL.037
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
L. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission
prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed
building structures.
CITY FIRE MARSHAL
26. 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. Fire flow
is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
27. 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.
28. 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 start of construction.
29. 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 the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered
must be included on the title page of the building plans.
30. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform
Building Code.
31. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must
be permitted, along with a plan check/inspection fee, to the Fire Department
for review.
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.
CONAPRVL.037
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
33. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code,
#503.
34. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
35. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes .
36. Install a Class I Standpipe System.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
37. 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 these Conditions of Approval noted as follows:
A. Washington Street - Provide right of way as required by the Washington
Street Specific Plan.
B . Washington Street / Highway Ill Intersection - Provide right of way cut
back as needed to accommodate a 65-foot curb return.
C . Applicant shall dedicate the required right of way within ten (10) days
after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City.
38. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted
minimum width adjacent to the following street right of way:
A. Washington Street - 20-feet wide;
B. Highway 111, 50 feet wide;
C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide
39. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site
except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site
plan drawing.
40. Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street
improvements to be installed by the City located east of the Washington Street
Specific Plan Centerline and contiguous to the project site. The new
improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete
overlay, raised median island with landscaping and hardscape, 8-foot wide
sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals
and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and
existing improvements.
41. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new
traffic signal at the Washington Street/Highway 111 intersection.
CONAPRVL.037
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
42. Applicant shall reimburse City for 25 0 of the cost to design and install traffic
signal at the Simon Drive/Highway 111 intersection.
43. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout"
on Highway 111.
44. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised
median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion
contiguous to the project site.
45. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the
City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before
the grading permit is issued.
46. 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.
47. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
48. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference
between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do
not exceed three (3.0) feet.
49. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to
evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets
adjoining the site during the, 1-hour duration, 25-year storm event. The
storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the
Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share
basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by
the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time
constraints which suit the Applicant.
The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall
extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive.
50. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect for the landscaped setback areas. 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.
CONAPRVL.037 8
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
51. 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.
52. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right
of way between all street curbing and property lines.
53. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the
combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of
Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six-foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide
sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Plaza Drive.
54. All existing and proposed telecommunication, 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.
55. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions
thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior
to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer
retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests
for review by the City Engineer.
56. 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.
57. 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
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".
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
pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built
elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall
CONAPRVL.037 9
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
be organized by phase 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.
58. The parking stalls in the parking structure on each side of the aisle nearest
Washington Street that are located within in the first 100 feet shall be
restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate
queuing that may extend beyond the parking structure.
59. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway III shall be restricted
to right turn movements only.
60. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive
shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington
Street Specific Plan.
SPECIAL
61. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the
County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after approval/review of the
proposed by the Planning Commission and/or City Council.
62. 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.
63. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of
the proposed development.
64. The parking structure shall not exceed two covered levels above ground (plus
one top level) in overall height or 27 feet as measured from finished grade pad
elevation.
65. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91-211 shall be met.
66. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance.
67. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the
required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat
Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre
of disturbed land.
68. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures to blend them into
the environment. This shall include perimeter grade planting and rooftop
landscaping as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
CONAPRVL.037 10
Conditions of Approval
Plot Plan 91-466
December 10, 1991
69. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be
submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance
of parking spaces provided based on Urban Land Institute Guidelines. Prior
to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based
on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study,
building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking
deficiency exists.
CONAPRVL.037 11
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991
PROJECT: PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-012
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A 24,000+ SQ. FT. CLUBHOUSE
FOR THE BOYS & GIRLS CLUB WITH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
AND A FUTURE OUTDOOR SWIMMING POOL.
LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF 50TH AVENUE AND PARK AVENUE,
ADJACENT TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE NEW YMCA CHILD CARE
FACILITY.
APPLICANT: BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY (THE JOSEPH
MARGUELAS UNIT, LA QUINTA)
ARCHITECT: INTERACTIVE DESIGN CORPORATION (REUEL YOUNG)
EXISTING
ZONING: R-2, (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS)
SURROUNDING
ZONING &
LAND USE: NORTH: R-2/YMCA CHILD CARE FACILITY
SOUTH: R-1 / CUSTOM SINGLE FAMILY TRACT
EAST: R-2/VACANT LAND, ORCHARD WHICH IS PART OF
PYRAMIDS SPECIFIC PLAN
WEST: R-2 / SCHOOL
EXISTING
LAND USE: THE SITE IS PRESENTLY A CITRUS ORCHARD. THE SITE IS
TRIANGULAR IN SHAPE FRONTING ON BOTH 50TH AVENUE
AND PARK AVENUE. THE MAJORITY OF THE SITE IS FLAT
AND APPROXIMATELY THREE FEET BELOW EXISTING STREET
GRADE. A MOUND, THE REMNANTS OF A SAND DUNE AND
STOCK PILE FROM EARLIER CONSTRUCTION EXISTS ALONG
THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91-220 HAS BEEN
PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION.
THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATES THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WILL INCUR THAT CANNOT
BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION
MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
HAS BEEN PREPARED.
PCST.035 1
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is owned by the City of La Quinta and is being developed as
a community facility. To date, a YMCA Child Care facility has been constructed to
the northwest. A parking lot for the YMCA facility will be shared with this proposed
use.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project consists of a facility for the Boys & Girls Club of Coachella
Valley which will contain approximately 24, 000 sq. ft. of floor space. Included in the
facility will be a gymnasium, activity rooms, library, kitchen, computer rooms,
offices, and an arts and crafts area. Additionally, there will be an outdoor patio
area provided adjacent to the intersection of Park Avenue and 50th Avenue. A
future pool building and swimming pool is indicated on the site plan to the west of the
proposed building and south of the YMCA Child Care facility.
The facility has been laid out so that it can utilize the existing parking lot which
runs parallel to Park Avenue. The building has been laid out so that the long access
of the structure runs approximately parallel to Park Avenue. Due to this layout, the
setback adjacent to 50th Avenue varies from a minimum of approximately 60 feet to
a maximum of approximately 120 feet. Along Park Avenue, the minimum setback is
approximately 30 feet.
To the west of the building will be a lawn area which will be used for outdoor
recreation and playing. Because this area is adjacent to 50th Avenue, a steel tube
or wrought iron fence will be provided adjacent to the street. This security fence
will tie in with a garden wall adjacent to the easterly end of the building and the
school fencing on the west. The garden wall will screen the outdoor patio area from
50th Avenue.
A landscaping plan has not yet been submitted. However, the Applicant has shown
the conceptual use of Palm trees and canopy trees for around the project.
The architect has designed the structure to incorporate both the residential nature
of the Child Care center and institutional style of the adjacent schools. The exterior
materials consist of plaster walls, aluminum window frames, and a "terra cotta" color
metal standing seam slopped roof. Exterior colors range from a pale purple to a
sandy color somewhat emulating sunrise and sunset colors in the Valley. Attached
is a written description of the entire project prepared by the architect.
Although the project is one story in height, the height varies from 3816" in the
gymnasium area on the west side to 23' in the classroom area on the east side of the
project. The 38'6" height is necessary in order to provide the proper height for the
gymnasium. the higher roof is approximately 90 feet from 50th Avenue.
As previously indicated, the Applicants will be utilizing the existing parking lot
which runs adjacent to Park Avenue. With this proposed construction, the
Applicants intend to provide 32 new parking spaces and a drop-off/pick-up area
adjacent to the front door. Due to the nature of the facility, most users are dropped
off and picked up by adults. In order to facilitate the drop-off area, a new driveway
is proposed to Park Avenue east of the existing entry into the parking lot. The
PCST.035 2
majority of the new parking spaces will be provided as an extension of this entry into
the parking lot and will be located west of the proposed building.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
The Design Review Board reviewed this request at their meeting of November 6,
1991. After a short discussion, they took action to recommend approval of the plans
as submitted.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REVIEW:
The City Council at their study session on December 3, 1991, informally reviewed the
plans as submitted by the Applicant. The City Council did not take any action
regarding the application.
ANALYSIS:
1. The architecture of the building is attractive. It has been designed to include
some institutional characteristics of the school while retaining residential
characteristics of the YMCA Child Care facility. The height of the structure
has been minimized through the use of lower roof lines around the higher
gymnasium area.
2. Due to the nature of the project, parking demand, except for special events,
is minimal. The parking provided should be adequate for everyday use. For
those occasions when additional parking is needed, it is available to the north
and west at the schools. Additionally, it is possible to add additional parking
spaces along the west side of the building.
