The URL can be used to link to this page

PP 1991-466City Council Minutes 2 March 3, 1992 b. Letter from John Walling resigning from the Design Review Board. In response to Council Member Sniff, Mr. Kiedrowski advised that he will review Mr. Walling's status on the Art in Public Places Committee. C . Letter from Desert Sands Unified School District regarding mitigation of development impacts on schools. Mayor Pena advised that he has spoken to Dr. Zendejas'and she has assured the City that the letter was a form letter sent out to all the cities. Mayor Pena asked the City Manager to draft a letter responding to all the comments contained in the letter. BUSINESS SESSION 1. REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION APPROVING REVISED PLOT PLAN CONSISTING OF A MIXED -USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX ON 5.5 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON ST. AND HIGHWAY 111 INCLUDING MULTIPLE -STORY BUILDINGS AND A THREE -STORY PARKING STRUCTURE. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner, addressed the Council advising that the site is located on the southeast corner of Washington and Highway 111. The project includes a 44 -lane bowling alley, a fitness center, restaurant, offices and a parking garage. over the last six months the City has gone through different site -plan configurations and changes in the elevation and reduction of square footage. At the request of the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicant modified the first proposal. One of the conditions setforth by the Planning Commission was that a tile element similar to the architectural features would be added .along those sides of the parking structure that would be visible. Mr. Trousdell explained the renderings adding that the building compliments the Simon Motors building and the colors coordinate with the surrounding area. The Planning Commission felt that the revision was superior from the one submitted in January. This will be a shared - parking arrangement based on different uses. The Planning Commission felt they could allow the shared - parking arrangement providing the applicant guaranteed some offsite property. The City is required to evaluate the project after completion, for a period of two years to make sure the shared- parking arrangement does work accordingly. City Council Minutes 3 March 3, 1992 Philip Pead, 78 -611 Highway 111, addressed Council advising that the project has been revised creating a commercial center that the Planning Commission felt was acceptable for the zoning and variances allowed. They believe that the bowling alley will provide an alternative form of recreation to golf which will include child care facilities and a snack bar. Mr. Pead advised that Desert Hospital and Simon Plaza have entered into a joint - development agreement which will promote both projects and allow for doctors that will be housed in the medical building at Simon Plaza to qualify for privileges at the E1 Mirador Complex. This will make it possible to bring more physicians into the community quicker than E1 Mirador had planned and cut down on the duplication of facilities. This project will create over 100 jobs. It is anticipated that this project is valued at over $15 million. Most of the construction dollars will go to local contractors. Additionally there will be substantial sales taxes to the city. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Pead advised that the bowling alley will have 44 lanes and they are currently corresponding with Brunswick and AMF. The management team is headed by Rudy Leeway who will manage the bowling alley. There will be full - time security, beefed up on the weekends. The security guards will be on staff payroll and unarmed. Also, there will be pool tables. Mayor Pena stated that in his conversation with other people that operate bowling centers they have indicated that pool tables sometime become a hinderance and attract undesirables. A good bowling center will generally not have pool tables. Mr. Pead advised that if you review the Brunswick Centers, they for the most part have pool tables. It really depends on the location and age of the facility. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Pead advised that the bar will produce $60,000 per month in revenue. The restaurant size will be 8,000 sq. ft. on the corner and the family -style restaurant will be 5,000 sq. ft. The restaurants and the bowling center will generate more than sufficient tax dollars for their location. Mayor Pena questioned the sales taxes it will generate and knows what it cost to have a patrolman in the area so he wanted to know if the benefit ratio is the same. Mr. Pead felt that the restaurant and snack bar will generate more than sufficient tax dollars relative to costs to the City. City Council Minutes 4 March 3, 1992 In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Herman advised that there are parking structures located at Desert Fashion Plaza and the Court Yard in Palm Springs. In response to Mayor Pena, Mr. Trousdell advised that Simon Plaza has addressed the Planning Commission and staff's concerns. And further explained that this has been a long process. They decreased the size from 185,000 to 125,000 sq. ft. As a result of the revisions, the variance is no longer necessary. In response to Mayor Pena, the City Attorney advised that the City could add a condition relating to security if the applicant agrees to it. Ms. Honeywell added that her office is looking into a complete revision of the subdivision ordinance. Part of which will include recommended changes relative to Plot Plans and CUP's. Council Member Sniff commented that he welcomes this development adding that it will be a positive addition to La Quinta. The conditions and modifications were in order and enhance the project. In response to Council Member Franklin, Mr. Pead advised that there will be four pool tables. Council Member Franklin stated that bowling is a wonderful sport and is happy to see the bowling alley come in, but she was not happy with the pool tables. Mr. Pead advised that the pool tables are an insignificant portion of the whole project and believed that they could come to an arrangement. Council Member Sniff commented that bowling is a popular sport and that he has met some very nice people playing pool. If the facility is well- managed he did not believe the pool tables will be a problem. Council Member Rushworth thanked Mr. Pead and Mr. Simon for their flexibility and the fact that they were able to cooperate with the Planning Department and Planning Commission to arrive at the proposed project. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Sniff /Franklin to accept the report of the Planning Commission action on Environmental Determination and Plot Plan 91 -446, Revision, request to develop a multiple -use commercial center on 5.5 acres at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in a CPS Zone District. Applicant: Simon Plaza, Inc. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92 -44. COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 1992 ITEM TITLE: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019; A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF VARIANCE 91 -019 AND TO APPEAL THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PLOT PLAN. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA BACKGROUND: AGENDA CATEGORY: PUBLIC HEARING: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: On January 14, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed a request to develop a mixed use commercial complex on 5.5 acres at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 in a CPS Zone. The Planning Commission approved the Plot Plan request, however, they denied the Variance request of the developer. On January 15, 1992, the applicant appealed the Commissioner's action. At the City Council meeting of January 21, 1992, the Council set the appeal request for March 3, 1992. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: No action is necessary because on February 25, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed a revised Plot Plan Application for this site. The new application canceled the original approval. The Applicant, during the Public Hearing, agreed to rescind his request to appeal Plot Plan 91 -466 based on his new development plan application. Submitted by: Approved for submission to City Council: gnaWre CC #3 /3.F1 /CS RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER _. ,. .� , ,N ,.. '� ...i � J ; ..i 'S 4 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: MARCH 3, 1992 (JANUARY 21, 1992) PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 REQUEST: TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE AND TO APPEAL THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE PLOT PLAN; A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A RESTAURANT /BANK,,BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A THREE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON _ +5.5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL EXISTING ZONING: CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center) SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington Square Commercial Center) EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center & Point Happy Ranch MEMOGT.014 /CS -1- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91 -211 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. BACKGROUND: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: On January 15, 1992, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Variance and three Conditions of Approval for Plot Plan 91 -466. At the City Council meeting of January 21, 1992, the Council set the applicant's appeal hearing for March 3, 1992. The case(s) has been readvertised as required by Section PAST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: The project was examined by the Planning Commission on four different occasions. Major discussions occurred on December 10, 1991, and January 14, 1992. At the meeting of December 10, 1991, the Commission examined the Applicant's November 27, 1991, development submittal which included approximately 168,000 square feet of commercial leasable area with a five level parking structure. The Planning Commission took testimony from the Applicant and his partners, and a summary of their ideas and comments were as follows: A. Parking Structure - Mr. Pead stated that they have tried to accommodate the City and the community by reducing the height of the parking structure from 47 feet to 37 feet by removing one level from the structure. It was indicated that they have designed the structure so that it will be architecturally compatible with the project, and to City standards. The office buildings should block or buffer this parking structure according to the Applicant. B. Recreational Uses - The developer stated the City is in need of family -style entertainment, and that their project would help meet this need. A bowling center and fitness center would be an ideal commercial use of this area of the City. Mr. Rudy Leeway, the proposed operator of the bowling center explained the benefits of a bowling center and reviewed the demographic qualities of a typical bowler. A pamphlet was distributed. MEMOGT.014 /CS -2- C. Additional Property Dedication - The history of the property was explained by Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. He stated that when they subdivided the property in 1982 they were obligated to: 1) dedicate approximately 3.4 acres of property for Washington Street, Highway 111 and Simon Drive; 2) install off -site curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements (plus other off -site water lines); and 3) reconstruct the traffic signal at Highway 111 and Washington Street. Mr. Simon stated that the improvements on Simon Drive were requested by the County of Riverside during the tentative map approval and the City when it approved the final map. They are still paying for these improvements, according to Mr. Simon. Mr. Paul Selzer (one of the partner's) stated that they are receptive to the additional dedication on Washington Street for street widening ( +20,000 square feet) but they believe the City is obliged to examine their request to have a two story facility on Washington Street. He stated that the dedication of right -of -way on Washington Street would impact Pomona First Federal's property (Parcel 6) making it unusable unless their partnership buys this parcel and uses it with their other five lots. If they cannot make this project work, they will have no option but to leave the parcels as they exist today. Mr. Selzer stated that if the City prefers independent development on each parcel, the City could not ask for additional right -of -way based on present legal statutes (e.g. Nolan vs. Coastal Commission). However, he felt the City's legal counsel should examine this legal issue further. D. Shared Parking - Mr. Pead stated that the parking calculation that staff proposed was a "worst" case scenario. He stated that they will have strictly day or night type users possibly in this center and they would like to submit a shared parking analysis per the Urban Land Institute requirements to resolve this matter. He felt their parking ratios were adequate. E. Storm Water Retention - Mr. Simon, Sr. stated that when he built Simon Motors he had to examine water retention, but when Plaza La Quinta was built they did not have to accommodate water run -off in their project. Mr. Pead and Mr. John Sanborn both stated they are receptive to working with the City to resolve their storm water problems; and they were comfortable with the attached condition on this matter. F. Proposed Conditions of Approval - Mr. Pead expressed concern regarding Conditions 14, 16, 18, 25, 38, 41 -45, 49, 53, 64 & 65. He felt some of these conditions should not be imposed, were not relevant or did not reflect the actions of the Design Review Board. MEMOGT.014 /CS -3- G. Simon Drive Intersection with Washington Street - Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. stated that a median break at this intersection is important for patrons who live in the cove area of the City and that the traffic signal discussion had been debated by the Planning Commission and City Council during the review and approval of the Washington Square project. If this access point did not have full access to Washington Street, he felt traffic needs would not be met in this area for City residents. H. Project Setbacks - Mr. Pead stated that they have .modified the project over the last few months, and various adjustments have been made to meet the intent of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. They have averaged the setbacks around the property frontage. I. Letter of Support - On December 10, 1991, the Applicant submitted approximately 110 letters of support for the bowling center. Packets were given to each Commissioner. A majority of the letters were from people who reside in La Quinta, and the other letters were from other Coachella Valley residents. In summary, the Applicants believed the project was both aesthetically pleasing and would meet the economic needs of the community. PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Robbins, ESCO Engineering, spoke representing the Washington Square project located to the south of the subject site. Mr. Robbin's stated that they were opposed to the Applicant's request to: 1) have a two story building within 150 -feet of Washington Street, 2) allow a landscape variance, 3) permit off -site storm water channeling, 4) allow full turn movements at Simon Drive /Washington Street, and 5) delete the 8 -foot bike trail on Washington Street. The Applicant should be required to meet Coachella Valley Water District's on and off -site water and sewer requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (DECEMBER 10, 1991): The Planning Commission debated many of the topics that were addressed in the Staff Report and asked various questions of staff and the Applicant. However, the case was continued to January 14, 1992, in order for staff to work with the developer to resolve the following issues or questions: 1. Can the Applicant meet the one story height provision of the City's General Plan within 150 -feet of Washington Street? 2. Examine the front yard setbacks on both primary street frontages and their relationship to the project and to abutting properties (e.g. approved projects, existing projects, etc.) MEMOGT.014 /CS -4- 3. Review the on -site parking needs of the project and determine if shared parking arrangements can be allowed. 4. Is the off -site storm water plan, as proposed by the developer, adequate? 5. Is this project too intense for the site? 6. Are the aesthetics of the project acceptable for this primary corner of the City? 7. Is the parking structure necessary, and if so, can the project designer reevaluate its bulkiness and location on the property? Can the height of the structure be reduced? 8. Can the architect create "view corridors" through out the project which will enhance the character of the development? MEETING WITH STAFF: Staff met with Mr. Pead on December 17, 1991, to discuss the views and actions of the Planning Commission on December 10, 1991. At the meeting, staff gave the applicant two alternative site plans which were prepared by staff. Both plans proposed one story buildings on Washington Street, reduced building square footage and elimination of the parking structure. Mr. Pead said he would review our ideas to see if some of our ideas /thoughts could be used if they choose to examine other design options for their site. Mr. Pead stated that he would have his architect put the architectural elements of the project on his Computer Aided Design (CAD) system so that various views through the site could be shown to the Planning Commission versus the flat elevation drawings which were presented at the December 10th meeting. Mr. Pead said it is important that the Planning Commission understand the buildings articulation they are proposing, especially on Washington Street. He said he did not believe that the Planning Commission understood that the upstairs offices (2 story) on Washington Street were not as close to the street as the-first floor offices. Hence, it is their belief that the building would not be an intrusion on the Washington Street corridor. Mr. Pead said that they will also show the existing Simon Motors building to the east on their Highway 111 elevation in order to give the Planning Commission a better idea of how their building heights relate to this existing structure. MEMOGT.014 /CS -5- Staff also inquired if their development team had asked Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. whether or not the proposed parking structure could be put on the Simon Motors property versus where it is currently proposed. Mr. Pead said to his knowledge, this matter had never been discussed. However, Mr. Pead felt the proposed location of the parking structure was appropriate because it services all the proposed uses of the site more effectively then if it was located to the east of its present location. It was agreed that Mr. Pead would submit any new submittals to staff by January 6, 1992. NEW SUBMITTAL (PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 14 1992): On January 6, 1992, the Applicant submitted a new proposal for this site. The plan has reduced the project square footage to 134,018 square feet, from 168,000 square feet, and reduced the parking structure from five levels to four levels (deleted 96 parking spaces). Currently, each office building will be two stories but the basements have been deleted and, the second story building connection over the two -way driveway has been deleted. The project square footage has been reduced by approximately 21 %. The new summary is as follows: A. Bank /Restaurant B. Fitness Center C. Restaurant /Bowling Alley D. Office Buildings 8,000 sq. ft. of floor space 12,000 sq. ft. of floor space 42,240 sq. ft. of floor space 71,778 sq. ft. of floor space 134,018 sq. ft. total floor space PARKING ANALYSIS: * A. 2 Restaurants (20 sp /1000 sq.ft. of pub. area)= 130 pk. spaces * *B. Fitness Center (1 sp /150 sq.ft. pub. area)= 53 pk. spaces C. Bowling Alley (3 sp /Alley)= 120 pk. spaces D. Office Building (1 sp /250 sq. ft.)= 287 pk. spaces or Office Medical (1 sp /200 sq. ft.)= 358 --------------- pk. spaces - Approximate Total Required 590 pk. spaces or 661 pk. spaces (with office medical) Total Provided 474 pk. spaces * Assumption - Half the restaurant will be used for public dining. ** Assumption - 2/3 of the Fitness Center will be for public purposes. MEMOGT.014 /CS -6- Staff would like to point out that the number of on -site parking spaces is still short of the minimum number as required by the City Parking Code. We also did not receive a shared parking study by January 6, 1992, as requested. The study was delivered on January 14, 1992. The proposed architectural elements have remained similar to the design as examined by the Planning Commission except the architect has eliminated the second story complex to the office /bowling alley complex. This feature was removed by the architect in order to create a view corridor through the project as requested by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 10, 1991. Staff did not receive the CAD drawings or the street view plans (with Simon Motors included) by January 6, 1992, as discussed with the applicant on December 17, 1991. The material was presented at the January 14, 1992, meeting. DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS: A. Infrastructure Fee - At the December 10, 1991 meeting, the developer inquired why the City was requiring an infrastructure fee since they are required to improve the site with new improvements. Resolution 87 -39, as adopted by the City Council in 1987 (amending Resolution 85 -26), was adopted to fund the following community facilities: public buildings, public safety buildings, recreation buildings, bridges, major thoroughfares, and traffic /pedestrian signals. Public construction projects are exempt from this fee and low income projects can be exempted if permitted by the City Council. However, all other projects are required to pay the fee at the time the City issues a building permit. The Resolution does discuss credits which can be available to the Applicant /developer but no credits are allowed for "....construction or widening of major thoroughfares." Therefore, the requirements on Washington Street would not qualify for a credit, however, the Applicant can pursue Redevelopment Agency assistance if they so choose with the City Council. On January 14, 1992, the developer stated he would discuss this matter with the City Council. B. Fringed -Toed Lizard Fee - The Coachella Valley Fringed -Toed Lizard Conservation Plan was adopted in 1986. It was developed to mitigate the impacts of development on this Federally protected species. The plan, as adopted, requires the Valley cities to collect $600.00 per acre on properties within the designated habitat area at the time a building permit or grading permit is issued. The developer has stated that they graded the property in 1982, therefore, they should not be subject to this fee. Staff has contacted the US Wildlife Department to inquire whether or not the project would be exempt from this fee, but it was determined that the site would not be exempt because the only exceptions are for public agencies or agricultural uses which were in effect prior to 1982. MEMOGT.014 /CS -7- On January 14, 1992, the developer stated he would fulfill this requirement. C. Design Review Board - The conditions of the Design Review Board were outlined in the Staff Report of October 2, 1991, and their motion was to accept the recommendations of staff, but with minor modifications. The information in the report is correct. D. Bus Shelter Locations - Staff has decided to eliminate the proposed bus shelter on Washington Street although requested by Sunline Transit because it will hamper traffic movement at the intersection. E. Joint Use and Time -Share Use of Parkinq - The off - street parking code (Section 9.160.035) addresses this topic. The key components are: 1. That the parking plan is based on ULI "Shared parking" methodology. 2. That the plan is based on the City's off - street parking requirements. 3. That the time -share uses are separated by a minimum of 60 minutes and /or are for separate days and 15% excess capacity is provided for unforeseen peak time miscalculations. 4. That the parking facilities are a binding part of the plan. After these standards are met, the developer must for a two year period, guarantee additional land to meet the City's off - street parking requirements without time- sharing. The guarantee can be in the form of a bond or other acceptable mechanism. The City will examine the project over the two year period. The study was received on January 14, 1992, and a copy of Staff's memorandum to the Planning Commission is attached. The shared parking program does not meet the provisions of the Off - Street Parking Code nor the provision of the ULI study. F. Archaeological Study On December 5, 1991, the developer submitted a copy of their 1981 Archaeologic Study which was prepared by Jean A. Salpas. Our review of the study is that the report addressed the Simon Motor's site exclusively. Therefore, we would recommend that the Planning Commission leave the requirement of the on -site archaeologic study as a condition of approval unless the developer can have the original consultant certify that the site was also included in the 1981 study and subsequent on -site work supervised. MEMOGT.014 /CS -8- The developer has been unable to contact the original Archaeologist, but they said they would submit a study if one was not done. STAFF CONCLUSION: The Applicant has tried to address the Planning Commission's concern on building square footage and they have made an attempt to provide a "view window" through the project be eliminating the second story building element at the southwest side of the site. However, the project is still deficient in on -site parking, landscape setbacks and building heights along Washington Street. