2001 03 13 PCI
Planning Commission Agendas are now
available on the City's Web Page
@ www.la-quinta.org
PLANNING COMMISSION
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
March 13, 2001
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING
Beginning Resolution 2001-026
Beginning Minute Motion 2001-004
CALL TO ORDER
A. Pledge of Allegiance
B. Roll Call
11. PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for
public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your
comments to three minutes.
III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the Minutes of the regular meeting on February 27, 2001,
B. Department Report
V. PRESENTATIONS: None
PC/AGENDA - U U 1
r
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Item ................... VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008
Applicant........... Joseph Rounaghi
Location............ 51-230 Eisenhower Drive.
Request ............. Review of remodeling plans for an existing commercial
building changing the use from a restaurant into an art
gallery studio.
Action ............... Continue to March 27, 2001
B. Item ................... ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054
Applicant........... Nextel Communications
Location............ 77-865 Avenida Montezuma, Frances Hack Community
Park.
Request ............. Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and installation of a 70 foot high
wireless communication antenna and ground mounted
equipment for cellular telephone service.
Action ............... Resolution 2001- , Resolution 2001-
C. Item ...................
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-412, SPECIFIC
PLAN 2001-052, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-056
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-686
Applicant...........
Omri Sikla
Location............
Northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La
Quinta Drive.
Request .............
Certification of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact and development plans for a
commercial building consisting of a restaurant and office.
Action ...............
Resolution 2001-_, Resolution 2001-, Resolution
2001-, and Resolution 2001-
D. Item ................... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2000-066
Applicant........... City of La Quinta
Location............ City-wide.
Request ............. Review applicability and impact of current Water Efficient
Ordinance on development proposals.
Action ............... Resolution 2001-
PC/AGENDA
1T/11-11IR11ki1*1.111194Pi&I
A. Item ................... SIGN APPROVAL 2001-536
Applicant........... M & H Realty Partners
Location............ Southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway
1 1 1, within Plaza La Quinta
Request ............. An amendment to a sign program for commercial pad
buildings.
Action ............... Minute Motion 2001-
B. Item ...................
SIGN APPROVAL 2001-528, AMENDMENT #1
Applicant...........
Riofine Neon for Jiffy Lube
Location............
Within the One Eleven La Quinta Center - immediately
north of La Quinta Car Wash
Request .............
An amendment to a sign program to allow a time and
temperature display unit.
Action ...............
Minute Motion 2001-
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
A. Commissioner discussion regarding City Council meeting of March 6, 2001.
X. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA 0 U 3
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
February 27, 2001 7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00
p.m. by Chairman Robbins who asked Commissioner Butler to lead the
flag salute.
B. Present: Commissioners Jacques Abels, Richard Butler, Tom Kirk, Robert
Tyler, and Chairman Robbins.
C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, Assistant
City Attorney John Ramirez, Planning Manager Christine di lorio, Senior
Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planners Stan Sawa, Planning Consultant
Nicole Criste, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed.
IV. CONSENT ITEMS:
A. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any corrections to the Minutes of
February 13, 2001. Commissioner Tyler asked that Page 9, Item #14 be
corrected to read, "...Federal Communications Act". There being no
further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Kirk/Abels to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved.
B. Department Report: None.
V. PRESENTATIONS: None.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Tentative Tract Map 30056; a request of Keith International for Chapman
Golf Development for Certification of an Addendum to a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the subdivision of 5.39
acres into 13 residential lots located at the south terminus of Washington
Street within the Tradition Club taking access from Del Gato Drive.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01.wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Staff requested this item be continued to the
Planning Commission meeting of March 27, 2001, as requested by
the applicant.
2. There being no discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Butler/Tyler to continue this item to March 13,
2001. Unanimously approved.
B. Environmental Assessment 2000-41 1 . General Plan Amendment 2000-
075, Zone Change 2001-067, Specific Plan 2001-051, Village Use
Permit 2001-007 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043; a request of
KSL Development Corporation for 1) Certification of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact; 2) change lands currently
designated as Medium High Density Residential to Village Commercial,
and review design guidelines and development standards for a
commercial/office, distribution center and 227 whole ownership single
family dwellings with the leasing potential of 365 guest rooms; 3) review
of development plans for the residential/guest room and office buildings;
and 4) the subdivision of 33 acres into 16 numbered and 17 lettered lots
for the property located at the northeast corner of Eisenhower Drive and
Calle Tampico.
1 . Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department.
2. Chairman Robbins stated he understood they were requesting 38
feet in height within the Specific Plan. Staff stated that the
Specific Plan was silent as to the height limitations within the
Image Corridor and therefore the Zoning Code would govern and
that a 22 foot requirement would apply along Calle Tampico. So
the applicant is speaking to the 38 feet outside of the Image
Corridor within the residential. Staff clarified that the office
building is 27 feet in height and the tower element is the only part
that extends beyond the 22 feet.
3. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Butler asked if this type of building structure
proposed for the office was allowed in the City. His concern was
whether or not this buildings ability to be temporary would be an
issue. Staff stated yes, the building structure was allowed and the
applicant could explain it in more detail.
GAWPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wod 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
4. Commissioner Tyler asked if these were the same modulars that
were currently being used by KSL Development Corporation at
PGA West. Staff stated no and the applicant would explain the
construction during their presentation. Commissioner Tyler asked
when the applicant was required to remove the modulars at PGA
West. Staff stated June, 2001.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked if this project met the Water Efficiency
Ordinance. Staff stated yes. Commissioner Kirk asked that the
Commission see the calculations to understand how a project that
devotes most of its landscaping to a lake meets a Water Efficiency
Ordinance. Staff stated the applicant has the calculations.
Commissioner Kirk asked why the Mitigation Monitoring Report
was included at this time and not previously. Staff stated it
should have been included with all reports and would be included
in future reports. Commissioner Kirk questioned why it was
necessary. Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez stated it was
reviewed by staff and the analysis concluded that the Mitigation
Monitoring Plan should be attached for the Commission's review
and approval along with the required environmental assessment.
He would prepare a more detailed explanation to present at their
next meting.
6. Commissioner Kirk stated he would like staff to explain the
phasing plan in regards to the corporate office and the reason
stated for its priority, secondly would be the parking, thirdly
residential, and lastly retail/commercial. The Commission is being
asked to approve Phases I and III and not II, and he would like
staff to explain the timing and why they were not approving Phase
Il. In addition, he would like to know from the applicant if and how
staff's recommendation on reducing the height of the structure
affects the residential component of the plan; can you get three
stories into a 35 foot structure.
7. Commissioner Tyler stated he did not understand why the
Commission was only reviewing the architectural design and site
plan for the residential/guest rooms and the office components.
Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated the design of the
individual components need to be reviewed as part of individual
Village Use Permit (VUP) and it is the applicant's choice at this
time to only submit VUP's for the residential and office
components, not for the others which will be brought to the
Commission at a later date.
G:\W PDOCS\PC2-27-01 . wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
8. Commissioner Kirk stated the phasing plan suggests I -office, II -
parking, III -residential and yet the applicant is only submitting
Phases I and III. The phasing diagram does not agree. Planning
Consultant Nicole Criste clarified they are Planning Area numbers
rather than Phasing Plans. Commissioner Kirk stated they are on
the Phase Plan pages. It appears that Phases I and II have very
little to do with Phase III as the circulation is not tied. There is a
common wall or boundary, but the projects do not appear to be
interrelated and maybe the applicant could explain why they chose
to take this direction.
9. Commissioner Tyler questioned the street vacation status as it
was to be tied with the Santa Rosa Plaza project and he was
wondering whether or not the two could be tied together. Also
the calculation of parking spaces per square feet for the retail
component which cannot have restaurants, but in the Specific Plan
where they list the types of uses that may take place in the
residential component, restaurants are included. It seems the
same guidelines should be applied to Part A as it is in Part B. The
same thing applies when you are placing percentage limits on how
much of the office component can be used for meeting rooms. A
similar percentage should be applied to all the non-residential uses
that can be accommodated in the residential component. There
seems to be an inconsistency as to how they are applied. Planning
Consultant Nlcole Criste explained the restaurant use in the
commercial component is proposed as a principal use. The retail
uses that are proposed in the residential section are proposed as
either ancillary or supporting to the guest services and therefore
are treated differently in the two sections of the plan.
Commissioner Tyler asked if this implied that a non -guest cannot
use those facilities and therefore does not need to park anywhere.
It is confusing why the differentiation. Planning Consultant Nicole
Criste stated it does not imply that a non -guest would not be using
the facility, but just as a calculation for a hotel would be based on
the number of rooms and that calculation factors in the potential
for guests coming in addition to the guests staying in the hotel
rooms, guests using the facilities at the hotel in addition to the
guests are factored into the flat rate that it is a parking space
requirement. Commissioner Tyler asked if it would be appropriate
to put a limit on the amount of ancillary floor space that can be
devoted to ancillary items. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste
G:\WPD0CS\PC2-27-01.wpd 4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
stated the Zoning Code defines the limits between principal uses
and ancillary uses. Commissioner Tyler asked that Condition
3.A.1. should be amended to state the "potential' street vacation.
Also references to garages should be deleted or addressed.
10. Commissioner Kirk stated that on Page 2.3 and 2.4 of the Specific
Plan it shows the existing land use and zoning designations as VC
on the southern property, why the project and its neighbor to the
east are zoned differently as implied by a different color shown
within the Specific Plan; what is the difference? Staff stated there
is no difference.
11. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Robbins asked
if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Forrest
Haag, representing KSL Development Corporation, gave a
presentation on the project.
12. Commissioner Abels asked what the rationale was for using this
type of building structure for the office instead of permanent
structure. Mr. Haag stated timing. All the concepts are coming
together at the same time and with the time constraints to move
the corporate offices from PGA West to this new site, the
corporate buildings are being built off -site and will be ready for
placement in order to meet that time constraint. Commissioner
Abels asked if they did not have the time constraints would they
use the same building structure. Mr. Haag stated yes, because
they are basically being built the same way. There is an economy
factor to having the building built off -site while they are preparing
the site where they can control the labor, weather, material
supplies, etc. Mr. Hosea, KSL Development Corporation, stated
they are using this construction type not only due to the speed but
also because of the quality. Commissioner Abels asked about the
longevity factor. Mr. Hosea stated it would be the same as a stick
building. It is their intention to occupy these buildings forever.
13. Commissioner Tyler asked if there was a problem with semantics.
The Code refers to temporary interim buildings and that is being
applied here, but seems to be an inappropriate use of those terms.
Planning Consultant Nicole stated the Code addresses the uses in
the zone, not the structure. This is not intended to be a temporary
structure.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01.wpd 5 f ✓ 0, `) g
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
14. Commissioner Butler asked if the distribution center would be
modular and what would be the use of the building. Will it bring
more traffic into that area which will need more parking and the
report states there is more than adequate parking being provided?
Mr. Hosea stated there are currently 630 parking spaces. They
are replacing the 230 parking spaces for employees now parking
in the interim lot at the southeast corner of Avenue 50 and
Eisenhower Drive. The distribution center is planned to replace the
one at the La Quinta Hotel which will help the traffic circulation
problems currently at the Hotel.
15. Commissioner Kirk stated the design is good, but the concern is
with the quality of the building. Why are they using this type of
building for themselves and not for the products they are selling
Mr. Hosea stated market acceptance would not allow this.
Commissioner Kirk asked about the two foot height reduction and
what impacts will this have on their residential product. Can they
get a three story building in under 35 feet? Mr. Hosea stated yes,
and it does have a significant impact because the only place you
can get it is out of the plate line. They are taking their plates from
10 or 11 and making them 9 or 10 to accomplish the one or two
feet. They have pushed the buildings back out of the Image
Corridor setback and are asking for the additional height.
Commissioner Kirk asked if the residential component is now
Phase II, is this a change in the corporate policy. Mr. Hosea stated
it was an oversight on their part. They do intend to build the
office building and parking lot this summer. The buyer of the
residential product is also intending to begin construction this
summer. They will probably start all three phases at the same
time.
16. Commissioner Butler asked about the additional ten feet for
architectural features. Mr. Hosea stated they would remove that
in hopes of having the 37 feet. They want the proposed office
tower to break up the roof lines.
17. Commissioner Abels.asked if they could live with the 35 feet. Mr.
Hosea stated they are hoping for the 37 feet. Commissioner Abels
stated he has concern with the 37 feet.
18. Commissioner Tyler stated the ten foot height footnote for
architectural features appears on three charts in the Specific Plan.
Would they be willing to waive that footnote in all cases? Mr.
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wpd 6
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
Hosea stated that allowance is on all their documents.
Commissioner Tyler asked where the 37 feet is measured from.
It appears there is a berm and will take the building above the
ground level. Staff stated that it would be measured per the Code
requirement which is the finish grade at the base of the wall. Mr.
Chris Bergh stated the existing ground is at elevation of 38 or 39
and they are putting pads level at elevation 42. The entrance off
Eisenhower, the existing street is about 44.5 so they are 2.5 feet
below Eisenhower Drive and on Calle Tampico the existing
elevation at the intersection is about 44, so they are a couple feet
below that as well. They have taken care of the flood issue but
are still below the exterior streets.
19. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on
this project.
20. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
21. Commissioner Kirk stated he supported the design, but he has
concerns with the construction of the corporate offices. An even
greater concern is with the lake. Did the City go through the
Water Efficiency Ordinance and do the calculations? Staff stated
no, it was done by the applicant. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff
determined whether or not the applicant's request meets the Code.
Staff stated they have shown us a draft of meeting this
requirement and the Code requires them to submit the final
calculations prior to issuance of a grading permit.
22. Chairman Robbins stated he too does not understand how the use
of the lake can meet the Water Efficiency Ordinance. Could staff
give a presentation on how the Ordinance is applied to such a
project so the Commission can understand how this can work.
23. Commissioner Kirk stated he has a problem with our Image
Corridor and it appears there is a conflict. With the Village
Commercial we are trying to encourage a pedestrian feel,
relegating the automobile and then the Village Corridor do exactly
the opposite by pushing structures away from right of way and
have lots of landscaping and encourage parking lots along the
G:\WPD0CS\PC2-27-01.wpd 7
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
street frontage. The update of the General Plan offers us an
opportunity to take a look at our Image Corridors. Where an Image
Corridor and the intent of the Village are in conflict, he would
prefer that the Village be the priority. He does not want to see the
Village become a parking lot. He would prefer to give the
applicant some latitude to allow other structures instead of so
much asphalt within the parking lot behind the distribution center.
He supports the height request of the applicant and in fact he
would approve an additional one or two feet for architectural
projections for the residential portion of the project.
24. Commissioner Abels stated he supports staff's recommendation.
It is a great project and he supports the construction of the
modular building.
25. Commissioner Butler stated he would like to hear from the
contractor of the modular building.
26. Chairman Robbins reopened the public hearing. Mr. Jack Di
Benedetto, representing Williams Scotsman, gave a presentation
on the modular construction.
27. Commissioner Butler asked who completes the tenant
improvements. Mr. Benedetto stated they will. The exterior and
roof elevations will be completed on site. Because of the speed
the impact on the community is less.
28. Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing.
29. Commissioner Butler stated he agrees with Commissioner Kirk on
the setback and as far as the height of these buildings and the
setbacks, he does not think two feet is an issue.
30. Commissioner Tyler stated he agrees with comments as stated by
the other Commissioners. He agrees with Commissioner Kirk that
it does not make sense in the total scheme of things to put the
parking lot in front of the building to meet a height restriction. As
far as a tower at 35 or 37 feet as an architectural element he
would have no objection as long as the extra ten feet for
chimneys, etc., are deleted.
G:\WPDO CS\PC2-27-01 .wpd 8
< (") i. 9
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
31. Chairman Robbins stated he supports the project and has no
objection to the 37 feet. He agrees that not having the parking in
the front is a much better design. He is neutral on the 35 feet for
the residential. He is concerned about the word in the Specific
Plan as it refers to the Landscaping Ordinance at it sort of states
it will comply with the Landscape Ordinance, by stating "...by
keeping with the City's desire to promote water efficient
landscaping...." It still does not state they will comply. Staff
noted the environmental mitigation requires that they comply, so
the Specific Plan becomes irrelevant. Chairman Robbins stated he
agrees with the parking in the rear and has no objection to the
height of the tower on the office and residential units.
32. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Kirk/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-017 recommending Certification of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental
Assessment 2001-41 1, as recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-018 recommending
approval of General Plan Amendment 2001-075, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-019 recommending
approval of Zone Change 2001-067, as submitted.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Kirk/Tyler to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-020 recommending
approval of Specific Plan 2001-051, as amended:
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01.wpd 9 ;-v ���'%
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
a. Condition #3.A.1. Add the word "Potential" street vacation.
b. Condition #6.A.1. Calle Tampico: delete the sentence "The
cost of the median modifications shall be reimbursed from
the Development Impact Fee fund in an amount not to
exceed the budgeted amount."
C. Condition #15: Wherever "are encouraged" are used in the
Specific Plan it shall be eliminated
d. Condition #20: Residential component shall be 37 feet. The
"*" in the Table on Page 3.5 shall be amended to read, "...
shall be permitted to extend up to two feet..."
e. Condition #21: Office component maximum height shall be
22 feet. The "*" in the Table on Page 3.12 shall be
amended to read, "...shall be permitted to extend up to five
feet above the maximum structure height."
f. Condition #24: All reference to garages in the Specific Plan
shall be deleted.
g. Condition #29: The Specific Plan shall be amended to
include the statement, "All landscaping plans shall conform
to the city's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance."
h. Condition #37: changed to 28.b.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
36. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Kirk to adopt
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-021 recommending
approval of Village Use Permit 2001-007, as submitted.
a. Condition #9: The maximum allowed height in the
residential component of the project shall be 37 feet. The
"*" in the Table on Page 3.5 shall be amended to read,
"...shall be permitted to extent up two feet above the
maximum structure height." The maximum allowed height
in the office component of the project shall be 22 feet. The
Specific Plan shall be amended to reflect this standard. The
"*" in the Table on Page 3.12 shall be amended to read,
"...shall be permitted to extend up five feet above the
maximum structure height."
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Abels. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
G:\WPD0CS\PC2-27-01.wpd 10 A, U 3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
37. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-022 recommending
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 30043, as amended:
a. Condition #7: a.1. Add the word "potential" street vacation.
b. Condition #4O.A.1. Calle Tampico: Delete, "The cost of the
median modifications shall be reimbursed from the
Development Impact Fee fund in a amount not to exceed
the budgeted amount.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners
Chairman Robbins.
ABSTAIN: None.
Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
Chairman Robbins recessed the meeting at 8:42 p.m. and reconvened at 8:49 p.m.
C. Environmental Assessment 89-1 10 and Tract Map 24230, Amendment
#1; a request of The Spanos Company for Certification of an Addendum
to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and the
creation of a left turn access from Washington Street onto Lake La
Quinta Drive located at the east side of Washington Street, north of
Avenue 48.
1 . Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio presented the
information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file
in the Community Development Department. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer stated that in 1990's when this was first submitted
and revised, the General Plan only allowed full turn movements at
half mile intersections. Since that time there have been several
proposals on this site and each time the applicant has wanted an
improved turning movement at Lake La Quinta Drive and staff has
consistently denied it. Over the years circulation has become an
issue that staff has had to address. On Major Arterials staff has
been allowing left turns in with no left turns out. The left turn out
is always the most dangerous and would only be allowed with a
signal. The applicant at this time is proposing a lengthy left turn
in pocket which would allow enough time to make a safe left turn.
This has been done similarly at Simon Drive and Washington
Street, Fred Waring Drive near Jefferson Street as well as Avenue
50 near Jefferson Street. In regard to allowing the Arts
Foundation a left turn in, it could be accomplished as the two
entrances are off -set. Staff noted that Condition #13 needs to
have the last sentence deleted.
GAWPD0CS\PC2-27-01 .wpd
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the traffic circulation.
3. Commissioner Tyler asked if the street stub in front of the Church
on the west side of Washington Street will remain. Staff stated
the Church is currently putting together their development plans
and anticipates this going away. Staff anticipates a retention
basin may be constructed at this location.
4. Chairman Robbins asked how this lines up with the Art Foundation
across the street.
5. Commissioner Butler asked how much of the median would have
to be modified to accommodate this. Staff stated the median is
18 feet wide and they will be taking 12 of the 18 feet and turning
that into asphalt with the turn pocket being 256 feet long.
6. Chairman Robbins asked if the applicant would like to address the
Commission. Ms. Margo Williams, Mainiero Smith and Associates,
stated they concur with staff's recommendation.
7. Commissioner Tyler questioned a letter that had been received
from a resident that is protesting the proposed change. Ms.
Williams stated they have not received any comment from any of
the residents.
8. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment.
9. Mr. Marshall Italiano, Homeowners' Association President, stated
he had read the staff report and they had some concerns. They
are not against the commercial buildings. Their concern is Caleo
Bay. 47th Avenue heading south is a left turn and another left turn
is at 48th Avenue. That traffic from both those streets is diverted
east to Caleo Bay. There are only two access points out of their
development for some 250 residents. As commercial development
is coming, all that traffic is going to be on Caleo Bay. Their issues
are for safety, environment, and their lake. What impact will these
developments have on their lake? In working with the Bank
proposed for 481h Avenue, they are providing them with
landscaping plans, drainage plans, deep wells, etc. to take care of
their project. There are no speed limits or parking on Caleo Bay.
As that property is developed, their concern is for safety of their
residents and parking on Caleo Bay. They would like to see Caleo
Bay posted for "no parking".
G:\WPDOCS\PC'1.-27-01 .wpd 12
0i7;
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
10. There being no further public comment, the public participation
portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission
discussion.
11. Commissioner Abels stated he can understand Mr. Italiano's
concerns, but believes the City will resolve those issues.
12. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not think this would be an issue,
but if he understands the Lake La Quinta resident's concerns, they
are very broad concerns regarding development on this strip. He
asked Mr. Italiano if he did or did not oppose the request.
13. Chairman Robbins re -opened the pubic hearing to allow Mr. Italiano
to answer the question.
14. Mr. Italiano stated that as far as the left turn lane onto Lake La
Quinta Drive, their concern is that the left turn lane will only allow
traffic to come down Lake La Quinta Drive and only enter the
south property, not the north property. He supports the left turn
lane as long as the egress into the complex is from Lake La Quinta
Drive and not Caleo Bay.
15. Chairman Robbins closed the public hearing.
16. Commissioner Butler stated he sees no objection as it opens the
area for commercial development. There will not be as much
traffic on Caleo Bay as the entrance on Lake La Quinta Drive will
keep people off Caleo Bay.
17. Commissioner Tyler stated he could not support this request. The
circulation pattern for Lake La Quinta was put into place when it
was built more than a decade ago and provided access off 47`h
Avenue and 48`h Avenue and Caleo Bay as well as the right turn
in and out on the stub street. Lake La Quinta Drive, however,
does not go directly into an entrance. You come into Caleo Bay
and turn right or left depending on which one of the other streets
you wish to use. In addition to those two entrances you also have
a third full turn access off of Adams Street and that is more than
some developments have. Washington Street being a Major
Arterial which according to the General Plan constitutes the core
of our circulation system and the main function is to provide a high
level of mobility for through traffic with restricted access to
adjacent properties. Subsequent to the initial implementation of
the circulation plan for this project, it has been greatly improved
by the addition of signals at Washington Street and 48`h Avenue �+
G:\WPD0CS\PC2-27-01.wpd 13 °-,J ; �� {�
Planning Corn nission Minutes
February 27, 2001
and Washington Street and 47"' Avenue. Both intersections have
protected left turns. This proposed left turn would provide an
unprotected left turn which is about the most dangerous type of
traffic movement that there is. In the middle of a half mile long
block of traffic which currently moves at or above the posted
speed limit of 50 mph. This poses an extreme hazard. What we
are talking about is a possible benefit for a few people to save a
few minutes getting to the commercial area and a grave risk for
the people that normally travel Washington Street. Another
concern is the proximity of the stub tail end of Washington Street
that comes out from the Church, that is sufficiently close to this
proposed left turn. People will invariably exit from there and make
a sudden swerving motion to cross the three lanes of traffic to get
into this left turn lane to either go into Lake La Quinta or make a
U-turn to go north on Washington Street. They have protected left
turn lanes now which gives the safest left turn possible to get into
this area. This proposed left turn does nothing to enhance the exit
or access for the Lake La Quinta residents. As pointed out it is
purely for the benefit of the future commercial area which cannot
take their access off of Washington Street. This is potentially a
very dangerous proposal and he cannot vote for it. That area will
be further compounded by the entrances and exits for the Arts
Foundation site across the street and unknown access changes for
the Church. Furthermore, the City has invested heavily in that
median over the last year or so and to tear it up now that the
landscaping is just getting started would be a travesty that our
City does not need. He commented on some corrections in the
staff report and resolutions.
18. Chairman Robbins stated he disagrees with Commissioner Tyler.
He thinks this will take a substantial amount of traffic off of Caleo
Bay. While it has left turns across Washington Street, if we leave
it where people go down to 481" Avenue there will just be left
turns across 48`h Avenue or U-turns at Washington Street. He has
never been a proponent of U-turns on Washington Street and the
current situation, when this develops, encourage U-turns onto
Washington Street. Therefore, this is beneficial to the
homeowners as it does take some traffic off of Caleo Bay and he
does not see the safety issues on Washington Street as being any
more or less than they are today.
19. Commissioner Tyler stated that during the discussions regarding
the traffic along here for the Arts Foundation, there was
discussion regarding providing left turn capability and staff's
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01.wpd 14 4 - 017
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
recommendation was no, people would be diverted to 48`h Avenue
where they could make a U-turn if they want to go north on
Washington Street.
20. Chairman Robbins stated he did not support that then and does
not support it now.
21. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-023, recommending Certification of an
Addendum to a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-41 1, as
recommended.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
22. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler to
adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-024, approving Tract
Map 24230, Amendment #1, as recommended.
23. Commissioner Kirk stated he did not believe Commissioner Tyler
was off target on this in a lot of ways. He is still in support of the
project largely because he knows how hard staff works to keep
our Primary Arterials free of interference and he thinks they have
done a nice job on this one and it perhaps is not the best of
circumstances, but reasonably good enough for him.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, and Chairman
Robbins. NOES: Commissioner Tyler. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
D. Site Development Permit 2000-692; a request of Cliff House
Development LLC for an addition of 32 tandem parking spaces to the
existing parking lot for a restaurant located at 78-250 Highway 111 .
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
G:\WPD0CS\PC2-27-01.wpd 15 v `" 0 1
Planning Commission Minutes
February 27, 2001
2. Chairman Robbins asked if there were any questions of staff.
Commissioner Tyler asked what staff's interpretation is of the
current access in and out of the Cliff House. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer stated there is mixed signage. There is a "right turn only"
sign as you are exiting. This is how the project was originally
Conditioned by Council. As Highway 111 is under State control,
the applicant petitioned Caltrans to revise the striping to allow left
turns. So now there is median stripping that allows left turns and
a sign that does not allow left turns. Commissioner Tyler asked
why staff could not remove the right turn only sign, as that was
within the City's control. Staff stated that if the Commission
wishes to make it a part of the conditions, staff will remove it.
Staff has not done so because the condition on the project is that
it is right turn only. It is within the Commission's power to direct
staff to remove it. Commissioner Tyler asked if the requirement
for the sidewalk could be removed. Community Development
Director Jerry Herman stated it was an amendment to the project
and staff is dealing with the project. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
stated the sidewalk was to go between the Point Happy project
and the Cliff House restaurant. Commissioner Tyler stated he
understood but it was still in the speculation stage and may or
may not get Caltrans approval. Staff stated the City Council has
directed staff to look into the cost and staff has completed that
review and there is an existing eight foot wide paved shoulder and
outside of the existing paved shoulder there is another six or seven
feet before you get to the fence. So there really is room to put the
curb and gutter at the existing pavement and still have six or
seven feet to the fence.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had any concerns. Staff stated
they are looking for a way to help pay for the sidewalk. In regard
to the right turn only sign, staff has no objection to removing it.
4. Chairman Robbins asked if there was any other public comment on
this project.
5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Robbins closed
the public participation portion of the hearing and asked if there
was any Commission discussion.
6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioner Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission
Resolution 2001-025 approving Site Development Permit 2000-
692, as amended:
G:\wPDOCS\PC2-27-01 .wod 16
A 01,9
Planning Comnnission Minutes
February 27, 2001
a. Condition added to remove the "right turn only" sign.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Butler, Kirk, Tyler, and
Chairman Robbins. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
E. SIGN APPROVAL 2001-536; a request of M & H Realty Partners for an
amendment to a sign program for commercial pad buildings located at the
southwest corner of Washington Street and Highway 1 1 1, within Plaza
La Quinta
1. Chairman Robbins opened the public hearing and asked for the
staff report. Planning Manager Christine di lorio stated a request
had been received from the applicant to continue this project. It
was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to
continue Sign Approval 2001-536 to March 13'. Unanimously
approved.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS:
A. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the City Council meeting of February
20, 2001.
B. Community Development Director Jerry Herman informed the
Commission of the joint meeting between the City Council and Planning
Commission on April 4, 2001.
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Tyler/Butler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next
regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held March 13, 2001, at 7:00 p.m.
This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:26 p.m. on February 27,
2001.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary
City of La Quinta, California
G:\WPDOCS\PC2-27-01.wod 17 R
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 13, 2001
CASE NO.: VILLAGE USE PERMIT 2001-008
APPLICANT/ .
PROPERTY
OWNER: JOSEPH ROUNAGHI
REQUEST: REVIEW OF EXTERIOR REMODELING PLANS AND CHANGE OF
USE FROM RESTAURANT INTO AN ART GALLERY AND STUDIO
LOCATION: 51-230 EISENHOWER DRIVE (FORMERLY SCHATZI'S
RESTAURANT)
Continuation Request
On March 5, 2001, the applicant requested a continuation to the meeting of March
27' to allow time for the City's Architectural and Landscape Review Committee
(ALRC) to review the project and determine if City funds are available through the
Commercial Property Improvement program for his remodeling.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to continue Village Use Permit 2001-008 to March 27, 2001.
Attachments:
1 . March 5" Continuation Letter
sdell, Associate Planner
VUP 2001-008 Cont. - Greg 47; R 3/5.wpd:
Submitted by:
)CC
C
I
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
z
' 7
Tp; Gi lY' D F
M J O S (.;-P it
i- ?- 0 4 i nl rA
uA/Pr(Alz
S Zo o I
1F,L--/ t>E C oNi►O(/Kg 7/fv
D tj ft-�G l-i U9�7d n)
a 7 Id ti
pAgi-tc- Ike//4
qN
�0m�rsS�dN'.
U/l u- /M* Lb &-t/ M 6 1-7" 6�- M
s,NCL-7
020
Pf-I #B
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 13, 2001 (CONTINUED FROM FEB. 13)
CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410 AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (MS. BARBARA SAITO)
PROPERTY
OWNER: COACHELLA VALLEY RECREATION AND PARKS DISTRICT
(CVRPD)
REQUEST: 1) CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT (EA 2001-410); AND 2)
INSTALLATION OF A 70-FOOT HIGH WIRELESS
COMMUNICATION ANTENNA AND GROUND MOUNTED
EQUIPMENT FOR CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICE
LOCATION: 77-865 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA, FRANCES HACK LA
QUINTA COMMUNITY PARK
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS
COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410.
BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL
NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE
ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED FOR
CERTIFICATION.
GENERAL PLAN/
ZONING DESIGNATION: VILLAGE COMMERCIAL (VC)
BACKGROUND:
On February 13, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to continue the public hearing
for this project to March 13, thereby allowing the applicant additional time to review
design alternatives to the original monopalm proposal.
SRPC NextelParkRev - 47 greg (R 2/15, Rt 3/5, EA 3/5)- Page I
3..;,, 023
Site Background
The project is located within the Frances Hack La Quinta Community Park. The park
is bounded on the north and south sides of Avenida Montezuma, east of Eisenhower
Drive and west of Avenida Navarro; existing improvements for the 6.5 acre park
consist of a one story community building (approx. 3,000 sq. ft.), lighted playground
areas to the south and a ballfield on the west half of the park. Ballpark lights are
approximately 60 feet in overall height (a total of 5)• Mature landscaping exists within
the park site. The ballfields are enclosed by chain link fencing.
The City Community Services Department and CVRPD are currently developing a
master plan to update the existing park facilities. The conceptual plan will be available
in late summer.
Project Request
Nextel Communications is requesting a 70-foot high digital cellular telephone antenna
to be installed in the center of the existing park, just north of the baseball scoreboard
and southwest of the community center building (Attachments 1-3). This monopole
antenna will fireplace a ballfield light standard adjacent to right field and west of a row
of mature palm trees that run in a north/south axis. Existing ballfield lights will be
reattached to this new monopole antenna.