3. Due to the drop-off areas design, it is probably best that it be one way with
it exiting through the new driveway. This will eliminate potential drop-offs
on the north side of the driveway and the potential for kids to have to cross
the street in the drop-off area.
4. The future pool and building should architecturally match the Boys & Girls
Club. The plans for this structure should be reviewed by at least the Design
Review Board and Staff when construction is proposed.
5. The landscaping plan will need to be submitted and approved.
6. The plans do not presently show a trash/recycling bin enclosure area. This
will have to be provided and reviewed by the local trash company and City
Staff. The enclosure will need to be masonry and decorative in nature.
CONCLUSION:
The use as proposed to be operated will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the City or neighborhood. The proposed project will provide a
service which is needed in the community.
PCST.035 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission by Minute Motion 91- approve
Public Use Permit 91-012 subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Planned exhibits (large and small scale)
3. Letter from Applicant describing project
4. Comments from various Departments and agencies
5. Proposed Conditions of Approval
PCST.035 4
SITE
_. R-2-12,000 R-2
W
1 50 TH i
-Opt
le A-3'-1-12r000 7
Y / C2♦ 8!
Q
R-6 t
d
1: - - �•,•,o N
CASE MAP
CASE No. PUP 91-012
LOCATION MAP
ORTH
SCALE:
NTS
n
EXPANDED STATEMENT TO USE PERMIT APPLICATION
FOR
BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY
LA QUINTA UNIT
The Boys and Girls Club of Coachella Valley, La Quinta Unit, sits at the entry to the school and
community center complex for La Quinta. The site is triangular in shape, fronting on 50th
Avenue and Park Road. The existing topography has been altered by stockpiling from the
school construction, grading the building pad for the Community Center, and the street
improvements to 50th and Park. The majority of the site is flat, approximately three feet below
adjacimt street grade. A mound, the remnants of a sand dune and stockpile from earlier
construction, exists along the western boundary. Mature citrus trees cover the flat portion of
the site. This site is the lowest point of the previous drainage system for the citrus groves which
at one time covered the school site and the Iand to the north and east. To provide proper
drainage for the Boys and Girls Club, the site will be filled, though the finish floor of the
building will be lower than the adjacent Community Center.
The combination of several influences helped shape the site and the building. It is practical to
share the existing parking and access to the site, and we definitely did not want to place cars at
the apex of the triangle - the comer of 50th and Park. So the building naturally took a shape
that was linear in the northwest/southeast direction. In addition, the bulk of the gymnasium had
to be placed as far back from 50th as possible. While this arrangement provided a significant
setback from 50th, it was clear that other rooms had to be clustered around the gym with its 24
foot high interior space. Fortunately a well run gymnasium program requires weight and
exercise rooms as well as lots of storage - all opening directly onto the gym. So the bulkiest
portion of the building could be camouflaged by these lower masses. The club's activity areas
and arts and crafts rooms clearly would be enhanced by south -facing outdoor spaces, so the
building wraps around a court facing 50th. This also creates a sense of an openness to the
building and to the citizens of La Quinta as they drive by.
Once the problem of camouflaging the gymnasium had been solved, and the internal circulation
and organization had been sorted out, the question of image had to be addressed. Because this
new building would assume a prominent role - introducing the entire community and school
complex - several issues came into play. The first, was the appropriate character for the
building. The school buildings set a strong tone of international style influence with their earth
colors and flat roofed horizontal building mass. The school clearly communicates its
institutional nature and seriousness of purpose. The more recent Community Center/Child Care
Center communicates a much more residential nature. Its size, materials, and form resemble
a home, and defers to the overall image of La Quinta. The problem the Boys and Girls Club
has to address is which of the two characters/styles should it take its cue from. On the one hand
it is a building of great importance to the entire community because it is the club for all children
of the community. Therefore it should have stature, yet the Boys and Girls Club rules, unlike
the school's, are "open-door" and relatively non -demanding. Therefore, we think the building
must distinguish itself from the institutional character of the school.
From the beginning, the design team felt that a sloped roof would achieve several important
goals: reduce the bulk of the building; convey a familiar image - homelike, but clearly not a
house; provide a continuity of form with the Child Care Center, as well as with the surrounding
residential projects. The sheer size of the building (24,000 SF) and its height (dictated by the
gymnasium) would give the building stature. The right character (vibrant, yet friendly) is
conveyed by a standing seam metal roof. Using a terra cotta color will link it to the roof tile
common on residences and shopping centers, yet the smooth texture and crisp lines convey a
more active and athletic quality.
w
Z
`<
/ Q
Q Z
W CY
X
UQ
< -�
O
U
W�
O5
6.1.i Q
CC
tU
CL
LLJ
V/
o
v /
>-X
0.
m
I
M
I
(Y)
Q
-H LLJ
� Q
0 N
C>>1 d
Li cy-
_
CL
W
J
W
N
U
Q'
W
X
W
06
W
LO
0
F--
V)
0
I
zD
(L
+I
Q
W
of
Q
F-
U
LO
CDl
W
Lo
fa
Q'
0
Lo
W
¢
H
Q
y
o N
%,D
lZ
z
A
It
co
In
w
z
f- v
N 0s
It %.D
u7 -D
U
a
ri ni
.164
w ao
r\j o
W
J
I-- I'D
Ld CU
n
L:
LL
LZ
—
L.:
N
>
o N
o
W
l�
Q
a-
117
m Lr)
p
D7
r- ..
Nit
C-
W
NN
o' v
Q
H
.--z
(U M
n Lri
...
--
. Lr)
Un (U
O
ED
li
-
W
N
N
N
d
\
\
Q
0
�X
vo
tDo
N\
VN
o
o
�o
�Lr5
�U-5
to
Li
4 r-
N CU
c\ ..
(`:..
Imo:
(-5
W
N
W
NU
"D¢
�r
-� Q
In
�Lj
Q,
Q
op
No
Q
m
^U')
1� (�
U7
a,
Nit
F -
W
CY
W
Q
J
U
oa
to
Q
::D
Q
J
N
J
J
O
~O
=
ED
U
m
Q
F- J
�e
U)
LL
�
J
w
J
o
VJ
>
z
Q
0
W
W/
(J
Z
I CJ
t�
U
0
�
W
0
J
`.l
r-
}
w
J
<
J
<
O
W
C�
C
`r
W
< Z
r C
H
O]
N
Environmental Assessment No. lqF- =
Case No. 1� Q q! -01 -j.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Background
• Name of Proponent �(�l-14 A I d& Cl LLV %Z>b C- CIng .V G1 ��1a t
. Address & Phone Number of Proponent l3-100 D4r, SST ►c�1Q
q2:2t .o !
• Date Checklist Prepared
• Agency Requiring Checklist n+(A of LA (VUl✓ k
• Name of Proposal, if applicable 6CiAs Cgly-9 ("I(110
I. Environmental Impacts
Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES
MAYBE NO
. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
c.
Change in topography or ground surface V
relief features?
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
V
of any unique geologic or physical features.
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
V
soils, either on or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake?
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
FORM.009/CS -1-
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
_
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Changes in currents or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c.
Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
\0
d.
Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
V
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g.
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
y
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
YES MAYBE NO
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, & 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 in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops?
L
5. 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 &
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals? `
c. Introduction of new species of animalsy
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals? \
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife v
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?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a \4
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 use of any
natural resources?
YES
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
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?
MAYBE NO
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
V
a.
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
c.
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
\a
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?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following
areas:
a.
Fire protection?
b.
Police protection?
�—
c.
Schools?
\'
d.
Parks or other recreational facilities?
e.
Maintenance of public facilities & roads?
f .
Other governmental services?
I
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
16. 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?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health).
18. 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?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alter-
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic or historic archaeological site?
YES MAYBE NO
V
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
V
OR
V
\J _
P
L
r..�w nnn Irne- —C�—
YES MAYBE
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential —
to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one in which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well in the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are _
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
NO
r
IV. Determination
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
G
Date Signature of Preparer
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Attn: Stan Sawa
Re: Public Use Permit 91-012
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
wNuc 1 14 ` ember 13, 1991
�S�f,,�u 13 1991
IM
With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced PUP 91-
012, 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 2000 gpm
for a 2 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be
available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire
flow is based on the building being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers.
2. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped
system (6" x 4" x 21" 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/approl
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 the building(s) will be
automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the
building plans.