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION - JANUARY 14, 1992 The Planning Commission examined the new site plan submittal of January 6, 1992, on January 14, 1992. The Planning Commission took testimony from the developer regarding the changes they have proposed from that which was reviewed on December 10, 1991. Mr. Pead stated he thought they had addressed many of the concerns of the Commission and he wanted to remind the Commissioners that they have reduced the project from 168,000 square feet to 134,000 square feet. The applicant also stated that they would discuss their off -site improvement requirements with the City Council to see if Redevelopment assistance is available. It was also mentioned that they would request that the Planning Commission consider again, their request for a two -story office complex on Washington Street, and allow the variance request to permit a variation in the City's landscape and building setback requirements. The Planning Commission examined the new request of the applicant and again took testimony on the project, but a majority of the Planning Commission members felt that their function was to uphold the design standards of the City which includes both aesthetic concerns and development requirements. It was stated that the Planning Commission understood the development problems of the site since it is irregular in shape but they also felt the one story height policy standard of the General Plan should be met. The Commission noted that the other approved projects in the City have met this requirement and if they allow a deviation in this standard it will open the door for other similar requests. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - JANUARY 14, 1992: The Planning Commission voted to deny the applicants Variance request with four of the Commissioners voting for the motion, and Commissioner Marrs voting no. Commissioner Marrs stated that he believes the applicant has made a valid effort to modify the development request for the Planning Commission and he stated that the irregular size of the properties warrant further discussion by the Commission on the merits of the Variance request. The Planning Commission voted to approve the applicants Plot Plan request and four of the Commission voted for the motion with Commissioner Marrs voting no again. The motion required the applicant to adhere to the one story height limit on Washington Street within 150 -feet of the future property line, maintain the City's landscape and building setback standards, and insure that truck delivery /loading and appropriate number of trash enclosures are constructed on the premises. MEMOGT.014 /CS -9- In summary, the Planning Commission felt the project was to massive, too close to the street and, would degrade the Washinton Street corridor. APPLICANT'S APPEAL: A. Variance Case - Since the Planning Commission denied the Variance request, the applicant was required to meet the City's landscape setback requirements for the project, which are: 50 -feet on Highway 111, 20 -feet on Washington Street and 10 -feet on Simon Drive. As mentioned earlier, the developer had requested variable setback standards for the project, thus the Planning Commission's action will require the developer to the buildings on the site to accommodate the City's minimum landscape buffer standards if the project is to be built. B. Plot Plan Case - One issue that was a major problem for the developer all the way through the review of the project was the proposed multi -story office buildings along Washington Street. At the last Planning commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a two story building, but the Commission voted to reduce the building to a one story structure because of the City's policy to maintain a low density character for this aesthetic corridor. The applicant has appealed this Condition of Approval. C. Traffic Signal at Simon Drive & Washington Street - Over the last few years, the City has had to grapple with the issue of traffic signals along the City's major thoroughfares. The General Plan states that signals should be at 1/2 mile intervals, however, past actions by the City have allowed subsequent signals for projects if the traffic warrants for the area necessitated a signalization access program. This general area has had previous discussion about the possibility of a traffic signal and this issue was discussed at length with the review and approval of the Washington Square development to the south of this location. The approved specific Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map specify that the issue of a traffic signal can be readdressed by the developer of the 65 acre site if the traffic warrants for this area are sufficient to require a new signal. The original location which was studied was approximately 570 feet south of Simon Drive. This issue was recently discussed again and part of the review and approval of the Desert Hospital facility at 47th Avenue and Washington Street on February 18, 1992, but no action was taken on the traffic signal because the project proponents did not feel the discussion on this topic was needed at this time since a majority of the site is vacant at this time. However, the City has made a commitment to review a traffic signal to the south of Simon Drive in the future (1/4 mile interval), therefore, it would be non - beneficial to the City to consider a signal at Simon Drive since one is proposed at the intersection of future Via El Mirador and Washington Street pursuant to the Washington Square Specific Plan. MEMOGT.014 /CS -10- CONCLUSION: The City Council should uphold the Planning Commission's recommendation if January 14, 1992 because their actions were based on past policies and goals of the La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 92- , the City Council should uphold the Planning Commission's denial of Variance 91 -019, and approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 as set forth herein. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicants appeal 3. Large Plans dated January 6, 1992 4. C.A.D. Drawings - Reductions 5. Shared Parking Summary dated January 14, 1992 6. Planning Commission Minutes of December 10, 1991 & January 14, 1992 7. Past Staff Report (January 14, 1992) 8. Resolution 92- , Variance 91 -019 (Denial) 9. Conditions of Approval, PP 91 -466 MEMOGT.014 /CS -11- 02- '19/92 13:29 V619 FR4 3489 SIMON MOTORS TO: MR. GREG TRUSDEL CITY OF LA. QU}NTA FEB 19 199 1 FROM: AIL PEAR" " : SUBJ: SHARED PARKING FOR MI=D USE P+ ��t � �' .�tT'ESdY DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 1992 Gopy of Shared Parking for Mixed Use for your information. # pages to follow - 1 Pead- 2/19/92 12:25 PM 02%19/92 11:30 $619 SR4 9489 SIMON MOTORS x;002 LA r :314 A=2. rA -'l f` 4 - not gil ZSFy JLig� -lz fA PAM -r5, I5,,mdr s.f I::' 5a07v "-- _ { • �,t D -t:l E.DI �!G ell GP t� �P \t1 } LL. KC- A P �'��LI�A�•1"[� •�,�- • l��'�'�A.ii l�'�'`l '�fk�� A��• rr �o O� it C�E� �� L.IG U�� ,.�+�. _ U�� '�P....G�t•E'F'PG�S• Ai51GM�P 'fd �1-�N�r� �a�l LIl�dl, �E~ti•�Ks _ .x.��- �oi.t.��r i i��. �� E✓'l� /.�'.i��C}►�t�•t � �S, off- �� - - d "'A o A it GAS - �;G� f� • /it• 6 3 ZO 1019-1 ZP 54 � S 19 a PIS' -fib -zr3 - 70 _... .1 _ . 5p 6 50 7-7 511 12 .. 78 5a r 4 522 Z-7 '41 1 ! l Dl0 �� 5's ram S57 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE SHOPPING CENTER 11 SIMON PLAZA" IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PREPARED FOR SANBORN /WEBB INC. 255 NORTH EL CIELO ROAD, SUITE 315 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 (619) 325 -2245 REVISED NOVEMBER 1991 �gx r vi" G� f No- 2 f Exo.12 1-92 / qrF CF f TRAFFIC No. 0890 DATE: A& v, �{, i 9 9 f u q am- IVlohie, Grover& Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Requirements 1 1.2 Proposed Project 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions 5 3.0 TRAFFIC FORECAST 7 3.1 Growth Factor 7 3.2 Approved Projects 7 3.3 Trip Generation 7 3.4 Trip Distribution 7 3.5 Modal Split 7 3.6 Trip Assignment 10 4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIONS 13 4.1 Study Scenarios 13 4.2 Level of Service Analysis 13 4.3 Analysis of Results and Mitigations 13 5.0 OTHER RELATED ASPECTS 15 5.1 Site Access Analysis 15 5.2 Signal Warrant Analysis 15 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 16 6.1 Conclusions 16 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Project Location Map and Study Intersections 2 2 Site Plan 3 3 Existing Transportation System 6 4 Project Traffic Trip Distribution - 9 Inbound and Outbound 5 P. M. Peak Hour Project Traffic 11 6 P. M. Peak Hour Anticipated Cumulative Traffic 12 7 Level of Service and Mitigation Measures 14 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Project Trip Generation 8 APPENDICES APPENDIX "A" Traffic Counts "B" Excerpts from Traffic Impact Analysis "C" Level of Service Analysis using CAPSSI "D" Signal Warrant Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Introduction The purpose of this report is to document the results of a traffic analysis which was conducted for the proposed multi -use shopping center, "Simon Plaza ", at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta. The main objective of this study is to identify any traffic impacts that may result from the proposed development and recommend mitigation meas- ures, if required, to reduce any traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed project location and specific site plan are shown in Figures 1 and 2. 1.1 Study Requirements A meeting was held with the staff of the City of La Quinta Public Works Department prior to the beginning of this study to define the various study parameters, including geographic area, study intersec- tions, acceptable methodology, and any technical assumptions used in the analysis. The recommended study intersections for this project are: Highway 111 and Washington Street Highway 111 and Simon Drive The scenarios addressed in this study are: Existing traffic conditions Cumulative traffic defined as existing plus growth factor plus project traffic conditions The geographic study area is defined by Highway 111 to the north, Simon Drive to the east, Washington Street to the west, and Simon Drive to the south. Simon Drive is a loop street that connects both Highway 111 and Washington Street, as shown in Figure 1. 1.2 Proposed Project The proposed project is to develop a multi -use shopping center at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, as shown in Figure 1 The project has primary access (driveways) on Highway 111, Washing- ton Street and Simon Drive, as shown in Figure 2. N MCi A41111, I PROJECT LOCATION MAP AND FIGURE 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS LAQUINTA.DWG g cr c 5' n pR O. C n Q. O d Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS Introduction NOT TO SCALE I fio SITE FLAN FIGURE 2 Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS The proposed project includes the following (Figure 2): Office - I Office - II Office, III Restaurant - I* Restaurant - II Fitness Center Bowling Center 60,560 Square Feet 34,750 Square Feet 18,150 Square Feet 8,000 Square Feet 5,000 Square Feet 12,000 Square Feet 37,240 Square Feet Introduction * On the site plan this is marked as a possible site for a bank. For analyzing "worst case" scenario under trip generation and Level of Service, the "restaurant" is considered. This aspect was discussed with the City staff. 4 Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS Existing Conditions 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The surrounding areas near the project site are currently undergoing develop- ment. The road network is being expanded in order to handle anticipated growth in the area. The major access roads to the project site are Highway 111, Washington Street, and Simon Drive. The existing transportation system is shown in Figure 3. The following briefly describes the major access roads to the project site :. Highway 111 (east- west): A State Highway along the northern boundary of the project site. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street is signalized. Currently, the highway has two lanes in each direction. The highway will be converted to six lanes due to the anticipated growth in the region. The Caltrans recorded 24 -hour volume on SR 111 in 1990 at Wash- ington Street was 23,820 vehicles per day. Washington Street (north - south): A major arterial with two lanes in each direction. Washington Street has an interchange with Interstate 10 to the north of the project site. This street carries over 22,000 vehicles per day. Simon Drive: A local street oriented north -south intersecting with SR 111 and oriented east -west intersecting with Washington Street. Both intersections are unsignalized. This street provides a direct link between SR 111 and Washing- ton Street. 2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions The 24 -hour bi- directional traffic volumes on SR 111 and Washington Street were obtained from Caltrans annual traffic count records and City traffic count records, respectively. As mentioned above, SR 111 carries over 23,000 vehicles per day and Washington Street carries over 22,000 vehicles per day. The existing turning movement counts at the study intersections were obtained from the City of La Quinta. The turning movement counts for the intersection of SR 111 and Washington Street were obtained from City records. For the intersection of SR 111 and Simon Drive, the turning movement counts were obtained from a previous study conducted for the Washington Square Shopping Center by Barton - Aschman Associates in February, 1991. This study is presented in Appendix "A". The traffic counts are presented in Appendices "A" and "B ". M %A ]INDIAN Wr 9y SL11= � `e o LA QUINITA, 3 Il JULE] I EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I VV IIHTA nWr, FIGURE 3 LEGEND ® STUDY INTERSEC110N SIGNALIZED ® —► H NOT TO SCALE ONSIGNALIZED NUMBER OF OWES 24 HOUR VOLUME -2 WAY 9y SL11= � `e o LA QUINITA, 3 Il JULE] I EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM I VV IIHTA nWr, FIGURE 3 Sanbom/WeU Inc. -.TIS 3.0 TRAFFIC FORECAST Traffic Forecast This section details the procedures adopted in estimating the future traffic generated at the site and impacting the study intersections. 3.1 Growth Factor The growth factor, as recommended by the City staff, was applied to the existing turning movements at the study intersections as follows: Highway 111 4% per year Washington Street 10% per year Simon Drive 5 % per year The project is expected to be completed in one phase by the year 1992. 3.2 Approved Projects The approved projects traffic volume at the study intersections for Level of Service (LOS) analysis were not considered in this study and this item was discussed with the City staff. 3.3 Trip Generation The trip generation rates for the project were obtained from the Insti- tute of Transportation Engineers (I. T.E.) Trip Generation Handbook, 1991. Table I shows the proposed development trip generation. The project generates an estimated 4,473 trip ends per day, excluding those generated by the Fitness Center. The Fitness Center 24 -hour trip rates are not currently available in the I.T.E. Handbook. Using the Barton - Aschman 24 -hour trip rates (Appendix "B"), the Fitness Center gener- ates an estimated 270 trip ends per day with a trip rate of 22.5/1,000 S. F. Therefore, the estimated total trip ends per day from the proposed development will be 4,743. 3.4 Trig Distribution The trip distribution of the project generated traffic was conducted considering the major access roads and driveway locations. Also considered were the turning movement and 24 -hour traffic counts in the study area. Finally, the trip distribution was developed in consulta- tion with the City staff. The regional trip distribution of the project traffic is as shown in Figure 4. 3.5 Modal Split All trips to the project site are expected to be made by passenger cars. Hence, modal split is not applicable for this study. 7 TABLE 1: PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TRIP RATES TRIP ENDS A.M M.D P.M A.M M.D P.M LAND USE SIZE UNIT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 24HR IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 24 MR 1.OFFICE - I 60.6 KSF 1.9 .23 0 0 .36 1.76 15.86 115 14 0 0 22 107 960 2.OFFICE - II 34.8 KSF 1.9 .23 0 0 .36 1.76 •15.86 75 9 0 0 14 71 631 3.OFFICE - III 60.6 KSF 1.9 .23 0 0 .36 1.76 15.86 45 6 0 0 9 44 386 4.RESTAURANT - I 8 KSF .86 .06 0 0 5.36 2..3 96.51 7 0 0 0 43 18 772 00 5.RESTAURANT - II 5 KSF .86 .06 0 0 5.36 2.3 96.51 4 0 0 0 27 11 483 6.FITNESS CENTER + 12 KSF .14 .16 0 0 2.58 1.72 22.5 2 2 0 0 31 21 270 7.BOWLING CENTER** 37.2 KSF 1.87 1.25 0 0 1.24. 2.3 33.33 2 2 0 0 31 21 1241 218. KSF TOTAL 250 33 0 0 177 293 4743 SOURCE:TRIP RATES FROM I.T.E TRIP GENERATION HANDBOOK, 5TH ED, 1991. + In I.T.E Hand Book Fitness center is called as Health Club. ++ Bowling Center is called as Bowling Alley. The 24 hour trip rate for Health Club /Fitness Center was taken from the Barton- Aschman Study given in Appendix "B" of this report. L7 �O q � 2Sy� 435% - -- D2 20% 11\]D]Aj\l W-FILSD OF c% 20% 45% 10% t rr D3 I 4' ' �1► 25% 35% 15% 1 / 1 ww 5% 5% 20X ' t 307 LA OUJINVA LEGEND 3 ® STUDY INTERSECTION -► INBOUND -- ► OUTBOUND D1 DRIVEWAY NOT TO SCALE mmumo- REGIAONAL DISTRIBUTION PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP DISTRIBUTION INBOUND and OUTBOUND I AQIIINTA f)WG 35 - 15% 4 FIGURE 4 Sanborn/Well Inc. - TIS 3.6 Traffic Assignment Traffic Forecast Project trips were assigned to the existing roadway based on trip distri- bution. The project trips were assigned to the study intersections as shown in Figure 5. The cumulative traffic is shown in Figure 6. The cumulative. traffic for this study is defined as the summation of existing plus growth factor plus project traffic. 10 1 k4* N ti )j\]- DIAJ\J W Ir I I S ^p\ I0' ---- D2 d35 / 35 88 LEQEND STUDY INTERSECTION =-► INBOUND THE► OUTBOUND Dl DRIVEWAY E 63 DT 44 ® D1 �4 D3 •45 TDi 44 35 A 3 P.M. PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRAFFIC 4 O h FIGURE 5 I h-+ N / N N � L 2f e9S ,os ti N N Jl\]D]Aj\l WrLLS NOT TO SCALE I.AQUINTA.DWG J cuM��c 1S DEFINED AS EXISTING PLUS GROWni FACTOR PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES SITE \ I/// 6 -0 A QUINT A 3 4I w w w w w 0 108.0 9 J 0 STUDY INTERSECTION CUMULATIVE ANTICIPATE TH ROJECT RAF IC) TRAFFIC I FIGURE 6 I Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS Traffic Imps -t Analysis and Mitigations 4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIONS The following section deals with traffic impact analysis and proposed mitiga- tion measures at the study intersections. 4.1 Study Scenarios The study scenarios for Level of Service analyses were the following: ■ Existing traffic conditions with existing geometrics ■ Cumulative traffic defined as existing traffic plus growth factor plus project traffic conditions with ultimate intersection geo metrics Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for the through lane(s) and 1,700 vphg for the left and right -turn lanes were used, since a capacity of 1,700 vph per lane, as recommended by the City to be used for analysis, equals 1,800 vphg saturation flow rate. The saturation flow rate of 1,700 vphg for the left and right -turn that was. used is highly conservative. It is important to note that the study referred to in Appendix "B" of the Barton - Aschman report is based on capacity, not on saturation flow rates. 4.2 Level of Service Analysis The Levels of Service (LOS) at the study intersections were determined using both Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology and delay methodology per the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The software used for the Level of Service is CAPSSI, developed by MGA. The LOS outputs for the two scenarios listed under Section 4.1 are given in Appendix "C ". 4.3 Analysis of Results and Mitigation The results of the LOS analysis using both ICU and delay methodolo- gies are shown in Figure 7. The City established minimum LOS is "D ". Highway 111 and Washington Street currently operates at an ICU value of 1.60 or at LOS "F" with existing traffic conditions and geometrics. The intersection operates at an ICU value of 0.80 or at LOS "D" with cumulative traffic and ultimate intersection geometrics. Highway 111 and Simon Drive currently operates at ICU 0.59 or at LOS "A ". The addition of growth factor and project traffic results in an ICU value of 0.38 or a LOS "A" with ultimate geometrics. The ultimate geometrics for the intersection were provided by the City staff for conducting LOS analysis. 13 LAQUINTA.DWG pNp� o, O H En H b a aRo� w o� EXISTING TRAFFIC CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC SCENARIO low EXISTING GEOMETRICS WITH ULTIMATE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION ICU =1.60 FDELAY LOS =F ICU =0.82 DELAY LOS =D HIGWAY 111 ,,, - - -- AND WASHINGTON STREET _ EXISTING TRAFFIC CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC EXISTING GEOMETRICS WITH ULTIMATE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ICU =0.59 DELAY LOS =A ICU =0.38 DELAY LOS =A HIGHWAY 111 AND -- SIMON DRIVE LEGEND EXISTING LANE (S). GR. FACT. GROWTH FACTOR ---- - - - - --- ADDITIONAL NEW LANE (S). * CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC = EXISTING + GR. FACT. + PROJECT + APPROVED PROJECT (S). - -�� RE- STRIPING LANE (S). - -- '- - --� DOSE NOT EXIST NOW. LEVEL OF SERVICE AND MITIGATION MEASURES FIGURE 7 LAQUINTA.DWG pNp� o, O H En H b a aRo� w o� Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS Other Related Aspects 5.0 OTHER RELATED ASPECTS The following sections deal with the project access (driveways) and signal warrants. 5.1 Site Access Analysis The project site has three driveways. They are located on Highway 111, Washington Street and Simon Drive, as shown in Figure 2. Highway 111 The access for the project is located slightly east of the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, on Highway 111. This access is a limited access with right -turn in and right -turn out only. Due to the proximity of the driveway to the intersection and the large cumulative volumes, it is recommended that deceleration and acceleration lanes be provided for this driveway. This will allow the through traffic to proceed without any obstruction. Washington Street The access on Washington Street is located to the south of Highway 111. The access is close to Simon Drive. This access is a limited access with right -turn in and right -turn out only. Due to the proximity of the driveway to the intersection and the large cumulative volumes, it is recommended that deceleration and acceleration lanes be provided for this driveway. This will allow the through traffic to proceed without any obstruction. Simon Drive The access is located on Simon Drive, which has an east -west orienta- tion near the access, as shown in Figure 2. As Simon Drive is a local street with moderate volumes, this access could operate fully with all possible movements in and out of the site. It is recommended that adequate left turn pockets be provided, with separate lanes for entering and exiting vehicles. Also, it is recommended that the Simon Drive access should be used for trucks traveling to /from the project site. 5.2 Signal Warrant The signal warrant analysis was conducted using the cumulative traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 at the intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive. The signal warrant is met considering the westbound left -turn volumes added to the northbound left -turn volumes. The cumulative through volume on Highway 111 exceeds 2,000 vehicles per hour. The signal warrants for the peak period only are shown in Appendix "D ". 15 Sanborn/Wells Inc. - TIS 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Conclusions Surnmary and Conclusions The following are the conclusions of this traffic impact analysis for the proposed mixed -use shopping center: 1. The project generates an estimated 4,743 trip ends per day. 2. The existing Level of Service at Highway 111 and Washington Street is "F" or an ICU value of 1.60. 3. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to operate at an ICU value of 0.82 or at LOS "D ". 4. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive operates at ICU 0.59 or LOS "A" with existing traffic. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection to operate at ICU 0.38 or LOS "A ". The southbound approach is assumed to exist in this study. 5. The project access (driveways) on Highway 111 and Washington Street should be limited to right -turn in and right -turn out only, along with necessary deceleration and acceleration lanes. 6. The project access on Simon Drive is recommended as an intersec- tion with full access (left -turns and right - turns) for entering and exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be provided for exiting vehicles (right and left turns). 7. Pavement markings are required to indicate the-direction of flow at all three driveways, along with suitable traffic controls installed per City guidelines. 8. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street requires periodic monitoring to check traffic volumes, cycle times, and phasing sequence in order to maintain at least LOS "D" or ICU value below /equal to 0.9. 9. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive, with cumulative traffic volumes, meets signal warrants. 12 Y' lfiJSt ".:"11L.^.Sd.J:S _fir JAN 15 1992 , OF LA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning & Development Department APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Appellant's Name SIMON PLAZA, INC. Mailing Address 75 -611 HIGHWAY 111 LA OUINTA, CA 92253 Date January 15, 1992 Phone: (619) 773 -2345 RE: Case No. VAR91- 019 -Simon Plaza, Inc. Type of Appeal: Conditional Use Permit Outdoor AOverti slcng9 Q - 1f -92 4 Variance Consistency wi�'FfGSen�li Pla'`5 °� Change of Zone Environmental Assessment Public Use Permit Setback Adjustments Surface Mining & Temporary Use Permit Reclamation Permit �Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. Please see attached sheets. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature FORM.003 /CS -1- ^ ` 2 i4 005i82 i0 6909 t75^00 i MICC^4000340i0 i75 00 00i3CA%H i TOTAL i i�5.00 i0 - TEMD�pcv 00 AANK YOU ~` ` JAN1 City of La Quinta 5 1992 Planning & Development Department APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS OTIVI O" L' OWNTA PLp,,,q',jj C.0%PARTMEMT j Ode request the Council approve Plot Plan 91;466 and the conditions for approval with the following exceptions: Condition 25F: (A.) We request the Council make an exception to the one story height restriction along Washington Street because such an exception is consistent with the City's General 'Plan Urban Design (Program Policy 6.5.8). A 150' setback from Washington Street for buildings above one story in height is severely restrictive in the development of this irregularly shaped parcel. (B.) There have been no height stipulations on one story buildings prior to this application. The building along Washington Street is only 282' high. If this building was.one story of 211 or 282', it would be acceptable to the City. (C.) Development of these parcels could go forward as is, based on the current Parcel Maps with CPS Zoning. The development of individual parcels would prevent the City from receiving the necessary dedications of land to accomodate the widening of Washington Street without incurring the cost to acquire the appropriate parcels. I.f we agree to make the exceptions to these conditions and other condtions which are set -back as mentioned below and height along Simon Drive and other conditions specified in this application, the Developer would dedicate the land necessary for the i� _ � l A' i t _ City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department -3. APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Condition 25F�. (Continued) widening of Washington Street, thus saving the City a substantial amount of money. Condition 38: We request the Council allow the Developer to average the 50' landscape setback along Highway 111 which meets the set -back requirement. We are currently proposing set -backs on Highway 111 of 35' to 201 . This is consistent with Simon Motors to the east which has a 9' landscaped area and the Beef & Brew to the west which has a 10' landscaped area. Condition 60: We request a signal be installed at Simon Drive and Washington Street to allow Sunline Transit to place a bus transfer center on Simon Drive. This signal would allow busses and other traffic to make a southbound turn onto Washington Street from Simon Drive and obviate the need for a bus stop on Highway 111. -END- I �" HU Wrl COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JANUARY 21, 1992 AGENDA CATEGORY: ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON BUSINESS SESSION: VARIANCE 91 -019, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PLOT PLAN.91 -466. A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MULTIPLE USE CONSENT CALENDAR: COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 5.5 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 & STUDY SESSION: WASHINGTON STREET IN A CPS ZONE DISTRICT. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP PEAD BACKGROUND: The Applicant has proposed a mixed use development consisting of offices, restaurants, and other entertainment uses. The January 6, 1992, submittal proposes a 134,000 square foot commercial complex and a 4 level parking structure at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street. On January 14, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed the case and denied the Variance because they could not make appropriate findings to support the request. The Commission approved the Plot Plan Application and the conditions were modified at the meeting. The Commission required a one -story height limit on Washington Street versus two -story proposed by the applicant. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDATION: By. Minute Motion 92- , instruct staff to set a public hearing to consider appeal of Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91 -466, and denial of Variance 91 -016 as set forth herein. Submitted by: natu CC #1 /21.F4 /CS -1- Approved for submission to City Council: RON KIEDROWSKI, CITY MANAGER COUNCIL ACTION SUMMARY 1. By Minute Motion 92- set a Public Hearing date (February 18, 1992) to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 and denial of Variance 91 -016 as set forth herein. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ATTACHED City Council Minutes 5 January 21, 1992 Council Member Sniff and Mayor Pena questioned if they might have a conflict of interest. Following discussion with Ms. Honeywell, it was determined that Council Member Sniff had no conflict, but Mayor Pena abstained from the issue due to a possible conflict. MOTION - It was moved by Council Members Bohnenberger/ Rushworth to approve Contract Change Order A -1 to construct sidewalk along the east side of Bermudas from Colima to Durango at a cost of $67,540. Motion carried with Mayor Pena abstaining. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92 -12. 5. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON VARIANCE 91 -019, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND PLOT PLAN 91 -466. A REQUEST TO DEVELOP A MULTIPLE -USE COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 5.5 ACRES AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET IN A CPS ZONING DISTRICT - SIMON PLAZA. Mr. Trousdell, Associate Planner, presented staff report advising that the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the applications submitted for Simon Plaza and denied the variance and approved the Plot Plan application with modified conditions. One of the conditions of approval was to limit the building height on Washington Street to one -story versus the two -story proposed by the applicant. Mr. Trousdell briefly reviewed the land uses which include a bowling alley, restaurant, offices and parking structure. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has reconfigured the square footage moving the one -story bowling alley to Washington frontage; moving the parking structure to the rear next to Simon Motors and leaving the restaurant on the corner. Mr. Trousdell recommended that the Council move forward with setting a date for the hearing on the appeal and address the new options.. Discussion ensued regarding the proper way to proceed, given that this is basically, a new Plot Plan and probably should be reviewed by the Planning Commission again. Phil Pead, representing Simon Plaza, briefly reviewed the revised layout and set - backs. He said that they have attempted to reconfigure to conform with the Planning Commission's modified conditions. Council then concurred to set a date for public hearing on the appeal of the original Plot Plan submittal for March 3rd. In r City Council Minutes January 21, 1992 the interim, if the applicant wishes, he can go back to the Planning Commission with the new configuration in the interim. If that new configuration is approved by the Planning Commission, then the applicant has the option of withdrawing the appeal. MOTION - It was moved by .Council Members Bohnenberger/ Rushworth that a public hearing be set for March 3rd for Simon Plaza. Motion carried unanimously. MINUTE ORDER NO. 92 -13. 6. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO VACATE A PORTION OF CALLE PALOMA AND WASHINGTON STREET AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING - CASE NO. STREET VACATION NO. 91 -019. Council Member.Bohnenberger abstained from this issue due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer, advised that the purpose of the proposed street vacation is to eliminate a poorly - designed intersection at Calle Paloma, Avenida La Fonda and Washington Street. Additionally, with the realignment of Washington Street and diverting of Avenida La Fonda to the south on a frontage road adjacent to Washington St., this street vacation has been made necessary. He then presented three alternatives for Council's consideration as follows: 1) Vacate the street as proposed, abandon the existing water line, and reconfigure the water system as needed. Costs: $7,500 - $27,500 depending on whether the City expects the benefactors of this proposal to cover part of the costs. 2) Vacate the street as proposed, but leave the existing water line in place with CVWD retaining an easement for their water line. Costs: $7,500. 3) Do not vacate. Build the westerly alignment of Calle Paloma in the existing right -of -way with a sharp curve at each end to create right -angle intersections where the street intersects Avenida La Fonda and the easterly alignment of Calle Paloma. Costs: $12,500. Following a brief discussion, Council concurred on setting a public hearing on a proposed vacation for February 18th and have the item agendized again at the next meeting for further consideration. Ir o I� 601 T4tvl 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564 -2246 FAX (619) 564 -5617 C2TY COCTNCIL CHAMBERS 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Regular Meeting January 21, 1992 - 3:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER a. Pledge of Allegiance b. Roll Call CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA Beginning Res. No. 92 -5 Ord. No. 201 APPROVAL OF MINUTES J�. - Regular Meeting of January 7, 1992 Special Meeting of January 10, 1992 - Joint City Council /Planning Commission Minutes of December 11, 1991. ANNOUNCEMENTS WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE —;jn. BUS A I Letter from Beverly Brazil regarding perimeter landscaping at Cactus Flower. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. William Davis regarding Public Use Permit for La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church. Letters from Mrs. Giannini, Mr. & Mrs. Sterns, Mr. & Mrs. Bienek, Mrs. McGinty', Dr. Kelly Jones and Dr. Robert Jones regarding land uses in Annexation No. 5 Area. o ZSS `SESS ION ealf rogress Up -Date from Tenth Anniversary Committee and Request for Additional Funds. a) Minute Order Action. MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 922:1-13 0 0 • t 2. Consid ration of Approval of Assessment District 91 -1 (Area "B ") Contract Change Order No. 2 -B. a) Minute Order Action. 3. Consideration of Request of'Lusardi Construction Co. for Substitution of Sub- Contractor / iwic Cen - oject., a) Minute Order Action. (J 4. Consideration of Report of Costs for Sidewalk Along Bermudas and Change Order No. A -1 to Assessment District 91 -1 (Area a)- Minute Order Action. 5. Appeal of Planning Commission - Action on Variance 91 -019, / Environmental Determination and Plot Plan 91 -466. A request ✓/ to Develop a Multiple Use Commercial Center on 5.5 Acres at the Southeast Corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in a CPS Zoning District - Simon Plaza. a) Minute Order Action. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Demand Register. 2. Approval of Temporary Closure of Streets for the 1992 La Quinta Arts Festival (Reso.): 3. Approval of Final Map 21120 - Santa Rosa Cove, La Quinta Joint Venture. 4. Approval of Cost Sharing Agreement with Caltrans for Signals and Safety Lighting on Highway 111 (Reso.). 5. Adoption of Resolution Expressing Appreciation to Palmer CableVision for Services in Connection with Production of a 4 Video. (Reso) 6. Approval of Special Advertising Device No. 92 -020 - Request for a 3' x 10' "Leasing" Banner for a Commercial Building at 51 -370 Avenida Bermudas for Six Months. Applicant: Robert Barnes. 7. Adoption of Resolution Declaring the City's Intention to &5) Vacate a Portion of Calle Paloma and Washington' Street and Fixing a Time and Place for a Public Hearing - Case No. Street /��j�/ Vacation No. 91 -019. (Reso) 8 . Approval of Contrac� with David Evans & Assoc. Inc. & American Development Con ants to prepare an EIR for the La Quinta Center Mall with All Costs to be paid by Developer. 9. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Congressional Appropriation of Land and Water Conservation Funds to BLM for Acquisition of Lands in the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area and Big Morongo Canyon ACEC. (Reso) 10. Adoption of Resolution Accepting Golf Vouchers from Landmark Land Co. for Economic Development Purposes. (Reso) STUDY SESSION 1. Consideration of Request of La Quinta Chamber of Commerce for Funding Assistance for a Street Fair. 2. Discussion of Development of The Village at La Quinta. REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS a. Planning Commission Minutes of December 10 & December 11, 1991. b. Design Review Board Minutes of December 4, 1991. C. Art in Public Places Minutes of October 7, November 4, 1991 & January 6, 1992. d. Tenth Anniversary Committee Minutes of January 2, 1992. e. CVAG Committee Reports f. SunLine Minutes g. C: V. Mountains Conservancy DEPARTMENT REPORTS a. City Manager b. Assistant City Manager C. City Attorney d. Administrative Services Director e. Building and Safety Director f. Planning and Development Director g. Public Works Director MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT COUNCIL COMMENT 0 0 RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING RECESS UNTIL 7:00 P.M. PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Resolution of Appreciation to Palmer CableVision. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Appeal of Planning Commission Action on Public Use Permit 91- 008 - La Quinta Christian Fellowship Church - Request for a 3,553 sq. ft. Expansion to an Existing Church and Associated Parking Area-at 53 -800 Calle Paloma. a) Resolution Action. 2. Continued Hearing on Specific Plan 90 -020, Parcel Map 26471 and Environmental Assessment 90 -183 to Allow 925 Residential Units in 7 Master - Planned Villages on 271 Acres Located on the West Side of Madison Street Between 52nd & 53rd Avenues and at the Southeast Corner of Madison Street and 52nd Avenue and Confirmation of Environmental Assessment. Applicant: Stuart Enterprises, Ltd. a) Resolution Action. 3. Continued Hearing on Appeal of Planning Commission's Denial of Applications by Seastar /Madison Estates Relative to Property Located on the East Side of Madison Street, 1/4 Mile South of 54th Avenue and Approval of Environmental Determination: a. General Plan Amendment 91 -038 - From Very Low Density to Low Density Residential. b. Change of Zone 91 -067 - From R1- 20,000 to R1 -8,000 C. Tentative Tract 27224 - For Development of 98+ Single Family Lots on 39± Acres. a) Resolution Action (a). b) Motion to take up Ordinance No. by title and number only and waive further reading. (b) c) Motion to introduce Ordinance No. on first reading. (b) d) Resolution Action (c). 0 0 % 0 4. Weed Abatements /Lot Cleanings and Placement of Costs on 1992/93 Tax Rolls: a. Roy Thilagamathy b. Marquette Healy C. Southfork Ent., Inc. a) Resolution Action. APN 773- 123 -023 $197.50 APN 773- 173 -007 $197.50 APN 773- 144 -014 $187.50 5. Adoption of Negative Declarations for Environmental Assessments of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE). Note: To be continued. - 6. Adoption of a Source Reduction and Recycling Element and a Household Hazardous Waste Element. Note: To be continued. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT COUNCIL COMMENT CLOSED SESSION a. Discussion o-f potential pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - Landmark Bankruptcy Proceedings b. Discussion of pending litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) - International Treasury Management /Denman Company - City of Indio - Indio Case No. 62944 b. Discussion of negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 - Boys and Girls Club Lease Agreement C. Discussion of personnel pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. ADJOURNMENT DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Saundra L. Juhola, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the City Council meeting of January 21, 1992 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78 -105 Calle Estado and on the bulletin board at thEh La Quinta Chamber of Commerce on Friday, January 17, 1992. X ed anuar 92. SAUNDRA L. UH , City Clerk City of La Quinta, California 0 0 0i SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 FLE Con T1 E C I T Y The City Council reviewed your applications at their meeting of January 21, 1992. Your appeal request will be heard on March La pinta 60 at 1982 - 1992 Ten Carat Decade Y= January 23, 1992 As an appeal of the Planning Commission Action of January 14, Mr. Philip Pead as required Simon Plaza, Inc. by Chapter 9.182.080 of the Municipal Zoning Code. "@ PO Box 461 78 -611 Highway 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 0i SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 FLE Con ° If you should choose to revise your Plot Plan Application so that your project meets the CPS, Zoning and General Plan Standards (and a Variance is not required), we will need your material prior to February 14, 1992, so that we can present your new request to the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992. It is very important that we receive your plans prior to February 14, 1992, to assure that we have everything needed to : complete the Staff Report for distribution February 21, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. ' Very truly yours, JE Y HE P ING DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR b reg Trousdell Associate Planner GT:ccs cc: Mr. John Sanborn; Sanborn & Webb, Inc. 3S Partnership; Pomona 1st Federal Mr. Merlin Barth; ArcPh ona Quints Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 LTRGT . 0 6 5 / C S Design 8 Produclion: Mark Palmer Design, 614346 -0772 b� a Dear Mr. Pead: The City Council reviewed your applications at their meeting of January 21, 1992. Your appeal request will be heard on March 3, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers. Since your Y= request As an appeal of the Planning Commission Action of January 14, 1992, we will notice your case for a public hearing as required by Chapter 9.182.080 of the Municipal Zoning Code. ° If you should choose to revise your Plot Plan Application so that your project meets the CPS, Zoning and General Plan Standards (and a Variance is not required), we will need your material prior to February 14, 1992, so that we can present your new request to the Planning Commission on February 25, 1992. It is very important that we receive your plans prior to February 14, 1992, to assure that we have everything needed to : complete the Staff Report for distribution February 21, 1992. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. ' Very truly yours, JE Y HE P ING DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR b reg Trousdell Associate Planner GT:ccs cc: Mr. John Sanborn; Sanborn & Webb, Inc. 3S Partnership; Pomona 1st Federal Mr. Merlin Barth; ArcPh ona Quints Post Office Box 1504 ♦ 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 LTRGT . 0 6 5 / C S Design 8 Produclion: Mark Palmer Design, 614346 -0772 b� a 0 December 11, 1991 Mr. H. Fred Mosher, Vice Chairman Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear- Mr. Mosher: I contacted staff today to schedule an appointment for next week to attempt to resolve the issues raised at the Commission meeting on December 10th. Having spent over nine months designing and changing the project with staff, we will attempt, before giving up, to come to a mutually acceptable solution and I hope that in working together, you will look favorably upon Simon Plaza. Once again, thank you for your input. Very truly yours, SIMON LAZ INC. Philip M. Pead President PMP /ww P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA OUINTA, CA 92253 *,PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 J') Mr. H. Fred Mosher, Planning Commission City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado. La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Fred, Vice Chairman t December 19',' 1991 I wanted to write and thank you for the time you spent with us on Tuesday discussing the Simon Plaza project. As I mentioned to you at our meeting, we will be reducing the density of the project substantially which we believe addresses the largest concern of the commissioners. fin addition, in talking with the architect, we feel that to enhance the view through the project, we will be working on removing the bridge between the parking garage and the medical office building which will open the project on the south side. If by using the shared parking formula of the Urban Land Institute we are able to reduce an additional level on the parking garage, we will endeavor to do so. Lastly, we are going to present the project three dimensionally -- so that the design and lay- -out becomes clearer than a flat two dimensional drawing. We hope to have this done prior to our meeting on the 14th of January. Fred, we have worked hard to make the project not only acceptable to the city, but also economically viable to the developer and land sellers. We want to dedicate the necessary land for the widening of Washington Street and give the citizens of La Ouinta a project they can be proud of and provide some much needed family entertainment. In the light of the changes favorably upon us on the 14th of for giving us the opportunity to take this opportunity to wish you Christmas and a Happy New Year! we have made, I hope you January. Once again, I talk with you. I would u and your family a very Very truly yours, sir PLAZA, INC. "J Ph' in M. Pead President will look thank you like to Merry P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA OUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JANUARY 21, 1992 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A RESTAURANT/ BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), MULTIPLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A THREE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5.5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL EXISTING ZONING: CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center) SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington Square Commercial Center) EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quinta Shopping Center & Point Happy Ranch ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91 -211 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION- WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. MEMOGT.014 /CS -1- BACKGROUND: The project was examined by the Planning Commission on four different occasions. Major discussions occurred on December 10, 1991, and January 14, 1992. At the meeting of December 10, 1991, the Commission examined the Applicant's November 27, 1991, development submittal which included approximately 168,000 square feet of commercial leasable area with a five level parking structure. The Planning Commission took testimony from the Applicant and his partners, and a summary of their ideas and comments were as follows: A. Parking Structure - Mr. Pead stated that they have tried to accommodate the City and the community by reducing the height of the parking structure from 47 feet to 37 feet by removing one level from the structure. It was indicated that they have designed the structure so that it will be architecturally compatible with the project, and to City standards. The office buildings should block or buffer this parking structure according to the Applicant. B. Recreational Uses-- The developer stated the City is in need of family -style entertainment, and that their project would help meet this need. A bowling center and fitness center would be an ideal commercial use of this area of the City. Mr. Rudy Leeway, the proposed operator of the bowling center explained the benefits of a bowling center and reviewed the demographic qualities of a typical bowler. A pamphlet was distributed. C. Additional Property Dedication - The history of the property was explained by Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. He stated that when they subdivided the property in 1982 they were obligated to: 1) dedicate approximately 3.4 acres of property for Washington Street, Highway 111 and Simon Drive; 2) install off -site curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements (plus other off -site water lines); and 3) reconstruct the traffic signal at Highway 111 and Washington Street. Mr. Simon stated that the improvements on Simon Drive were requested by the County of Riverside during the tentative map approval and the City when it approved the final map. They are still paying for these improvements, according to Mr. Simon. Mr. Paul Selzer (one of the partner's) stated that they are receptive to the additional dedication on Washington Street for street widening ( +_20,000 square feet) but they believe the City is obliged to examine their request to have a two story facility on Washington Street. He stated that the dedication of right -of -way on Washington Street would impact Pomona First Federal's property (Parcel 6) making it unusable unless their partnership buys this parcel and uses it with their other five lots. MEMOGT.014 /CS -2- If they cannot make this project work, they will have no option but to leave the parcels as they exist today. Mr. Selzer stated that if the City prefers independent development on each parcel, the City could not ask for additional right -of -way based on present legal statutes (e.g. Nolan vs. Coastal Commission). However, he felt the City's legal counsel should examine this legal issue further. D. Shared Parking - Mr. Pead stated that the parking calculation that staff proposed was a "worst" case scenario. He stated that they will have strictly day or night type users possibly in this center and they would like to submit a shared parking analysis per the Urban Land Institute requirements to resolve this matter. He felt their parking ratios were adequate. E. Storm Water Retention - he built Simon Motors he but when Plaza La Quinta accommodate water run -off Mr. Simon, Sr. stated that when had to examine water retention, was built they did not have to in their project. Mr. Pead and Mr. John Sanborn both stated they are receptive to working with the City to resolve their storm water problems; and they were comfortable with the attached condition on this matter. F. Proposed Conditions of Approval - Mr. Pead expressed concern regarding Conditions 14, 16, 18, 25, 38, 41 -45, 49, 53, 64 & 65. He felt some of these conditions should not be imposed, were not relevant or did not reflect the actions of the Design Review Board. G. Simon Drive Intersection with Washington Street - Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. stated that a median break at this intersection is important for patrons who live in the cove area of the City and that the traffic signal discussion had been debated by the Planning Commission and City Council during the review and approval of the Washington Square project. If this access point did not have full access to Washington Street, he felt traffic needs would not be met in this area for City residents. H. Project Setbacks - Mr. Pead stated that they have modified the project over the last few months, and various adjustments have been made to meet the intent of the City's General Plan and Zoning Code. They have averaged the setbacks around the property frontage. I. Letter of Support - On December 10, 1991, the Applicant submitted approximately 110 letters of support for the bowling center. Packets were given to each Commissioner. A majority of the letters were from people who reside in La Quinta, and the other letters were from other Coachella Valley residents. MEMOGT.014 /CS -3- In summary, the Applicants believed the project was both aesthetically pleasing and would meet the economic needs of the community. PUBLIC COMMENT: Steve Robbins, ESCO Engineering, spoke representing the Washington Square project located to the south of the subject site. Mr. Robbin's stated that they were opposed to the Applicant's request to: 1) have a two story building within 150 -feet of Washington Street, 2) allow a landscape variance, 3) permit off -site storm water channeling, 4) allow full turn movements at Simon Drive /Washington Street, and 5) delete the 8 -foot bike trail on Washington Street. The Applicant should be required to meet Coachella Valley Water District's on and off -site water and sewer requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION (DECEMBER 10, 1991): The Planning Commission debated many of the topics that were addressed in the Staff Report and asked various questions of staff and the Applicant. However, the case was continued to January 14, 1992, in order for staff to work with the developer to resolve the following issues or questions: 1. Can the Applicant meet the one story height provision of the City's General Plan within 150 -feet of Washington Street? 