The proposed antenna 10-foot tall prefabricated concrete building measuring 10 feet
by 20 feet will hold related communication equipment. It will be located immediately
to the east of the proposed antenna ballfield light. This equipment building will be
accessed by a pedestrian door on the north side of the structure; wall mounted air-
conditioning units are planned for the south side of the building. This building's
exterior has a brown stucco finish. A slightly pitched, almost flat -roof, is proposed.
A six foot high chain link fence with wood slats woven into the diagonals is proposed
around the facility.
Public Notice: The case was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on January 23,
2001. All property owners within 500 feet of the site were mailed a copy of the
public hearing notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance. No comments have been
received as of this report. Any comments received will be handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The applicant's request was sent to responsible agencies, and
any pertinent comments received have been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval.
SRPC NextelParkRev - 47 greg (R 2/15, Rt 3/5, EA 3/5)- Page 2 'J
4'tt �/ �. Y .l
STATEMENT _OF -MANDATORY FINDINGS:
Findings necessary to approve this request for Conditional Use Permit 2001-054, as
required by Section 9.210.020(F) of the Zoning Ordinance, can be made and are
contained in the attached Resolutions, except for the following:
Finding: Approval of the application will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or injurious to or
incompatible with other properties or land uses in the vicinity.
Staff recommends placing S-tile roofing on top of the concrete roof to be consistent
and compatible with surrounding commercial structures ensuring that the pitch of the
roof is 4:12 (Condition #8B). Also, chain link fencing is not encouraged in the City,
staff recommends wrought iron fencing for security purposes of the applicant
(Condition #8A).
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_ to certify a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 2001-410,
prepared for Conditional Use Permit 2001-054; and
2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2001- approving Conditional Use
Permit 2001-054, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments:
1 . Location Map
2. Site Plan
3. Elevations
4. Planning Commission Materials/Exhibits
Submitted by:
o
Gr Tr I Christine di lorio
9 9
anner
Planning Manager
Associate Pl
A:\SRPC nextelParkRev.wpd o U
..: v
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-410
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 13th day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-410 for Conditional Use Permit 2001-054, generally
located within Frances Hack La Quinta Park, more particularly described as follows:
APN 773-074-002
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"
(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the
Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-410) and has
determined thiat the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on
the environment and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if
any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the
following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-054 will not be detrimental to the health,
safety„ or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment.
2. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-054 will not have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife; population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered
plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-054 does not have the potential to
achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been
identified by the Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-054 will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project. �1
P:AGREGVPCRee.NextelEA. wpd .,J U 2 j
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Environmental Assessment 2001-410
Nextel
6. The proposed Conditional Use Permit 2001-054 will not have environmental effects
that willl adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
410 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of the
City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta,
California.
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 constitutes the findings of the
Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby certify Environmental Assessment 2001-410 for the reasons set
forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist
and Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-410 reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
P:\GREG\PCResNextelEA.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Environmental Assessment 2001-410
Nextel
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
PAGREG\PCResNextol EA. wpd
Environmental Checklist Form
1 . Project. Title: Conditional Use Permit 2001-054
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Greg Trousdell, 760-777-7125
4. Project Location: Frances Hack La Quinta Community Park
77-865 Avenida Montezuma.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Nextel Communications
310 Commerce
Irvine, CA 92620
6. General Plan Designation: Village Commercial
7. Zoning: Village Commercial
8. Description Of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to
later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for
its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a telecommunications array
on existing ballfield lighting standard at Frances Hack Park. Associated
equipment will be located on the ground, in a prefabricated shelter.
9. Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
The proposed project site is immediately surrounded by park facilities. Village
commercial lots occur beyond.
10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.)
Riverside County Parks and Recreation District (lease)
P:\C REMEACkIstNextel. W PD
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this
project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings
1 find that 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 revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMEENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by !mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed. ❑
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nnothing (further is req I ed.
Signature Date
CHRIS-TINE_D7IORIO — - --
Printed Name
CITY OF -LA QUINTA_
PAG REG\EAC k1st1gexte1. W PD
a...... fIi9
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are
adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following
each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls
outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on
project -specific, factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well
as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the
determination is made, an EIR is required.
4) "Negative- Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially
Significant Impact" to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation
measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration.
Section 15063(e)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a
previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page
or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than
significance.
s
P:\GREG\EACklstr\lexteLWPp 3 ''' - 1
I.
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving
AESTHETICS. Would the project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista'? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, u:ees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan EIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
11. AGRICULTUR.AL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use'? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations'?
(Application materials)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(132
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people'?
(Application materials) I I I X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service`? (Application materials, General Plan FIR p. 4-65 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan FIR p. 4-65 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
n Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Application
materials, General Plan FIR p. 4-77 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (General Plan FIR p. 4-77 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site'?
(General Plan FIR p. 4-77 ff.)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan FIR p. 4-77 ff.)
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
033
Vl. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan FIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
it) Strong seismic ground shaking? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan FIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
e) For a project located within an airport land rise plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area`? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation play? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted'? (General Plan FIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control'? (_Master
Environmental Assessment 6-13)
t) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general iplan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (Master Environmental Assessment 2-11)
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
113 5
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
connnunities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5- X
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies`? (Application Materials)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne
vibration or ground borne noise levels? (Application Materials)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project'?
(Application Materials)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials)
c) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
A) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere'? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
��J
Fire protection? General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff, )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
XIV. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physicaleffect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Application
materials)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Application Materials)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVt. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could. cause significant environmental effects'? (General Plan
MEA, page 4 24 )
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
c) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
t) is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVIL 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 longterm, environmental goals'?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other cut -rent
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
Mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
10
1 _.runannnti.:-nnnnnnm�e_:anumnrnnne.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
n39
Addendum to Environmental Assessment 2001-410
I. a) The proposed antenna is planned for a light standard within an existing
baseball field. The top of the array will extend to 70 feet. The lights on the
pole will be placed below the array. Overall, the height of the pole will not
extend significantly above the existing trees in the park. The impacts to
aesthetics will not be significant.
P:\GREG\EAAddNextel. W PD
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 70-
IFOOT HIGH WIRELESS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
(MONOPOLE AND RELATED 200 SQ. FT. ONE STORY
EQUIPMENT BUILDING TO THE EAST OF THE BASEBALL
FIELD WITHIN THE FRANCES HACK PARK
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054
APPLICANT: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 13`h days of February and March, 2001, hold duly noticed Public Hearings,
at the request of Nextel Communications, to consider a 70-foot high wireless radio
communications antenna and related equipment building to the east of the baseball
field within the France Hack Park, located at 77-865 Avenida Montezuma, more
particularly described as:
APN: 773-074-002, Portion of Sec. #1, T6S, R6E, SBBM
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did make the following findings to justify the approval of said Conditional
Use Permit:
1 . The design and improvements of the proposed monopole are consistent with
La Quinta General Plan Policy 7-1 .4.10 that requires utilities and communication
facilities to blend in with the desert environment and surrounding improvements.
Existing palm trees and ballfield lights conceal the monopole antenna to blend
in with this area of the City by replacing a ballpark light standard with similar
support structure and remounting lighting ensuring consistent visual quality is
retained. The height of the monopole is consistent with the design standards
as prescribed by Chapter 9.170 of the Zoning Code and also not located
adjacent to a Primary Image Corridor.
2. The proposed monopole, antennas, and equipment building are consistent with
current standards of the Zoning Code (Section 9.170.010, Commercial
Communications Towers) and Chapter 9.65 in that potential adverse visual
effects have been mitigated by design of the structures through the use of
concrete roof tile, wrought iron fencing, stucco and painting of related
structures (Condition #8)•
ResoCUP54 Ncxtel - 47 grcg
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-_
Conditional Use Permit 01-054
Nextel Communications
March 13, 2001
3. The design of the monopole, antennas, and equipment building is not likely to
cause serious public health problems, or adversely impact the general public
welfare or safety, in that the Fire Department, Community Development
Department, Public Works Department, and the City's Building & Safety
Department have reviewed the project for these issues with no significant
concerns identified. Although this area of the City supports commercial and
residential uses, the nearest single family house is located approximately 300
feet from this monopole site.
4. The design of the monopole, antennas, and equipment building is not likely to
cause substantial environmental damage, or substantially, and unavoidable injure
fish or wildlife, or their habitat, in that the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact did not identify any significant impacts for this issue. The
new improvements are surrounded by urban improvements and the monopole
is site over 140 feet from Avenida Montezuma, thus meeting siting
requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
said Planning Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of EA 2001-410 certifying a
Negative Declaration for this case pursuant to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act; and
3. That it does hereby approve the above described Conditional Use Permit, for the
reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
ResoCUP54 Nextel - 47 grog
0 � y
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La
Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 13`h day of March, 2001, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
A:AResoCUP54 Nextel.wpd
(! 14 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-_
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-054
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (FRANCES HACK PARK)
MARCH 13, 2001
CONDITIONS_ OF. APPROVAL
1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action
or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Conditional
Use Permit. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
2. Prior to the issuance of an improvement or building permit, the applicant shall
obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies, or
departments:
• Community Development Department
• Riverside County Fire Department
• Imperial Irrigation District
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
3. Development of this site shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibits
approved and contained in the file for Conditional Use Permit 2001-054, unless
amended by the following conditions.
4. This approval of Conditional Use Permit shall be used within one year;
otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used"
means beginning of substantial construction toward installation of antennas and
equipment cabinets as allowed by this approval.
CONDCUP54 ParkNextel 47 grcg Pagc I of 2
Planning Commission Resolution 2001
Conditional Use Permit2001-054
Nextel Communications
March 13, 2001
FEES AND DI -POSITS
5. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan
checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those
in effect when the applicant makes application for the plan checks, permits, and
inspections.
6. The applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department a check
payable to the County of Riverside for $78.00 for recording of EA 2001-410.
MISCELLANE GUS
7. Prior to building permit issuance, the following changes shall be made to the
development plans:
A. Chain link fencing around the lease site shall be changed to wrought iron
painted brown to match the building.
B. S-tile concrete roofing (i.e., light red) shall be used to cover the top of the
10' by 20' equipment building. The pitch of the roof structure shall be
4:12.
C. The monopole and its antennas shall be painted brown to match the
equipment building.
CONDCUP54 Pin kNextel 47 greg Page 2 of 2
U a fiTiq0
u i O�6
9
+
A P
ygd366Y
': N�
Qy
"mM
Q
Q' �P21
B
Attachment 2
\
\
4
J
a
w
w
2 9
\ \ ,« .| |
?i4: | !�
2! §lix
;
-
lw6E § Attachment3
�--
-> _ §}
� /^ ,^� !\` ^
/V |
2
PH #C
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 13, 2001
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-
056, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
APPLICANT: OMRI SIKLAI
ARCHITECT: STANFORD LEONHARD BISHOP ARCHITECTS
REQUEST: DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING
CONSISTING OF A RESTAURANT AND OFFICE
LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKE LA
QUINTA DRIVE
ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-412 WAS PREPARED FOR
THIS REQUEST PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS
AMENDED. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT THE PROJECT
HAS BEEN DETERMINED NOT TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IS RECOMMENDED
FOR CERTIFICATION.
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
SURROUNDING
ZONING AND
LAND USE: NORTH: CR/VACANT
SOUTH: CR/VACANT
EAST: RL/RECREATIONAL LOT FOR LAKE LA QUINTA
WEST: RL/LA QUINTA ARTS FOUNDATION UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
BACKGROUND:
The property is located on the north side of Lake La Quinta Drive, the east side of
Washington Street, and on the west side of Caleo Bay (Attachment 1). The site along
with the area to the north was created in 1989 with Tract Map 24230 that approved
Lake La Quinta community and the surrounding commercial lots to the, south, and
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 et al alrc rpt.wpd
southeast. The property was further subdivided creating the subject property and lot
to the north in February, 1994. The property is nearly rectangular with dimensions of
approximately 200 feet on each side. Perimeter landscape improvements including
sidewalks adjacent to the curbs and depressed turf areas have been installed along
Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive. The site sits approximately four feet
above the street at the southwest corner and two feet at the northeast corner. At the
intersection of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive in the landscape area
adjacent to the project site is a monument sign identifying the Lake La Quinta project.
PROJECT PROPOSAL:
General:
The applicants are proposing a 9,044 square foot building with a two story 3,512
square foot of office area at the north end and single story 5,532 square foot
restaurant in the balance of the building to the south on a one acre lot (Attachment 2).
The applicants presently operate a restaurant called "Omri and Boni" in Palm Desert
and are moving it to this location. The restaurant consists of a main indoor dining
area, adjacent bar, and small outdoor terrace for dining. The restaurant will serve
dinner only :starting at 5:30 p.m. during the week with possibly slightly expanded
hours on weekends. The office area will be leased out and operate during the day (7
a.m. to 5 p.m.).
As required by the CR zoning of the property, a Specific Plan has been submitted as
part of the request. The Conditional Use Permit submitted is required by the original
tract's conditions of approval. The Site Development Permit is required for
consideration of the design aspects of the project. As part of the Specific Plan, the
project is requesting a modification to the Zoning Code setback requirement for the
building adjacent to Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive.
Site Design:
The irregularly shaped building is proposed adjacent to the southwest corner of the site
with the long side adjacent to Washington Street. The entry to the restaurant is on
the east side: of the building facing the parking lot, with office entries on both the east
and south of the building.
The Zoning Code requires that all buildings within 150 feet of Washington Street not
exceed 22 feet in height. The plans indicate the variable height building at a maximum
22 feet.
The Zoning Code required building setback on Washington Street is 30 feet and on
Lake La Quinta Drive it is 20 feet. Encroachments of roof overhangs can be three feet
into the setback. While the majority of the building complies with these requirements,
on Washington Street one of the illuminated columns and a portion of the roof
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 et al alrc rpt.wpd 0 051
overhang encroaches. The column encroachment is approximately three feet, with a
portion of the curved roof overhang adjacent to the restaurant encroaching three extra
feet. Along Lake La Quinta Drive, two angular corners and one illuminated column of
the restaurant portion of the building encroaches from 4-8 feet into the required 20
foot setback. A curved portion of the roof overhang of the restaurant encroaches a
maximum of nine extra feet into the required setback. The building complies with the
setback requirements if averaged due to its undulating walls.
A single driveway will serve vehicular traffic for the project on Caleo Bay at the
extreme north end of the site, approximately 130 feet north of Lake La Quinta Drive.
The service and trash bin area will be at the southeast corner of the building, and will
take access through the adjacent spaces during the day time when those spaces are
not needed.
Architecture:
The building's footprint covers 5,532 square feet of area with a maximum height of
22 feet. The architecture of the building is contemporary highlighted by flat slopping
roofs, internally illuminated frosted glass columns between extensive glass windows
on the west, and angled or curving walls. The flat roof will overhang the large glass
areas. An exterior second story balcony is provided at the northwest corner of the
office area. The six parking spaces north of the office area will be covered by the
second story of the office area. Roof equipment will be located in two well areas on
the roof surrounded by screens designed to blend with the architecture of the building.
Exterior materials consist of smooth and corrugated metal siding, masonry block,
stucco, and marble tile. Exterior colors consist of a medium grey building body, darker
grey building accent, dark red accents, black entry accent, and brushed metal. The
metal surfaces will be natural and left to weather.
Parking:
As permitted by Zoning Code Section 9.150.050B, the applicant is requesting approval
of an alternative method of calculating the required parking spaces for this
restaurant/office project. Based on the Zoning Code requirements the restaurant
requires a total of 73 spaces lone space per 75 square feet of floor area) and the office
area requires 14 spaces lone space per 250 square feet) for a total of 87 spaces.
The applicant is providing 65 parking spaces and proposes that this is adequate for
their upscale restaurant based on the following calculations. The applicant states that
34 tables are to be provided and all patrons of each table will arrive in a single car.
To this number, the applicant adds 12 parking spaces for the employees working at
the restaurant at any one time. This gives a total demand of 46 parking spaces for the
restaurant.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 et al alre rpt.wpd c , ;11 H J d
The applicant presents an alternative method of calculating parking demand whereby
based on one space per 75 square feet of the dining area, 32 spaces would be
required. The: restaurant workspace (1,663 square feet) based on one space per 200
square feet would require eight spaces. Allowing for a 25% overlap an additional eight
spaces would be required. This results in a total of a demand of 48 spaces.
An additional parking calculation states there will be 154 seats including 12
employees. Assuming a factor of three people per car, 51.33 or 52 parking spaces
is needed. The 65 parking spaces proposed would exceed the required number of
spaces based on any of the methods presented by the applicant.