® INDIO OFFICE
79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(619) 342MM 9 FAX (619) 7752072
PLANNING DIVISION
❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(714) 275-4777 0 FAX (714) 369-7451
❑ TEMECUTA OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225, Temecula, CA 92391
(714) 694.5070 U FAX (714) 694-5076
C6 printed on recycled pap
City of La Quinta November 13, 1991
Planning Department Page 2
5. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform
Building Code and NFPA 72.
6. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less
than 2AIOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper
placement of equipment.
7. Comply with Title 19 of the California Administrative Code.
8. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform
Building Code.
9. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes.
Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check
fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the
Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342-8886.
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planner
imp By
cc: B-7 Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
vim.
W ATE' '
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
61�TRICt
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1o58 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 39&2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
TELLISCODEKAS PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVX.GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY
JOHN W. McFADDEN ^ OWERocrOOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHYM DELAY November 3 ..1%11� t' AEDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
THEODORE J. FISH 7
File: 0163.1
"' ' . 2 0 1991
Planning Commission �3• NOV �
City of La Quinta a
Post Office Box 1504
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
Subject: Public Use Permit 91-012, Portion of
Southwest Quarter, Section 32, Township 5
South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is protected from stormwater flows by a system of channels and dikes,
and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances.
This area is designated Zone A 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,
fi"✓�
Tom Levy �71neer
General Manager -Chief
RF:sv/ell
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
1981 LUGONIA AVENUE, REDLANDS CALIFORNIA
MAILING ADDRESS P O BOX 3003, REDLANDS, CALIFOPNIA 92373-0306
November 12, 1991
Ira Quinta Development Review Committee
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
ATTENTION: Stan Sawa
RE: Boys & Girls Club of Coachella Valley - P.I.P. 91-012
Thank you for inquiring about the availability of natural gas service for your
project. We are pleased to inform you that Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to
the project could be provided from 3" main in Avenue 50 without any significant
impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's
policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities
Commission at the time contractural arrangements are made.
You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractural
commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based
upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public
utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the
California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of
federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects
gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be
provided in accordance with revised conditions.
Typical demand use for:
a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearly
Single Family
Multi -Family 4 or less units
Multi -Family 5 or more units
799 therms/year dwelling unit
482 therms/year dwelling unit
483 therms/year dwelling unit
These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by
Southern California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular
home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy.
b. Commercial
Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building
vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation
in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is
not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need
to be made after the building has been designed.
t%u have dovolopii, sclora: prograTs whi ci. are avai - a,)-'e, upon, request , tc: p-ov-
assistance in se-ectIng the most effective app-714ca-lions of energy conse-v
techn,q;--, fo,.- it j--o-;ect. If" you desire further information n:,. an--, n
our ene-7y conservation p-og-pms, please contact our Builder Slervices
.0. Box 300--, Rvd.la-ds, 0 92373-0306. Phone 1-000-62A --2497.
Sincerely,
Nevin B. -7:un
Tec'"nical Supervisor
KBF: b I h
cc: -nv--*7on Affairs -ML209B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-012
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF COACHELLA VALLEY
DECEMBER 10, 1991
GENERAL:
1. If this public use permit if not used within one year after original date of
approval shall expire and be null and void unless approved for extension by
the City pursuant to Municipal Code requirements.
2. Developer and operator of the use shall comply with all conditions of the lease
of the landlord.
3. New driveway to Park Avenue shall be one way only, heading from easterly to
westerly direction. Parking spaces on the south side of aisle shall be angled
to accommodate one way circulation. Appropriate directional stripping and
signing shall be provided to insure one way circulation.
4. Security fence along 50th Avenue shall be between five and six feet in height
and be constructed out of wrought iron or some other decorative steel rods or
tubing.
5. Plans for pool and pool building shall be approved by the Design Review Board
and Staff prior to their construction.
6. Preliminary and final landscaping plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Design Review Board, Agricultural Commissioner, and Coachella Valley
Water District Water Specialist as needed prior to installation. Consideration
shall be given to using existing or new citrus trees where feasible. Where
possible low water use and native planting should be used.
7. Garden wall material shall be decorative and shall be compatible in color with
the main building.
8. A trash/recycling bin enclosure shall be provided. The enclosure shall be
masonry and of a decorative nature. The location of the enclosure to be
subject to approval of City Staff and local trash company.
9. If deemed necessary by the City, additional parking shall be provided at the
expense of the Applicant/Developer/Operator.
PUBLIC UTILITIES:
10. All conditions of the City Fire Marshall in his letter dated November 13, 1991,
shall be met.
11. All conditions of the Coachella Valley Water District in their letter of November
13, 1991, shall be met.
CONAPRVL.040
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 91-012 - Proposed
Boys & Girls Club
December 10, 1991
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
12. Applicant shall layout building and capital facility in a manner that permits
Park Street to be widened.
13. Applicant shall take access to the site only from Park Street.
14. 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.
15. The site grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit.
16. The site shall be graded in a manner that permits storm flow in excess of the
retention basin capacity to flow out off the site through a designated
emergency overflow outlet and into the historic drainage relief route.
Similarly, the site 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(s) designed for a maximum
water depth not to exceed three (3) feet. The basin slopes shall not exceed
5:1. The percolation rate shall be considered to be zero inches per hour
unless 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.
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 by 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. 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.
CONAPRVL.040
Conditions of Approval
Public Use Permit 91-012 - Proposed
Boys & Girls Club
December 10, 1991
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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 construction of the tract 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".
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
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.
CONAPRVL.040
PH-5
DATE:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 10, 1991
WILMA PACIFIC, INC.
TRACT 26152 - EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET
APPROXIMATELY 3/4 MILE SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111
STREET NAME CHANGES ARE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
UNDER SECTION 15061
Wilma Pacific has made a request to change Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive
located in Tract 26152 (Lake La Quinta) . As part of the street name procedure as
identified in Chapter 14.08 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (attached), the Planning
Commission on November 12, 1991, adopted a Resolution of Intention to consider a
change of the name and set December 10, 1991, as a Public Hearing date.
SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION:
The Applicant has submitted all required documents and fees for this proposed street
name change. The owner of the properties adjacent to the street in question, A. G.
Spanos, does not object to the above name change (see attached letter) .
AGENCY COMMENTS:
The Building and Safety Department and County Fire Marshal have no comment on
this proposed name change.
FINDINGS:
Findings for recommendation of approval of Street Name Change 91-002 can be found
in the attached Planning Commission Resolution.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution 91-
the City Council approval of Street Name Change 91-002.
Attachments:
1. Locality plan
2. Tract map
3. Chapter 14.08 of La Quinta Municipal Code
4. Letter from A. G . Spans
PCST.034
recommend to
001
ATTACHMENT No. 1
y¢�i1I' •w � • .s• •w
r t7• 7 I
'•� I aas �
Dunesso
_ `_ • �: /
•� . ■
t KY Wbf
p � .�-.Gt►'n ate.— - - � , � +� / - � I �
m OWN
.w
42L Cy
ftlDutt 1NE]1S ,
1 '/AJ •
so
lA QUINTA
{\ /Oo� .: _ _'— �' I � �� N � �a�sy—;•,,, I+FiL ,j1:.Ii� •. tDDaW
ATTACHMENT No. 2
C 1 't!• I I
tt st tt !• •,•ot
s
I �! • I 0
�' a1 � �� � � f erv�a' ���;1�•[e 9� ! l,I:f-•:,l,7,•!t•t!•ft.i:'11
ee .
��! Sri • ; • f �`��y t.l'�p: ri
Q d r
B �..� � RQ•�M d 6I!! S�:! f I��Si;ol. ji � �1�i�i t = C � a ��t,tltllllllliltl'I�•�,tlt 1 !�i
n „ ,
11 fM fM „ , • , �`�
• 11 11 �' li11 l p � ; t/
'tint � MJU••, wvJ i
«uT 1 'n ..• •• � — • •Iffy
ici i• i t•`. •St rt
ft _
rrf.• _� to !t �ttltll "�:It'i•I;�l�a�l�ili •e !L: clt� ! ;�
4 IL
Iik i t I ! IiI!! I!, :t i
";j! I .iIlli i, ,�! t
! 1 1 #° t• i,• X4,
Ipill
it 1 i S •t I— ��•% : o
i' i i ;_ _ �� i•I 1 it i'�
s;ti•��I'
tt1i11 Q•ot.ol..