2. Examine the front yard setbacks on both primary street frontages and their relationship to the project and to abutting properties (e.g. approved projects, existing projects, etc.) 3. Review the on -site parking needs of the project and determine if shared parking arrangements can be allowed. 4. Is the off -site storm water plan, as proposed by the developer, adequate? 5. Is this project too intense for the site? 6. Are the aesthetics of the project acceptable for this primary corner of the City? 7. Is the parking structure necessary, and if so, can the project designer reevaluate its bulkiness and location on the property? Can the height of the structure be reduced? 8. Can the architect create "view corridors" through out the project which will enhance the character of the development? MEMOGT.014 /CS -4- MEETING WITH STAFF: Staff met with Mr. Pead on December 17, 1991, to discuss the views and actions of the Planning Commission on December 10, 1991. At the meeting, staff gave the applicant two alternative site plans which were prepared by staff. Both plans proposed one story buildings on Washington Street, reduced building square footage and elimination of the parking structure. Mr. Pead said he would review our ideas to see if some of our ideas /thoughts could be used if they choose to examine other design options for their site. Mr. Pead stated that he would have his architect put the architectural elements of the project on his Computer Aided Design (CAD) system so that various views through the site could be shown to the Planning Commission versus the flat elevation drawings which were presented at the December 10th meeting. Mr. Pead said it is important that the Planning Commission understand the buildings articulation they are proposing, especially on Washington Street. He said he did not believe that the Planning Commission understood that the upstairs offices (2 story) on Washington Street were not as close to the street as the first floor offices. Hence, it is their belief that the building would not be an intrusion on the Washington Street corridor. Mr. Pead said that they will also show the existing Simon Motors building to the east on their Highway 111 elevation in order to give the Planning Commission a better idea of how their building heights relate to this existing structure. Staff also inquired if their development team had asked Mr. Fred Simon, Sr. whether or not the proposed parking structure could be put on the Simon Motors property versus where it is currently proposed. Mr. Pead said to his knowledge, this matter had never been discussed. However, Mr. Pead felt the proposed location of the parking structure was appropriate because it services all the proposed uses of the site more effectively then if it was located to the east of its present location. It was agreed that Mr. Pead would submit any new submittals to staff by January 6, 1992. MEMOGT.014 /CS -5- NEW SUBMITTAL (PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - JANUARY 14, 1992): On January 6, 1992, the Applicant submitted a new proposal for this site. The plan has reduced the project square footage to 134,018 square feet, from 168,000 square feet, and reduced the parking structure from five levels to four levels (deleted 96 parking spaces). Currently, each office building will be two stories but the basements have been deleted and, the second story building connection over the two -way driveway has been deleted. The project square footage has been reduced by approximately 21%. The new summary is.as follows: A. Bank /Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. of floor space B. Fitness Center 12,000 sq. ft. of floor space C. Restaurant /Bowling Alley 42,240 sq. ft. of floor space D. Office Buildings 71,778 sq. ft. of floor space 134,018 sq. ft. total floor space PARKING ANALYSIS: * A. 2 Restaurants (20 sp /1000 sq.ft. of pub. area)= 130 pk. spaces * *B. Fitness Center (1 sp /150 sq.ft. pub. area)= 53 pk. spaces C. Bowling Alley (3 sp /Alley)= 120 pk. spaces D. Office Building (1 sp /250 sq. ft.)= 287 pk. spaces or Office Medical (1 sp /200 sq. ft.)= 358 pk. spaces ---------- - - - - -- Approximate Total Required 590 pk. spaces or 661 pk. spaces (with office medical) Total Provided 474 pk. spaces * Assumption - Half the restaurant will be used for public dining. ** Assumption - 2/3 of the Fitness Center will be for public purposes. Staff would like to point out that the number of on -site parking spaces is still short of the minimum number as required by the City Parking Code. We also did not receive a shared parking study by January 6, 1992, as requested. The study was delivered on January 14, 1992. The proposed architectural elements have remained similar to the design as examined by the Planning Commission except the architect has eliminated the second story complex to the office /bowling alley complex. This feature was removed by the architect in order to create a view corridor through the project as requested by the Planning Commission at their meeting of December 10, 1991. MEMOGT.014 /CS -6- Staff did not receive the CAD drawings or the street view plans (with Simon Motors included) by January 6, 1992, as discussed with the applicant on December 17, 1991. The material was presented at the January 14, 1992, meeting. DISCUSSION OF CONDITIONS: A. Infrastructure Fee - At the December 10, 1991 meeting, the developer inquired why the City was requiring an infrastructure fee since they are required to improve the site with new improvements. Resolution 87 -39, as adopted by the City Council in 1987 (amending Resolution 85 -26), was adopted to fund the following community facilities: public buildings, public safety buildings, recreation buildings, bridges, major thoroughfares, and traffic /pedestrian signals. Public construction projects are exempt from this fee and low income projects can be exempted if permitted by the City Council. However, all other projects are required to pay the fee at the time the City issues a building permit. The Resolution does discuss credits which can be available to the Applicant /developer but no credits are allowed for "....construction or widening of major thoroughfares." Therefore, the requirements on Washington Street would not qualify for a credit, however, the Applicant can pursue Redevelopment Agency assistance if they so choose with the City Council. On January 14, 1992, the developer stated he would discuss this matter with the City Council. a B. Fringed -Toed Lizard Fee - The Coachella Valley Fringed -Toed Lizard Conservation Plan was adopted in 1986. 1 It was developed to mitigate the impacts of development on this Federally protected species. The plan, as adopted, requires the Valley cities to collect $600.00 per acre on properties within the designated habitat area at the time a building permit or grading permit is issued. The developer has stated that they graded the property in 1982, therefore, they should not be subject to this fee. Staff has contacted the US Wildlife Department to inquire whether or not the project would be exempt from this fee, but it was determined that the site would not be exempt because the only exceptions are for public agencies or agricultural uses which were in effect prior to 1982. On January 14, 1992, the developer stated he would fulfill this requirement. MEMOGT.014 /CS -7- C. Design Review Board - The conditions of the Design Review Board were outlined in the Staff Report of October 2, 1991, and their motion was to accept the recommendations of staff, but with minor modifications. The information in the report is correct. D. Bus Shelter Locations - Staff has decided to eliminate the proposed bus shelter on Washington Street although requested by Sunline Transit because it will hamper traffic movement at the intersection. E. Joint Use and Time -Share Use of.Parkinq - The off - street parking code (Section 9.160.035) addresses this topic. The key components are: 1. That the parking plan is x methodology. 2. That the plan is based on requirements. 3. That the time -share uses are minutes and /or are for separate provided for unforeseen peak time 4. That the parking facilities are a used on ULI "Shared parking" the City's off - street parking separated by a minimum of 60 days and 15% excess capacity is miscalculations. binding part of the plan. After these standards are met, the developer must for a two year period, guarantee additional land to meet the City's off - street parking requirements without time - sharing. The guarantee can be in the form of a bond or other acceptable mechanism. The City will examine the project over the two year period. The study was received on January 14, 1992, and a copy of Staff's memorandum to the Planning Commission is attached. The shared parking program does, not meet the provisions of the Off - Street Parking Code... F. Archaeological Study On December 5, 1991, the developer submitted a copy of their 1981 Archaeologic Study which was prepared by Jean A. Salpas. Our review of the study is that the report addressed the Simon Motor's site exclusively. Therefore, we would recommend that the Planning Commission leave the requirement of the on -site archaeologic study as a condition of approval unless the developer can have the original consultant certify that the site was also included in the 1981 study and subsequent on -site work supervised. The developer has been unable to contact the original Archaeologist, but they said they would submit a study if one was not done. MEMOGT.014 /CS -8- STAFF CONCLUSION: The Applicant has tried to address the Planning Commission's concern on building square footage and they have made an attempt to provide a "view window" through the project be eliminating the second story building element at the southwest side of the site. However, the project is still deficient in on -site parking, landscape setbacks and building heights along Washington Street. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION - JANUARY 14, 1992 The Planning Commission examined the new site plan submittal of January 6, 1992, on January 14, 1992. The Planning Commission took testimony from the developer regarding the changes they have proposed from that which was reviewed on December 10, 1991. Mr. Pead stated he thought they had addressed many of the concerns of the Commission and he wanted to remind the Commissioners that they have reduced the project from 168,000 square feet to 134,000 square feet. The applicant also stated that they would discuss their off -site improvement requirements with the City Council to see if Redevelopment assistance is available. It was also mentioned that they would request that the Planning Commission consider again, their request for a two -story office complex on Washington Street, and allow the variance request to permit a variation in the City's landscape and building setback requirements. The Planning Commission examined the new request of the applicant and again took testimony on the project, but a majority of the Planning Commission members felt that their function was to uphold the design standards of the City which includes both aesthetic concerns and development requirements. It was stated that the Planning Commission understood the development problems of the site since it is irregular in shape but they also felt the one story height policy standard of the General Plan should be met. The Commission noted that the other approved projects in the City have met this requirement and if they allow a deviation in this standard it will open the door for other similar requests. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - JANUARY 14, 1992: The Planning Commission voted to deny the applicants Variance request with four of the Commissioners voting for the motion, and Commissioner Marrs voting no. Commissioner Marrs stated that he believes the applicant has made a valid effort to' modify the development request for the Planning Commission and he stated that the irregular size of the properties warrant further discussion by the Commission on the merits of the Variance request. The Planning Commission voted to approve the applicants Plot Plan request and four of the Commission voted for the motion with Commissioner Marrs voting no again.. The motion required the applicant to adhere to the one story height limit on Washington Street within 150 -feet of the future property line, maintain the City's landscape and building setback standards, and insure that truck delivery /loading and appropriate number of trash enclosures are constructed on the premises. MEMOGT.014 /CS 1 -9- In summary, the Planning Commission felt the project was to massive, too close to the street and, would degrade the Washinton Street corridor. APPLICANT'S APPEAL: On January 15, 1992, the applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Variance and three conditions of the Plot Plan approval. RECOMMENDATION: By Minute Motion 92- , instruct Staff to set a public hearing to consider the appeal of Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91 -466, and denial of Variance 91 -016 as set forth herein. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicants appeal 3. Large Plans dated January 6, 1992 4. C.A.D. Drawings - Reductions 5. Shared Parking Summary dated January 14, 1992 6. Planning Commission minutes of December 10, 1991 7. Past Staff Report (December 10, 1991) 8. Resolution 92- , Variance 91 -019 (Denial) 9. Conditions of Approval, PP 91 -466 MEMOGT.014 /CS -10- N Maift PROJECT LOCATION MAP AND FIGURE 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS I.AQUINTA.DWG g o� cr 5 n .-1 r a 8. r- 0 p Planning & Development Department I APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS 41> Appellant's Name SIMON PLAZA, INC. Date January 15, 1992 Mailing Address 78 -611 HIGHWAY 111 LA OUINTA, CA 92253 Phone: (619) 773 -2345 RE: Case No. VAR91- 019 -Simon Plaza, Inc. Type of Appeal:. Conditional Use Permit Outdoor Atvetitsiq= -ti `�i} Variance Consistenc4' wii**'6eneral Plah'` -'° Change of Zone Environmental Assessment Public Use Permit Setback Adjustments Surface Mining & Temporary Use Permit Reclamation Permit Plot Plan Please state basis for appeal and include any supportive evidence. If applicable, indicate the number of the specific condition which is being protested. Please see attached sheets. Use additional sheets if necessary. Signature FORM.003 /CS -1- City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS We request the Council approve Plot Plan 91 -466 and the conditions for approval with the following exceptions: Condition 25F: (A.) We request the Council make an exception to the one story height restriction along Washington Street because such an exception is consistent with the City's General Plan Urban Design (Program Policy 6.5.8). A 150' setback from Washington Street for buildings above one story in height is severely restrictive in the development of this irregularly shaped parcel. (B.) There have been no height stipulations on one story buildings prior to.this application. The building along Washington Street is only 282' high. If this building was one story of 21' or 282', it would be acceptable to the City. (C.) Development of these parcels could go forward as is, based on the current Parcel Maps with CPS Zoning. The development of individual parcels would prevent the City from receiving the necessary dedications of land to accomodate the widening of Washington Street without incurring the cost to acquire the appropriate parcels. If we agree to make the exceptions to these conditions and other condtions which are set -back as mentioned below and height along Simon Drive and other conditions specified in this application, the Developer would dedicate the land necessary for the City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department -3, APPLICATION FOR APPEAL OF FINDINGS OR CONDITIONS Condition 25F; (Continued) widening of Washington Street, thus saving the Condition 38: City a substantial amount of money. We request the Council allow the Developer to average the 50' landscape set -back along Highway 111 which meets the set -back requirement. We are currently proposing set -backs on Highway 111 of 35' to 20'. This is consistent with Simon Motors to the east which has a 9' landscaped area and the Beef & Brew to.the west which has a 10' landscaped area. Condition 60: We request a signal be installed at Simon Drive and Washington Street to allow Sunline Transit to place a bus transfer center on Simon Drive. This signal would allow busses and other traffic to make a southbound turn onto Washington Street from Simon Drive and obviate the need for a bus stop on Highway 111. -END- PON vc ' .. •may '• ,, I � �� i Wells 00%+� - r '� P . `• \ •','° �� l Q . oo � AEG ()l 1 T ,�•• i %v ... 872 ! 11 29 BM 61 .! Vu { etc'; i - � •' t Tr>flkr PyL pwk • \ 1 J lid /YC.+N[ It / w•I • ' •� well 04. 0 6. r. c p c \ r t- r `� - .a- � of p - • - �.,,�� co) C,�ISE NO y p o ••.. — •. 1 r J. •• ♦vIwVC Well well • • • i :l o o r 3 j i � y.wef %\ l...i. `. :. •0 O ; :..1 �• 1 •.......�.. ` n Q ' ; • ' LA QU[X TA,:ALIF:: K/4 PALM DESERT 11 AORAMGIE N3337.5— w1161i7.5 I e ; 1959 PHOTOREVISEO 1080 • DMA 1751 111 NE— SERIES YOS • U ' Q Vacant l � Plaza La Quinta Parking i Point Happy Ranch CASE No. Beef 6 \ Brew '-"*U b '° ID Q Existing Tract Homes Washington Street frontage Road %-� Existing ~Traffic Signal Vacant Land Raised Median CASE MAP SIMON PLAZA PROJECT LOCATION MAP 4CVacant Building AJP-1. JAN 14 1992 VfFy OF : A QUINT: PFANP iNG DEPARTMENT s p e - X1110 AItCHI'I'EC'IS N.I »..,,... DaVILO�aw /a.wwR A GWNTA. CA. 1239) ARCMTaCT NeowN /lease 11c. aw a ouo ow. •Ta. sls N •r RING a. CA. 1]]a] x111 )]9 -11]l CONCEPTUAL MASSING STUDY - LOOKING ACROSS HWY III SOUTH FROM FUTURE SHOPPING CENTER E TV-• cT SIMON PLAZA In La Q—ta, Cal,. MASSING CONCEPTUAL u.T.ocu3 CONCEPTUAL MASSING AERIAL PERSPECTIVE - LOOKING NORTHWEST ACROSS WASHINGTON EMIBff _CASE NO: „ F 7” OC=) wn. .1121 hit (N Iiii-IM 15i u a. o uj z 3:1 oz W( d) u Eli C%j 2n z a z z 0 z u LU 0 IU F W 0) W 0) F- z u 40 A F- 0 LU d) < W z V z z L J < J a- uj IL uj u u z z u u z z u LU w z 3 1 Df F- Z d) r J IL w 0 z } � /$ < F- W z I' L! L1:9 Z ur 3 Me 0 z z u LU w z 3 1 Df F- Z d) r J IL w 0 z :2 :2 on, Wall Fu- 0 1 Z d) } � /$ < F- W z I' L! L1:9 :2 :2 on, Wall Fu- 0 1 Z d) < F- W z Z ur :2 :2 on, Wall Fu- 0 1 Z d) i 2 > MEMORANDUM OF TO: HONORABLE CHAIRPERSON & PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS FROM: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992 SUBJECT: TIME - SHARED PARKING CALCULATIONS FOR SIMON PLAZA On January, 14, 1992, Staff received the applicants proposed study for the proposed commercial complex at the southeast corner of Washington Street & Highway 111. The document is attached. The study is based on the City's copy of the 1983 Urban Land Institution document as required by the Off- Street Parking Code. Generally, the ULI study examines varied land uses of varying sizes (single use projects) and examined similar projects combined as one project. The typical mixed use project comprised the following: 1) office /regional retail, 2) office /entertainment, 3) office /hotel, or 4) a mixture thereof. The projects were scattered throughout the country and the project consultant was Barton- Aschman, a traffic engineering firm. WHAT IS A MIXED USE PROJECT ?: The study defined a mixed use development as having the following traits: o Three or more significant revenue - producing land uses; o Significant functional and physical integration of project components (including continuous pedestrian connections); o A coherent development phasing, scheduling, land characteristics. MEMOGT.012 /CS -1- plan specifying project use densities, and other The study states: "In recent years, many mixed -use projects have been successful as catalysts for urban redevelopment and are viewed as unique and interesting places in which to work, visit, or live. To increase revenue and promote a lively atmosphere, mixed -use developments are frequently planned to incorporate land use activities that extend daytime activity periods into evening. Combining land uses has a number of advantages, including the opportunity to. take advantage of a captive market, certain economies of scale, and cost savings associated with the reduced amount of space required." INTERNAL AND SITE RELATED ISSUES: 1. Paid versus free parking (Is there a premium number of spaces in the area ?) 2. Parking structures versus surface parking 3. Entrance /exit capacity and control 4. Types of parking spaces (turnover rate for different uses) 5. Internal circulation system (Is the system easy to understand ?) 6. Directional signing (on -site arrows) 7. Pedestrian system (linkage) 8. Security /safety (Is the area secure and well lit ?) 9. Flexibility of the internal design EXTERNAL ISSUES: 1. Guaranteed Parking - Does the project guarantee peak levels of service? 2. Exclusive Parking - Will other abutting uses utilize the on-site parking areas? There are-many factors you can consider, such as: seasonal variations, parking demand (is it located downtown ?), public transportation, management of shared parking facilities, parking fees and other unforeseen variables. However, the typical pattern was as follows: o Offices: midday peak, evening periods at less than 10% of peak o Retail: midday peak, evening periods less than 70% of peak o Restaurants: evening peak, midday at 50% of peak NOTE: The study did not examine bowling alleys or fitness centers. mrmnrm.012 /CS -2- The ULI study concluded that if shared parking is considered, the governing agency should insure that the following attributes are considered. They are: 1., Each parking space should be usable by any parker; that is, no restrictions have been placed on the use of the spaces. 2. The facility will have significant inbound and outbound traffic flow at one or more periods of the day. Therefore, the design of the access and circulation system must accommodate bidirectional movement without significant conflict. The circulation concept should be easy to use and understand. 3. The facility.will probably operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Thus, safe day and night operation is a significant characteristic. 4. Because of the multiple land uses that would be served, involving a variety of types of parkers (i.e. business, daily versus infrequent, shoppers, visitors, recreation), the facility will be more sensitive to effective signing, markings, and other forms of communication. 5. Enforcement will be important because the facility will be more sensitive to encroachment. 6. A strategy for the use of the facility needs to be developed to guide parkers to the most optimum space. The strategy would consider: o Achieving maximum separation of those parkers whoatend to compete for space; o Achieving minimum walking distance to those land uses serving captive markets; o Achieving minimum separation of those parkers not competing for space. REPORT CONCLUSION: Shared parking is not a new phenomenon. It has long been observed in central business districts, suburban communities, and other areas where land uses are combined. While developers and public officials recognize the existence of shared parking, typical zoning codes do not provide for it. Instead, most zoning codes are expressed in terms of peak parking indices or ratios for major types of individual land uses. While the peak ratios reflect the differences in parking demand generated by separate land uses and under certain conditions, they do not reflect the fact that total or combined peak parking demand can be significantly less than the sum of the individual demand values. That is, parking requirements may be overstated if they require space for the peak parking accumulations of each individual land use. MEMOGT.012 /CS -3- STAFF CONCLUSION: We believe that the applicants study is consistent with the ULI guidelines. However, it should be noted that the ULI study does not address "peak hours" of usage for the bowling alley or fitness center. Hence, the percentages prepared by the developer are based on their assumption of when the project will be experiencing parking demand versus the other on -site uses. We do think that their percentages seem realistic, but it is hard to say whether or not, for example, the fitness center will be at 50% or 75% demand at 12 noon. Demand could be higher than that proposed by the applicant, but .then again, the clients could also be users from the abutting (on -site) office complex. We would also like to state the applicant did not evaluate a medical complex in his proposal. The project does seem to meet the definition and goals of a mixed use development scenario as described above-because the developer has proposed various land uses, various parking facilities, parking which is free to each patron, parking signing, pedestrian linkage, and other features which are consistent with ULI standards. Therefore, the developer can meet the "peak" parking demand based on their January 6, 1992 submittal if the Planning Commission agrees with the attached submittal. However, the Off- Street Parking Code also requires that the City include a 15% excess capacity penalty to accommodate unforeseen miscalculations or approximately 509 parking spaces. Hence, the new site plan is still deficient by approximately 35 spaces. The last element to discuss would be the applicants need to guarantee off -site surplus land (parking spaces) for the project for a two year period-as required by the Off- Street Parking Code. Mr. Pead has stated that they will guarantee property on the Simon Motors site to accomplish this requirement, and if necessary in the future, they will construct another parking structure on this abutting lot to meet their minimum on -site needs without accounting for time shared provisions. Attachment MEMOGT.012 /CS -4- JI /I \v r1 r vn4- --� JAN 14 1992 ` 15�s oFFI G E/s• • '• -►'1, �w ?b s, f �f /4,A � nN E X 4- 12.a �JT�I�yy GEN E - IZ,G S.1'x % x ! GAR /ISo 5.F = c� • AS- wk%rflOtJS A.AvE ARE -ro 6M�TE WONT GASE GOPv'l'rtONS. I • 8.