Based on the Zoning Code requirements, the 3,512 square foot office area requires 14
parking spaces (one parking space per 250 square feet). Because the restaurant is a
night use only and the office is a day use, the applicant is requesting a "shared
parking" use. As such, the office users would have use of the entire 65 space parking
lot during the day which is its primary operating period.
Landscaping:
The preliminary landscaping plan indicates primarily low water use trees, shrubs, and
groundcover as well as decomposed granite/stone use. The majority of the site is
ringed by trees with a continuous planter with trees between the double row of
parking. The: plans indicate the existing palm trees and lawn are to be retained. Three
foot high mounding with shrub planting is shown between the parking lot and streets
to screen the parking lot areas.
Signs:
The elevation plans show one sign consisting of individual letters on the front or east
side of the building mounted on the marble tile wall adjacent to the south side of the
restaurant entry. No signs are indicated for the office area. the applicant intends to
submit a sign program for the project prior to issuance of a building permit.
Exterior Lightina:
As previously noted, the columns adjacent to the glass windows of the restaurant
facing Washington Street will be internally illuminated with the glass encased columns
having a sandblasted frosted appearance. The parking lot will be illuminated with
cylindrically shaped luminaires with a floating reflector shade on seven foot high
standards.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
This request was advertised in the Desert Sun Newspaper on February 20, 2001 and
mailed to all property owners within 500 feet around the project boundaries. To date,
P:\STAN\sdp 2D01-690 et al alrc rpt.wpd A. j , , () J 3
one letter has been received (Attachment 3)• Any further comments received will be
handed out at the meeting.
Public Agency Review: The request was sent out for comment with any pertinent
comments received incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE (ALRC) CONSIDERATION:
The ALRC reviewed this request at its meeting of March 7, 2001, and on a 3-0 vote,
adopted Minute Motion 2001-011, recommending approval as submitted, subject to
conditions which have been incorporated into this review (Attachment 4).
FINDINGS:
The findings as required by Chapters 9.210 and 9.240 of the Zoning Ordinance can
be made as noted in the attached Resolutions, subject to the recommended conditions
of approval, with the following exceptions:
1 . The project is requesting an alternate method of calculating the required parking,
which is a modification to the Zoning Code requirements. Staff is
recommending a condition to the Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Site
Development Permit, and mitigation measure to the Environmental Assessment
requiring submission and approval of a valet parking plan prior to issuance of a
building permit to ensure that parking demand is properly managed.
2. Because of the elevated nature of the site, cars headlights can shine since
directly into off -site traffic and surrounding properties. Therefore, as a condition
of approval, staff is recommending Condition #33 to the Site Development
Permit requiring a 3'-6" high decorative masonry wall around the parking lot
boundaries on the south, east, and west if it is determined that the mounding
and landscaping is not adequate to screen the headkights.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt Resolution 2001-_, recommending to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2001-412, subject to the Mitigation Program for
CEQA. Compliance; and,
2. Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of
Specific Plan 2001-052, subject to the recommended conditions; and,
3. Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of
Conditional Use Permit 2001-056, subject to the recommended conditions; and,
4. Adopt Resolution 2001- , recommending to the City Council approval of
Site Development Permit 2001-690, subject to the recommended conditions.
P:\STAN\sdp 20�01-690 et al alre rpt.wpd ,A
.; is [1 J
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Plan exhibits
3. Letter received regarding project
4. ALRC minutes for the meeting of March 6, 2001
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner C ristine di lorio, Planni g Manager
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 et al alre rpt.wpd
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-412 PREPARED
FOR SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 2001-056 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
2001-690
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-412
APPLICANT: OMRI SIKLAI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did, on the 13th day of March, 2001 hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider
Environmental Assessment 2001-412 for Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use
Permit 2001-056 and Site Development Permit 2001-690, generally located at the
northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly
described as follows:
APN 643-200-005
WHEREAS, said Environmental Assessment has complied with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970" (as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that
the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 2001-412)
and has determined that although the proposed Specific Plan, Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Permit could have a significant adverse impact on the
environment, there would not be a significant effect in this case because appropriate
mitigation measures were made a part of the assessment and included in the
conditions of approval for Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056
and Site Development Permit 2001-690, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact should be filed; and,
WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments,
if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find
the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said
Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not be detrimental to the health, safety,
or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no
significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment
2001-412.
PASTAN\PCRes0mriEA.wpd F r,- ,�
.J�, 05s
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Environmental Assessment 2001-412
2. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory.
3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the
potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the
wildlife depends.
4. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 do not have the potential to achieve short-
term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals,
as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the
Environmental Assessment.
5. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not result in impacts which are
individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or
proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the
area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project.
6. The proposed Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056 and
Site Development Permit 2001-690 will not have environmental effects that will
adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no
significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk
potential or public services.
7. There: is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may
have a significant effect on the environment.
8. The Planning Commission has considered the Environmental Assessment 2001-
412 and the Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgement of
the City.
9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of
adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.5(d).
10. The Vocation and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the
Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La
Quinta, California.
P:\STAN\PCResOmriEA.wpd 'r-� �, 057
Planning Commission Resolution 2001-
Environmental Assessment 2001-412
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 constitutes the findings of
the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment.
2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of
Environmental Assessment 2001-412 for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and
Addendum on file in the Community Development Department.
3. That Environmental Assessment 2001-412 reflects the independent judgement
of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13th day of March, 2001, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
TERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
0
P:\STAN\PCResOmriEA.wpd
OA
3.
H
5'1
U
10.
Environmental Checklist Form
Project Title: Environmental Assessment 2001-412, Specific Plan 2001-052, Conditional Use Permit
2001-056, Site Development Permit 2001-690
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Contact Person and Phone Number: Stan B. Sawa, 760-777-7125
Project Location: Northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Omri Siklai
56 Oakmont Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
General Plan Designation: Mixed Regional Commercial
Zoning: Regional Commercial
Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and
any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Specific Plan to establish development standards for the construction of a 5,532 s.f.
restaurant with attached 3,512 s.f office building. The Conditional Use Permit is required
because of original Tract conditions. The Site Development Permit request implements the
standards of the Specific Plan and Zoning Code.
Surrounding Lane Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings.
North: Vacant. Regional Commercial lands
South: Vacant: Regional Commercial lands
East: Lake La Quinta recreation lot for residential development
West: Washington Street, La Quinta Arts Foundation site.
Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) -
Riverside County Health Department, Alcoholic Beverage Control.
P:\STAN\EACkIisI0mri.WPD 059
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services
Hydrology and Water Quality Recreation
Land Use Planning Transportation/Traffic
Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Noise Mandatory Findings
Population and Housing
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
IN
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 revisions in the project have been
made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MIITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared. El
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
n
u
PASTAMEACklist0mriMM J-;) u 0611
Date -�_I1 -1 CD 1
Printed Name S t a n B S a w a
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts:
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except
"No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency
cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately
supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply
to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as
general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on
a project -specific screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action
involved, including off -site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect
as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there
is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. _
4) "Negative Declaration: Potentially Significant Unless
Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced
an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less Significant Impact." The lead
agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, `Earlier Analysis,"
may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other
CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVHl at the
end ofthe checklist.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to
information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference
to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference
to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources
used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The analysis of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
PASTAMEACklist0mriMPD a 061
..i i,
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving:
I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (General Plan
Exhibit CIR-5)
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
(General Plan FIR, page 5-12 ff.)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings? (Application materials)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application
materials)
II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES:. In determining whether impacts
to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Dept. Of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (Master
Environmental Assessment 5-29, 5-32)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract? (Zoning Map)
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in
loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Aerial photographs)
III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the
project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable Air
Quality Attaimnent Plan or Congestion Management Plan? (SCAQMD
CEQA Handbook)
b) Violate any stationary source air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
c) Result in a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA
Handbook)
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
`3
X
ro
X
17
ki
X
X
R
nG2
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(Application materials) I I X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
(Application materials) I I X
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations,
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (Application materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.)
b) Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game
or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.)
c) Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) Either individually or in
combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? (General Plan FIR p. 4-65 ff.)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery
sites? (General Plan EIR p. 4-65 ff.)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (La Quinta
Municipal Code; General Plan)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-5)
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource which is either listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic
Resources, or a local register of historic resources? (Application
materials, General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique
archaeological resources (i.e., an artifact, object, or site about which it
can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current
body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it contains
information needed to answer important scientific research questions,
has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or best
available example of its type, or is directly associated with a
scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or
person)? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
c) Disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site?
(General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
17
KI
KI
X
M
94
►M
M
M
063
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? (General Plan EIR p. 4-77 ff.)
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? (General Plan EIR, Exhibit 4.2-3, page 4-35)
ii) Strong seisraic ground shaking? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (General
Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
iv) Landslides'? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (General Plan
EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
c) Be located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on -
or off -site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff.)
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? (General Plan EIR, page 4-30 ff)
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative waste water disposal system where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5-32)
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
(Application Materials)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the
likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?
(Application Materials)
c) Reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous materials, substances,
or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
(Application Materials)
d) Is the project located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardous Materials
Listing)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map)
17
ON
X
9
"�; 06/1
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip; would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the
project area? (General Plan land use map)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Master
Enviromnental Assessment 6-11)
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildlands fees, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(General Plan land use map)
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-:26, 6-27)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e.,
the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted? (General Plan EIR, page 4-57 ff.)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -
site? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner
which would result in flooding on- or off -site? (Master Environmental
Assessment 6-13)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems to control? (Master
Environmental Assessment 6-13)
I) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
g) Place within[ a 100-year floodplain structures which would impede or
redirect flood :flows? (Master Environmental Assessment 6-13)
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? (Specific Plan Project
Description)
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local costal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element)
f.t
X
0
X
OIN
KI
X
X
F4
//
KI
X
_.., . 065
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X
communities conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-
5)
X. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the: loss of availability of a known mineral resource
classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental
Assessment 5 :29)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan
or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment 5-29)
XI. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (Application Materials)
b) Exposure o1'persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Application Materials)
c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Application Materials)
d) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Application Materials)
e) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive levels? (General Plan map)
XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ? (General
Plan, page 2-14)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Application
Materials)
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need. for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
X
M
ta
X
X
X
►M
K4
I�
0.'v ()6" 6
Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Police protection? (General Plan MEA, page 4-3 ff. )
Schools? (General Plan MEA, page 4-9 ff. )
Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks Master Plan)
Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, page 4-14 ff. )
1ikl1 R3101RWNY[I7►F
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
(Application Materials)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application Materials)
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?(Application
materials)
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways? (Application Materials)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase
in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety
risks? (Application Materials)
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)? (Application Materials)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Application Materials)
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Application Materials)
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus tumouts, bicycle racks)? (Application Materials)
XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, page 4-24
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction
of which could. cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan
MEA, page 4-24 )
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA,
page 4-27)
X
X
X
X
X
K4
W
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M
X
►91
,r J� 067
d) Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed? (General Plan WA, page 4-20)Slte
Development Permit 2001-690
e) Has the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demaaid in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
(General Plan MEA, page 4-20)
f) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?(General Plan
MEA, page 4-28)
XVII. MANDATOP:Y 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?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
project, and the effects of probable future projects)?
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVIII EARLIER ANALYSES.
13
X
17
X
0/
GI
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects
have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a
discussion should identify the following on attached sheets.
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
No earlier analyses specific to this project site have been used.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site -specific conditions for the project.
See attached Addendum.
SOURCES:
Master Environmental Assessment, City of La Quinta General Plan 1992.
SCAQMD CEQA Handbook.
General Plan, City of La Quinta, 1992.
Paleontological Lakebed Delineation Map, City of La Quinta.
City of La Quinta Municipal Code
Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-412 Omri Siklai
a) & c)
Washington Street is designated a Primary Image Corridor in the City's
General Plan. This designation requires that special landscaping and building
setbacks be incorporated into project design. The Specific Plan and Site
Development Permit have incorporated these standards. This will ensure that
the impacts to visual resources are reduced to a less than significant level.
I. d) The proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel which does not
generate any light, and will therefore represent an increase in light levels for
the area. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards
for outdoor lighting, (Section 9.100.150 of the Zoning Ordinance) which will
ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the project
site.
III. a►, b) & d)
The proposed project is consistent with the Regional Commercial land use
designation assigned to the site. Similar land uses were analyzed as part of
the General Plan EIR. The proposed project will result in 9,044 square feet
of restaurant and office space on the site. Based on the land uses proposed,
the project can be expected to generate approximately 537 trips per day'. As
shown in the Table below, the project will not exceed any SCAQMD
thresholds.
Running Exhaust Emissions
(pounds/day)
PM10 PM10 PM10
CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires
50 mph 19.42 0.75 3.98 0.08 0.08
Daily
Threshold* 550 75 100 150
Based on 537 trips/day and average trip length of 7.0 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by
California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds
provided by SCAQMD, Table 6-2 for assistance in determining the significance of a project.
The Coachella Valley has in the past been a non -attainment area for PM10
(particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City
has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust.
Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trips Generation Handbook, 6th Edition, for General Office (710)
and Quality Restaurant (831).
P:\STAN\EAAddOmri. W PD
3.,J , 0 7l l
SCAQMD also suggests mitigation for vehicular emissions, which are integrated
into the following mitigation measures:
1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and
approval of a PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same
to the City Engineer for review and approval.
2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to
minimize exhaust emissions.
3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary
power poles to avoid on -site power generation.
4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit
opportunities.
5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site.
6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of
three feet prior to the onset of grading activities.
7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed
on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the
site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered
regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall
be watered at the end of each work day.
8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is
constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be
seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed.
9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the
potential for wind erosion.
10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of
construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site.
11. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage
ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code.
13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and
P:\STAN\EAAddOmri. W PD 'X .;,, 171
shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate
transportation measures.
14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions
shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances
in effect at the time of development.
With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality
from the proposed project will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in
technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles
or the transit route improvements in the future which may occur at the project
site are not included in the analysis. Further, the air quality impacts from the
proposed project fall within what was studied in the General Plan EIR. The City
determined at that time that air quality impacts associated with the buildout of
the City required a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which determined
that the impacts to air quality of development of the Plan would be cumulatively
significant when considered in conjunction with regional development, and that
the City would implement all feasible measures to reduce emissions within its
boundaries.
IV. a) The proposed project site has been previously graded, and does not provide
wildlife with high quality habitat. The proposed project is located within an area
of potential habitat for the black -tailed gnat catcher'. A biological resource
survey performed to assess the potential presence of this species on a parcel
of land immediately south of the proposed project in 2000, however, found that
the area was not appropriate for maintenance of the species. Also, the site has
been significantly disturbed. No further analysis is required for this species.
IV. f) The proposed project is located within the required fee area for the Coachella
Valley Fringed -toed lizard, and will be required to pay the mandated fee at the
issuance of building permits. The payment of the fee will reduce the potential
impacts to a less than significant level.
V. b) The proposed project site has been previously graded. Surficial artifacts are
therefore unlikely. The potential does exist, however, for sub -surface artifacts.
In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measure shall
be implemented:
Should any earth moving activity on the site uncover a potential
archaeological resource, all activity on the site shall stop until such time
as a qualified archaeologist has evaluate the resource, and recommended
mitigation measures. The archaeologist shall also be required to submit
z City of La Quinta General Plan EIR, 1992.
J 072
PASTAN\EAAdd0mri. W PD
to the Community Development Department, for review and approval, a
written report on all activities on the site.
VI. a) i) & ii)
The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone, and within one mile
of an inferred fault. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject
to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. In order to
mitigate and protect the City from this hazard, the City has adopted the Uniform
Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones.
The proposed project will be required to meet these standards. This mitigation
will be sufficient to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
VI. b) & c)
The project site is located adjacent to an area where soils have a risk of wind
erosion. The City requires all development to submit, for review and approval,
a blowsand hazard mitigation plan (PM10 plan) as part of the review of grading
permits. The project proponent will be required to meet these standards. This
mitigation measure will reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
VIII. b)
All development adds to demand for groundwater. The project will also be
required to retain storm flows on -site, which will encourage percolation of storm
water into the ground. Finally, the proposed project will be required to meet the
requirements of the City's water -conserving landscaping ordinance, which
requires that projects demonstrate that landscaping plans are water -efficient.
These mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
VIII. c►-e)
The proposed project, through the construction of buildings and parking lots,
will create impermeable surfaces, which will change drainage patterns in a rain
event. The project will, however, be required to meet the City's standards for
retention of the 100 year storm on -site. This will control the amount of runoff
which exits the site during a storm. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits.
This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to
a less than significant level.