VIA IAA R W&S.SA 10 Me GHA#iGe -tv
Lk ke: LA, QO i N I -A
14.08.010
ATTACHMENT No. 3
sections:
14.08.010
14.08.020
14.08.030
14.08.040
14.08.050
14.08.060
14.08.070
14.08.080
14.08.090
14.08.100
14.08.110
Chapter 14.08
STREET NAME CHANGES
Petition for initiation of street name change.
Initiation of petition.
Application fee.
Manager's caamination.
Adoption of resolution of intention.
Publication.
Posting.
Commission hearing.
Commission recommendation.
Council action.
Commission recommendation -Aithout petition and hearing.
14.08.010 Petition for initiation of street name change.
Any person may initiate a street name change for any reason consistent with law, by complying with
the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 10 § 1 (part), 1982)
14.08.020 Initiation of petition.
A proposed change of street name may be initiated by filing with the planning commissionn
application in the form pressbhe sheet to be affected. (Ordr and �10 11ed (part),the �1982) ers f at least s percent
of the lineal frontage abutting
14.08.030 Application fen.
The application shall be accompanied by a fee in an amount established by resolution of the city
counct7, in order to defray the costs of publishing, post ing and processing, as hereinafter prescribed. (Ord.
10 11 (part), 1982)
14.08.040 Manager's examination.
The city manager shall examinethe
020 liOrd. 10 § ldetermine� 1982)e sufficiency of same as to the
percentage requirement of Section 1 .08 ( (p
14.08.OS0 Adoption of resolution of intention.
solution of
Upon determination of the suffi date forf tublicehearing not6don, the tllem than thug' days mmission shall pfrom t a ethe date of
intention to change name and set a p
adoption of the resolution. (Ord. 10 11 (part),1982)
14.08.060 Publication.
for at feast
The cit<- manager shall provide one publication of the resolution. of intention in a
least fifteen days prior to the hearing date. (Ord. 10 §
newspaper of general circulation within the city at
1 (part),1982)
14.08.070 Posting.
The city manager shall provide for posting copies of the resolution of intention in at least three public
places along the street proposed to be 19�cted. The posting shall be completed at least ten days prior to
the hearing date. (Ord .10 § 1(p ), )
14.08.080 Commission hearing.
At the time set for hearing, or at any time to which the hearing may be continued, the commission
536
AN.W•WV
shall hear and consider proposals to adjust, alter or change the name(s) of the street($) mentioned in the
resolution, and objections to the proposals. (Ord. 10 § 1(part),1982)
14.08.090 Commission recommendation
At or after the conclusion of the haring, the commission may make any recommendation to the airy
ion shall consider any
council which the commission deems appropnate. In its debberaboas the commiss
applicable specific plans in effect. (Ord. 10 § 1(part),1982)
14.08.100 Council action.
'lire city council may, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34091.1, take such action as
it deems appropriate upon the recommen�da e�omofinendatio�n shall be deemeon, and d aeti taction ake
the applicmation
days after submission of the commission
(Ord. 10 § 1 (part),1982)
14.48.110 Commission recommendation Ythout petition and hearing.
Notwithstanding any other parts of this code, the commission may, for any reason it deems in the
public interest and necessity, recommend to the city council that a street name be changed. The
recommendation may be made with wmp:ving with the requirements of Sections 14.O8.020 through
mission Lecied to the
14.08.080. The recommendation shall beill n
aLlceef such action a Of a it deems approprution of the iate. (Ord 10 § 1(part),
c:tv council. Thereafter the city council
1982)
537
ATTACHMENT No. 4
A. G. SPANOS CONSTRUCTION, INC.
9449 FRIARS ROAD 0 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92108
TELEPHONE (6191283-3964
October 3. 1991
Ms. Glenda Lainis
Associate Planner
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta. California 92253
Dear Ms. Lainis:
As the owner of the commercial properties adjacent to the street
intersection of Via Marquessa and Washington Street. we are in
support of a name change from Via 'Marquessa to Lake La Quinta
Drive.
Please contact me should you have any questions.
Sincerely.
Ray Hanes
Vice President
RH:cam
A:GLAItiIS
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION
TO CHANGE THE STREET NAME VIA MARQUESSA TO
LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE
CASE NO. STREET NAME CHANGE 91-002 - WILMA PACIFIC, INC.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 12th day of November, 1991, in accordance with Section 14.08.050 of the
La Quinta Municipal Code did state, at the request of Wilma Pacific, Inc. , their intent
to consider a change in the street name Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive
located in Tract 26152, as shown by Map on file in Book 214, Pages 69 through 82,
of Maps, Records of Riverside County Recorder, being a portion of the southeast 1 /4
of Section 30, Township 5 south, Range 7 east, San Bernardino Base Meridian; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California
at the same meeting did set December 10, 1991, as a Public Hearing date on the above
matter, in accordance with Section 14.08.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code.
WHEREAS, said Planning Commission at the Public Hearing held on
December 10, 1991, did find the following facts and reasons to justify the
recommendation for approval of Street Name Change 91-002:
1. This street name change does not conflict with any approved specific plan, the
La Quinta General Plan, and the La Quinta Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
2. The owners of all land adjacent to the affected street have been notified and
have stated in writing that there is no objection to the change in the street
name.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of
the City of La Quinta as follows:
1. That the Planning Commission has followed the requirements of the La Quinta
Municipal Code, Chapter 14.08 pertaining to Street Name Changes.
2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval
of Street Name Change 91-002 changing the street name from Via Marquessa
to Lake La Quinta Drive.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission held this loth day of December, 1991, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
RESOPC.060
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPc.060
BI-1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991, (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 26, 1991)
REQUEST: SIGN APPLICATION 91-159: SIMON PLAZA, PLANNED SIGN
PROGRAM. REQUEST TO INSTALL A SHOPPING CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGN, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS AND MULTIPLE
BUILDING SIGNS FOR A FUTURE OFFICE/COMMERCIAL
FACILITY PLANNED ON FIVE AND ONE HALF ACRES
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AT WASHINGTON
STREET
APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; MR. PHILIP M. PEAD
SIGN
DESIGNER: MR. SKIP BERG, DGI SIGNS
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: FROM CEQA PER SECTIONS CATEGORICALLY SIGN APPLICATIONS ARE 5311, CEXEMPT
LASS ELEVEN
PLOT PLAN 91-466 AND VARIANCE 91-019:
The attached sign plan should be examined in conjunction with Plot Plan 91-466 and
Variance 91-019 also on this evenings agenda.
PROPOSED SIGN PROGRAM:
The Applicant has submitted a freestanding center identification sign, a concept
building sign program, and directional signs for the proposed multiple use complex.
A. Freestanding Identification Signs: The freestanding sign is 12-feet in height
and the graphic sign cabinet is approximately 50 square feet excluding the
decorative arched top. The sign is internally illuminated and the cabinet will
be stuccoed to match the proposed building color (Navajo White) . The "Simon
Plaza" portion of the sign will be blue whereas the decorative arched top will
be royal blue (translucent vinyl over white plexiglass) . The cabinet base will
be tiled. This triangular -shaped sign will be located at the northwest corner
of the site.
B. Directional Parking Signs: The freestanding directional signs are three feet
in height and three square feet. The signs will be internally illuminated and
the design is consistent with the center identification sign.
PCST.030 y 001
tr 0 0 1
C. Attached Building Signs (Program #1): The building signs are located on
various areas of the easterly -most building complex which will house the
future bowling alley, fitness center, and restaurant. The illuminated channel
lettered signs are to have blue plexiglass faces (#607-1GP Acrylite Blue)
except for a slight variation in the bowling alley sign adding orange/white/red
to the blue. The sign program will consist of:
1. Restaurant
a. Highway 111 elevation = 12" letters (10 sq. ft. )
b. Parking lot elevation = 18" letters (22.5 sq. ft. )
2. Family Fitness Center
a. Parking lot elevation = 18" letters (43.5 sq. ft. )
3. Bowling Alley
a. Highway 111 elevation = 24" letters (52 sq. ft . )
b. Parking lot elevation = 14" letters (18.5 sq. ft . )
TOTAL = +146.5 sq. ft.
ZONING CODE PROVISIONS (EXCERPTS) :
io
General Retail Sales and Services Business and Professional Ea
nrinkinp' Establishments and Other Commercial Uses.