�v ti F f�-ul 2I UG ON GoRNE.r- %41L-t, gE A F 6!/.,fAUP-A01' 2. f•IIGF}E�•'f S�F- Apo�At� t1S� '�AKEN • 3. �CEsrALi r2Ar+rl., •(A KIN s e, So go lz euc. vim. s}•. rjfi4F45 GE►�rEtL ',Ar-EN As of AKA P ��e�ic U56 . 5• USE f E�'GENTf14E't A��:iGNEP '% �I�NESS �ISovJl,�N4 GEN'(Ef�S A)?� GONSE�`�ATI�/E PE'rEP -,.KIN EP iif rr iVA'fE Wwl ARc44 . • II FOLLO14ING GH^iz P- Pom, 5xwgI'r 28, of THE US N LAND IN5T'IT11T1� - ��P�E�I�I- ��'rl�� µvUeLY /q GGU /^LJ L ION 1✓ T OUK- �...._- Ol%FiGt`S �F1.'�Ai1P,AN'r�i rOvl �1 iJ� F ITr� ES S _ p_ GARS o GARS _ °jo G �24 _ '7 o_ GAr - T AI. GABS ..._ . - - - -- ® :GO A iti 5 2G 7o z C�0 2? 7 ,11 q.ov Q3 20'•i 10 /3 Zo 74• 148 Sv So _ z7 _ _ 3s3_ 412 - - - — - - 1 99:00 IDo.. 311 Zv 26 4O 7-7 IIADO 1� 311 3v 3R 0 44-7 — 00 PA • 90 -Z 00 ?o q I So 50 7-1 �2? - Z -7 4.7 - - - 44 -f - 11.0 a� 3oz 6d '1B 50 to yo 1 -1AAx . U% - - - -- -g;a9 q3 289 by '78 50 l o Sv 'q': 231 ro 60 ; '15 �" �o Z? 3G I .W 41 I ?v q I Bo •; :_ 3� !r2 35I 23 -72 loo I ? c ion 53 3GZ /DD B:DO 1 zz !co t 3v 1�v I !:v s3 32S q:p0 3 � loo f 30 !vo 1 "• ^- Icv �3 >I? - - .�o:pD ?3 20 I I IG 1 - �1�:p0._ . •- - 50 X05 2s -•.:� - - qs SAKI N� P�o�I v�v :q- LAf�.s rAgK104 rFWUI269 = s iol GAK 'e.- EXHIBIT 28 REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR Urban Land Institute, Mixed Use Development, Shared Parking Study OFFICE RETAIL RESTAURANT CINEMP. R�We��w! Reua�• N~ r pr 1111r.ta" SMwaw GSM Sao v4•ba., word" Dash w4erM sawaq oWf 6 :00 am 3K. — — — — — — I wx. 100'. 100%/ :00 am 20 2(Y4tt 8'X. 39f. 2X 27r — R' 05, 05 8:00 a m 63 60 18 10 5 3 — ?9 88 00 0 00 am 93 80 42 30 10 6 — 73 81 87 1000 am 100 80 68 45 20 8 — 69 .4 8 5 I1 00 am 100 100 87 73 30 10 — 59 71 85 12 00 Noon 90 100 0; 85 t0 30 30'X. 00 71 85 100 p m 00 80 100 05 70 45 70 50 70 85 2 00 p in 97 60 07 100 60 45 70 60 71 R5 3 00 p m 93 40 95 100 60 45 70 61 73 95 4.00 p m 77 40 87 9n 50 45 70 66 75 '197 5 00 p m 47 20 79 75 10 60 70 77 41 �0 6.00 p m 23 20 82 65 90 90 80 8 85 92 00 p m 7 20 89 60 100 05 00 94 A7 9+ 800 Pm 7 20 87 55 100 100 100 06 92 96 9.00 p m 3 — 61 40 100 100 100 98 95 9R 10 00 p m 3 — 32 38 00 05 100 00 96 99 1100 Pm — — 13 13 70 85 90 100 08 1(N) .12 00 Mid — — — — 50 10 :0 100 100 !00 night Urban Land Institute, Mixed Use Development, Shared Parking Study Planning Commission - Minutes - - - - - - - -- December 10, 1.991 _ 1. At \erequest of the licant.'._Commissi r. Ellson. moved and..Coner Ladner s nded . a motion. to tiriue the PublicHe the meeting 01 nuary l4_, :1992.....' ROLL CAL OTE - -_ - -AY • _Commissioners Mo er, Marrs,, _:, -_ Ladne �Ellson, & 'rwoman- - Barrows. I NOES: None. SENT: None. AB INING: None. Plot Plan 91 -466 and Variance 91 -019; a request of Simon Plaza to develop a mixed use commercial complex which will include the C . e development of multiple story buildings and a five level parking structure on 5.5+ acres zoned Scenic Highway Commercial. A variance is requested to reduce the on -site off - street parking standards and to deviate from the setback requirements of the Municipal Code. PCMINI2 -10 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer presented the information contained in the traffic study and stated there was a correction relative to the turning movements. A copy of the report is on file in the Engineering Department. 3. Commissioner Mosher asked if the radius at the intersection would cut into the property. Mr. Speer stated it would and the property line would be closer to the octagonal restaurant /bank structure. 4. Commissioner Ellson asked if the bus turnout and turning lane would be in conflict. Mr. Speer stated there would not be a deceleration lane so as to cause a conflict. 5. Commissioner Marrs asked if the radius would encroach in the setback. Mr. Speer stated it would encroach for about 37 feet. Discussion followed regarding the setbacks. 6. Commissioner Ellson asked if Simon Drive would be a full turning movement on Washington Street. Mr. Speer stated it would until the median was constructed. Discussion followed regarding the traffic flow and bus turnouts for this and the neighboring projects. 7. Chairwoman Barrows opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Fred Simon Sr., property owner /Applicant, addressed the Commission regarding his concern for a right turn in and out access only. He asked that a signal be allowed on Simon Drive that would be synchronized with the Highway 111 signal. 2 . h A . �r' � ., s' v�y . Y .�} .� d� �:� ��,�: b� it�i .�� , �'� Planning Comm iesrorr Minutes December 10, 1991 =- --- = -- 8. Mr. Philip Pead, Applicant; gave- a - description of -what the project proposed_ -introduced Mr: Rudy Leeway, Brunswick Bowling Center, who- gave a - presentdtion on the operational merits of the bowling alley. Commissioner Ellson asked if the bowling alley would• be applying for a- liquor -license- .- -.Mr. Leeway" stated they would - -be serving alcohoL Mr. Pead continued with his presentation. 9. Commissioner Mosher inquired about the original approvals in 1982 in regard to the 3.4 acres dedicated for the right -of -way. Mr. Pead stated that Mr. Simon had already spent a great deal of money for the original improvements to get it where it is today. 10. Mr. Pead then went on to discuss the conditions that he had objections to. Those conditions were: #14, #16, #18, #25.A., C. , E. , F. , J. , #38, #41 -45, #49, #53, #64, and #65. 11. Commissioner Ellson asked how tall the existing Simon building is and how tall will the proposed building be. It was stated the existing Simon Motors building is between 35 and 38 feet high and the proposed buildings will be the same height. She then asked how the parcels were split and who owned them. Mr. Paul Seltzer stated the corner parcel was owned by Pomona Federal Savings and Loan. The remainder is owned by a partnership of Mr. Simon, Mr. Sanborn, and Mr. Seltzer. Commissioner Ellson asked if they would be developing the project. Mr. Pead stated they would be hiring a developer to build the project. 12. Commissioner Mosher asked where the 3.4 acres that was dedicated was located. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn & Webb, stated that 66 feet of Washington Street and the full width of Simon Drive was dedicated to the City. Discussion followed as to . how much more land was being required by the City. Commissioner Mosher then asked who approved the preliminary and final map. Mr. Sanborn stated that the final map was processed through the City. Discussion followed as to who requested the dedications and how they came to be. 13. Mr. Paul Seltzer, attorney and part owner, addressed the Commission regarding the dedications imposed on the project. He stated they would be willing to dedicate to the City the additional right -of -way on Washington Street and the 65 foot radius required at the corner in return for the setback and height reductions. Discussion followed as the value of the property and the potential income from that property. 14. Commissioner Mosher questioned why any City or County would require the road improvements to be installed on Simon Drive. Mr. Simon stated that the County not only required a road but an PCMINI2 -10 3 1 Planning Comm ission_Minutes_ -_ December 10;. 1991_. 88 foot wide-- road and.4n -.addition :they - were. forced: -to, -supply- a:- water line from Dune Palms -Road to Washington- Street -in order to supply the La Quinta Plaza shopping center with water: 15 . Commissioner Ellson asked if the conditions imposed on them were greater than conditions imposed on any other developer. Mr. Simon stated this was a difficult question to answer but he felt they were excessive.- 16. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. Pead to expand on the medical services that were indicated on the plans. Mr. Pead stated they were working with a medical center to bring limited services to the area. Discussion followed as to possible tenants and also alternative site plans. 17. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern for the intensity of the building density. She asked if the project could be viable with a lower amount of building square footage. Mr. Pead stated they felt the square foot area was what they feel the property is worth. 18. Mr. Steve Robbins, Esco Engineering, spoke on behalf of the Washington Square owners to the south, expressing their concerns about a two story building within 150 feet of Washington Street and that it will be in conflict with other approved projects on Washington Street. Other objections were: a. The landscape setback reductions b. The stormwater retention basin (off -site) c. The full turn access at Simon Drive and Washington Street. d. The 8 foot bike lane should be the same along Washington as everyone else . He further stated that one half of the property dedicated for Simon Drive belonged to the Washington Square property owners. In addition, the water line extensions are required by Coachella Valley Water District as growth dictates development. 19. Mr. Pead addressed the issue of the stormwater retention and stated they are working with the City to solve this problem. 20. Commissioner Mosher inquired about the 154 parking spaces they are lacking. Mr. Pead stated they felt time share parking would be acceptable to the City and that they would submit their calculations soon. PCMIN12 -10 4 Planning Commission - Minutes -- : - -_. -- December 10, 1991 -.__ 21. Commissioner Ellson asked -if -the restaurant :is•:proposed. onl -y. to:_,_- be a dinner house', what is to, keep it from. serving lunches, and thereby changing :the parking. requirements; Mr.. Pead stated _... . this should be controlled -- through -:the, :Conditional. Use .Permit, -: process. 22. Chairwoman Barrows stated her concern-regarding the intensity of the proposed uses and the size of the parking structure. She asked if they had pursued any of the suggestions of the Design Review Board in regard to providing additional parking underground (sub - grade) . Mr. Pead stated they were already one level below ground and in reality the structure is no higher than the proposed building. 23. Commissioner Ellson stated her concern for openness for a view through the project. Mr. Merlin Barth, architect for the project, addressed the design issues and further explained the layout of the buildings to show where there were views through the buildings. Discussion followed as to this location being a focal point entrance to the City. 24. There being no further comments, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. 25. Commissioner Mosher inquired of Staff regarding joint use of parking being provided for in the City ordinances. Staff stated that the Ordinance does provide for joint use but the Applicant has not provided Staff with the information to make this determination. 26. Commissioner Mosher asked how much land is in the setback on Washington Street right -of -way. , It was stated approximately 20,000 square feet. Discussion followed as to methods the City could use to obtain the right -of -way. 27. Commissioner Ellson asked whether the bike path would fall within the setback area. Staff stated it would not. Discussion followed regarding the area to be used for bike paths and bus turnouts. 28. Commissioner Mosher asked the Applicant if they have a fitness center and bowling alley tenant. Mr. Pead stated they have both tenants secured. 29. Chairwoman Barrows asked the Commission to express their view on the Variance request. Commissioner Ladner stated she objected to making exceptions and felt the project should conform to the City requirements. Chairwoman Barrows, Commissioner Ladner, and Commissioner Ellson stated their objections to the PCMIN12 -10 Planning Commission_ Minutes December 10, building mass and :_project density 9 Commissioner Mosher would like to see the project - conform to --the requirement of. all one story structures within.. _150 feet of . a. major- . arterial -, the, parking requirements being resolved; and the retention basin resolved with Engineering. -- Commissioner:.E -llson would -.like to see the - square foot distribution of -the buildings rearranged. Commissioner Marrs expressed his appreciation to- the Applicant for working with Staff and feels his project will be contribution to the community and would like to see these issues resolved. 30. Due to the above stated concerns of the Commission and their desire to see the project approved the Commission felt the project should be continued to allow Staff and the Applicant time to see if they could work out some of these problems. 31. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and seconded by Commissioner Ladner to refer Plot Plan 91 -466 and Variance 91 -019 back to Staff to resolve the concerns of the Commission and bring this issue back to the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 14, 1992. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. Public Use Permit 91 -012; a request of the Boys and Girls Club for 000 square foot clubhouse, administrative offices, and e ou swimming pool and pool building. 1. Pri 1 Planner Stan Sawa presented the info on contained in the I report, a copy of which is on fil he Planning and Developme epartment . 2. Commissioner El quired ' e schools went to year round attendance would th e roblem with the parking. Staff stated this was a possib 3. Chairwoman Bar opened ublic Hearing. Mr. Reuel Young, are for the project, • ve a presentation of the Project. . urther stated that in t f th e project year r school attendance was addres %anningio d t was felt that the 'acent areas would provide enough p He asked that one -way traffic condition be changed from to west to est to east. He also asked for clarification of Con s #1 and #12. PCMINI2 -10 6 'C" Planning December Commission Minutes -- - -- 10, 4. Assistant City - Engineer Steve - Speer- addressed (- Condition -of=- = : Approval #12-- #12 - -and stated that - Park- Avenue-would need=-to be =- widened to allow a turning pocket and have a total width of 40 feet. It is presently- 32. feet.*: Commissioner Ladner asked why Staff did not create - additional -lanes.- -Staff- .stated that by creating additional -lanes you `would probably be creating a problem of cars traveling at a greater speed. 5. Commissioners expressed their approval of the design and thanked Mr. Young for the work he had done. 6. Mr. Young asked for a clarification of Condition #17 as it could alter the landscape design if the citrus trees were to be removed. He asked if as they fill for the pad the playground would remain at the same level, could this serve as the retention basin. Staff stated this could be worked out with Engineering. Chairman Barrows asked the Applicant to retain as many trees as possible. 7. Commissioner Ellson asked if the future pool would be an olympic size pool. Mr. Young stated that the pool was designed to be six lanes and 25 meter long which is the standard race length. S. Commissioner Ellson asked Mr. Young to familiarize the Commission on the heat transmission of a standing seam roof. Mr. Young stated they are a soccer in shape and in a desert climate they get hot fast and cool fast . The way it is constructed the heat would not be held in. In addition, it would be a great help on maintenance. 9. Mr. Bob Ross, financial consultant, addressed the Commission on the good results they were having with other Boys & Girls Clubs utilizing the standing seam roof. 10. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Marrs stated that the Design Review Board approved of the project whole heartedly. 11. Mr. Young asked to clarify what the exterior material would be. He stated their preference would be to use concrete block due to maintenance and other considerations but they would like to have the option to use concrete block or stucco. The Commission had no objection as long as the color would remain the same. 12. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to adopt Minute Motion 91 -048 approving Public Use Permit 91 -012 subject to the amended Condition #3 and with the addition of a condition allowing the exterior material to be concrete block. Discussion followed as to the widening of Park Avenue. Unanimously approved. PCMINI2 -10 7 Planning Commission- Minutes — December 10, 1991__ — ia— — _ - E. _Street Name Change-91 -002; a request of Wilma Pacific for approval to change the -street name of Via Marquessa to Lake La Quinta Drive. 1. Chairwoman Barrows opened -the Public-: - Hearing.- Mr-. Dennis Lamont,, . Wilma. Pacific, addressed. the Commission regarding the street name change. - 2. There being no discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 91 -062 recommending to the City Council approval of Street Name Change 91 -002. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher, Ladner, Ellson, Marrs, & Chairwoman Barrows. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAINING: None. V. PUBLIC COMMENT - None VI. BUSINESS SESSION A. Sign Application 91 -159; a request of Simon Plaza to install a shopping center identification sign, directional signs and multiple building signs for a future office/ commercial facility planned on five and one half acres. 1. At the request of the Applicant, Commissioner Ladner moved and Commissioner Marrs seconded a motion to continue this matter to January 14, 1992. Unanimously approved. VII. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Commissioner Ladner asked that the Minutes of November 26, 1991, be approve as submitted. Unanimously approved. VIII. OTHER A. Planning Director Jerry Herman explained that at the request of the Commission, he had contacted the Fire Marshal asking for their recommendation regarding their need for sideyard- setbacks. Mr. Herman read the Fire Marshal's response regarding ratios and setback requirements. Discussion followed regarding setbacks and options the Commission could take. B . Planning Director Jerry Herman asked the Commission if they would like a preliminary review of major projects before they go to a public hearing. At the request of the Commission this would be placed on the January 14, 1992 agenda. PCMIN12 -10 8 Planning Commission Minutes December 10, 1991 IX. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Ladner and seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on January 14, 1992, at 7:00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:27 P.M., December 10, 1991. PCMINI2 -10 9 PLANNING COMMISSIOI PH -3 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 26, 1991 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A RESTAURANT /BANK, BOWLING ALLEY (40 LANES), - MULTIPLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, A FOUR LEVEL PARKING- STRUCTURE WITH ONE SUBTERRANEAN LEVEL, AND OTHER RELATED STRUCTURES. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 111 AND WASHINGTON STREET, BOTH MAJOR ARTERIALS. THE DEVELOPMENT, ON +5.5 ACRES OF LAND, IS LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING SIMON MOTORS AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP ON HIGHWAY 111. APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC.; PHILIP M. PEAD, PRESIDENT ARCHITECT: MERLIN J. BARTH OWNER: 3S PARTNERSHIP & POMONA FIRST FEDERAL EXISTING ZONING: CPS (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE: NORTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future One Eleven La Quinta Shopping Center) SOUTH: CPS Commercial; Vacant (future Washington Square Commercial Center) EAST: CPS Commercial; Existing Simon Motors WEST: CPS Commercial; Existing Plaza La Quints Shopping Center & Point Happy Ranch ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91 -211 HAS BEEN PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THE INITIAL STUDY INDICATED THAT NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WILL OCCUR THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED BY IMPOSITION OF MITIGATION MEASURES. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT. BACKGROUND: The property was subdivided in of Simon Motors Automotive Dea commercial lots which could be land uses. On October 22, and Commission continued action on had not been completed. the early 1980's for the development lership as well as to establish sold or developed with commercial November 26, 1991, the Planning this case because the traffic study DESCRIPTION OF ,. The proposed +5.5 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on 3 streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Washington Street Specific Plan Alignment program. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL (Prior to November 27, 1991): Prior to November 27, 1991, the developer had proposed a mixture of building types similar to the attached plans. However, the applicant was pursuing a six level parking structure on the property versus the new proposal five level structure (basement, 3 covered, and open parking on the top level). NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN: A. Bank /Restaurant 8,000 sq. ft. of floor space B. Fitness Center 12,000 sq. ft. of floor space C. Restaurant /Bowling Alley 42,240 sq. ft. of floor space D. Office Buildings 105,560 sq. ft. of floor space 167,800 sq. ft. total floor space PARKING ANALYSIS: * A. 2 Restaurants (20 sp /1000 sq.ft. of pub. area)= 130 pk. spaces * *B. Fitness Center (1 sp /150 sq.ft. pub. area)= 53 pk. spaces C. Bowling Alley (3 sp /Alley)= 120 pk. spaces D. Office Building (1 sp /250 sq. ft.)= 422 pk. spaces -Approximate Total Required 725 pk. spaces Total Provided 571 pk. spaces * Assumption - Half the restaurant will be used for public dining. ** Assumption - 2/3 of the Fitness Center will be for public purposes. The new development plan has deleted approximately 96 parking spaces by eliminating one level of the parking structure. This change has impacted the parking ratio of the project because the square footage of the building complex has not been reduced proportionally. The new parking ratio for this project is one on -site parking space for every 293 square feet of leasable floor area (167,800 square feet /571 parking spaces). This ratio would vary depending upon whether the building at the intersection was a bank instead of a restaurant as noted above. One way to resolve this problem would be to increase the below ground parking or reduce the total square footage of the commercial center to correspond to the proposed parking program. STAFFRPT.060 /CS -2- INITIAL BUILDII' [EIGHTS (Prior to Novemr 27, 1991): The proposed building heights for the project were: 1. Restaurant /Bank: 26 -foot building + 22 -foot tower = +48 -feet 2. Offices along Washington Street: 29 -foot building 37 -foot building & tower 3. Offices along Simon Drive: 22 -feet (2 st.) & 49 -feet (4 st.,) 4. Bowling Alley & office: 26 -feet to 40 -feet 5. Parking structure: 47 -feet NEW DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: On November 27, 1991, the applicant submitted a new development plan for the site. It includes revisions which include reducing the parking structure to four levels (with one story below grade), reducing the four story building on Simon Drive to two stories overall, minor architectural modifications, reduction in the amount of office square footage, and a reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces. The proposed building heights for the project are: 1. Restaurant /Bank: 26 -foot building + 22 -foot tower = +48 -feet 2. Offices along Washington Street: 29 -foot building 37 -foot building & tower 3. Offices along Simon Drive: 28 -feet to 31 feet (2 story) 4. Bowling Alley & office: 26 -feet to 40 -feet 5. Parking structure: 37 -feet (four levels above ground) ARCHITECTURE: The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has prepared a plan which proposes buildings around the outer portion of the site with parking in the center of the facility. A parking structure will be located on the east side of the property. The proposed Mediterranean,.design (Spanish style design motif) is consistent with the City's design guidelines (e.g. the roof, rough stucco exterior, large glass windows, etc.). STAFFRPT.060 /CS -3- CIRCULATION /PAF 1G PLAN: The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public street. The driveways on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 91 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the parking garage located at the southeast corner of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 480 cars. The developer has prepared a traffic study to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City streets, and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the future level of service of Washington Street /Highway.. 1.11. Discussion -on the traffic study will occur later in this report. VIEW CORRIDOR: The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City. Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary street image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to assure a Low Density character and appearance ". The City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and has been a condition on all of the development cases along Washington Street. The attached plan does not meet this provision, and the developer has requested a waiver from the policy. A letter from Best, Best and Krieger is attached to justify the request. STORMWATER RETENTION: The on -site storm water retention study from the developer is attached to the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that much of the site is devoted to impervious materials (buildings and parking). The developer has requested that the City assist them in the development of an off -site drainage system. VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUIRED: In the initial submittal, the architect did not meet the side yard requirements of the CPS Zone District for the east side of the project (i.e. parking structure). The standard states that any building which is higher than 35 feet (up to 50 feet) shall have a minimum property line setback of not less than two feet for each one foot above 35 feet. However, the new submittal (dated November 27, 1991) would meet the CPS requirements. The only outstanding setback problems are on Highway 111 and Washington Street because the General Plan and Off -Site Parking Code requires a 50 -foot setback on Highway 111 (after dedication) and a 20 -foot setback on Washington Street (after dedication). STAFFRPT.060 /C5 -4- DESIGN REVIEW P :D COMMENTS: The Design Review Board met on October 2, 1991, and although, there was not a lot of discussion of the overall project, the Committee did express their views on two items: A. WASHINGTON STREET BUILDING HEIGHTS Staff recommended a one story (22 -feet) height for the buildings along Washington Street within 150 feet of the future property line. The Board however felt differently-and justified a height higher than that recommended by Staff.because the value of the land dictates a need to develop a dense project and the two -story building will buffer the proposed parking structure. The Board's recommendation is noted below. B. PARKING STRUCTURE A few of the Board members voiced an objection to the six level parking structure because they felt it was out of character with this area and with the City's design parameters. A few of the members thought the developer should pursue a subterranean parking structure under the Bowling Alley. That discussion did not become part of the final motion. The Design Review Board's other recommendations were: 1. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian /bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the applicant /developer. 2. The landscape program for Washington Street should include a variation of planting materials, i.e. palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant materials list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms should be considered along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt). 3. The proposed retention areas on -site should be landscaped with materials-which will support growth even though they are accepting water run -off from paved surfaces. STAFFRPT,060 /CS -5- 4. Any prop I parking lot lighting p" should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to bui_ding plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- street Parking). The height-of the light poles should not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. 5. The developer should contribute to.the landscaping and /or hardscape program of the future median island on Washington Street and Highway 111. 6. A two story building height of 28 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street and Highway 111 within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included). 7. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete should be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. 8. The final plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final plan check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, buildings, signs, mechanical, etc. 9. Bike racks should be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces should be provided as noted in the Off - street Parking Code. 10. The landscape setback on Washington Street should be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. 11. All open parking stalls should be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. 12. A master sign program should be submitted during final plan check review. It should be noted that the Design Review Board did not review the latest submittal of the applicant, since it was submitted after their November 6, 1991 meeting, but not early enough for their December 4, 1991 meeting. STAFFRPT.060 /CS -6- STAFF COMMENTS A. B. C. sues) : PARKING STRUCTURE Staff is more comfortable with the applicant's latest submittal because it has reduced the building mass from +47 _ feet to approximately 37 feet, but part of the building will be within 150 -feet of Washington Street. This new height would be in keeping with the height of some of the existing buildings in the area. However, this site is not large enough to support a four level above ground structure and maintain the character of the area (e.g. La Quinta Shopping Plaza) which is across the street to the west. There might be some merit in allowing the parking structure 50 to 100 feet from the property line because of the irregular shape of the lot, the fact that the developer has to contend with three street frontages and the site is zoned for a commercial verses residential usage. The Applicant has stated that they believe the two story office building(s) on Washington Street will block the exposure of the parking structure if they are permitted to have their multiple story structures approximately +20 -feet from the new property line. WASHINGTON STREET ALIGNMENT PLAN The Washington Street Specific Plan (86 -007) was adopted in 1988. The approved document set the street alignment schedule for Washington Street from Fred Waring to 52nd Avenue. The plan included provisions for a 120 foot right -of -way (six lanes) and 140 feet right -of -way (six lanes + four turn lanes). The intersection of Washington Street /Highway 111 is scheduled to have a minimum right -of -way of 140 feet. The northbound lane on Washington Street is to include three through lanes, two left turn lanes, and at a minimum one right -turn lane (see the attached Exhibit). The development will be conditioned to meet these Specific Plan requirements. BUILDING & PARKING SETBACKS (Washington Street /Highway 111) The developer is proposing variable setbacks for both primary street frontages. The setbacks based on the November 27, 1991 submittal are: Washington Street: 10 -feet (minimum) to 37 -feet (maximum) Highway 111: 17 -feet (minimum) to 35 -feet (maximum) The setbacks are consistent with the CPS Zoning provisions because no yard requirements are required if the buildings are less than 35 -feet high which these buildings are and the site is not governed by an independent specific plan of development because the site is less than 20 acres in size. However, the General Plan and Off - Street Parking Code for the City requires a landscape setback of 50 -feet on Highway 111 and 20 -feet on Washington Street. Therefore, the proposed setbacks on Highway 111 and Washington Street are less than required. The applicant has requested a variance to resolve this problem. STAFFRPT.060 /CS -7- One way rectify the setback probl on Washington Street would be ..o shift the buildings to t..e east onto the proposed property line. D. SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS ON WASHINGTON STREET The City's General Plan currently has a policy which encourages single story buildings along major arterials within the City. This policy has been utilized for the projects along Washington Street. Generally, the City has conditioned projects to be one story but the height of the structure has varied on a case -by -case basis. As noted earlier, the Design Review Board has indicated they feel comfortable with allowing a two -story project which should not exceed 28 feet in height. This type of recommendation would definitely set a new precedence for the City and for Washington Street in general. Staff would rather have the Planning Commission debate the merits of the height of a building but not allow a two story building on Washington Street within 150 feet of the new property line. In order to facilitate review of this matter, staff has prepared a city wide building height survey which lists the development approvals for the City of La Quinta. E. TRAFFIC STUDY: The traffic study by MGA, was initially submitted on October 18, 1991, for the project proponent. A copy of the report was also mailed to the District 11, Caltrans office. The Engineering Department requested revisions to that report and a revised document was submitted to staff on November 7, 1991. The original document was revised because the report showed left -turn movements from Washington Street into Simon Drive (not permitted by Specific Plan 86 -007), the Level of Service design parameters did not meet the City's minimum requirements, and the travel lane design for Highway 111 was greater than needed. Based on these comments, the study was revised. . The revised report has been incorporated into the Environmental Assessment. The new study addresses the City's ultimate roadway improvements for this intersection per the City's adopted General Plan and Specific Plan of Alignment for Washington Street as well as the effects this project will have on traffic levels on this area. The traffic consultant has reached the following conclusions: 1. The project generates an estimated 4,743 trip ends per day. 2. The existing Level of Service at Highway 111 and Washington Street is "F" or an ICU value of 1.60. 3. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the. cumulative traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street to operate at an ICU value of 0.82 or at LOS "D ". 4. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive operates at ICU 0.59 or LOS "A" with existing traffic. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection to operate at ICU 0.38 or LOS "A ". The southbound approach is assumed to exist for this study. STAFFRPT.060 /CS -8- 5. The projc access (driveways) on Hi iy 111 and Washington Street should be limited to right -turit in and right -turn out only, along with necessary deceleration and acceleration lanes. 6. The project access on Simon Drive is recommended as an intersection with full access (left turns and right turns) for entering and exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be provided for exiting vehicles '(right and left turns). 7. Pavement markings are required to indicate the direction of flow at -al -1 three driveways, along with:suitable traffic controls installed per City guidelines. 8. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street requires periodic monitoring to check traffic volumes, cycle times, and phasing sequence in order to maintain at least LOS "D: or ICU value below /equal to 0.9. 9. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive, with cumulative traffic volumes, meets signal warrants. On November 18, 1991, Staff received comments on the proposed traffic study from Caltrans. A copy of the letter is in the Environmental Assessment. The letter was based on the initial traffic report. However, many of their comments are still appropriate. One major change since the initial report was the number of travel lanes on Highway 111 has been reduced from 8 to 6. This change is consistent with the City's existing General Plan and Washington Street Specific Plan. Another comment was the proposed driveway location on Highway 111 and its relationship to Washington Street. The driveway is approximately 300 -feet from the intersection. The recommendation of Caltrans was to permit right turn movements into the site or to move the driveway to the easterly side of the project. In discussion with the developer, they state that since a raised median will be developed on Highway 111 a right -turn in and right turn out access driveway would not affect traffic circulation in this area. The City is comfortable that the plans as proposed will work adequately provided deceleration and acceleration lanes are installed for each driveway entrance and certain measures are taken to prohibit vehicle parking along the north /south through driveway to insure traffic stacking will not block vehicle movement from Highway 111 into the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the attached document and will present their comments at the meeting. However, their recommended conditions are attached. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTION: One avenue for the developer to consider would be to shift the development to the easterly property line. This would eliminate the setback problem on Washington Street. Another design change we would encourage would be to eliminate the two story office building on Washington Street, this would reduce the overall project size for 167,800 square feet to approximately 135,000 square feet, thus bringing a majority of the project into conformity with the General Plan policy of "Low Density" development on primary and secondary image corridors but the parking structure would still have a portion of its structure inside the 150 -foot height limit standard. STAFFRPT.060 /CS -9- A one story sty pure will create view wine s through the site thereby enhanc_ag the City's desire tt. encourage low density development along primary image arterials. Staff would further request that the developer explore other subsurface parking areas, off -site parking arrangements or reduce the building square footage to conform with the City's minimum standards. CONCLUSION: In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However, the City's General Plan (Policy 6.5.8) states that the City can consider trade -offs in -the setback requirements provided imaginative designs are considered. The Planning Commission could permit a variance if the Commission can make findings to support the recommendation. Further, Staff would not support the office complex on Washington Street within 150 -feet of the property line because the buildings are too massive, too close to the street, and would degrade the Washington Street corridor. The City's General Plan (Urban Design Section) states the City should encourage appropriate building heights along primary corridors to enhance the City's image and enhance its character. The City has felt that all buildings should be single story in character but the height of the structure has varied based on the project design and its relationship to abutting projects. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission deny Variance 91 -019, subject to the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 91 -466, subject to the attached conditions; or, 2. That the Planning Commission approve Variance 91 -019, subject to the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 91 -466, subject to the attached conditions; or, 3. Continue the project until the Applicant can restructure the development to meet the design guidelines of the City. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Large Plans 3. Reduced Plans 4. Environmental Assessment with Agency comments 5. Traffic Study date stamped November, 1991 6. Letter stamp dated September 9th from Best, Best and Krieger 7. Zone District Excerpt (CPS Zone) 8. General Plan Excerpt 9. Design Review Board Minutes 10. City wide building height survey 11. Draft Resolution 91- , Variance 91 -019 (Denial) (Approval) 12. Draft Conditions of Approval, PP 91 -466 STAFFRPT.060 /C$ -10- ,O� Y P. T 11 1 1 rt- 1 1 11 11 11 11 JA 11 11 ,o� Y' 3t . ; 1 1 1200 of 1 1 { 11 II 11 11 1 1 CPO 1 1 I SECT 11 CASE MAP CASE N0. Plot Plan 91 -466 Specific Plan 86 -007, Resol. 86 -14 (Exhibit) WASHINGTON STREET /HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING s ; �' 11 11 11 12' 11 {1 11 11 RIGHT 1 1 1 TURN I 1 1 1 ONLY LANE 1 1 v 11 11 ` Y FAR ~ sME Bus ZONE (TYPICAL) a ,O� Y P. T 11 1 1 rt- 1 1 11 11 11 11 JA 11 11 ,o� Y' 3t . ; 1 1 1200 of 1 1 { 11 II 11 11 1 1 CPO 1 1 I SECT 11 CASE MAP CASE N0. Plot Plan 91 -466 Specific Plan 86 -007, Resol. 86 -14 (Exhibit) WASHINGTON STREET /HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING s ; 12' ORTH SCALE: 4� 1` .. .. rr1 , LC ` � I A I. �. � % fcCCIG4 «4Yi- �' EXHIBIT ' CASE N0. 'y I NOV 271991 CITY GF !A OUINI'A PIANNI,IG I;EPAHTWNT 0 G 95 L AN .. ,�.r.•,.�.. rww�alr �+... r.W.ti.v. ••IWUY df•,' . DO w e vi. I f: `h �ri IL3 f.. m� .W 1 , o�iiuiii f a. ili j w. ij no EXHIBIT -CASE NO.GT G 1�1 l� w s JL �1Ty OF (%FpARTAAE.4T 1w �Il *too 's :;�yl:.""_.��. .. _ .._� :: -� :; ::,I�,:.ti: • • y ,1 � "' •wens � NEW- i i 1 f R. ��=�� 1 I I I �d1• HUN EXHIBIT j; F____CASE NO. • w_r ism Elmy 1 U! [ISEP 2 6 1991 Nl�� J :Li rwI*ARIRlfyt r EXHIBIT I�Pl CASE NOCV SEP 2 6 1991 EXHIBIT _CASE NO.g1��° 1�■ •� 1 I I s_ it J F_xHiSIT CASE NO. uj JuL 2 6 j r �j �IIIIIII � ;(I �J i O W N NrT•r7►f� •. I ;(I �J i O W N II uj cr) -X&A I II uj 17 h— ) N 35110—"" .LIAINX3 Y1 "tn;► •!u A I.r r .••w_ -�..ww r.rr.ww..1� • asst 9 Z 1 n r x. �•1 ...r.•.�r .e �:Mr•rW �.+ItMA.��YR..IMM E 9 1 Z W V ro x W -vz� r 11TP1 't NIA» uj I ai 1 7 1 7 -�1 �I / 7M� ai 1 7 1 7 -�1 �I �iiiiil L Restaurant /Bank Highway ...,, ..I C �I IDB�_ 4� 0 2 Story Above Ground Office -Complex w/ 1 Story Below Ground ti 4d S ai �. A6 , Rest. i .7;M """ "7 Bowl i ng + Center r Fitness + I �'rirrrrrrr r MANNING Oil Parking Structure 2 -4 Story Offices i-Ex srr .. �� CASE NO.Q — 04 SITE PLAN If 1 I•I Vr r' K-11 is (: CM 0? U QVINI ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORN I. BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent: d /MOPJ 2 if //`K /• CAD 2. Address and Ph�o1r'e Number of Proponent: IN411 W y /// .<Q C,4 42,L 3. Date of Checklist's 10 -1-91 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: CI %Y T S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: JV/rfOrJ II. ENVIRO*IENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all "Yes" and "Maybe" answers is required on attached sheets.) 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Yes Maybe No a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increases in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? S. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Y 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? e. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? / _ JC f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with - drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ / Yes Maybe No h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or / tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants).? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a.. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals, including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna)? JC b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, 1� or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ {•� b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Li t and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? 10. Risk of qset. Does the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, ism ution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result . a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or / demand for new parking? L_/ 14. IS. 16 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. (S) Yes Maybe No T c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation / systems? _ !/ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? / _ JC e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 1� Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govern- mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? 1/ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — f. Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — t/ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ ✓ _ e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the o s�E truCt n of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically.offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recrea- tional opportunities? _ Archeological/Historical. Will.the proposal result in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure, object or building? _ Mandatory Finding of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially re- duce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plan or 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? JC (S) 0 b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -ten, en- vironmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment Is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small., but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Yes H& &e No _ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMIENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: v� 0 CITY OF LA QUINTA INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY CASE NO. PP91 -466 (EA91 -211) SIMON PLAZA GENERAL DESCRIPTION: The proposed complex will include a mixture of offices, restaurant /bank, and other recreational facilities (e.g. 40 lane bowling alley). The vacant 5.6 acre property is located on the east side of Washington Street, south of Highway 111, and north of Simon Drive. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS EXPLANATION OF "YES" AND "MAYBE" QUESTIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1. EARTH: The soil on this property has been classified as Coachella Sand /Loam. This type of soil has rapid permeability and it can be used for crop production, homesite or other urban development. The property (6 lots) is flat and vacant at this time. The general elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is in a Zone 3 Seismic /Geologic Hazard area as noted by the County of Riverside Planning Department (1983). A Zone 3 is an area with moderate shaking qualities but less severe than a Zone 12 (highest level). It is categorized as: "effect on people: felt by most people indoors. Some can estimate duration of shaking. But many may not recognize shaking of building as caused by an earthquake, the shaking is like that caused by the passing of light trucks (Riverside County Manual)." Earthquake damage should not be a major problem at the site. MITIGATION MEASURES: Grading of the site shall occur pursuant to the approval of the future grading plan as specified by the City's Engineering Department. All work shall be conducted in a manner so that it does not disturb other abutting properties unless off -site agreements have been made and /or approved. The grading quantities have not been submitted, it is assumed that most of the earth moving at the site (contouring) will occur on the premises and limited importation will occur. All building structures shall be designed pursuant to the standards as prescribed by the Uniform Building Code based on the code which is in affect at the time of plan check consideration, and the plans shall be prepared by a licensed architect or structural engineer. 2. AIR: The project site.is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). With the proposed construction, there may be air pollutant sources which may deteriorate ambient air quality. These sources are stationary and mobile sources. Stationary source considerations include emission from on -site construction activities and natural gas combustion. Mobile source consideration include exhaust emissions resulting from short term construction activities and long term generation associated with the project. It could be anticipated that with the construction of the proposed project there will be an increase in the overall mobile emission releases because of personal vehicle usage by. employees or customers. The levels will be consistent with other projects in the area and no abnormalities are expect by,the.implementation or development of this project. It is assumed that vehicle trip generation figures would be lower for this type of project if public transportation was utilized more and people did not rely on their private automobiles to get from place to place. Public transportation is available in this area along both street primary streets. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Adequate watering techniques shall be employed to partially mitigate the impact of the construction generated dust. 2). Areas graded but not immediately constructed on shall be planted with a temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion. 3). Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City Ordinances and the requirements of the Air Quality Management Plan. 4). Public transportation should be encouraged. 3. WATER: With the proposed construction it, can be expected that there will be a change in.the absorption rate (due to impervious surfaces), drainage patterns and amount and rate of surface water run -off. The project proponent will provide an on or off -site retention basin (off -site if approved by the City Engineer) for the collection of storm water and nuisance water run -off. The project engineering firm, Sanborn and Webb, has prepared a preliminary study which identifies the on -site needs of the facility. The plan does is not proposing on -site retention but the developer would like to work with the City in developing a joint project between abutting owner's and the City to install an off -site drainage system in the area to meet the anticipated needs and future problems this area will experience from seasonal rain storms. This program will be subject to Planning Commission and City Council approval. This area is not subject to liquefaction (similar to the problems of the Downtown area). Liquefaction is the term which is used when the ground water table is very close to the surface, and during an earthquake the ground has a tendency to vibrate building structures from their respective foundations and, thus causing failure and other adverse side - effects. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project shall comply with all applicable City requirements regarding storm water and nuisance water. The drainage system shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. PLANT LIFE: The subject site is presently vacant and void of any significant plant life. The site has been graded and it is assumed that the grading occurred during the construction of the off -site improvements in the early 1980's. -No impact is anticipated by the development of this site. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 5. ANIMAL LIFE: The subject site is located in an area defined as a Fringed -Toed Lizard Habitat area (a Federally protected species) and it has been determined that a mitigation fee shall be paid to the City of La Quinta if the site is developed. The City is required to contribute the money to the Valley's Nature Conservancy, and the Conservancy is required to use the money at their Thousand Palms preserve (1300 acres) to protect and maintain this endangered species. All the valley cities contribute to this preserve through._ contractual arrangements which were made in the early 1980's and, although all properties in the City do not pay toward this fund at such time as they are developed, this project is required to contribute funds toward the continued preservation of this federally protected species since the property is designated as property that might have (or currently is) supported refuge for the lizard in the past. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1. The applicant /developer shall contribute at the time a building permit or grading permit is issued money in the amount of $600.00 per acre which shall be used by the Nature Conservancy to mitigate the development of this parcel to an urban use. 2. All the requirements of the State Fish and Game Department shall be met. This shall include, but not be limited to, the payment of fees for necessary environmental filing paperwork with the County of Riverside (i.e. Negative Declaration processing, etc.). The fees shall be collected after the project has been reviewed by the City Council. 