IX. c)
The proposed project occurs within the boundary of the Coachella Valley fringe -
toed lizard habitat conservation plan. The proposed project will be required to
pay the mandated fee to mitigate for potential impacts to this species.
XI. a) The proposed project is to be located within the Regional Commercial land use
designation, and surrounded on three sides by roads and other commercial
development. The proposed project is not a sensitive receptor. The project
073
P:\STAN\EAACIdOmri.WPD
does have a potential to impact sensitive receptors immediately east, in the
Lake La Quinta project. The Lake La Quinta development occurs in an area
which meets the City's noise standards. In addition the perimeter landscaping
proposed within the proposed project, an interior street separates the project
from the residential development, creating added separation. A wall occurs on
the western boundary of the Lake La Quinta project, which mitigates noise
impacts also. It is not expected that the proposed project will significantly
impact the noise environment in the area.
XI. c) The construction of the proposed project has the potential to create temporary
construction noise impacts on the residential units to the east. In order to
mitigate these potential impacts, the project proponent shall implement the
following mitigation measures:
1. All construction activities shall be limited to the hours prescribed in the
La Quinta Municipal Code.
2. Construction staging areas shall be located as far from the eastern
boundary of the project as possible.
3. On -site generators, if required, shall be located in the northwestern
corner of the site.
XIII. All development increases the need for public facilities. The project, however,
will generate land uses which have a limited impact on public services. The
design of the project site will be reviewed by both the Fire and Police
departments, whose conditions of approval will be incorporated into project
approvals. This will ensure that any potential impact is mitigated to a less than
significant level.
XV. a) & b)
The land uses planned for the proposed project are typical of those considered
in the: General Plan land use designation of Regional Commercial, and have
therefore been previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and MEA. The
project will not create any impact above those already considered and mitigated
under the General Plan review.
XV. f)
The proposed project includes less parking than would be required by the Zoning
Ordinance. The justification provided by the applicant, as allowed in the Zoning
ordinance, allows for a reduction in parking due to the complementary uses
proposed (office use during the day and restaurant use at night); the justification
PASTAN\EAAdd 0mri. W PD
also includes analysis particular to the up -scale restaurant use, which will
generate less demand. The potential for a shortfall can be eased through the
implementation of valet parking for the restaurant use, which will allow for
controlled parking activity. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the
following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit,
for review and approval, a valet parking plan, which commits the
proponent to valet parking during all times when the restaurant is open.
Failure to maintain a valet parking program shall result in revocation of
the use permit for this project.
P:\STAN\EAAdclOmri.WPD
�
¢
_
z
\
§
2
/
2
\
k
j
§
¥
/
(
4
�
b
W
\
2
[
^
$
o
�
-
§
2
}}
(
\\\
�
CD/(\
�)�-\
=
m
/
§
2
2u»/
m
o=
«
Q
3
c
\
\/
ek
k)
Eu
k
§
i
/
�
]
\\
«
f
/\
\�
)\
�
�
36
}
\\
��
�
. )
j
\/
\U
\
®
§
\
/
\
/)\)to
to
�
y
,
k
�
}
±&z&
a
y
E$
{«
!
>
}
)
�
)
c r
'\
#
)
•
3
m
!
2
3
/
§\
»;«
0
3 3 3
J
G
e
A
3 6
E
r
/
-
E
�
\
i
2
4
4
\
)
\
}
7
\
§
\
\�
\u
/
\
)
$2
i
k
e
]
\\
(/
22
-
$/cn
■
_
72
2
)
j
2
§/
&
§
k
4
3
�
¢
/
�
\�
�)
\U
k
§
_
°
)\§
u4@
/
2
�
e
/
j
\
§/
»2
/
$2
%g
;
�
//
.
J/
§
\�
\
t)
7
»
&::
\
\
\
R7§
\
\�
nj
\3
§
:e
\
\
E
-
`
\\2
}\(
k7
�\
in
\\
2
,
)
//
&(
s=
(
40.
\-
)�
[
#
22
7
\a
42
=
5)
cc
LME
u§
\
\/
k(
Eu
§
�
�
\
\ \}\
\
)}
`e
j\\ \
(�
-
{
I
G 2 2 A
(
k
\
$
\ /
`
2
( }
e
) \
(
\ \ \ ) )
0§ T
\
}
\
}
\�
ou
\E
U
k
}
�
/
\ 2 2
- /
¥
m
�
®
\ \ }
11
�$
\
{ / /
» 2
& E z
$ i
&
-
\ \ 2
j \
.
2
{
-
{
k�
Q
®
\a
x
$
u z_ c
\
u cc
\u
E§
2
\
(
i
§
`
�
)
\j
®
a
)a
(/
ƒ)
§/
[/
6E
»6
2
k
k\
§_
uG
z
�
2
-
!
§
\\
�
_a
\
\
\
}
j)
±(
Eu
§
\
§
(
u
/
/
E
2
\\
§\
�
§/
\
»2
/
$§
t;
�
�
.k\
J/
§
\�
z
2
§
<
\
\
k
w
*
&
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
'THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PRINCIPALS AND
GUIDELINES FOR A RESTAURANT AND OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SIKLAI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 13th
day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
OMRI SIKLAI for approval of Specific Plan development principals and guidelines for
a restaurant and office building, located on the northeast corner of Washington Street
and Lake La Quinta Drive, more particularly described as:
Parcel 5, Parcel Map 27892
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan has complied with the requirements of "The Rules
to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended
(Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has conducted
an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-412), and determined that the
proposed Specific Plan will not have a significant impact on the environment and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is recommended for
certification; 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 and reasons to justify the recommendation for
approval of the Specific Plan:
1 . The Specific Plan, as proposed, is consistent with the goals and policies of the
La Quinta General Plan in that the property proposed for the commercial project
is designated as Regional Commercial which is consistent.
2. The Specific Plan, subject to conditions will not create conditions materially
detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that the
commercial development allowed under the Specific Plan is compatible with
existing uses and surrounding zoning, and development standards and
infrastructure proposed in the Specific Plan will ensure high quality
development.
3. The Specific Plan will provide land use compatibility with zoning on adjacent
properties in that the project principles and guidelines ensure that the proposed
adjacent uses will not be negatively impacted.
pAstan\sp 2001-052.frm
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Specific Plan 2001-D52
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted: March 13, 2001
Page 2_
4. The Specific Plan project is suitable and appropriate for the property in that the
property has been designated for commercial use and development will comply
with applicable City requirements.
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 Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend that Mitigated Negative Declaration be
certified for this project.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the
above -described Specific Plan request for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13T" day of March, 2001, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Ulrector
City of La Quinta, California
p:Astan\sp 2001-052.frm 1, j183
RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SILKAI
MARCH 13, 2001
GENERAL
1. The use of the subject property for commercial uses shall be in conformance with
the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Specific Plan
2001-052, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056, Site Development Permit 2001-
690 and Environmental Assessment 2001-412, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan.
The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormwater discharge permit.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect' refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
P:\STAN\sp 2001-052 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 1 of 6
USA
RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SILKAII
MARCH 13, 2001
4. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans
are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
5. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
6. When final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
GRADING
7. If applicant proposes grading/fill operations that encroach on existing retention
basins, applicant shall provide additional hydrology calculations proving the new
retention basin configuration meets the hydrological requirements and the
requirements of Engineering Bulletin #97-03
P:\STAN\sp 2001-052 pc coa.wpd
Printed March 8, 2001 Page 2 of-t` �� J
RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SILKAII
MARCH 13, 2001
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish an approved
grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer.
9. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
10. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC, The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
1 1. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development
and Public Works Departments.
12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
13. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
plan for Lake La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be retained on -site and disposed
of in an approved manner.
UTILITIES
14. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
15. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities
in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
P:\STAN\sp 2001-052 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 3 ot; 6 006
IU6
RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SILKAII
MARCH 13, 2001
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
16. Parking lot entry off Caleo Bay shall have a minimum width of 28-feet per
Riverside County Standard Drawing 207.
17. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g.,
grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or
dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
18. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
19. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
20. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic)• Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
21. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings
only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access
to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic
control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are
initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete
P:\STAN\sp 2001-052 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 4 of 6 (1 8 7
RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SILKAII
MARCH 13, 2001
the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within
the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
22. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
QUALITY A:)SURANCE
23. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
24. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
25. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans,
specifications and applicable regulations.
26. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed"
and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the
accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image
files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
27. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
P:\STAN\sp 2001-052 pc coa.wpd
Printed March 8, 2001 Page 5 of'$' -'
0s°
RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SPECIFIC PLAN 2001-052
OMRI SILKAII
MARCH 13, 2001
FEES AND DEPOSITS
28. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes application for plan checking and permits.
29. Within three days after City Council approval, a check for $78.00, made out to
the County of Riverside, shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for filing of the required Notice of Determination.
ENVIRONMENTAL
30. All requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Environmental Assessment
2001-412 shall be met as required.
FIRE MARSHAL
31. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, as determined during plan
check prior to issuance of a building permit.
MISCELLANEOUS
32. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, for
review and approval, a valet parking plan, which commits the proponent to valet
parking during all times when the restaurant is open. Failure to maintain a valet
parking program shall result in revocation of the permit for this project.
33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit or building permit, whichever occurs first,
the specific plan text shall be revised to include the valet plan required in
Condition #32 and development standards allowing the building to encroach into
the required building setbacks as shown on the approved plans.
P:\STAN\sp 2001-052 pc coa.wpd
Printed March 6, 2001 Page 6 of 6 , 118 7
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF RESTAURANT AND
OFFICE USES AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
WASHINGTON STREET AND LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE
CASE NO.: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-056
OMRI SIKLAI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 13th
day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
OMRI SIKLAI for approval of a Conditional Use Permit for restaurant and office uses,
located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, more
particularly described as:
Parcel 5, Parcel Map 27892
WHEREAS, said Conditional Use Permit has complied with the requirements of
"The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has
conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-412), and determined
that the proposed Conditional Use Permit will not have a significant impact on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is
recommended for certification; 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 and reasons to justify the recommendation for
approval of the Conditional Use Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial which is
consistent.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code or amended as allowed in the applicable Specific Plan.
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the La Quinta Community
Development Department has determined that this Conditional Use Permit will
not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact has been certified.
(Ul
p:\stan\cup 2001-056 pc.frm
Resolution No. 2001-
Conditional Use Permit 2001-056
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted: March 13, 2001
Page 2_
4. The site design of the project is appropriate for the use in that it has been
designed with the parking and vehicular access away the major arterial street
(Washington Street), and provided with adequate landscaping.
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 Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be
certified for this project.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the
above -described Conditional Use Permit request for the reasons set forth
in this Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13T" day of March, 2001, by the following vote to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
(la1
p:\stan\cup 2001-056 pc.frm
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2001-056
OMRI SIKLAII
MARCH 13, 2001
GENERAL
The use of the subject property for commercial uses shall be in conformance
with the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Conditional
Use Permit 2001-056, Specific Plan 2001-052, Site Development Permit 2001-
690 and Environmental Assessment 2001-412, unless otherwise amended by
the following conditions.
2. The approved Conditional Use Permit shall be used within two years of the
effective date of approval, otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no
effect whatsoever.
"Used" means the issuance of a building permit for the project. A time
extension for this Conditional Use Permit may be requested as permitted in
Municipal Code Section 9.200.080 D.
3. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of La Quinta
in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense
counsel in its sole discretion.
The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, for
review and approval, a valet parking plan, which commits the proponent to valet
parking during all times when the restaurant is open. Failure to maintain a valet
parking program shall result in revocation of the use permit for this project.
P:\STAN\cup 2001-056 pc coampd
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS
FOR A RESTAURANT AND OFFICE BUILDING
CASE NO.: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 13th
day of March, 2001, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of
OMRI SIKLAI for approval of development plans for a restaurant and office building,
located on the northeast corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, more
particularly described as:
Parcel 5, Parcel Map 27892
WHEREAS, said Site Development Permit has complied with the requirements
of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as
amended (Resolution 83-68), in that the Community Development Department has
conducted an Initial Study (Environmental Assessment 2001-412), and determined
that the proposed Site Development Permit will not have a significant impact on the
environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is
recommended for certification; 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 and reasons to justify the recommendation for
approval of the Site development Permit:
1. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the property proposed for
the commercial project is designated as Regional Commercial which is
consistent.
2. This project has been designed to be consistent with the provisions of the
Zoning Code, Specific Plan, and applicable Site Development Permit or has be
conditioned to be so.
3. Processing and approval of this project is in compliance with the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act in that the Community Development
Department has determined that this Conditional Use Permit will not have a
significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of
Environmental Impact has been certified.
p:AstanAsdp 2001-690 pc.frm I .. 1193
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-_
Site Development Permit 2001-690
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted: March 13, 2001
Page 2_
4. The siite design of the project, including but not limited to project entries,
interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities,
screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site
design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the
quality of design prevalent in the city in that the design as conditioned has
addressed these issues.
5. Project landscaping, including but not limited to the location, type, size, color,
texture, and coverage of plant materials has been designed so as to provide
relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and
vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between
adjacent land uses and between development and open space, provide an
overall unifying influence, enhance the visual continuity of the project, and
complement the surrounding project area, ensuring lower maintenance and
water use. The landscaping has been designed to be compatible with the
surrounding area, complement the proposed improvements and provide required
shading of the parking area with the inclusion of additional planters adjacent to
the building.
6. One sign for the restaurant has been shown conceptually on the east side of the
building. The project has been conditioned to submit a sign program for
approval by the Planning Commission.
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
Planning Commission in this case.
2. That it does hereby recommend that Mitigated Negative Declaration be certified
for this project.
3. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of the above -
described Site Development Permit request for the reasons set forth in this
Resolution, subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 13T" day of March, 2001, by the following vote to
wit:
p:\stan\sdp 2001-690 pc.frm
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2001-
Site Development Permit 2001-690
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
Adopted: March 13, 2001
Page 2_
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STEVE ROBBINS, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
()9
p:\stan\sdp 20,01-690 pc.frm
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
MARCH 13, 2001
GENERAL
1. The use of the subject property for commercial uses shall be in conformance with
the approved exhibits and conditions of approval contained in Site Development
Permit 2001-690, Conditional Use Permit 2001-056, Specific Plan 2001-052,
and Environmental Assessment 2001-412, unless otherwise amended by the
following conditions.
2. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of La
Quinta (the "City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or
proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this development
application. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel.
The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding
and shall cooperate fully in the defense.
3. Prior to the issuance of a grading, construction or building permit, the applicant
shall obtain permits and/or clearances from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Desert Sands Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
• Imperial Irrigation District (IID)
• California Water Quality Control Board (CWQCB)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances
from those jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement
plans, applicant shall furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City
approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES
stormvvater discharge permit.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
As used throughout these conditions of approval, professional titles such as "engineer,"
"surveyor," and "architect" refer to persons currently certified or licensed to practice
their respective professions in the State of California.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 1 of 7 r) 9F. t
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
MARCH 13, 2001
4. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of
qualified engineers and landscape architects, as appropriate. Plans shall be
submitted on 24" x 36" media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise
Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and "Landscaping." Precise grading plans shall
have signature blocks for Community Development Director and the Building
Official. All other plans shall have signature blocks for the City Engineer. Plans
are not approved for construction until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike
paths, entry drives, gates, and parking lots. "Landscaping" plans shall normally
include irrigation improvements, landscape lighting and entry monuments.
"Precise; Grading" plans shall normally include perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City
Engineer.
5. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for
elements of construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant
may acquire standard plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
6. When 'final plans are approved by the City, the applicant shall furnish accurate
AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage media acceptable to
the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu items so they
may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion of
construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall
update the files to reflect as -constructed conditions.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be
converted to AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the
plans.
GRADING
7. If applicant proposes grading/fill operations that encroach on existing retention
basins, applicant shall provide additional hydrology calculations proving the new
retention basin configuration meets the hydrological requirements and the
requirements of Engineering Bulletin #97-03.
8. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall furnish an approved
grading plan prepared by a qualified engineer.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 2.of 7 O J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
MARCH 13, 2001
9. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape
areas outside the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
10. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant
shall submit and receive approval of a fugitive dust control plan prepared in
accordance with Chapter 6.16, LQMC. The Applicant shall furnish security, in
a form acceptable to the city, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance
with the provisions of the permit.
11. The applicant shall maintain graded, undeveloped land to prevent wind and water
erosion of soils. The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided
with other erosion control measures approved by the Community Development
and Public Works Departments.
12. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide building pad
certifications stamped and signed by qualified engineers or surveyors. For each
pad, the certification shall list the approved elevation, the actual elevation, the
difference between the two, if any, and pad compaction. The data shall be
organized by lot number and listed cumulatively if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
13. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage
plan for Lake La Quinta. Nuisance water shall be retained on -site and disposed
of in an approved manner.
UTILITIES
14. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all
utility lines within the right of way and all above -ground utility structures
including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electrical vaults, water
valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and
aesthetic purposes.
15. Utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities
in existing, improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration
requirements maintained or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
provide certified reports of trench compaction for approval of the City Engineer.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 3 of 7 (.19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
MARCH 13, 2001
STREET ANCI TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
16. Parking lot entry off Caleo Bay shall have a minimum width of 28-feet per
Riverside County Standard Drawing 207.
17. The applicant may be required to extend improvements beyond development
boundaries to ensure they safely integrate with existing improvements (e.g.,
grading; traffic control devices and transitions in alignment, elevation or
dimensions of streets and sidewalks).
18. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC,
adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, and as approved
by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking
areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers.
19. Knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall conform with Riverside County Standard
Drawings #801 and #805 respectively unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer.
20. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using Caltrans' design
procedure (20-year life) and site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated
traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall
be as follows (or approved equivalents for alternate materials):
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" c.a.b.
21. The City will conduct final inspections of homes and other habitable buildings
only when the buildings have improved street and (if required) sidewalk access
to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic
control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. If on -site streets are
initially constructed with partial pavement thickness, the applicant shall complete
the pavement prior to final inspections of the last ten percent of homes within
the tract or when directed by the City, whichever comes first.
LANDSCAPING
22, Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the
requirements of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn
or spray irrigation within 18 inches of curbs along public streets.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-890 pc coa.wpd
Printed March 8, 2001 Page 4 of 7 11 J 19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
MARCH 13, 2001
23. Prior to issuance of building permits for the building authorized for this property,
final landscape working drawings shall be approved by the Community
Development Department. Compliance with the City Water Efficient Landscaping
Ordinance shall be included. Tree caliper sizes per industry standards shall be
specified.
24. Prior to issuance of building permits for the building authorized for this property,
final working drawings shall be approved by the Community Development
Department.
25. Revise the Landscape plans to include planter areas adjacent to the building on
the north and east sides.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
26. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
27. The applicant shall employ or retain qualified civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, surveyors, or other appropriate professionals to provide sufficient
construction supervision to be able to furnish and sign accurate record drawings.
28. The applicant shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and
testing procedures not included in the City's inspection program but required by
the City as evidence that construction materials and methods comply with plans,
specifications and applicable regulations.
29. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible
record drawings of all improvement plans which were signed by the City. Each
sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed"
and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the
accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the CAD or raster -image
files previously submitted to the City to reflect as -constructed conditions.
MAINTENANCE
30. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous, perpetual maintenance of all
on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, and sidewalks. The
applicant shall maintain required public improvements until expressly released
from this responsibility by the appropriate public agency.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 pc coa.wpd Printed March 8, 2001 Page 5 of 7 1 f1 (1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAII
MARCH 13, 2001
FEES AND DEPOSITS
31. The applicant shall pay the City's established fees for plan checking and
construction inspection. Fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant
makes .application for plan checking and permits.
32. Within three days after City Council approval, a check for $78.O0, made out to
the County of Riverside, shall be submitted to the Community Development
Department for filing of the required Notice of Determination.
MISCELLANEOUS
33. A 3'-6" decorative screen wall shall be provided around the perimeters of the
parking lot portions of the site on the south, east, and west if the Community
Development Department determines during final plan check that the landscape
mounding and planting will not be adequate to provide screening of vehicle
headlights.
34. Prior to issuance of building permits, the project proponent shall submit, for
review and approval, a valet parking plan, which commits the proponent to valet
parking during all times when the restaurant is open. Failure to maintain a valet
parking program shall result in revocation of the use permit for this project.
SIGNS
36. A sign program, complying with Zoning Code Chapter 9.160, providing details
for all signs shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for
approval by the Planning Commission, prior to issuance of the building permit.
LIGHTING
37. A detailed parking lot lighting plan complying with Zoning Code Section
9.100.150, including fixtures, their locations, and a photometrics study shall be
submitted to and approved by the Community Development Department prior to
issuance of the building permit.
ENVIRONNIENTAL
38. All requirements of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan for Environmental Assessment
2001 -412 shall be met as required.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 pc coa.wpd Printed March 6, 2001 Page 6 of 7 1 u 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2001-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2001-690
OMRI SIKLAI
MARCH 13, 2001
FIRE MARSHAL
39. All requirements of the Fire Marshal shall be met, as determined during plan
check prior to issuance of a building permit.
P:\STAN\sdp 2001-690 pc coa.wpd Printed March S, 2001 Page 7 of 7 102
mu n...I;,,All 111J I11lul '
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY
March 1, 2,001
City of La Quinta
Community Development Department
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Gentleman:
ATTACHMENT #3
7
tip`\
'0 Y.
This letter is in reference to Applications: Specific plan 2001-052, conditional use
permit2001-056, site development permit 2001-690 —to allow development of a single
building restaurant and office area by Omri Siklai ( Omri and Boni Restaurant) being
heard before the Planning Commission on March 13, 2001.
St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church does not have any objections to a office
building being built or a restaurant AS LONG AS THE RESTAURANT DOES NOT
SERVE ANY LIQUOR.
We do not feel that liquor should be served or available when the restaurant is
directly across the street from the church and also we are considering building a school,
to the south of the church, which would even be closer to the restaurant.
Thank you for your time in considering our issue with the restaurant.
If any further clarification in needed, I may be reached at the church at the phone
number below and extension 215.
Sincerely, i
Larry Saindon
Parish Administrator
47-225 WASHINGTON STREET • LA QUINIA, CALIFORNIA 92253 • (760) 564-1255 • FAX (760) 564-0763 1
f
ATTACHMENT #4
MINUTES
ARCHITECTURE & LANDSCAPING REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
March 7, 2001
'TO ORDER
10:00 a.m.
A. is meeting of the Architectural and Landscaping Committee was called
to der at 10.06 a.m. by Planning Manager Christine di lorio who led the
flag s lute.
B. Committe Members present: Dennis Cunningham, Bill Bobbitt, and Frank
Reynolds.
C. Staff present
Sawa, and E.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
ng Manager Christine di lorio, Principal Planner Stan
r Secretary Betty Sawyer.
A. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio as d if there were any changes to
the Minutes of February 7, 2001. Com tee Member Reynolds asked
that Page 4, Item #8 be corrected to read, " ...what the depth of the
windows would be." There being no further co ections, it was moved
and , v ommi tee em ers itt to approve the
minutes as corrected.
V. BUSINESS ITEMS:
A. Site Development Permit 2001-686; a request of Omri Siklai, for review
of development plans for a commercial buildings consisting of a
restaurant and office, located at the northeast corner of Washington
Street and Lake La Quinta Drive.
1 . Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained
in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community
Development Department.
G A W PDOMALRO-7-0 L"pd 1 1. 0
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
March 7.2001
2. Mr. Omri Siklai stated they had no objections to staff's
recommendations. Mr. Lew Bishop, architect for the project, made
a presentation.
3. Committee Member Bobbitt stated that being contemporary in
style it almost has a Frank Geary look and most buildings currently
in the City are Spanish or Spanish Revival, how does this fit in
with the surrounding architecture? Staff stated the City does not
have any design guidelines requiring a Spanish design. Recently
the La Quinta Court was approvedwith a different architectural
style. Each specific plan defines its own look. The Church and
the La Quinta Inn each stand on their own. Committee Member
Bobbitt stated there are not a lot of structures in this area
currently and it is hard to determine what it will look like with the
different styles.
4. Committee Member Cunningham stated he has been a proponent
of the Spanish architecture as exemplified by the La Quinta Hotel,
and the Von's Plaza. That would have been a good guideline for
the City, but the City did not adopt those guidelines and now we
have some buildings that are not attractive. There are some new
projects however, that are bringing in some new designs such as
the La Quinta Court and Point Happy. The City Hall itself created
a lot of controversy. This design is dynamic and does tie into the
City Hall design and the La Quinta Court and will be a signature
building.
5. Committee Member Reynolds asked what would be built on the
adjoining property to tie in with this.
6. Committee Member Cunningham stated that as this is the first
building in this area, it will set the precedent for the next project.
7. Committee Member Reynolds stated the only access to the project
is from Caleo Bay and with the low lighting on the parking lot it
could be a concern for mischief and the applicant might want to
consider more light. Mr. Bishop stated they want the low level
lighting. The taller lights will be in the same place as the tree tops
so they lowered the lights down to be below the trees which
creates an ambient feeling. Committee Member Reynolds stated
it will be difficult for law enforcement to see into the parking lot
with the low level lighting and landscaping. The applicant stated
this is in conflict with the City's standards which requiring the lush
landscaping and no access off Washington Street.
G \WPDOCS\ALRC3-7-Ol.wpd 2
Architectural & Landscape Review Committee Minutes
March 7, 2001
8. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the idea was to bring the
vehicles in an understated way with the building attracting
attention. Mr. Bishop stated yes.
9. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he likes the way the project is
set out and the landscaping is great. The building is a good
looking building and his concern was only that it would not fit in
and after the discussion, he is satisfied with the design. Mr.
Bishop stated that a community that bridges more than one style
is the essence of America. Their concept was to have a collective
mix with the proposed Arts Foundation, Church and other
surrounding businesses.
10. Committee Member Cunningham asked if the metal would be left
in its natural state to weather. The applicant stated yes.
Committee Member Cunningham stated that with the way it is
done with the marble and landscaping, it is a fresh design. If used
correctly it is a beautiful statement, but it may need to be
defended as some people do not like it.
1 1. Committee Member Bobbitt stated he would like to see some low
level planting to soften the look on the north and east elevations.
12. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Committee Member Cunningham/Reynolds adopt Minute Motion
2001-011 recommending approval of Site Development Permit
2001-686, subject to the conditions. Unanimously approved.
VI. CO'iF SPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None
VII. COMIMITTEEBER ITEMS: None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business, it was moved-cnd
Reynolds/Bobbitt to adjourn this regular meeting of
Review Committee to a special meeting to beheld
was adjourned at 10:42 a.m.-on-Mar-ch 7, 2001.
Respeclfully submitted,
BETTY J. SAWYER, Executive Secretary
City of La Ouinta, California
by Committee Members
actural and Landscaping
2', �901 . This meeting
a _ 107
G:\WPDOCS\A1..RC3-7-Ol.wpd 3
PH #D
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 13. 2001
CASE NO: ZOA 2000-066
APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA
REQUEST: REVIEW APPLICABILITY AND IMPACT OF CURRENT
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE ON NEW
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
MMTWIT• l
Planning Commission members have raised questions in recent months regarding
compliance of landscape concepts in new development proposals presented to the
Commission for entitlement approval. As a result, the Planning Commission
requested staff to give a presentation to the Commission with respect to the
applicability of the water efficient landscaping ordinance and its impact on
landscape concepts proposed in new development proposals.
City engineering staff will give an oral presentation, with slide show, describing
how the ordinance is applied to various portions of a proposed development. The
Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code is
attached for reference. The presentation will cover the four key considerations
that are evaluated in proposed landscape concepts. The four key considerations
are factors found in formulas that are used to determine whether a proposed
landscape concept complies with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance.
The heart of the ordinance is centered on two formulas. The first formula is used
to determine how much water the landscape concept is allowed to use, and the
second formula is used to determine how much water the landscape is estimated
to use.
1) The first formula is the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA),
which is found in Section 8.13.030(C)(2)(a) on page 204-6 of the
Municipal Code. There is only one variable factor in the formula for
projects located in La Quinta. It is "LA" which represents the "landscape
area"; all other factors in this equation remain constant for La Quinta.
The key consideration in this formula is defining what landscape areas
are included in the formula and what areas are exempt.
T:\PWDEPT\Planning Commission\010313.wpd
2) The second formula is the Estimated Annual Total Water Use (EWU),
which is found in Section 8.13.030(C)(4) on page 204-6 of the Municipal
Code. There are three (3) variables factors in the formula for projects
located in La Quinta. The variable factors are: "PF" (Plant Factor), "HA"
(Hydrozone Area), and "IE" (Irrigation Efficiency). All other factors in this
equation remain constant for La Quinta. Because there are three
variables in this formula, there are three key considerations to evaluate:
U what type of plant, or water use is proposed?
o how large is the area where that plant type or use is proposed?
o what type of irrigation method is proposed?
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide input to staff regarding any code modifications that may be desired.
Attachments:
1. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance
Pre par and Submitted by: Submitted by:
Steven D. SpEVr, Senior Engineer Christine di lorio, Plan
/JL�
ing Manager
TAPWDEPT\Planning Commission%010313.wpd
8.13.010
Chapter 8.13
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING
Sections:
8.13.010
Purpose and intent.
8.13.020
Definitions.
8.13.030
Provisions for new or rehabilitated landscapes.
8.13.040
Provisions for existing landscapes.
8.13.050
Fees for initial review and program monitoring.
8.13.060
Appeals.
8.13.010 Purpose and intent.
A. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum water efficient landscape requirements for anewly
installed and rehabilitated landscapes. It is also the intent of this chapter to implement the minimum requirements
of the State of Califomia Water, Conservation, and Landscaping Act. Statutes of 1990, Chapter 1145 (AB
325).
B. It is the intent of the city council to promote water conservation through climate appropriate plant
material and efficient irrigation as well as to create a La Qumta landscape theme through enhancing and improving
the physical and natural environment.
C. These provisions are supplementary and additional to the subdivision, zoning regulations, and landscape
design guidelines of the city of La Quinta and shall be read and construed as an integral part of the regulations
and controls Established thereby. (Ord. 220 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1993)
8.13.020 Definitions.
The words used in this chapter have the meanings set forth below:
A. "Anti -drain valve" or "check valve" means a valve located under a sprinkler head to hold water in
the system so it minimizes drainage from the lower elevation sprinkler heads.
B. "Application rate" means the depth of water applied to a given area, usually measured in inches per
hour.
C. "Applied water' means the portion of water supplied by the irrigation system to the landscape.
D. "Automatic controller' means a mechanical or solid-state timer, capable of operating valve stations
to set the days and length of time of a water application.
E. 'Backflow prevention device" means a safety device used to prevent pollution or contamination of
the water supply due to the reverse flow of water from the irrigation system.
F. "Conversion faction (0.62)" means a number that converts the maximum applied water allowance
from acre -inches per acre per year to gallons per square foot per year. The conversion factor is calculated
as follows:
(325,851 gallons/43,560 square feet)/12 inches = (0.62)
325,851 gallons = one acre foot
43,560 square feet = one acre
12 inches = one foot
To convert gallons per year to 100 cubic feet per year, the common billing unit for water, divide gallons
per year by 748. (748 gallons = 100 cubic feet.)
G. "Ecological restoration project' means a project where the site is intentionally altered to establish
a defined, indigenous, historic ecosystem.
H. "Effective precipitation" or "usable rainfall' means the portion of total precipitation that is used by
the plants. Precipitation is not a reliable source of water in the desert.
I. "Emitter" means drip irrigation fittings that deliver water slowly from the system to the soil.
J. "Established landscape" means the point at which plants in the landscape have developed roots into
AML
the soil adjacent to the root ball.
Mr K. "Establishment period" means the first year after installing the plant in the landscape.
204-1 (La Quinu 494)
�.J 0
8.13.020
L. "Estimated applied water use" means the portion of the estimated total water use that is derived from
applied water. The estimated applied water use shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. The
estimated applied water use may be the sum of the water recommended through the irrigation schedule.
M. "Estimated total water use" means the annual total amount of water estimated to be needed to keep
the plants in the landscaped area healthy. It is based upon such factors as the local evapotranspiration rate,
the size of the landscaped area, the types of plants, and the efficiency of the irrigation system.
N. "ET adjustment factor' means a factor of 0.8 that, when applied to reference evapotranspiration, adjusts
for plant factors and irrigation efficiency, two major influences upon the amount of water that needs to be
applied to the landscape. A combined plant mix with a site -wide average of 0.5 is the basis of the plant factor
portion of this calculation. The irrigation efficiency for purposes of the Er adjustment factor is 0.625. Therefore,
the ET adjustment factor (0.8) _ (0.5/0.625).
O. "Evapotranspiration" means the quantity of water evaporated from adjacent soil surfaces and transpired
by plants during a specific time.
P. "Flow rate" means the rate at which water flows through pipes and valves (gallons per minute or cubic
feet per second).