1. Freestanding Signs.
and
a. Each commercial complex containing a multiple -tenant
building or multiple buildings is permitted one complex
identification sign per street frontage. The area of any
one sign shall not exceed one -quarter of a square foot of
sign area per lineal foot of street frontage, or fifty square
feet, whichever is less. The aggregate area of all such
signs shall not exceed one hundred square feet and sign
area may not be combined among street frontages.
b . Not pertinent for this report.
c. The maximum height of any freestanding sign shall be
twelve feet.
M. Directional Signs. Nonadvertising, freestanding signs used to identify
street entrance and exit. Said signs must have three square feet of
sign area and be three feet in height.
2. Attached Signs
a. Each tenant within a multiple -tenant commercial complex
may have one attached identification sign not to exceed one
PCST.030 2
square foot of sign area per lineal foot of tenant space
frontage along a street, or frontage along a common use
parking lot where no direct street frontage is provided,
not exceeding fifty square feet. Corner, end, or separate
tenant spaces may split the allowable frontage sign area
among two signs . "
STAFF COMMENTS:
The monument sign and directional signs are consistent with the design theme of the
project, and the proposed colors are appropriate for this area. The signs would be
architecturally compatible with surrounding businesses uses. A summary on the
building sign package is as follows:
A. Building Sign Colors: The blue copy of the building letters are a contrast to
the architectural style of the project and although the blue letters will be
legible during the day and at night, the color might not be appropriate for
this building because it is to be painted Navajo white with brown and rust
accents and clay -tile roofing. A consideration on this program might be to use
either a rust plexiglass or black/white plexiglass for this project. The
black/white plexiglass is a newer product which is black in the day and white
at night. It is very attractive if the individual letter returns are painted to
match the building. However, the blue letters would match both the Simon
Motors and the Downey Savings signs which are in the immediate area.
B . Building Signage Locations: The signs are located in acceptable locations on
the building except for the fitness center sign on the parking lot elevation.
This sign is sandwiched in between the second and third story windows and
detracts from the architecture style of the building complex. The Ordinance
does not allow signs on the building for second story tenants. A sign
adjustment would be needed if the sign is to remain in its present location.
C . Sign Lettering Height: Sign lettering is a key component of building
identification, but architectural compatibility is also an ingredient, as well as
human -scale. As noted before, the sign contractor has proposed lettering
heights of 12" to 24" for this project. Therefore, the legibility of the signs
from a distance will be approximately:
Readability Maximum Readable
Letter Height
Impact
Distance
White/Red (Blue)
12"
120' (1081)
525'
14"
150' (135')
630'
18"
180' (1621)
750'
24"
240' (216')
1, 000'
NOTE: Red, black, or white letters (maximum) with 10% variation for other
colors (e.g., blue) for internally lit signs.
In summary, the size of the letters for the project will be easy to read for all
PCST.030
patrons in the parking lot area and for passing motorists on either main
thoroughfare depending upon your direction of travel.
D. Reverse Channel Letter Signing: If the Planning Commission is not
comfortable with the proposed channel lettering of design of the Applicant,
the Commission might consider a reverse channel lettering program for this
center. A reverse channel letter has an open back which allows the neon
lighting to be cast on the building thus ghosting the non -transparent face of
the letter. This type of sign creates a softer affect on the building than an
internally lit plexiglass sign as proposed by DGI, Inc. Another type of sign
to consider is a individual letter (cast, molded, etc.) which can be uplighted
from the front of the sign. In this alternative, the lighting fixture is a
critical element of sign design and if not developed appropriately, can look
unattractive.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD:
The Design Review Board met on November 6, 1991, to discuss this case. Discussion
ensued on whether or not the building letters should be internally illuminated or
externally illuminated. After much debate, the Board felt that the building(s) is
close enough to the street to warrant external lighting versus internal illumination
as requested by the Applicant and, further, the group did not believe reverse
channel letters would be appropriate for this building complex. The Applicant did
not want to install reverse channel letters either because they require more
maintenance (they get dirty) and are exposed to natural elements since they have
exposed parts. At one point in the meeting Mr. Berg, the sign contractor, did state
that he would be receptive to rust letters if he could have internally illuminated
signage for the building. However, this concept did not gain approval by the
Board.
Another topic by the Design Review Board was the lettering style for the building
signs. The Board thought the building warranted a stylized lettering design instead
of the Helvetica Bold as presented by the sign contractor. The sign contractor was
amicable to the changes requested by the Board. A copy of the lettering styles are
attached.
The Design Review Board also approved the building plexiglass letters which were
presented by the Applicant. No color changes were made by the Board.
Finally, the Design Review Board felt the Fitness Center sign location was acceptable
since it was for one of the major tenants of the complex and it did not hinder the
architectural elements of the project or reduce their character.
NEW SUBMITTAL APPLICATION:
On November 20, 1991, Staff received a new sign package submittal from the sign
contractor. The new program (Program #2) includes internally illuminated cabinet
signs for the proposed buildings. The cabinet signs vary in size from two feet wide
to three feet and range in height from 14 feet to 36 feet. A summary of the new
request is as follows:
PCST.030 4
Sign E - 3' X 24" = 72 sq. ft.
Sign F - 3' X 36' = 108 sq. ft.
Sign G - 8' X 16' = 128 sq. ft.
Sign H - 2' X 14" (+14 sq. ft.) = 42 sq. ft. (irregular)
Sign I - 2' X 17' = 34 sq. ft.
TOTAL 384 sq. ft.
The signs will have white ( Navajo) backgrounds with the copy colors matching the
original program (blue with accent colors) .
The new program was reviewed by the Design Review Board on December 4, 1991.
However, the Board did not support this new request because it is not as
architecturally structured as other types of programs previously examined in this
report. Another matter is the Applicant's desire to increase the size of the sign
program from 146.5 square feet to the present request of 384 square feet, an
enlargement of 237.5 square feet.
In Program #2 signs E, F, and G are larger than permitted by the Sign Ordinance.
An adjustment would be necessary to permit these signs. We advocate the program
as recommended by the Design Review Board or something similar in form, but this
latest proposal is not satisfactory for this building complex. We do not believe the
Planning Commission should approve the November 20, 1991, submittal.
The Design Review Board reconsidered their action of November 6, 1991, and
decided as a group to allow Sign Program #1 as submitted by the Applicant.
Therefore, the Board voted (6-1, Boardmember Anderson voting no) to permit
internally illuminated channel letters on the building.
The following findings and recommendation are based on the Design Review Board's
action of December 4, 1991 (Sign Program #1)
FINDINGS:
1. The size and location of the Bowling Alley building signs are placed to provide
for maximum sight exposure to passing motorists and the general public at
large. The sign on the northerly elevation will not detract from the
architectural character of the building nor impact the sign program as
presented. The sign graphics dictate a need to adjust the City's size
standards to compensate for the proposed design theme.
2. The Fitness Center sign is needed on the second story of the building
complex. If located on the first floor level, it could not be seen by passing
motorists, and as it is an integral part of the Bowling Alley complex, building
advertising is needed for this type of commercial use.
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 91- approve the Planned Sign Program and the Sign Adjustment
request provided the attached Conditions of Approval are met.
PCST.030
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Sign graphics
3. Site plan sketch with sign locations ( sheet #1)
4. Sign Program #2 dated November 20, 1991
5. Lettering styles (Design Review Board recommendation)
6. Design Review Board Minutes of November 6, 1991
7. Exhibit "A", recommended Conditions of Approval ( Sign Program #1)
PCST.030
0
Vacant
� r
Plaza La Quinta Parking
i
Point Happy Ranch
Beef 6 \
Brew
'14U
t3 0
P
Existing Tract Hones
Washington Street Frontage
Road �--�
Existing -Traffic Signal
Vacant Land
Raised Median
4CVacant Building
e" 0 t po'
It
E
� N
O
� •r N
C r'•r
•r (d (n
'II �
c O L71
'O ro •r C
C +-) 4-3 • r
N VN U -O
cy) Q) N r
O N S- • r
J S- •r
U- 0 m
aT I CD +
•r I I
(n Qm W
Sign Pro4ram #1 - Individual Channel Letters
Internally Lit Letters
�;l
I
r'
A
t�
6�
N
.. - ff •ffl
rl
i
Ax,�
1
el
F
;
�z_
2.1
IX:c�
r�
�U
ZF
��
Z Jo tJdd �
J Z 1U jsi2j lT Vt
n
IS
y� Q LL
Z. "s I
0
�f
�I
G
w
I
y
Z
I
�zll
W
a
r��
2
>`
i
v
IJ
2
G
,J
Y
FANCY STYLES--),
BLOCK STYLES
iELVETICA IVIED. A.K.REV.F
,BCD EFCHIJKLMNOPORSTUVWXYZ
bcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
,123456789
►BCDEFGHI.JKLM
EQPQRBTUVWXYZ
Ebcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
1123456789
)P71MA SEMI BOLD A.K.