6. NOISE: Because of the proposed construction and subsequent operation of the commercial center, it can be expected that there will be some increase in the existing noise levels on the site. Most of the noise generated will be from motorized traffic coming to and from the site since the use of the property will be for indoor commercial activities (offices, restaurant, bowling alley, etc.). It is anticipated that no internal noise will be projected externally outside of the building mass, however, a noise study will examine both projected noise and external noise and its affect on the project and on abutting properties. MITIGATION MEASURES: As required by the General Plan, this project shall prepare a noise analysis to minimize noise impacts on surrounding land uses. The City's General Plan Guidelines for indoor and outdoor noise shall be met. The study shall examine all proposed commercial uses, especially the proposed bowling alley which might require special acoustical walls to mitigate sound transmission to the property to the east (Simon Motors Auto Dealership). The study shall be completed prior-' to acquiring a building permit .from.the Building Department. 7. LIGHT AND GLARE: It is anticipated that the buildings) and /or parking lot /landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much of the material has not been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance ". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. Exterior pole light fixtures should be low level fixtures in order to maintain both human scale to the project and reduce glare from the fixtures on to abutting City thoroughfares. 2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking lot and the plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity as well as identifies the height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other pertinent information which is necessary to assure compliance with the City's Off- street Parking Ordinance and the Dark Sky Ordinance. Light poles less than 20 feet in height shall be encouraged. 8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as fit for commercial development. The plan is consistent with this intent, and the Planning Commission will review the development plan in the next few months. MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required because the project, if approved, will be conditioned to meet the City's requirements for on and off -site improvements commensurate with the level of development which is proposed. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving. agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. This shall include compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code relating to conserving energy resources which is handled by the Building Department during plan check review. 10. RISK OF UPSET: No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities whether or not they are permanent or temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. However, the development of the site will increase the need for the City to provide housing opportunities for its residents to support this commercial venture. At this time, the City has approximately 55 percent of its land designated for residential needs. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an incremental demand for additional housing for employees of the development. However, due to the size of the commercial center any demand would be insignificant because the City presently has an overabundance of land either vacant at this time, but slated for residential development, or developed at this time with housing units. Single family housing is the primary type of housing at this time, however, multiple family housing projects will be forthcoming in the City's high density areas in the future. Approximately half of the City is designated for residential development or growth. MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION: The site is located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway. 111 (a State roadway). With the proposed project it can be anticipated that there will be a generation of additional vehicular traffic movement in the immediate area. The project is fronting on two existing partially developed major arterial streets of the City which are planned to have divided median islands to discourage cross traffic vehicular movements. .This intersection is one of the primary areas of the City which is currently impacted by vehicular traffic. Studies have shown that the Level of Service at this junction are functioning at a Level D (A being the best and F the worst) . This rating means that the intersection is experiencing traffic delays because of traffic congestion and, projections for this area indicate that in the next ten years this intersection will be operating at a lesser level if the population of the city gets proportionally larger at a constant rate. The Engineering Department (and Caltrans) has expressed a need to mitigate traffic problems in this area through various means, which can include: additional traffic lanes, right -turn medians, center island medians, and other options which might assist traffic through this area in a faster pace thus reducing delays for either north /south or east /west travel. At the request of the Engineering Department, the applicant is in the process of preparing a traffic study to analyze their project as it relates to this major intersection and to future growth in the future. The site is served by the Sunline Transit bus system and no impacts to the Sunline serves are anticipated by the development. of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s). 2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to accommodate the proposed use of the property. 3). A bus stop (with turnout) and shelter shall be install along the frontage of the site along Washington Street and Highway 111 in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department unless another site can be developed which is more effective to Sunline. Discussions have been made which indicate that Simon Drive might be more appropriate for a transit site and /or facility than Washington Street or Highway 111 because a bus stop on either of these streets could hinder or impede traffic circulation in this area. A transit site on Simon Drive should be pursued. The developer should contact Sunline Transit in order resolve the Transit Authorities problems in this area. A solution had not been secured as of the writing of this report. 4). Any work on Highway 111 shall require permission by Caltrans since the roadway is a State Highway. 5). The requirements of the traffic study shall be met as determined by the City Engineer and the Planning Commission /City Council. This could include such features as: additional travel lanes on Washington Street, street island medians, deceleration and acceleration lanes, right turn in and out driveways, traffic signal modifications, transit facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalk, or other improvements which are commensurate with the proposed project and, as condition, will improve transportation in this area and assure the level of service at this intersection will not be reduced less than Level D. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection, police protection, solid waste collection, and maintenance of public roads in the area. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. MITIGATION MEASURES: r- 1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6,000.00 per acre. This fee will help mitigate impacts.as noted above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and Riverside County Sheriffs Department prior to building permit issuance. 3). The School District mitigation fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance pursuant to the adoption of AB1600 in 1986. 4). The project developer shall make provisions with Palm Desert Disposal /Waste Management to have the project serviced to assure waste products are disposed of without creating health hazards to the community. Necessary facilities shall be built to dispose of product waste. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements has mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. Copies of the Agency Comments are attached. As mentioned before, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run- off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc.). The preliminary hydrology study has been submitted and the recommendation of the project engineer was for the developer to pursue and off -site drainage system for their water runoff. The City Engineer is examining the study at this time and his recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission. 18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant, the construction of buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing views of this area because the applicant .is proposing multiple story facilities. The City presently has a policy which discourages multi -level building along Washington Street which are greater than 21 feet (average) within 150 feet of the future property line. The applicant has proposed a plan which does not meet this provision, and it will be up to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine if an exemption should be granted. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements of the City's Zoning Code or CPS District mandates unless otherwise approved by a Variance application. 2). Buildings along Washington Street should be low level facilities pursuant to the policies of the General Plan which encourages "low density" development along image corridors. The City policy has been to encourage single story facilities within 150 feet of the property line. 3). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program should take into consideration the unique setting of this property as it relates to the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. The developer should consider vertical type plant material (Palm trees, etc.) and the use of accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view "windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be pursued and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged. Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible without sacrificing pedestrian security. 19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the city by qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be required. The City shall review and approve the study prior to the acquisition of a building permit or grading permit. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Attached: Agency Comments Letter from Best, Best and Krieger Applicant prepared Hydrology Report. Applicant's prepared Traffic Study TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA" IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA PREPARED FOR REVISED NOVEMBER 1991 I I lucl MOh1e, Grover& ASSOCIa#eS TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY FOR A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA" i 1 CITY OF LA QUQVTA PREPA= FOR 255 NORTH EL CIELO ROAD, SUITE 315 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 (619) 325 -2245 REVISED NOVEMBER 1991 Ry c No 692 E=. tZ 11-92 N j = Na 089_0 p p NEWSUM110 Mollie, Grover& Associates TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Requirements 1 1.2 Proposed Project 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 5 2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions 5 3.0 TRAFFIC FORECAST 7 3.1 Growth Factor 7 3.2 Approved Projects 7 3.3 Trip Generation 7 3.4 Trip Distribution 7 3.5 Modal Split 7 3.6 Trip Assignment 10 4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIONS 13 4.1 Study. Scenarios 13 4.2 Level of Service Analysis 13 4.3 Analysis of Results and Mitigations 13 5.0 OTHER RELATED ASPECTS 15 5.1 Site Access Analysis 15 5.2 Signal Warrant Analysis 15 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 16 6.1 Conclusions 16 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1 Project Location Map and Study Intersections 2 2 Site Plan 3 3 Existing Transportation System 6 4 Project Traffic Trip Distribution - 9 Inbound and Outbound 5 P. M. Peak Hour Project Traffic 11 6 P. M. Peak Hour Anticipated Cumulative Traffic 12 7 Level of Service and Mitigation Measures 14 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Project Trip Generation 8 APPENDICES "A" Traffic Counts "B" Excerpts from Traffic Impact Analysis "C" Level of Service Analysis using CAPSSI "D" Signal Warrant Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Introduction The purpose of this report is to document the results of a traffic analysis which was conducted for the proposed multi -use shopping center, "Simon Plaza ", at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta. The main objective of this study is to identify any traffic impacts that may result from the proposed development and recommend mitigation meas- ures, if required, to reduce any traffic impacts to a level of insignificance. The proposed project location and specific site plan are shown in Figures 1 and 2. 1.1 Study Reguirements A meeting was held with the staff of the City of La Quinta Public Works Department prior to the beginning of this study to define the various study parameters, including geographic area, study intersec- tions, acceptable methodology, and any technical assumptions used in the analysis. The recommended study intersections for this project are: ■ Highway 111 and Washington Street ■ Highway 111 and Simon Drive The scenarios addressed in this study are: ■ Existing traffic conditions ■ Cumulative traffic defined as existing plus growth factor plus project traffic conditions The geographic study area is defined by Highway 111 to the north, Simon Drive to the east, Washington Street to the west, and Simon Drive to the south. Simon Drive is a loop street that connects both Highway 111 and Washington Street, as shown in Figure 1. 1.2 Proposed Project The proposed project is to develop a multi -use shopping center at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, as shown in Figure 1 The project has primary access (driveways) on Highway 111, Washing- ton Street and Simon Drive, as shown in Figure 2. N i nni nNTA nwr PROJECT LOCATION MAP AND FIGURE 1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS 6 g o� cr 5 n H R C O d 7 4 a N / W i n I.J.. own F. A 1 / Jr U V` db cn Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS The proposed project includes the following (Figure 2): Office - I Office - II Office - III Restaurant - I* Restaurant - II Fitness Center Bowling Center 60,560 Square Feet 34,750 Square Feet 18,150 Square Feet 8,000 Square Feet 5,000 Square Feet 12,000 Square Feet 37,240 Square Feet Introduction * On the site plan this is marked as a possible site for a bank. For analyzing "worst case" scenario under trip generation and Level of Service, the "restaurant" is considered. This aspect was discussed with the City staff. 4 Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIP Existing Conditions 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS The surrounding areas near the project site are currently undergoing develop- ment. The road network is being expanded in order to handle anticipated growth in the area. The major access roads to the project site are Highway 111, Washington Street, and Simon Drive. The existing transportation system is shown in Figure 3. The following briefly describes the major access roads to the project site: Highway 111 (east- west): A State Highway along the northern boundary of the project site. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street is signalized. Currently, the highway has two lanes in each direction. The highway will be converted to six lanes due to the anticipated growth in the region. The Caltrans recorded 24 -hour volume on SR 111 in 1990 at Wash- ington Street was 23,820 vehicles per day. Washington Street (north - south): A major arterial with two lanes in each direction. Washington Street has an interchange with Interstate 10 to the north of the project site. This street carries over 22,000 vehicles per day. Simon Drive: A local street oriented north -south intersecting with SR 111 and oriented east -west intersecting with Washington Street. Both intersections are unsignalized. This street provides a direct link between SR 111 and Washing- ton Street. The intersection of Simon Drive and Washington Street is a limited access intersection with right -in and right -out only. 2.1 Traffic Volumes and Conditions The 24 -hour bi- directional traffic volumes on SR 111 and Washington Street were obtained from Caltrans annual traffic count records and City traffic count records, respectively. As mentioned above, SR 111 carries over 23,000 vehicles per day and Washington Street carries over 22,000 vehicles per day. The existing turning movement counts at.the study intersections were obtained from the City of La Quinta. The turning movement counts for the intersection of SR 111 and Washington Street were obtained from City records. For the intersection of SR 111 and Simon Drive, the turning movement counts were obtained from a previous study conducted for the Washington Square Shopping Center by Barton - Aschman Associates in February, 1991. This study is presented in Appendix "A ". The traffic counts are presented in Appendices "A" and "B ". 5 ibmhomo ]INDIAN Wr-LLS i LEGEND ® STUDY INTERSECTION SIGNALIZED ® UNSIGNALIZED -� NUMBER OF LANES �-► 24 HOUR VOLUME -2 WAY NOT TO SCALE I AgIIINTA.DWG m s3�E �i i 1 1� 11 ii 01.9 A QUINT-4\ 3 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 4 ti FIGURE 3 Sanborn/Well Inc. - TIS 3.0 TRAFFIC FORECAST Traffic Forecast This section details the procedures adopted in estimating the future traffic generated at the site and impacting the study intersections. 3.1 Growth Factor The growth factor, as recommended by the City staff, was applied to the existing turning movements at the study intersections as follows: Highway 111 4 % per year Washington Street 10 % per year Simon Drive 5 % per year The project is expected to be completed in one phase by the year 1992. 3.2 Approved Projects The approved projects traffic volume at the study intersections for Level of Service (LOS) analysis were not considered in this study and this item was discussed with the City staff. 3.3 Trip Generation The trip generation rates for the project were obtained from the Insti- tute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E.) Trip Generation Handbook, 1991. Table 1 shows the proposed development trip generation. The project generates an estimated 4,473 trip ends per day, excluding those generated by the Fitness Center. The Fitness Center 24 -hour trip rates are not currently available in the I.T.E. Handbook. Using the Barton - Aschman 24 -hour trip rates (Appendix "B"), the Fitness Center gener- ates an estimated 270 trip ends per day with a trip rate of 22.5/1,000 S.F. Therefore, the estimated total trip ends per day from the proposed development will be 4,743. 3.4 Trip Distribution The trip distribution of the project generated traffic was conducted considering the major access roads and driveway locations. Also considered were the turning movement and 24 -hour traffic counts in the study area. Finally, the trip distribution was developed in consulta- tion with the City staff. The regional trip distribution of the project traffic is as shown in Figure 4. 3.5 Modal Split All trips to the project site are expected to be made by passenger cars. Hence, modal split is not applicable for this study. 7 00 TABLE It PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TRIP RATES TRIP ENDS A.M M.D P.M A.M M.D P.M LAND USE SIZE UNIT IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 24HR IN OUT IN OUT IN OUT 24 HR 1.OFFICE - I 60.6 KSF 1.9 .23 0 0 .36 1.76 15.86 115 14 0 0 22 107 960 2.OFFICE - II 34.8 KSF 1.9 .23 0 0 .36 1.76 15.86 75 9 0 0 14 71 631 3.OFFICE - III 60.6 KSF 1.9 .23 0 0 .36 1.76 15.86 45 6 0 0 9 44 386 4.RESTAURANT - I 8 KSF .86 .06 * 0 0 5.36 2.3 96.51 7 0 0 0 43 18 772 S.RESTAURANT - II 5 KSF .86 .06 0 0 5.36 2.3 96.51 4 0 0 0 27 11 463 6.FITNESS CENTER • 12 KSF .14 .16 0 0 2.58 1.72 22.5 2 2 0 0 31 21 270 7.BOWLING CENTER** 37.2 KSF. 1.87 1.25 0 0 1.24 2.3 33.33 2 2 0 0 31 21 1241 218. KSF TOTAL 250 33 0 0 177 293 4743 SOURCE:TRIP RATES FROM I.T.E TRIP GENERATION HANDBOOK, 5TH ED, 1991. + In I.T.E Hand Book Fitness center is called as Health Club. +• Bowling Center is called as Bowling Allay. The 24 hour trip rate for Health Club /Fitness Center was taken from the Barton- Aschman Study given in Appendix "B" of this report. 25Z� �o ]INDIAN y\Jr I I sox D2 20X i D2 i I BITE D3 I 20% 45X ,oz V, `�I. V—, X 57fi ,5X 6 25% / � 15X 5 1 20X 30% I A 10% 1 -E°END 3 • STUDY INTERSECTION —► INBOUND ---► OUTBOUND ; DI DRIVEWAY lax ' NOT TO BCAL.E REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION maov&l PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP DISTRIBUTION INBOUND and OUTBOUND I POIIINTMM, 30% I `I I r 12,1 � FIGURE 4 y 0 n 0 Sanborn/Well Inc. - TIS 3.6 Traffic Assignment Traffic Forecast Project trips were assigned to the existing roadway based on trip distri- bution. The project trips were assigned to the study intersections as shown in Figure 5. The cumulative traffic is shown in Figure 6. The cumulative traffic for this study is defined as the summation of existing plus growth factor plus project traffic. 10 35 q '6 . f. 44 / Hr D D2 SITE D3 �M .'�44 i I n.rnINTA nw( �44 ]INDIAN W r I I S 19 s D3 59 ' '•► 44 4 A UIj\lTA + 19 LEGEND 3 STUDY INTERSECTION -► INBOUND --- ► OUTBOUND DI DRIVEWAY 29 ' + NOT TO SCALE PROJECT TRAFFIC TRIP DISTRIBUTION mccl I I NBOUND and OUTBOUND FIGURE 5 I n.rnINTA nw( N z **,N� zz_� / N go N 89S ip13 `� r- lj\1J1A>\l WELLS CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IS DEFINED AS EXISTING PLUS GROWTH FACTOR PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES ---f LANE NOT EXIST NOW. NOT -TO SCALE i IV, 'b SITE J11\1 rr� 3 42nd i fe h� STUDY INTERSECTION I I ANTICIPATED (WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC) FFIC I FIGURE 6 Sanborn/Webb Inc. - TIS Traffic Imp- - Analysis and Mitigations 4.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATIONS The following section deals with traffic impact analysis and proposed mitiga- tion measures at the study intersections. 4.1 Study Scenarios The study scenarios for Level of Service analyses were the following: Existing traffic conditions with existing geometrics Cumulative traffic defined as existing traffic plus growth factor plus project traffic conditions with ultimate intersection geo metrics Saturation flow rates of 1,800 vehicles per hour of green (vphg) for the through lane(s) and 1,700 vphg for the left and right -turn lanes were used, since a capacity of 1,700 vph per lane, as recommended by the City to be used for analysis, equals 1,800 vphg saturation flow rate. The saturation flow rate of 1,700 vphg for the left and right -turn that was used is highly conservative. It is important to note that the study referred to in Appendix "B" of the Barton - Aschman report is based on capacity, not on saturation flow rates. 4.2 Level of Service Analysis The Levels of Service (LOS) at the study intersections were determined using both Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology and delay methodology per the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The software used for the Level of Service is CAPSSI, developed by MGA. The LOS outputs for the two scenarios listed under Section 4.1 are given in Appendix "C ". 4.3 Analysis of Results and Miti ag tion The results of the LOS analysis using both ICU and delay methodolo- gies are shown in Figure 7. The City established minimum LOS is Highway 111 and Washington Street currently operates at an ICU value of 1.60 or at LOS "F" with existing traffic conditions and geometrics. The intersection operates at an ICU value of 0.80 or at LOS "C" with cumulative traffic and ultimate intersection geometrics. Highway l I and Simon Drive currently operates at ICU 0.32 or at LOS "A ". The addition of growth factor and project traffic results in an ICU value of 0.39 or a LOS "A" with ultimate geometrics. The ultimate geometrics for the intersection were provided by the City staff for conducting LOS analysis. 13 LADUINTA.DWG y s c. m 0 1. EXISTING TRAFFIC CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC �r SCENARIO EXISTING GEOMETRICS WITH ULTIMATE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS INTERSECTION ICU =1.60 LOS =F ICU =0.80 DELAY LOS =C HIGWAY 111 , - - -- AND WASHINGTON STREET EXISTING TRAFFIC CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC EXISTING GEOMETRICS WITH ULTIMATE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ICU =0.32 LOS =A ICU =0.39 LOS =A HIGHWAY 111 AND -- SIMON DRIVE , LEGEND - EXISTING LANE (S). GR. FACT. GROWTH FACTOR ----- - - - --a- ADDITIONAL NEW LANE (S). k CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC = EXISTING + GR. FACT. + PROJECT + APPROVED PROJECT (S). �� RE- STRIPING LANE (S). -- -�y�'- - --� DOSE NOT EXIST NOW. Macl I LEVEL OF SERVICE AND MITIGATION MEASURES FIGURE 7 LADUINTA.DWG y s c. m 0 1. Sanborn/Webb Inc. - T1 Other Related Aspects 5.0 OTHER RELATED ASPECTS The following sections deal with the project access (driveways) and signal warrants. 5.1 Site Access Analysis The project site has three driveways. They are located on Highway 111, Washington Street and Simon Drive, as shown in Figure 2. Highway 111 The access for the project is located slightly east of the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street, on Highway 111. This access is a limited access with right -turn in and right -turn out only. Due to the proximity of the driveway to the intersection and the large cumulative volumes, it is recommended that deceleration and acceleration lanes be provided for this driveway. This will allow the through traffic to proceed without any obstruction. Washington Street The access on Washington Street is located to the south of Highway 111. The access is close to Simon Drive. This access is a limited access with right -turn in and right -turn out only. Due to the proximity of the driveway to the intersection and the large cumulative volumes, it is recommended that deceleration and acceleration lanes be provided for this driveway. This will allow the through traffic to proceed without any obstruction. Simon Drive The access is located on Simon Drive, which has an east -west orienta- tion near the access, as shown in Figure 2. As Simon Drive is a local street with moderate volumes, this access could operate fully with all possible movements in and out of the site. It is recommended that adequate left turn pockets be provided, with separate lanes for entering and exiting vehicles. The intersection of Simon Drive and Washington Street is a limited access intersection with right -in and right -out only, as shown in Figure 4. Also, it is recommended that the Simon Drive access should be used for trucks traveling to /from the project site. 5.2 Signal Warrant The signal warrant analysis was conducted using the cumulative traffic volumes shown in Figure 6 at the intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive. The signal warrant is met considering the westbound left -turn volumes added to the northbound left -turn volumes. The cumulative through volume on Highway 111 exceeds 2,000 vehicles per hour. The signal warrants for the peak period only are shown in Appendix "D ". 