Q. "Hydrozone" means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are
served by a valve or set of valves with the same schedule. A hydrozone may be irrigated or nonirrigated.
For example, a naturalized area planted with native vegetation that will not need supplemental irrigation once
established is a noninigated hydrozone.
R. "Infiltration rate" means the rate of water entry into the soil expressed as a depth of water per unit
of time (inches per hour).
S. "Irrigation efficiency" means the measurement of the amount of water beneficially used divided by
the amount of water applied. Irrigation efficiency is derived from measurements and estimates of irrigation
system characteristics and management practices. The minimum irrigation efficiency forpurposes of this chapter
is 0.625. Greater irrigation efficiency can be expected from well designed and maintained systems.
T. "Landscape irrigation audit" means a process to perform site inspections, evaluate irrigation systems,
and develop efficient irrigation schedules.
U. "Landscaped area" means the entire parcel less the building footprint, driveways, nonirrigated portions
of parking lots, hardseapes such as decks and patios, and other nonporous areas. Water features are included
in the calculation of the landscaped area. Areas dedicated to edible plants, such as orchards or vegetable gardens
are not included.
V. "Lateral line" means the water delivery pipeline that supplies water to the emitters or sprinklers from
the valve.
W. "Main line" means the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the valve
or outlet.
X. "Water line" means the pressurized pipeline that delivers water from the water source to the valve
or outlet.
Y. "Maximum applied water allowance" means for design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied
water for the established landscaped area. It is based upon the area's reference evapotranspiration, the ET
adjustment factor, and the size of the landscaped area. The estimated applied water use shall not exceed the
maximum applied water allowance.
Z. "Mined -land reclamation projects" means any surface mining operation with a reclamation plan approved
in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.
AA. "Mulch" means any material such as gravel, small rocks, pebbles, decorative sand, bark, straw or
other material left loose and applied to the soil surface for the beneficial purpose of reducing evaporation.
BB. "Operating pressure" means the pressure at which a system of sprinklers is designed to operate, usually
indicated at the base of a sprinkler. impulse sprinklers,
CC. "Overhead sprinkler irrigation systems" means those with high flow rates (pop -ups, p p
rotors, etc.).
DD. "Overspray" means the water which is delivered beyond the landscaped area, wetting pavements,
walks, structures, or other non -landscaped areas.
EE. "Plant factor" means a factor that when multiplied by reference evapotranspiration, estimates the
Ah
amount of water used by plants. For purposes of this chapter, the average plant factor of low water using
a, Quints 4-94) 204-2 7
8.13.020
plants ranges from zero to 0.3, for average water using plants the range is 0.4 to 0.6 and for high water using
plants the range is 0.7 to 1.0 (list of plants and factors on file in the planning and development department).
FF. "Rain sensing device" means a system which automatically shuts off the irrigation system when it
rains.
GG. "Record drawing" or "as-builts" means a set of reproducible drawings which show significant changes
in the work made during construction and which are usually based on drawings marked up in the field and
other data furnished by the contractor.
HH. "Recreational area" means areas of active play or recreation such as sports fields, school yards, picnic
grounds, or other areas with intense foot traffic.
II. "Recycled water," "reclaimed water" or "treated sewage effluent water" means treated or recycled
waste water of a quality suitable for nonpotable uses such as landscape irrigation; not intended for human
consumption.
JJ. "Reference evapotranspiration" or "ETo" means a standard measurement of environmental parameters
which affect the water use of plants. ETo is given in inches per day, month, or year, and is an estimate of
the evapotrark piration of a large field of four- to seven-inch tall, cool -season grass that is well watered. Reference
evapotranspiration is used as a basis of determining the maximum applied water allowances so that regional
differences irk climate cbe accommodated. For purposes of this chapter, 87.6 inches shall be used. ETo
based on historical data, extrapolated from 12 months normal year ETo Maps and University of California
an
Publication 21426.
KK. "Rehabilitated landscape" means any relandscaping project that requires a permit.
LL. "Runoff' means water which is not absorbed by the soil or landscape to which it is applied and flows
from the area. For example, runoff may result from water that is applied at too great a rate (application rate
exceeds infiltration rate) or when there is a severe slope.
MM. "Soil moisture sensing device" means a device that measures the amount of water in the soil.
NN. "Soil texture" means the classification of soil based on the percentage of sand, silt and clay in the
soil.
® 00. "Sprinkler head" means a device which sprays water through a nozzle.
PP. "Stoic water pressure" means the pipeline or municipal water supply pressure when water is not
flowing.
QQ. "Station" means an area served by one valve or by a set of valves that operate simultaneously.
RR. "Turf' means a surface layer of earth containing mowed grass with its roots. Perennial and Annual
Ryegrass are cool season grasses. Hybrid and common Bernudagrass, are warm season grasses.
SS. "Valve" means a device used to control the flow of water in the irrigation system.
TT. "Water Conservation Concept Statement" means a one page checklist and a narrative summary of
the project.
Note: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 65597, Government Code. (Ord. 220 § I
(Exh. A) (part), 1993)
8.13.030 Provisions for new or rehabilitated landscapes.
A.
1.
Applicability.
Except as provided in subsection (A)(3) of this section, this section shall apply to:
landscaping for development projects that require a permit; and
a.
b.
All new and rehabilitated private
Developer -installed landscaping in single-family tracts and multifamily projects.
2.
Projects subject to this section shall conform to the provisions in this section.
3.
a.
This section shall not apply to:
Homeowner provided landscaping at single-family and multifamily projects;
b.
Cemeteries;
c.
d.
Registered historical sites;
Ecological restoration projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system;
e.
Mined land reclamation projects that do not require a permanent irrigation system; or
f.
Any project with a landscaped area less than twenty thousand square feet.
Individual owner or contractor constructed single-family residences when not in conjunction with more
g.
than three
residences at the same time.
204-3 1 1 (U Quw a94)
o.
8.13.030
B. Landscape Documentation Package.
1. Three copies of the landscape documentation package conforming to this chapter shall be submitted
to the city. No permit shall be issued until the city reviews and approves the landscape documentation package.
Prior to preparation and submission of the landscape documentation package, the preliminary landscape design
shall be approved by the planning commission.
2. A copy of the approved landscape documentation package shall be provided to the property owner
or site manager along with the record drawings and any other information normally forwarded to the property
owner or site manager.
3. A copy of the water conservation concept statement and the certificate of substantial completion shall
be sent by the project manager to the Coachella Valley Water District's water management specialist.
4. East landscape documentation package shall include the following elements, which are described in
subsection C of this section.
a. Water conservation concept statement:
b. Calculation of the maximum applied water allowance;
c. Calculation of the estimated applied water use;
d. Calculation of the estimated total water use;
e. Landscape design plan;
f. Irrigation desiign plan;
g. Irrigation schedules;
h. Maintenance schedule;
i. Landscape irrigation audit schedule;
j. Grading design plan;
k. Soil analysis (optional);
1. Certificate of substantial completion. (To be submitted after installation of the project.)
C. Elements of Landscape Documentation Package.
1. Water Conservation Concept Statement. Each landscape documentation package shall include a cover
sheet, referred to as the water conservation statement similar to the following example. It serves as a check
list to verify that the elements of the landscape documentation package have been completed and has a narrative
summary of the project.
-.J'J 13
(L.Qum ¢94) 204-4
1
8.13.030
SAMPLE WATER CONSERVATION CONCEPT STATEMENT
Project Site:
Project Location:
Case Number.
Landscape Architect/Irrigation Designer/Contractor.
Included in this project submittal package are:
(Check to indicate
completion)
1.
Maximum Annual Applied Water Allowance:
_
100 cubic feet/year
2.
Estimated Annual Applied Water Use:
_
_ 100 cubic feet/year
3.
Estimated Annual Total Water Use:
_ 100 or cubic feet/year
_ 4.
Landscape Design Plan
5.
Irrigation Design Plan
_ 6.
Irrigation Schedules
7.
Maintenance Schedule
8.
Landscape Irrigation Audit Schedule
9.
Grading Design Plan
10.
Soil Analysis (optional)
Description of Project:
(Briefly describe the planning and design actions that are intended to achieve conservation
and efficiency in water use.)
Date:
Prepared by:
204-5
cL. Q inv ¢gat
8.13.030
2. The Annual Maximum Applied Water Allowance.
a. A project's annual maximum applied water allowance shall be calculated using the following formula:
40
MAWA = (ETo) (0.8) (LA) (0.62) here:
MAWA = Maximum applied water allowance (gallons per year)
ETo = Reference evapotranspiration (87.6 inches per year)
0.8 = ET adjustment factor
LA = Landscaped area (square feet)
0.62 = Conversion factor (to gallons per square foot)
b. An example calculation of the annual maximum applied water allowance is:
Project site: Landscape area of fifty thousand square feet in La Quinta.
MAWA = (ETo) (.8) (LA) (.62)
= (:37.6 inches) (.8) (50,000 sq. ft.) (.62)
Maximum applied water allowance = 2,172,480 gallons per year or 2904 hundred -cubic -feet per year
(2,172,480/7,18 = 2904)
c. Portions of landscaped areas in public and private projects such as parks, playgrounds, sports fields,
golf courses, or school yards where turf provides a playing surface or serves other recreational purposes are
considered recreational areas and may require water in addition to the maximum annual applied water
allowance. A statement shall be included with the landscape design plan, designating recreational areas to
be used for such purposes and specifying any needed amount of additional water above the annual maximum
applied water allowance.
3. Estimated Annual Applied Water Use.
a. The annual estimated applied water use shall not exceed the annual maximum applied water allowance.
b. A calculation of the estimated annual applied water use shall be submitted with the landscape
documentation package. It may be calculated by summing the amount of water recommended in the irrigation
schedule.
4. Estimated Annual Total Water Use. A calculation of the estimated annual total water use shall be
submitted with the landscape documentation package. The estimated annual total water use may be calculated
by summing the amount of water recommended in the irrigation schedule ormay be calculated from a formula
such as the following:
The estimated annual total water use for the entire landscaped area equals the sum of the estimated annual
water use (EWU) of all hydrozones in that landscaped area.
EWU (hydrozones) = (ETo) (PF) (HA) (.62)1748
(in 100 cu. ft.) (IE)
EWU (hydrozone) = Estimated water use (gallons per year)
ETo = Reference evapotranspiration (87.6 inches per year)
PF = Plant factor (see definitions)
HA = Hydrozone area (square feet)
(.62) = Conversion factor
(IE) Irigation efficiency (see definitions)
748 = Conversion to billing units (100 cubic feet)
5. Landscape Design Plan. A landscape design plan meeting the following requirements shall be
submitted as par of the landscape documentation package.
a. Plant Selection and Grouping.
(U Quinu a94) 204-6 9.0 1i .
8.13.030
i. Any plants may be used in the landscape, providing the estimated annual applied water use
recommended does not exceed the maximum annual applied water allowance and that the plants meet the
specifications set forth in (ii), (iii) and (iv).
ii. Plants having similar water use shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones.
iii. Plants shall be selected appropriately based upon their adaptability to the climatic, geologic, and
topographical conditions of the site. Protection and preservation of native species and natural areas is
encouraged. The planting of trees is encouraged wherever it is consistent with the other provisions of this
chapter.
iv. Fire prevention needs shall be addressed in areas that are fire prone. Information about fire prone
areas and appropriate landscaping for fire safety is available from the fire marshal.
b. Water Features.
i. Recirculating water shall be used for decorative water features.
ii. Pool and spa covers are encouraged.
C. Landscape Design Plan Specifications. The landscape design plan shall be drawn on project base
sheets at a scale that accurately and clearly identifies:
i. Designation of hydrozones;
ii. Landscape materials, trees, shrubs, groundcover, turf and other vegetation. Planting symbols shall
be clearly drawn and plants labeled by botanical name, common name, container size, spacing and quantities
of each group of plants indicated;
iii. Property lines and street names;
iv. Streets, driveways, walkways and other paved areas;
v. Pools„ ponds, water features, fences and retaining walls;
vi. Existing and proposed buildings and structures including elevation, if applicable;
vii. Natural features including but not limited to rock outcroppings, existing trees, shrubs that will remain;
viii. Tree staking, plant installation, soil preparation details, and any other applicable planting and
installation details;
® ix. A calculation of the total landscaped area;
x. Designation of recreational areas.
6. Irrigation Design Plan. An irrigation design plan meeting the following conditions shall be submitted
as part of the landscape documentation package.
a. Irrigation Design Criteria.
i. Runoff and Overspray. Soil types and infiltration rate shall be considered when designing irrigation
systems. All irrigation systems shall be designed to avoid mnoff, low head drainage, overspray, or other
similar condition where water flows onto adjacent property, nonirrigated areas, walks, roadways or structures.
Proper irrigation equipment and schedules, including features such as repeat cycles, shall be used to closely
match application rates to infiltration rates therefore minimizing runoff.
Special attention shall be given to avoid runoff on slopes and to avoid overspray in planting areas with
a width less than ten feet, and in median strips.
No overhead sprinkler irrigation systems shall be installed in median strips.
ii. Irrigation Efficiency. For the purpose of determining the maximum applied water allowance, irrigation
efficiency is assumed to be 0.625. Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained and managed to meet or
exceed 0.625 efficiency.
iii. Equipment.
(A) Water Meters. Separate landscape water meters shall be installed for all projects except for single-
family homes or any project with a landscaped area of less than twenty thousand square feet unless otherwise
required by the Coachella Valley Water District.
(B) Controllers. Automatic control systems (solar or electric) shall be required for all irrigation systems
and must be able to accommodate all aspects of the design.
(C) -Valves. Plants which require different amounts of water shall be irrigated by separate valves. If one
valve is used, for a given area, only plants with similar water use shall be used in that area. Anti -drain (check)
valves shall be installed in strategic points to minimize or prevent low -head drainage.
(D) Sprinkler Heads. Heads and emitters shall have consistent application rates within each control valve
Idghk circuit. Sprinkler heads shall be selected for proper area coverage, application rate, operating pressure,
adjustment capability and ease of maintenance.
204-7 (v QuNv ae4)
�.� 11
8.13.030
(E) Rain Sensing Override Devices. Rain sensing override devices shall be required on all irrigation
systems.
(F) Soil Moisture Sensing Devices. It is required that soil moisture sensing devices be utilized where
appropriate as determined by the Coachella Valley Water District.
(G) Equipment in Publicly Maintained Areas. Irrigation equipment in areas which may or will be
maintained by the city shall conform to specifications of the city.
(If) Emitters. Emitters shall have consistent application rates within each control valve circuit. Emitters
shall be selected for specific area coverage (individual plants), application rates, operating pressure, adjustment
capability and ease of maintenance.
b. Recycled Water.
i. The installation of recycled water irrigation systems (dual distribution systems) shall be required to
allow for the current and future use of recycled water, unless a written exemption has been granted as
described in the following subsection (C)(6)(b)(ii).
ii. Irrigation systems shall make use of recycled water unless a written exemption has been granted by
the Coachella Valley Water District, stating that recycled water meeting all health standards is not available
and will not be available in the foreseeable future.
iii. The recycled water irrigation systems shall be designed and operated in accordance with all local and
state codes.
iv. Sites using fifty -percent recycled water or greater are exempted from the maximum water allowance
and mandatory water audits every five years.
c. Irrigation Design Plan Specifications. Irrigation systems shall be designed to be consistent with
hydrozones. The irrigation design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets. It shall be separate from, but
use the same format as, the landscape design plan. The scale shall be the same as that used for the landscape
design plan. The irrigation design plan shall accurately and clearly identify:
i. Location and size of separate water meters for the landscape;
ii. Location, type:, and size of all components of the irrigation system, including automatic controllers,
main and lateral lines„ valves, sprinkler heads, moisture sensing devices, rain switches, quick couplers, and
backflow prevention devices;
iii. Static water pressure at the point of connection to the public water supply;
iv. Flow rate (gallons per minute), application rate (inches per hour), and design operating pressure (psi)
for each station;
v. Recycled water irrigation systems.
7. Irrigation Schedules. Irrigation schedules satisfying the following conditions shall be submitted as
part of the landscape documentation package:
a. An annual irrgation program with monthly irrigation schedules shall be required for the plant
establishment period, for the established landscape, and for any temporarily irrigated areas.
b. The irrigation schedule shall:
i. Include run time (in minutes per cycle), suggested number of cycles per day, and frequency of
irrigation for each station; and
ii. Provide the amount of applied water (in hundred cubic feet) recommended on a monthly and annual
basis.
c. The total amount of water for the project shall include water designated in the estimated annual total
water use calculation plus water needed for any water features, which shall be considered as a high water
using hydrozone.
d. Recreational areas designated in the landscape design plan shall be highlighted and the irrigation
schedule shall indicate if any additional water is needed above the maximum annual applied water allowance
because of high plant factors (but not due to irrigation inefficiency).
e. Whenever possible, irrigation scheduling shall incorporate the use of evapotranspiration data such
as those from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS) weather stations to apply
the appropriate levels of water for different climates.
f. Whenever possible, landscape irrigation shall be scheduled between ten p.m. and nine a.m. to avoid
irrigating during times of high wind or high temperature.