►0C FE® GHI jKLMNOPQRS
'UVWXYZ1234567090
bcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
'Vy0&'O_"Q£®:; /?,.
.UROSTILE BOLD EXTENDED
LK. REV. B i
►BC®EFGWIJKLMNOP®RS
luVWxVz
bcdef ghi jklmnopclrstuvw x yz
1123456789 !«Wfa&I011—CCO:;,.?I
kVANT GARDE A.K. REV. C
►BCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
Ebcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
)123456789
aENERAL SYMBOLS EXT. RV.F
of-
-,ion Y
It jl ie rl I .P
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
ABCDEFGHIjKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
0123456789
v"g2qR�c� 7,349SE9 (RINT A.g(. g?.E�U.
,-nn8cJgc349�D<I ,U
'Uc,V LU9gl3 abcde$ghgkPmnopghstuuwxyg
Of29456789
a�cde��iy(¢er�saa,�$ adi'uucu x��
®12 456794i
UNIVEPoSITY ROMAN A.K. REV. A
ABCDEFGIiIJKI,WN0P01.2 'l'U\"%XYZ
abcdcf8h klmnc)pgrtiluv\vAVZ
0123456789
CENTURY BOLD A.K. REV. A
AI;C1)EFGHIJKI,MN()P(IRSTUVWXYZ
abcdef o-hi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
CLARENDON BOLD A.K. REV. r
A 3CDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS'TUVWXYZ
abedefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
SOUVENIR DEMI A.K. REV. A
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX
YZ
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
COOPER BLACK A.K. REV. A
ABCDEFGHIJKLM14OPQRS
` UV'WXYZ
a cdefghij lmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
New Application Submittal by the Sign
Contractor
November 20, 1991 Sign
Package
N
" - �11••KSiftEd'Q�.T1Nb!!�v'�YLRFJ �•11,� ) •
�•^s- Q.Y.T. 1
pi
M,
1
Z 4
IAJ _
516r1 C NORTH ELEVAT►Oftl
WHITE 6o0Y BI AGK EYE ?{p3o-43 RED ON T11
?&30- 25 v�u,ov,i E4b
OACKCXQOUN D Zb MATCH (o0i - I e f3 W E
J
- - -_, LETfEl2s -m MATCH at(
O�+ 1,4VAHO wulrc GAS
SILrN F NORTN ELcvArrOry --------------
----__--
L
0 i "JI�IJr"JI�IJr
o I j LT" �►
<�I LT BAST l:L1;Vt1TrUN
10 1 0-4-
WWiJe d .4
.HEFT METL•L Ct .Er $ QETOtraEC:
=�J62E�GEut t1i�t?
— ANC�E IRON 2E�t�[ORLEMENT �... _>.x.-�-u�1-.:.a.•:.�-.L.�.:.: .
LEXAN FACE IL,
r � _
N Ov 2 0 1991
END SECTION (TYP )
GL C4r. FASCJA
j4�_��,
M
1
a� � !s-a115V
-#--
r4p 5LuG
ZOU N O
15161-t-4O t & i T EL-E V4 rlID
�p--F .5 To tAr-\,r 'sod aG r3W�
L^'��WLItvC7 3D.LL• - 7;fl7C)-c... ALA-�Cx� �� l�A���
r 1�XGSc HOLrG`�. llTLiNt
LINCt FINS \"HIT'E vv - QiLAO—
ey
ecWG
�,NAUOWS. -TRIM Gt�uNC IaN ,,�G1...tc5 - ��3v-gam �Eu.
NAVAN0 WHITE' ( C-I �OurJt� CO1-GAL
1-7 C> " _------
_ I
o
�ilzt�l Z ND2t1+ rLEV�?tON
S/F tNTERNAI-��( IL�UMtNA`S1C7NS
F�.RQiGAT�i: ALur'�1tJUti1 .;�;vl'JET � (1�'r'G.�tVE.Rc�..•
PL�INTEC� rvA�pNO N,E� �T�. `� �.,/�T'! H f�c� .•.%-=�� -
c PL�INT�- :• �F.c�N� �Ui�1L�-E
CLEaR L nN FpG�_ tc Anfi b, .
�,OLDPLZ, A$ NOtEC>
-M parr DFD6?Os-
k:'J' = -ALL.-
I NTfr2NAlL.� I LLV Nt � N AT�� `v i r..�
rLuoR�S�CNT U�;�.16x,
A 1o0+�-t3- rz2
St?�ON PLAZA Drawing no._-----2
doe nalae ghee, 2 0l
Addfll" Drawn by it NO D 0ato
�C1p g�RGr $cats _...------------
sales rN• --- ------ 10 , I R2 I I - 20. Q I GNANc�nc. 5cw� 4
Approve/ by Aevlalons cl s.l. tm tb g/F w7s
.... _..... - 0.e V • M• Oft, wa. suWa", In "Mm'1106 With a poi-t Oland 10► —ou 57.. %. not
(i
NOV 2
,'_�
DDCC
DMRW ED GPAPW 1
ElcaM eel"I 4611
# O
�W j N
W
oo
Z �
� 3
F
LLa n�
2
42
vi
F
i
- r -
d
C?
N
�i
z
mj
r
I
�N
r�
>�
w
N
a
Oaf
FANCY STYLES -+
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
0123456789
BLOCK STYLES
I
HELVETICA MED. A.K.REV.F
ABCDEEGHIJKLMNOPORSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
HELVETICA BOLD A.K. REV.0
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPORSTUVWXYZ
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
OPTIMA SEMI 13OLD A.K.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRS
TUVWXYZ1234567890
abcdefghi jklm nopgrstuvwxyz
F—UROSTILE BOLD EXTENDED
A.K. REV. B i
ABCDEFGHIJKLMN®PQRS
ruvwxyZ
abcdef ghi jklmnopgrstuvw x yz
0123456789
AVANT GARDE A.K. REV. C
ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
obcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123}�4(5678�9+
GENERAL SYMBOLS EXT. R V.F
��0d1'15� Itf•tFibr`T
(Do Illp++11A9Atr°':t6v9orin ► 1A
r�<-K+.K<-KF Nie9& *,v:Qv'?k&gle
,,"gMAgj '-3'4,9Sfg TM ,t.cJ(. Tv.
cUq. ft9CYl3 abcde jgk►jbPmmopgkSfUVWkyg
0129496789
eR*sue
r�beZ'��Cf ��;12.C'�120�2�5'72
aecde��t��l�Ko,�$zetuu�z��
Olt 45678f1 !SU Z7—
UNIVERSITY Q0M N :1.K. QEN'. A
ABCDEFG111JUMSOPOP I'U\*1X'XYZ
abcdcf6h klmno pgrstn\'\x'\vZ
0123456289
CENTURY I3OLD A.K. REV. A
AIICI)EF(,'HIJKI,MNo INIRSTUVWXYZ
abcdef x'hi jklm nopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
CLARENDON BOLD A.K. REV.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWX' i
abcdefghi jklmnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
SOUVENIR DEMI A.K. REV.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVW
YZ
abcdefghijkimnopgrstuvwxyz
0123456789
COOPER BLACK A.K. REV*
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOP ORS
°TUVWXYZ
abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvvvxyz
0123456789
MINUTES
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
CITY OF LA Q1jIWr1CA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
November 6, 1991 5 : 30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. Chairman Rice brought the meeting to order at 5 : 30 P.M. and
Boardmember Anderson led the flag salute. Chairman Rice asked for a
roll call.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Present: Boardmembers David Harbison, Paul Anderson, John Walling,
John Curtis, Ted Llewellyn, Planning Commission Representative
Donald Marrs, and Chairman Rice.
III. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
A. Chairman Rice opened the nominations for Chairman. Chairman Rice
nominated Ted Llewellyn for Chairman, Boardmember Rice seconded the
motion and it carried unanimously.
B . Chairman Rice nominated David Harbison as Vice Chairman.
Boardmember Llewellyn seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A . Chairman Rice asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
October 2, 1991. Boardmember Curtis asked that the Minutes be
amended on Page 3, C.6, to show that he voted no on Plot Plan 91-466.