8. Maintenance Schedules. A regular maintenance schedule satisfying the following conditions shall be
submitted as part of the landscape documentation package:
1
(ra Quinu 4-94) 204-8
8.13.030
a. Landscapes shall be maintained to ensure water efficiency. A regular maintenance schedule shall
include but not be limited to checking, adjusting, and repairing irrigation equipment; resetting the automatic
controller, aerating and dethatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pnming; and weeding in all
landscaped areas.
b. Repair of irrigation equipment shall be done with the originally specified materials or their approved
equivalents.
9. Landscape Irrigation Audit Schedules. A schedule of landscape irrigation audits, for all but single-
family residences, satisfying the following conditions shall be submitted to the city as part of the landscape
documentation package:
a. At a minimum, audits shall be in accordance with the State of California Landscape Irrigation Auditor
Handbook, the: entire document, which is hereby incorporated by reference. (See Landscape Irrigation Auditor
Handbook (June, 1990) Version 5.5 tfonnerly Master Auditor Training].)
b. The schedule shall provide for landscape irrigation audits to be conducted by certified landscape
irrigation auditors at least once every five years.
10. Grading Design Plan. Grading design plans satisfying the city of La Quinta grading ordinance and
the following conditions shall be submitted as part of the landscape documentation package.
a. A grading design plan shall be drawn on project base sheets. It shall be separate from but use the
same format as the landscape design plan.
b. The grading design plan shall indicate finished configurations and elevations of the landscaped area,
including the height of graded slopes, drainage patterns, pad elevations, and finish grade.
11. Soils.
a. A soil analysis satisfying the following conditions should be submitted as part of the landscape
documentation package:
i. Determination of soil texture, indicating the percentage of organic matter,
ii. An approximate soil infiltration rate (either) measured or derived from soil texture/infiltration rate
tables. A range of infiltration rates shall be noted where appropriate.
® iii. Measure of pH and total soluble salts.
b. A mulch of at least two inches shall be applied to all planting areas except turf.
12. Certification.
a. Upon completing the installation of the landscaping and the irrigation system, an irrigation audit shall
be conducted by a certified landscape irrigation auditor prior to the final field observation by the city. (See
Landscape Irrigation Auditor Handbook as referenced in subsection (C)(9)(a) of this section).
b. A licensed landscape architect or contractor, certified irrigation designer, or other licensed or certified
professional in a related field shall conduct a final field observation and shall provide a certificate of
substantial completion to the city. The certificate shall specifically indicate that plants were installed as
specified, that the irrigation system was installed as designed, and that an irrigation audit has been performed,
along with a list of any observed deficiencies.
c. Certification shall be accomplished by completing a certificate of substantial completion and delivering
it to the city„ to the retail water supplier, and to the owner of record. A sample of such a form, which shall
be provided by the city is:
11
204-9 (r, Qui w a 94)
8.13.030
SAMPLE CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
Project Site:
Project Location: _
Project Number:
Preliminary Project Documentation Submitted: (check indicating submittal)
1. Maximum Applied Water Allowance:
(100 cubic feet per year)
2. Estimated Applied Water Use:
_ (100 cubic feet per year)
3. Estimated Total Water Use:
(100 or cubic feet per year)
4. Landscape Design Plan
5. Irrigation Design Plan
6. Irrigation Schedules
7. Maintenance Schedule
8. Landscape Irrigation Audit Schedule
9. Grading Design Plan
10. Soil Analysis (optional)
Post -Installation Inspection: (Check indicating substantial completion)
A. Plants installed as specified
B. Irrigation system installed as designed
_ dual distribution system for recycled water
minimum run-off or overspray
C. Landscape Irrigation Audit performed
Project submittal package and a copy of this certification has been provided to owner/manager and
local water agency.
x
(ra Qmm 4-94) 204-10 J v ( 11 9
11
8.13.030
Comments:
I/we certify that work has been installed in accordance with the contract documents:
Contractor Signature Date State License Number
I/we certify that based upon periodic site observations, the work has been substantially completed in
accordance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and that the landscape planting and irrigation
installation conform with the approved plans and specifications.
Landscape Architect Signature Date State License Number
or Irrigation Designer/Consultant
or Licensed or Certified Professional in a Related Field
I/we certify that I/we have received all of the contract documents and that it is our responsibility to see that
® the project is maintained in accordance with the contract documents.
C
Owner Signature ua[e
Note: Authority cited: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 65597, Government Code.
204-11 ti QUNu 4-94t
F. Il
8.13.030
D. Public Education. Aft
1. Publications. wr
a. The city will, upon request, provide information to owners of all new, single family residential homes
regarding the design, installation, and maintenance of water efficient landscapes.
b. Information about the efficient use of landscape water shall be provided to water users throughout
the community.
2. Model Homes. At least one model home that is landscaped in each project consisting of eight or more
homes shall demonstrate via signs and information, the principles of water efficient landscapes described in
this chapter.
a. Signs shall be used to identify the model as an example of a water efficient landscape and featuring
elements such as hydrozones, irrigation equipment, and others which contribute to the overall water efficient
theme.
b. Information shall be provided about designing, installing, and maintaining water efficient landscapes.
Note: Authority cited: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 64497. (Ord. 220 § 1 (Exh.
A) (part), 1993)
8.13.040 Provisions for existing landscapes.
A. Water Management. All existing landscaped areas which use groundwater and are over sixty thousand
square feet, including golf courses, green belts, common areas, multifamily housing, schools, businesses, parks,
and cemeteries shall :have a landscape irrigation audit at least every five years unless granted an exemption
by CV WD. At a minimum, the audit shall be in accordance with the California Landscape Irrigation Auditor
Handbook, the entire document which is hereby incorporated by reference. (See Landscape Irrigation Audit
Handbook, Department of Water Resources, Water Conservation Office (June, 1990), Version 5.5.)
B. Water Waste Prevention. Water waste resulting from inefficient landscape irrigation including run-off,
low head drainage, overspray, or other similar conditions where water flows onto adjacent property,
nonirrigated areas, walks, roadways, or structures shall be discouraged. Penalties for violation of these
prohibitions shall be established.
Note: Authority cited: Section 65594, Government Code. Reference: Section 65597, Government Code.
(Ord. 220 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1993)
8.13.050 Fees for initial review and program monitoring.
Fees for the purposes of meeting obligations under this chapter, the following fees are deemed necessary
to review landscape documentation packages and monitor landscape irrigation audits and shall be imposed
on the subject applicant, property owner or designee.
A. A landscape documentation package review fee will be due at the time initial project application
submission to the pluming and development department.
B. The project owner/developer must cause a landscape irrigation audit to be completed by a certified
landscape irrigation auditor. No city fees will be due for the review of the audit by the planning and
development department.
C. If a landscape documentation package is not submitted prior to the start of landscape construction
work, for those pers'Dns required to submit a package, a late submittal fee of twice the review fee shall be
required.
The city council, by resolution, shall establish the amount of the above fees in accordance with applicable
law. (Ord. 220 § 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1993)
8.13.060 Appeals.
Decisions made by the planning and development director or public works director may be appealed by
an applicant, property owner(s), or designee(s) of any applicable project to the planning commission and
thereafter the city council by an application in writing to the planning and development director and city clerk
of the city council respectively within fifteen days from the date of notification of decision. (Ord. 220 § 1
(Exh. A) (part), 1993) AlMk
(L. QuNm 4.94) 204-12 AAG
�l1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MARCH 13, 2001, CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 27,
2001
CASE NO.: SIGN APPROVAL 2001-536
APPLICANT)
PROPERTY OWNER: M&H REALTY PARTNERS
REQUEST: AMENDMENT TO SIGN PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL
PAD BUILDINGS
LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND
HIGHWAY 111, WITHIN PLAZA LA QUINTA
GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-
RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY)
ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A NON-
RESIDENTIAL OVERLAY)
SURROUNDING
ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH:
CC / SHOPPING CENTER UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
SOUTH:
CC / PART OF PLAZA LA QUINTA
EAST:
CC / PART OF PLAZA LA QUINTA
WEST:
CC / PART OF PLAZA LA QUINTA
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THIS APPLICATION IS
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION
15311, CLASS 11, OF THE GUIDELINES FOR
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT IN THAT IT IS FOR NEW SIGNS.
THEREFORE, NO FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IS
NECESSARY.
p:\stan\sa 2001-536 pc rpt.wpd`�
l °/b
BACKGROUND:
This application was continued from the meeting of February 27, 2001, at the request
of the applicant prior to any discussion. The property involved is Plaza La Quinta, a
137,700 square foot commercial shopping center originally developed in the early
1980's (Attachment 1). Major tenants in the center include Von's Supermarket, The
Beerhunter, L.umpy's and Downey Savings. The center is primarily designed in an early
California architectural style utilizing beige plaster walls, decorative tile accents and
paving, wood framed multi -pane windows and doors, and mudded red clay tile roofs.
On June 6, 2001, the City Council approved a 6,600 square foot multi -tenant pad
building immediately east of Downey Savings and Loan. The building is currently
under construction. The building was approved with the original sign program which
permits externally illuminated wood sandblasted wall signs or wood framed tile face
hanging wood signs.
REQUEST•
The applicant has submitted an amended sign program for "single or multi -tenant
occupancy pad building" uses (Attachment 2). The proposal is to add a new Type "D"
sign, consisting of internally illuminated cannister (cabinet) or individual internally
illuminated channel letter signs, mounted on or parallel to the building elevation. The
elevation exhibit show the inclusion of integrated logos in the signs. Under the
proposal, the size must comply with the Zoning Code requirements (one square foot
of sign per lineal foot of lease space frontage up to a maximum of 50 square feet).
The submitted sign exhibit shows Type "D" wall mounted signs on the south elevation
facing the center, facing Highway 111, and facing the east and west elevations for the
end tenants. No color or material criteria is proposed for the new signs. Generally,
these types of signs consist of plexiglas faces and metal retainers and returns. This
amendment would also apply to tenants in the pad or freestanding locations of the
center (Downey Savings, Lumpy's, and The Beerhunter).
FINDINGS:
The findings as required by Section 9.160.090 (Sign Permit Review) of the Zoning
Code can be made as noted below, with the revisions recommended:
1. The amended Sign Program is consistent with the purpose and intent of the sign
requirements provided the changes recommended below are implemented.
2. The amended Sign Program is in harmony with and visually related to all other
signs within the center, the buildings they identify, and surrounding
development provided the Type "D" sign requirements include the following
revisions as noted in Conditions #2 through 5:
p:\stan\sa 2001-536 pc rpt.wpd 1 ,J3
A. Cabinet box signs shall only be allowed if it is a part of a formally
registered trademark of the business which is used for business sign
identification.
B. Individual internally illuminated letter signs shall not exceed 24" in height
with logos not exceeding 30" in height.
C. Individual internally illuminated letter sign returns and trim caps shall be
limited to two colors (trim and returns to be one color). The colors shall
be approved by the Community Development Department.
D. No "halo" lit signs shall be allowed.
In conclusion, the findings needed to approve this request can be made provided the
recommended conditions of approval as noted above, are imposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Minute Motion 2001 , approving the amended sign program for Plaza La
Quinta, subject to the above findings and the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1 . Location map
2. Sign program amendment exhibits
Prepared by:
Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner
Submitted by:
CL-LV_'_C OG
Christine di lorio, PI ning Manager
p:\stan\sa 200 1 -536 pc rpt.wpd
Minute Motion 2001-_
Sign Application 2001-536
M&H Realty Partners
Conditions of Approval - Recommended
March 13, 2001
1 . Prior to issuance of the first "Type D" sign permit as allowed by this approval,
the sign program document shall be revised to include the following conditions
of approval.
2. Cabinet box signs shall only be allowed if it is a part of a formally registered
trademark of the business which is used for business sign identification.
3. Individual internally illuminated letter signs shall not exceed 24" in height with
logos not exceeding 30" in height.
4. Individual internally illuminated letter returns and trim caps shall be limited to
two colors (trim caps and returns to be the same color). The colors shall be
approved by the Community Development Department.
5. No "hialo" lit signs shall be allowed.
6. Type "D" signs shall be approved by the Community Development Department.
Approval of the sign may be referred to the Planning Commission if it is deemed
that the design of the sign warrants such review.
7. Under "Note" for Type "D" signs, reference to "Type B" signs shall be changed
to "Type C" signs.
p:\stan\sa 2001-536 coa.wpd
ATTACHMENT 1
CASE MAP
CASE No. SA 21001-536
IHco
HOME!
SCALE:
M&H REALTY PARTNERS I NTS
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: MARCH 13, 2001
CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2001-528, AMENDMENT #1
APPLICANT/
SIGN CONTRACTOR: RIOFINE NEON (MR. CESAR SANDOVAL)
PROPERTY OWNER: LA QUINTA OIL COMPANY
REQUEST: AMEND APPROVED SIGN PROGRAM FOR JIFFY LUBE
(FORMERLY THE LUBE SHOP) TO ALLOW A TIME AND
TEMPERATURE DISPLAY UNIT
LOCATION: 111 LA QUINTA CENTER - IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE
LA QUINTA CAR WASH
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311 (a)
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION: M/RC (MIXED/REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
ZONING: CR (REGIONAL COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
The 111 La Quinta Center was approved as Specific Plan 89-014 in 1990.
Construction activities in the center have been ongoing since 1992.
The center's approved Master Sign Program sets forth the criteria for sign approval
for single satellite pad tenancies. The Sign Program permits one sign per building
elevation, each not to exceed 50 square feet or 75% of leased lineal frontage area.
Site History
The Lube Shop was initially approved on January 26, 1993 (Plot Plan 92-494). The
current owner has sold his interest to the parent corporation which operates Jiffy
Lube franchises. New signs for the building were approved on January 23, 2001,
which included a combination name/logo sign on the south elevation (Attachment 1).
Permits have been issued for.the name signs only, pending this application.
M Lei1. i i ' '
The sign proposed (Attachment 2) is a 4.5 s.f. 0 5" x 43") light emitting diode (LED)
cannister unit which displays time and temperature in an alternating fashion. Numerals
will be red LED's on a black background. It will replace the approved corporate logo
(red arrow) element, which measures 13.2 square feet. The sign would be mounted
on the south elevation, below the approved Jiffy Lube name sign, and would be inset
so as to be flush with the building face. The cannister is trimmed in a red non -
illuminated border, 1 inch in width. The total name and display sign area is 39.6 s.f.
FINDINGS:
No issues are identified, as the proposed sign is in compliance with Chapter
9.160 of the Zoning Code, and the 111 La Quinta Center Specific Plan Sign
Program.
•uJ1 I A N70 •
Adopt Minute Motion No. approving Sign Application 2001-528,
Amendment #1 .
Prepared by:
Wallace Nesbit, Associate Planner
Attachments:
Su Wittedby:
/LdbA,
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
1. Approved sign for south elevation
2. Proposed display unit - south elevation (2 pages)
Ln
rn
o4
w
K
a=10
1
(54
w
O
a
c -O 0au
mCW 02
. m O c 0
�miwO=
aca0L
r
r
u W
�w
000E
mW E yE
�a00
COE A or
m
J
Em
cc
Cu
0
noo
mal
.a
o$
t r
c 0
W R.
r
O O
O
r
O
04 2
N
U
eP P
a
2
R
m
U
ld
LL
K
u_
10
-o
w
GN
0
-o
a
.a
4
W
0
=toe
a]S;�4
O O n—LL
ee��e
�Ya=u
log 49
h
n
M
I
E
q
1 \
x
w
e
in
O �11
LJ
8
N
Z
Sw
L
2
U
Q
Q
�m
C:D
.4
U)
zi .15
CL
Lli
12.
>- LLJ
D Lu Cc =0 v a
ce a 0
Lt cc e
0 ME E E
.c a
'z .2
0 C C V
C 41 a c 0 se�
CL Cc IL lz 0
LL LU
E 12
o
CD O V
ui
i PA
P*4
(Dca
C)
CD
a I
I U-
'407
.21
0—
> cts
Z C
to
0
w E 6V) co
> 0 E z M! cr I C) 0 co cd
0
ol a-
m
❑0 S