Boardmember Llewellyn asked that the spelling of his name be
corrected. There being no further changes, Boardmember Harbison
moved to approve the Minutes as corrected. Boardmember Curtis
seconded the motion and it carried unanimously .
IV. BUSINESS SESSION
A. SIGN APPLICATION 91-159; a request of Simon Plaza to install a
shopping center identification sign, directional signs, and multiple
building signs for a future office/commercial facility planned on five
acres.
DRBMIN-11/6 1
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
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. Boardmember Curtis asked Staff if the sign program had utilized
the maximum amount allowed. Staff stated they were within their
limits with the overall program. He further asked if this
application had been approved by the Planning Commission and
if their approval would change the overall sign program they
were reviewing. Staff stated the Planning Commission had not
seen the program as of yet and the Design Review Board was a
recommending body to the Planning Commission.
3. Boardmember Walling stated there was not a need to make detailed
approvals for the sign program but approve a generic program
that gave guidelines to the Developer to proceed with.
4. Mr. Skip Berg, architect for the project, addressed the Board
and gave a brief description of the program. He stated they
would stay within the perimeters of what the City allowed. As to
the Simon Plaza sign and colors, he stated these were similar to
the Simon Motors corporate logo. He stated his only objections
to the Staff recommendations were the requests for reverse
channel lettering, and the color change.
5. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the signs and had no
objections to the color selected by the Applicant. His concern
was for the typeface of the letters. He preferred a less rounding
of the letters. Discussion followed with the Applicant relative to
letter styles.
6. Chairman Llewellyn stated he had no objection to the color
selected by the Applicant.
7. Boardmember Anderson stated his concern for the applied
signage to the building. He would rather it be on the ground or
walkway. He felt the big blue signs would detract from the
building. Discussion followed among the Boardmembers and the
Applicant as to various locations.
8. Boardmember Curtis stated he had no objection to the color blue
being used, but did feel the letters were to large and would
prefer a smaller sign overall.
9. Boardmember Walling stated he had no objection to the height or
color, but would prefer the Applicant use up -lighting instead of
backlighting to soften the signs. Discussion followed between
the Board and the Applicant relative to lighting techniques.
DRBMIN-11/6 2
Design Review Board Minutes
November 6, 1991
10. Planning Commission Representative Marrs stated his overall
approval of the sign program. His concern was for the patrons
being able to locate the businesses. He felt the restrictions may
be to stringent.
11. Following discussion it was moved by Boardmember Rice and
seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91-
036 recommending approval of Sign Application 91-159 to the
Planning Commission subject to Staff recommendation with the
elimination of reverse channel lettering and external illumination
being utilized, the typeface lettering no being rounded, and the
deletion of the last sentence to Condition #11. Unanimously
approved.
B. PUBLIC USE PERMIT 91-012; a request of the Boys and Girls Club of
Coachella Valley for approval of plans for a Boys and Girls Club
facility .
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. Reuel Young, architect for the project, presented information
and a detailed presentation of the project.
3. Boardmember Rice stated his approval of the project and
discussion followed relative to the use of the standing seam metal
roof.
4. Boardmember Walling inquired as to the location of the air
conditioning and cooler equipment. Mr. Young stated they would
be located in the wells of the roof for the most part.
5. Planning Commission Representative Marrs inquired how the
gymnasium would be cooled. Mr. Young stated that evaporative
coolers would be utilized. Discussion followed as to the cooling
of the building, building materials, and the desire for openness.
6. Boardmember Anderson stated he felt the design was well
conceived and very well presented.
7. Boardmember Curtis stated his approval of the design and the
roof materials being utilized.
S. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Boardmember Harbison and seconded by Boardmember Curtis
adopt Minute Motion 91-037 recommending approval to the
Planning Commission of Public Use Permit 91-012, subject to Staff
recommendation.
DRBMIN-11/6
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: EXHIBIT "A"
SIGN APPLICATION 91-159 - PROPOSED
SIMON PLAZA - SIGN PROGRAM #1
DECEMBER 10, 1991
1. Each freestanding sign shall be a minimum of five feet from the future
property line it abuts. No signs should be placed in the City's right-of-way.
2. All signs should be reviewed by the Engineering Department to assure site
visibility is not obstructed by the installation of each respective sign.
3. Site address numbers should be on the main monument sign as a supplemental
to the building addressing plan. The minimum size should be four inches and
contrasting to the background it is affixed to.
4. Any and all proposed illuminated signs shall be installed to avoid undue
brightness which would distract passing motorists and/or pedestrians.
5. The sign colors shall be blue (#607-1GP Acrylite Blue) except for the other
supplement signs such as the bowling pins and top of the monument sign can
be royal blue, orange and white as depicted on the attached drawings.
6. Any signs for the office building which fronts Washington Street on the
satellite restaurant/bank should be reviewed separately by the Design Review
Board and Planning Commission since the sign package was not submitted for
review.
7. The directional parking signs shall be limited to a single directional arrow and
to the word "parking" for each driveway access point as shown on Sheet #1.
8. The building signs can be internally illuminated.
9. No exposed raceways, crossovers, conduits, conductors, transformers, etc.,
shall be permitted. All supplemental electrical hardware shall be behind the
building structure inside the sign structure, or located underground.
10. The lighting program shall be approved by the Design Review Board prior to
building permit issuance.
11. The lettering styles for the building signs shall be either Clarendon or
Souvenir.
12. A slight adjustment in the size of the attached Bowling Alley sign on the north
elevation will be permitted.
13. The Fitness Center sign located on the second story elevation of the building
shall be permitted as depicted in the attached drawings.
14. The final sign graphics shall be subject to review by the Director of Planning
and Development prior to permit issuance by the Building and Safety
Department.
PCST.030 7
15. Each tenant and/or his sign contractor shall obtain approval by the property
owners (or management company) in writing prior to submission of the sign
drawings to the Planning and Development Department for permit
consideration. The property owner shall review the signs for lettering style,
color, sign location, lighting, and any other "important" issues.
16. All sign contractors shall be licensed to do business in the City of La Quinta
and possess a State Contractor's License to perform the work outlined in the
sign permit.
17. All signs shall conform to the City's adopted Sign Ordinance in effect at the
time the sign permit is issued.
18. Underwriter Laboratories certification labels shall be affixed to all internally
illuminated signs (e.g., the freestanding sign), thus assuring that the sign
(or sign structure) meets industry specifications.
PCST.030 8
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
November. 26, 1991
I. CALL TO ORDER
7:00 P.M.
A. The meeting was called to order at 7 : 03 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows.
The Flag Salute was led by Commissioner Ladner.
II. 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 Planner Glenda Lainis, and Department Secretary Betty
Anthony.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued - Public Use Permit 91-008 and Variance 91-018; a request of
La Quinta Christian Church Fellowship for approval of an expansion to
an existing church plus associated parking area on a 0.74 acre site and
a variance request to allow: A) Increased building height limit to 23
feet, and B) to postpone the construction of a 6 foot high masonry wall
on the south side of the project.
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 Mosher asked Staff to clarify what the State
agencies required.
3. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows
opened the continued Public Hearing. Mr. Jack Clark, spoke on
behalf of the Applicant. He clarified that the Variance
application had been withdrawn and stated they had conducted
their own noise study and found the cars leaving the church
created no additional noise. He further stated the traffic from
the church would only be traveling to the south and west.
PCMIN11-26 1
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
4. Mr. Dane Hooper, neighborhood resident, asked if the
Commission approved the project would they limit the number of
students the school would be allowed. Commissioner Ladner
explained that the Conditions of Approval did limit the number of
students to 25. Mr. Hooper then asked the Commission to give
the church three years to complete their project in hopes they
would be able to relocate the church.
5. Mr. John Bund, architect for the project, asked the Commission
to considering the church's request to have their construction
completed in phasing.
6. Ms. Roselyn Davis, neighborhood resident, stated her objections
to the project as being the number of cars and noise. She asked
if the Applicant had complied with the State regulations
previously or just during this process. Staff stated the letter of
affidavit was written during the application process.
7. Pastor Mark Collins, spoke in behalf of the church and stated the
church had been in existence in this location for 20 years and felt
it was an asset to the community.
8. There being no further comments, Chairwoman Barrows closed
the Public Hearing and opened the matter for Commission
discussion.
9. Commissioner Ladner asked the City Attorney to recap his
opinion. Mr. John Getz, representing the City Attorney's office,
stated the City Attorney's position in regard to the legal aspect
of the proposal and status of the use.
10. Commissioner Ellson stated her support of the church and its
work in the community, but questioned the neighborhood being
able to support the expansion of the Church in this location. She
strongly felt the church needed to relocate its facilities.
11. Commissioner Ladner asked for clarification of Condition #11
regarding the school. Mr. Getz stated the Condition needed to
be reworded to clarify that only a maximum of 25 students would
be allowed unless the school submitted an application to amend
the Public Use Permit.
12. Chairwoman Barrows asked if the project were approved would
the school then become a conforming use. Staff stated it would
then become a conforming use.
PCMIN11-26
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
13. Commissioner Ladner asked what the effects of the Fire
Department and Health Department inspections would be. Staff
stated that whatever requirements these Departments placed on
the church/school they would have to comply with.
14. There being no further comment, Commissioner Mosher moved
and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 91-057 approving Public Use Permit 91-008
subject to the amended conditions based on the following
findings:
a. The church was a positive influence in the
community.
b . The church meets the City required zoning for the
area.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher and
Marrs. NOES: Commissioners Ladner,
Ellson, & Chairwoman Barrows.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None.
15. Following further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner
Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning
Commission Resolution 91-058 denying Public Use Permit 91-008
based on the following findings:
a. The expansion of the Church and Church School activities
would be inconsistent with the character of the
neighborhood particularly since the site in question is
surrounded by residential lots on all four sides.
b. The expansion of the Church will result in additional
traffic and noise incompatible with a residential
neighborhood.
c. There are alternative sites on which the Church could
locate.
d. The expansion of the Church in this residential
neighborhood would diminish the property values of the
surrounding area.
e . The activities of the expanded Church and School would be
inhibited by the fact that they are located in a residential
neighborhood.
f . This denial for Church expansion would not impose an
excessive burden on the Church since the existing Church
and School can still continue to operate.
PCMINII-26 3
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Ladner, Ellson,
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
Commissioners Mosher & Marrs.
ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None.
16. Discussion followed with the Applicant regarding appeal rights.
B. Building Moving Permit 91-001; a request of D & M Morgan for
permission to move a 1, 200 square foot building located at 78-435 Cameo
Dunes Place to 54-038 Avenida Bermudas.
1. Associate Planner Glenda Lainis asked that the matter be
continued as the Applicant had not paid the fees (which were just
established by the City Council) required to process the permit.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs
and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to continue this matter to
December 10, 1991.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs,
Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
C. Preannexation Zoning 91-068 and General Plan Amendment 91-039; a
request of Valley Land Development for a change in the boundaries for
the zoning classification of a new zoning classification and land use
designation for a portion of the property adjacent to Washington Street,
north of Fred Waring Drive.
1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Ellson moved and
Commissioner Ladner seconded a motion to continued the Public
Hearing to the meeting of December 10, 1991.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Marrs,
Ladner, Ellson, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
D. Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019; a request of Simon Plaza to
develop a commercial center and a Variance to deviate from the C-P-S
Zone code setback standards.
1. Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a
motion to continue the matter to December 10, 1991, at the
request of Staff.
PCMIN11-26
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
E. Specific Plan 83-001, Amendment #4 and Tentative Tract 25389; a
request of M. J. Brock & Sons to amend a Condition of Approval
relating to maximum height of buildings. This request applies to the
area within TT 25389.
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 Staff to restate the units that were to
be affected. Staff stated the request was for:
91-102 - 75% 2 story
103-116 - 2511 story
204-212 - 50% 2 story
238-246 - 25% 2 story
247-254 - keep restriction at 25'
Staff recommended:
1-5 -
1 story 25 ft .
17-18 -
1 story 25 ft.
31-48 -
50% 2 story
91-102 -
25% 2 story
103-116 -
1 story 25 ft.
203
- 1 story 25 ft.
204-212
- 25% 2 story
238-246
- 25% 2 story
247-255
- 1 story 25 ft.
Discussion followed as to the location of two story units in
relation to the streets.
3. Commissioner Ladner asked for a clarification of what the General
Plan called for. Staff stated the General Plan calls for Tampico
and Washington Street to be image corridors and therefore two
story units are not allowed within 150 feet.
4. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows
opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Mike Rowe, Keith Companies,
spoke representing the Applicant and gave reasons for their
request.
PCMIN11-26 5
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
5. Mr. Richard Niece, Brock Homes, stated their had been a change
in the market demand and therefore their need to alter the style
of home offered.
6. Commissioner Ellson questioned Mr. Niece regarding the
possibility of enlarging the sideyards. Mr. Rowe stated this
could not be done without remapping the tract.
7. Commissioner Marrs asked the Applicant to clarify the ceiling
heights of the different units.
8. Commissioner Mosher asked the Applicant if there was a market
for two story homes. Mr. Niece stated they had a demand for the
two story homes. Discussion followed regarding two story units
and one story units on larger lots and the need for energy
efficient homes. The Commissioners felt the housing industry
was forcing families to buy two story units for economic reasons,
not by choice.
9. Commissioner Mosher stated he felt there was little difference
between a 24-foot single story home and a 29-foot two story
home. If the market demands it and will pay for it, then the
Commission should not inhibit the developer from producing the
product.
10. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-059 and Resolution 91-
060 recommending to the City Council concurrence with the
Environmental Analysis and approval of Specific Plan 83-001,
Amendment #4 and Condition of Approval amendment to Tentative
Tract 25389, First Extension of Time as recommended by Staff.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, ELlson, Marrs, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
V . BUSINESS SESSION
A. Tentative Tract 24545; a request of Northstar California Corporation
for approval of First One Year Time Extension of Time.
1. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information
contained in the Staff report. A copy of which is on file in the
Planning and Development Department.
PCMIN11-26
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
2. Commissioner Ladner asked Staff if the Development Agreement
was in place. Staff stated that all conditions had been met at this
time.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91-061 recommending to
the City Council approval of the First One Year Time Extension
of Time for Tentative Tract 24545 based on the Development
Agreement being in full force.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman
Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT:
None. ABSTAINING: None.
B. Plot Plan 91-468; a request of the Automobile Club of Southern
California for approval of a plot plan to allow the construction of an
office building.
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 trees were required along
Washington Street. Staff stated that the Master Developer would
be providing the landscaping along Washington Street.
3. Commissioner Ladner asked that more native landscaping be
provided. Staff stated that the Applicant had planned for a more
lush landscaping around the building and the Design Review
Board had approved the plant pallet.
4. Commissioner Marrs stated that the Design Review Board had
discussed the signage program felt the signage was covered in
the Conditions of Approval.
5. Commissioner Ellson inquired if trees would be required on the
south and west side for sun protection. Staff stated they would
be plus the building plans called for overhangs on all four sides
to help shield the windows.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to
adopt Minute Motion 91-048 approving Plot Plan 91-468 subject to
the Conditions of Approval. Unanimously approved
PCMIN11-26
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
C. SR Adjustment 91-004; a request of Linda Babior for useage of a
standing seam metal roof and curved wall sections.
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. Julia Takahashi, architect for the project, gave a presentation
of the project.
3. Commissioner Ladner asked if the garage met the City setback
requirements. Staff stated they did.
4. Ms. Patricia Aplet, owner of property across from the Applicant,
asked if the roof material would reflect the sun onto their
property. Ms. Takahashi stated that the material would not
reflect onto their property.
5. There being no further discussion, it was moved by
Commissioner Ellson and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
adopt Minute Motion 91-049 approving SR Adjustment 91-004
subject to the Staff recommendation. Unanimously approved.
D . Plot Plan 91-466 and Variance 91-019; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc.,
for a approval of a mixed use commercial complex on five and one half
acres.
1. At the request of the Staff, it was moved by Commissioner
Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to continue this
matter to the next meeting of December 10, 1991, to give Staff an
opportunity to review the Traffic Study that had just been
received. Unanimously approved.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioner Ellson asked that the Minutes of November 12, 1991, be
amended to show that she voted no on Specific Plan 88-012 and
Tentative Tract 23995 request for a First One Year Time Extension.
Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Ellson seconded a motion
to approve the Minutes of November 12, 1991, as corrected.
Unanimously approved.
VIII. OTHER
A. Commissioner Ladner gave a report of the Water Symposium that she
attended.
B . Commissioner Ellson asked that the City's requirements for sideyard
setbacks be placed the next agenda.
PCMINII-26 8
Planning Commission Minutes
November 26, 1991
IX. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Mosher
to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on
December 10, 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 9 : 42 P.M., November
26, 1991.
PCMIN11-26 9