15 Sanborn/Wells Inc. - TY summary and Conclusiow 6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Conclusions The following are the conclusions of this traffic impact analysis for the proposed mixed -use shopping center: 1. The project generates an estimated 4,743 trip ends per day. 2. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street 'to operate at an ICU value of 0.80 or at LOS "C ". 3. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive operates at ICU 0.59 or LOS "A" with existing traffic. The ultimate geometric design recommended for the cumulative traffic (including project traffic) will allow the intersection to operate at ICU 0.38 or LOS "A ". The southbound approach is assumed to exist in this study. 4. The project access (driveways) on Highway 111 and Washington Street should be limited to right -turn in and right -turn out only, along with necessary deceleration and acceleration lanes. 5. The project access on Simon Drive is recommended as an intersec- tion with full access (left -turns and right - turns) for entering and exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be provided for exiting vehicles (right and left turns). 6. Pavement markings are required to indicate the direction of flow at all three driveways, along with suitable traffic controls installed per City guidelines. 7. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive, with cumulative traffic volumes, meets signal warrants. 16 ar Mr &Vt AV zw 57 -N1'k".i -1 '1�11�- f INS- Alloy INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH -SOUTH STREET: WASHINGTON EAST -WEST STREET: HWY 111 TIME;: 5:30 -6:30 P DATE: 03 -29 -90 NORTH LEG 170 ; 872 ; 208 ; Total 39 198 47 1st 41 ; 207 53 2nd 43 221 59 3rd 47 246 49 ; 4th ----------------- Rt. Lt. V EAST LEG 'total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 326 :: 76: 89: 94; 67: Lt. ' 907 :: 201: 231: 246 :'229 : - - -> : 738 :: 193:.201: 177; 167: Rt. 1 --------------------- - - - - -, WEST LEG -------------------------- Rt.: 26: 34: 14: 16 :: 90; < -- 204: 237: 215: 173 :: 829: 42' 51: 39: 27 :: 159: -------------------------- 1st 2nd .3rd .4th Total Lt. : Rt. :------------ - - - - -: 1st : 43 : 147 : 16 : 2nd ; 51 : 151 : 22 : 3rd : 37 : 114 : 19 : 4th : 32 124 : 27 : Total : 163 :------------ 536 : 84 : - - - - -' SOUTH LrG : LWPUR'f TRAFFIC S'fUUIhS 15 MINUTE COUNTS STREET : WASHINGTON LOCATION:S /0 HWY 111 AM DATA; 02 -06 -90 PM NORTH SOUTH TOTAL TIME NORTH SOUTH TOTAL BOUND BOUND BOUND BOUND 19 19 38 12 00 159 159 -318 5 15 20 174 155 329 8 12 20 149 122 271 5 12 17 137 158 295 5 11 16 1:00 142 140 282 2 5 7 145 156 301 3 7 10 161 148 309 2 6 8 137 145 282 4 6 10 2:00 156 175 331 3 9 12 187 192 379 7 5 12 204 175 379 1 7 8 176 171 347 4 3 7 3:00 207 216 423 4 4 8 203 203 406 2 1 3 220 195 415 2 8 10 218 196 414 4 6 10 4:00 168 226 394 9 5 14 _ 191 211 402 9 5 14 161 205 366 7 2 9 185 191 376 23 6 29 5:00 198 266 464 27 18 45 183 261 444 33 17 50 157 235 392 52 30 82 155 225 380 90 65 155 6:00 119 204 323 115 79 194 106 145 251 162 93 255 120 161 281 172 121 293 87 162 249 149 127 276 7:00 89 118 207 224 137` 361 81 127 208 281 135 416 71 101 172 237 187 424 50 93 14 199 158 357 8:00 84 73 157 217 139 356 51 91 14: 227 130 357 41 87 128 181 121 302 36 83 119 159 128 287 9:00 44 91 135 169 117 286 33 73 106 178 113 291 56 86 14 207 119 326 115 77 192 182 131 313 10:00 37 67 104, 171 128 299 29 49 7E 175 116 291 41 50 9: 146 140 286 25 36 6_ ' 153 131 284 11:00 21 30 5: 141 161 302 23 30 5- 153 151. 304, 19 24 4- 159 147 306 21 24 " 4 _ r• MAN*. _F E2 y� c3 � kt. S� - I : > c♦ d4 `" r L1' r r: i. r'i -£f" ;; t A - f" �( +Xh•S� 9s 1 t L'4 I 'M1' F _ ,,,r,4 a r .t . -� e ( �wa•sy�e4{'� �. � A t:S � r. js 1 i M � • "i}-'i` .{. ,:� _ r� �. �.- ' ti ::,�,tr'�E � 'e per :-i';,r r.�.. e,f :�,�.:'rift3'•'�:.X��''ru'i E' �'�3r•�.b''F ',s �k'3'.'..',�;i•f'°• ^�:�1 -� '+t`y=:. �:':,,i�i�; ` �� ",i :�. Z:•.:.s.' -: J•+x•.w..u' +crra- -' f�. � - R�,•;,- �, �xyt f• >,��k�� a r.• f ♦L��'�4� � '��i� �1, �kk ?ry -lt,�-�4�ms+a -" y� �'1�,'��y_ • �� 09w''�"rf -. .: e;"✓,y��- ',?..;•:f K,w. sa��;+r3- r�rw5��.b , a . �.,�y�&v�., x �,�r,' a } z^'',•K, �"''S: ':��,. . � >rs � ..1`�?:t, t;'�+4""�i%��• A. �y �.� ♦,- �y;-�. � _#,�n_ 4 %' ,, lkim5, S�,h ig a•it�:�.v�,. A�,c lv Z, ✓,ti ti ".: s t{ -++_ +•- t^7 • `j,vs3r ,♦tai 7'#, h.. t}+,p"}•t.,i'r'i Y ,� '` y.r�u7*�5••ry3r - rt.t'' y v 'YFt�'. •e` s 4't Y;�1 i x�y„ y.;r . +r �z s • `3 -i-r :'+a r:i ti �- r.�.�. �., �.� .. - r, • tiL S: ,t {.,. -� �. - � . -. �� .''� r"�'s��'i �'`T� m$ yF`gf•R�.�: i'� -- . . � 5 :• ,APPENDIX ..B �� R - I' Excerpt From Trafflc� " 4 .- t .. ^L?¢:' . z• n s �•'C :. -�t. 1 Impact Analysis �',. .'.t. -. K. 7 ': T„Ky.�•gt^tr a4 w'� + ?•t } }• 'r r,yr� r-C` '� '-ftx YrG".�'eit - "f•- fF��.� t+.a"'r•I •srya4"...- �roa�'j+�e,,`. ""G.,.eY.Y�j'`.rni., f,. S�• _`. yAY •'rt Y- �+•.�-= +�r}kw� rem'.., -G , t'h•},"��✓'� �� bF�, ,g yj - - "`E' +t '�,�4�"1:' -;� ny} ui rM1.4•x a . Y5"'��`t*�.Tv''P'at, - C - f" �( +Xh•S� 9s 1 t L'4 I 'M1' F _ ,,,r,4 a r .t . -� e ( �wa•sy�e4{'� �. � A t:S � r. js 1 i M � • "i}-'i` .{. ,:� _ r� �. �.- ' ti ::,�,tr'�E � 'e per :-i';,r r.�.. e,f :�,�.:'rift3'•'�:.X��''ru'i E' �'�3r•�.b''F ',s �k'3'.'..',�;i•f'°• ^�:�1 -� '+t`y=:. �:':,,i�i�; ` �� ",i :�. Z:•.:.s.' -: J•+x•.w..u' +crra- -' f�. � - R�,•;,- �, �xyt f• >,��k�� a r.• f ♦L��'�4� � '��i� �1, �kk ?ry -lt,�-�4�ms+a -" y� �'1�,'��y_ • �� 09w''�"rf -. .: e;"✓,y��- ',?..;•:f K,w. sa��;+r3- r�rw5��.b , a . �.,�y�&v�., x �,�r,' a } z^'',•K, �"''S: ':��,. . � >rs � ..1`�?:t, t;'�+4""�i%��• A. �y �.� ♦,- �y;-�. � _#,�n_ 4 %' ,, lkim5, S�,h ig a•it�:�.v�,. A�,c lv Z, ✓,ti ti ".: s t{ -++_ +•- t^7 • `j,vs3r ,♦tai 7'#, h.. t}+,p"}•t.,i'r'i Y ,� '` y.r�u7*�5••ry3r - rt.t'' y v 'YFt�'. •e` s 4't Y;�1 i x�y„ y.;r . +r �z s • `3 -i-r :'+a r:i ti �- r.�.�. �., �.� .. - r, • tiL S: ,t {.,. -� �. - � . -. �� .''� r"�'s��'i �'`T� m$ yF`gf•R�.�: i'� -- . . � 5 :• ,APPENDIX ..B �� R - I' Excerpt From Trafflc� " 4 .- t .. ^L?¢:' . z• n s �•'C :. -�t. 1 Impact Analysis �',. .'.t. -. K. 7 ': T„Ky.�•gt^tr a4 w'� + ?•t } }• 'r r,yr� r-C` '� '-ftx YrG".�'eit - "f•- fF��.� t+.a"'r•I •srya4"...- �roa�'j+�e,,`. ""G.,.eY.Y�j'`.rni., f,. S�• _`. yAY •'rt Y- �+•.�-= +�r}kw� rem'.., -G , t'h•},"��✓'� �� bF�, ,g yj - - "`E' +t '�,�4�"1:' -;� ny} ui rM1.4•x a . Y5"'��`t*�.Tv''P'at, ' " :. �1'�:�t7i� " /=...ry:t1��J II• �I'tt:.. �J• tl' •`a •i �„13!.J :BE ;4 ke wl.3k o1 -• :4 • 1 „1z .. Jw WWI I qty 1991 TARIE 2 PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION 0 •► llA►•• a1••!•• 1A••••• 11!• 1A• !•!A• ►A ►• ► ♦I ►•!!•A ►11AA11►1lAAA AAA►••• IA11►►•• AAAA►•► IAA► A•• a••►•••• a•• aa►••► 1►►►►• A► !•• ►A!•AaAA ► ►• ►•!A►l ►laa►!!!!►A i PH PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERA11011 i DAILY TRIP GENERATION s t s s LAND USE DENSITY s Trip Rate Calculated Reduction Total Inbound Outbound %Trip Rate Calculated Reduction Total : hips Percentage hips Trips Trips 1 Trips Percentage Irlps 1,810 10% 4 fienfral Retail 555,000 S.f. 13.26/1000 s.f. Mea th club 20,000 S.f. 11.50/1000 s.1 Office 65,000 S.f. 12.08 /1000 s.1. NOW 100 Roods 10.45 /roow Clneplen 2,500 Seats sO.26 1scat . 13S O% 135 RESIAURANISs its t Sit-Down 40,000 S.f. 119.88/1000 s.f. fast-faod 10,000 S.f. 452.0 /1000 6.1. 25 20 %8.00 /rocs SERVICE STATIONS OX s Uith Car uash 12 Pumps .4.58 /p•mp Without Car U6611 12 Pumps 13.75 1pmp 1,810 10% 1,630 765 665 %38.5 /1000 6.1 21,400 lox 19,260 30 lox 30 15 15 922.50/1000 6.1 450 lox 410 13S O% 135 20 its :15.38/1000 s.f. 1,000 ox 1,000 . 4S O% 45 25 20 %8.00 /rocs Boo OX 800 650 . 15% 555 515 40 :1.76 1seat 4,400 15X 3,740 s 795 10% 720 380 340 :20011000 s.J. 8,000 lox 7,200 520 . lox .470 250 220 8780/1000 a.f. 7,800 lox 7,020 t s 55 ox ( 55 30 25 :141.67 /pu4p 1,700 ox 1,700 45 OX 45 20 2d :133.33 /pump 1,6o0 OX 1,600 MIAIS 4 3,685 2,020 1,660 t 42,730 • aaa►••••••• aaaaaa►► l► a!! laaa!• AaAA►• AAa••• AaA►► 11►►►► alaA►•! a► 1l► A► AAAA►► IIAAAA► A• •IAa•••!AalaAA•••• ►A ► ► ► ►aA ►AaAa U••al a••11•aa►a•alaaaaaAaa ►aa• The 24 Hour trip rate for Health Club /Ilealth Center was taken from the above table in estimating the total 24 Hour trip ends by the "Simon Plaza" shopping. Center. This has been indicated in the report under trip generation section. I ii IVIRAJ �iij— '� ::ii�ri:i�ssy ti�iiail3s�- i►j.ii►�j�) 3A1 1110 alt. ; ;ir O cc Dips 0 rye � c 0 Ir 0 7: OUT e ��4 '' � mr SunLine Transit MEMBER AGENCIES Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Oulnta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Riverside County Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Plot Plan 91 -466 Dear Mr. Trousdell: August 21, 1991 -" AUG 017 tggl (^��^UH{��i�i[Pt Thank you for the opportunity to review the plans for the commercial development to be located on the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. As you may know, SunLine operates Line 19 on, thirty- minute headways (fifteen- minute headways during peak hours) alone Highway 111, and Line 4 on sixty- minute headways along Washington Street in the vicinity of this project. Beginning in the fall, SunLine will operate Line 4 in the La Quinta area on thirty- minute frequencies during peak hours. We request that bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters be included in the project. These amenities should be located on Washington Street and on Highway 111. SunLine has suggested standards for bus turnouts and passenger waiting shelters. As an alternative, we would like to see a transfer center on Simon Drive. In this vicinity, SunLine currently has a large volume of passengers utilizing Lines 19 and 4. A project of this size can only increase the number of ridership, therefore, a transfer center would be most advantageous. We request an opportunity to meet with the city and the developer to discuss our needs. We will contact you the week of August 26th to schedule an appointment date that will be convenient for all parties. I apologize for the delay in my response but please be assured we are very interested in this development. Yours very truly, 41b4l-, &Z;�7 Debra Astin Director of Planning DA/ kh 32.505 Harry Oliver Tall . Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343 -3456 • FAX (619) 3433845 A Public Agency 78.106 CALLE ESTADO — U OUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92263 • (619) 644.2246 IX FAX (619) 644.6617 FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATES 4 / ubJ/C y Manager a Management _ijr al lic Works /Engineering ��ral Telephone linner(s) _,_F Marshal (Raul) t/ __Lf'�d�,me r Cable Vision Associate wilding i Safety �n,i ne Transit Planner(s) _k::�Ch r of Commerce j,C trans (District II) Assistant Agricultural Commission P er utrial Irrigation City of Indian Wells t anning hern California Gas — city of Indio Director sert Sands School Dist PiS Postal Service Coachella valley School Dist. Riverside County: �CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Environmental Health Owner's. Association L?heriffIs Department LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): i IqA. -i PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A oc s in 2)'Ve r-nI> A— i` 044'PcS� U-« PROJECT LOCATION: F The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3, if you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 4V&iX7_ M. 1'I and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. Yo are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: N67 ,�s� /�B��SI+tE� Time: 0 Contact Person: f� yS D,�u- Titles 44WL- T� ��i�•'^47 Comments made by: Title: G;LvTg ��v Sr,• Date: /Z'q/ Phone:�!VJW elYz Agency /Division GLEN J. NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVERSI%----COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN IACW0 AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657 -3183 August 13, 1991 To: City of La Quints Planning Division RECEIvkl, - Attention: Greg Trousdell AUG 15 t4c• Re: Plot Plan 91 -466 Simon Plaza, Inc. With respect to the condition of the Fire Department requires the accordance with La Quinta Munici Vr L, �IuINT 1A11%,, EY�[ A approval regarding the above referenced0 p� 19F WJn, following fire protection measures be provided in pal Code and /or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 2. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 21" x 2} "), will be located not less than 25' or more than 165' from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 3. Prior to issuance of building permit applicant /developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and, the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department." The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to the start of construction. 4. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s). System plans must be submitted with a plan check/ inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building(s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. PLANNMG DMSION Q WD10 OFFICE O Te4CUTA OFFICE 79.733 Country Clot Drive, Sufic F, India G 92201 41002 County Center Drive, Suite 225. Temecula, CA 92M (619) 342-M • FAX (619) 7152072 O Iu BODE OFFICE (714) 694-5070 • FAX (714) 694 -5076 3760 12th Strect. RJvcrsidc. CA 92501 (714) 275-4777 • FAX (714) 369.7451 � Primed on recycled paper City of La Quinta 8/13/91 Re: PP 91 -466 Page 2. Simon Plaza, Inc. S. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 6. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/ inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet 110, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 8. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 1503. 9. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 10. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 11. Install a Class I Standpipe System. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed. A plan check fee must be paid to the Fire Department at the time building plans are submitted. All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Department Planning & Engineering Staff at (619) 342 -8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By —/011 #ItLe� Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist /►TES C M W � s • * * * * *4 United States Postal Service rto The United States Postal Service requests that the final map shall show easements or other mapped provisions for the placement of centralized mail delivery units. Specific locations for such units shall be to the satisfaction of the Postal Service and the Public Works Department. 1 ,-F-1Z y( ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC . -.iNCY A► TFt I, COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92238 • TELEPHONE (619) 3962861 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CODEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RU NDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W. EN August 1 Z , 1991 OWEN McCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M. NICHOLS -- REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS THEODORE J. FISH - File: 0163.1 Planning Commission City of La Quinta Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Gentlemen: RECEivku AUG 16 IV' 01 V Ur LJ1 VUiNTA Subject: Plot Plan 91 -466, Portion of North LNG & OEVELOPMENTOEpl. Quarter, Section 30, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is protected from stormwater flows by the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and may be considered safe from stormwater flows except in rare instances. This area is designated Zone X on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said fees and charges are subject to change.- This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring efficient water management. If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer, extension 264. Yours very truly, V om Levy General Manager -Chief Engineer RF:lmf /e8 cc: Don Park Riverside County Department of Public Health 79 -733 Country Club Drive, Suite D Bermuda Dunes, California 92201 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 78.106 CALLS ESTADO — U OVINTA. CALIFORNIA 92268 - (419) 664 -2246 FAX (619) 664 -6617 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: i� C y Manager �W a Management /_,�_rincipal lic works /Engineering �Ge eral Telephone ,�nner(s) . f Marshal (peN9) �/ � r Cable Vision 'Associate uilding i Safety un�ne Transit Planner(s) t'h r of Commerce -_. -_ _ Kbltrans (District II) Assistan_ t Agricultural Commission Plainer rial Irrigation --city of Indian wells 1 anning Ehern California Gas C y of Indio Director Sands School Dist. S Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. -� ; Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society ' "''`' "" Planning Department Property 1 Environmental Health AUG , Owner's Association l�heriff Is Department CITY Or A LA QUINTA CASE NOW: _ �� i � i{�Nl�u" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: /� �� s /n A`i�C /c� %> !�- HUu /�L,t lke PROJECT LOCATION: r Jae M The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial v! environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information Gsubmitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect to: I. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Please send your response by 401,0s7_ lq � � and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. Yo are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: N6-1 ,�s� �F>��s1+�� Time: 125" Contact P 7 Comments,/G Date /d•/ ADZ_ Title: itle: vision y I 4ror 78.146 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA• CAUFORNU 92263 - 1419) 644 -2246 FAX (419) 644-6417 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISIOONN DATE YC�.t y Manager a Management kincipal _,,��ublic Works /Engineering �Ge eral Telephone anner(s) yf Marshal (No 9 � � r Cable Vision yAssociate wilding i Safety unUne Transit Planner(s) r of Commerce i-�trans (District II) - Assistant Agricultural Commission P> mer �r rial Irrigation City of Indian Wells t - nanning uthern California Gasy of Indio Director sert Sands School Dist. VTS Postal Service, Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: 'CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property �Eyvironmental Health Owner's Association Fheriff's Department LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): •il - A C� i .T �v PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �E �!� s 7 �n �ilE' /c+I� /yly 4zae us� AUG 6191" e ffy () �UINTA 1I�Q¢ATION: 'CANNING b 0 A' t--',4 s r 4 A The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial environmental study pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the above referenced project(s). Attached is the information submitted by the project proponent. Your comments are requested with respect tot 1. Physical impacts the project presents on public resources, facilities, and /or services; Notic—' 2. Recommended conditions: a) that you or your agency believe would miti- gate any potential adverse effects; b) or should apply to the project design; c) or improvements to satisfy other regulations and concerns which your agency is responsible; and 4,lo .v� 3. If you find that the identified impacts will have significant adverse effects on the environment which cannot be avoided through conditions, please recommend the scope and focus of additional study(ies) which may be helpful. Al >^_1eff' Please send your response by 4V 6U.r7_ �9, 101 and return the maps /plans if not needed for your files. Yogi are invited to attend the DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: N6-1— Times 0 Contact Person: 2— _ 9�'�•t.� 4yS D �r Comments made by: Title:, /� e C�1� Date:J / L Phone; litr 77V Y gency /Division • • STATE OF CAUFOANIA - BuSIFESS, TRW► 7UTION AND NOUS NO AGEWY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, PA. BOX 95405. SAN NEGO. 92186.5" (619) 688 -6968 November 14, 1 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell PETE WLSW O&MV s Xv, U NOV 18 1991 PLa.`;'�;. 'ANT ....,.- �,. -..:. PM 33.1/34.2 Simon Plaza We have reviewed the traffic impact study report for the proposed Simon Plaza development located in the southeast comer of the State Route 111 (SR -111) and Washington Street intersection in the City of La Quinta and have the following comments: On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR/PR) for improvements on SR -111 between Washington Street and Adams Street was approved by the District. The proposed improvements were designed to accommodate Year 2010 traffic generated by proposed commercial developments north of SR -111, but did not include traffic generated from the proposed Simon Plaza development. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing four lane highway to a six lane conventional highway through this area was Included in that report. The traffic impact study report contains several significant differences in the Year 2010 peak hour turning volumes at the SR- 111/Washington Street intersection when compared to those shown in the PSR/PR. Of particular concern is the eastbound SR -111 to southbound Washington Street right turn volume; the eastbound SR -111 through volume, and the northbound Washington Street to westbound SR -111 left turn volume. These volumes, as shown in the traffic impact study need to be resolved since they are approximately twice as high as those in the PSR/PR. The traffic growth rate factors used by the consultant may need to be adjusted at this location. The traffic study includes an intersection schematic for SR -111 at Washington Street (Figure 7) showing eight lanes on SR -111. This is not consistent with the Route Concept Report (RCR) for SR -111 and is probably unnecessary because the traffic volumes assumed in the study may be unable to reach the intersection due to upstream controls. The City may, however, elect to reserve additional right of way to allow for additional channelization on SR- 111 in the vicinity of Washington Street. The developer should be required to mitigate traffic Impacts on SR -111 associated with the proposed development. Driveway access location from SR -111 to the proposed development should be prohibited, if possible, or limited to a single opening for right turning traffic only and should be located midway between adjacent intersections. City of La Quint& November 14, 1991 Page 2 For future coordination regarding Caitrans standards or right of way requirements, please contact Bob Lowrie at (619) 688 -3211. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Jim Buksa of our staff at (619) 688 -6968. JESUS M. GARCIA District Director I BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch oG CRWest AKosup JBuksa T/P File STATE Of MFORNA . BUSMSS. ?AP' -- 'TrAT10N AND MOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 82/665406 (619) 688 -6968 wt A )EP PETE WLSON, Govern September 11, 1991,� -� Y Ur i-h vulNTA npu7!pww nut 1 -RIV -111 Washington Street PP 91 -466 City of La guinta Planning and Development Department P. O. Box 1504 La guinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell We have reviewed Plot Plan 91 -466 for Simon Plaza located at the corner of Washington Street and State Route 111 (SR -111). We have the following comments: A traffic study should be prepared for this development which identifies impacts and appropriate mitigation.. On March 14, 1991, a Project Study Report/Project Report (PSR /PR), for improvements to SR -111 (PM 33.1 - 34.2) was approved by Caltrans District 11. The proposed improvements were designed to accommodate traffic generated by proposed commercial development north of SR -111 between Adams and Washington Street, as well as the anticipated growth to the year 2010. A conceptual plan for upgrading the existing highway to a six lane conventional highway through this area was also included in this report. Any improvements necessary to SR -111 due to the proposed development must meet Caltrans standards and also be in conformance with the PSR /PR referenced above. Access to this development from SR -111 should be restricted to one driveway located midway between Washington Street and Simon, with right turn in and right turn out only. A bus turnout should be considered, to conform with the bus turnouts being proposed on the north side of SR -111. Additional right of way may be required. We have specified a 30. foot setback to the right of way line from the ultimate edge of the travelled way for the commercial development on the north side of SR -111. Any proposed access or work within Caltrans right of way will require an encroachment permit. Information regarding encroachment permits may be obtained by contacting our Permit Office at (619) 688 -6843. Early coordination with our agency is strongly recommended for all encroachment permit applications. For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way requirements, please contact Project Engineer Paul Hardin at (619) 688 -6712. City of La Quinta September 11. 1991 Page 2 If you have any questions concerning our comments please contact Jim Buksa of our stair, at (619) 688 -6968. JESUS M. GARCIA District Director By 7:: � c / BILL DILLON, Chief System Planning Branch cc: CRWest JBuksa T/P File II�\� September 27, 1991_ Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estrado UO La Quinta, Ca. 92253 SEP 11 X91 Re: Simon Plaza 91 -224 PtAA'1V'NG 6EPART�E4T Dear Mr. Herman: Attached are two (2) copies of the hydrology report for the Simon Plaza project. Based upon the proposed project and the on going area wide drainage problems. We recommend that the City and the project proponents work together to solve there collective problems by the installation a storm drain system along Washington to the Whitewater River. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, S RN ;EBB, EBB, INC. J n L. Sanborn JLS:lm Encl. c.c. Fred Simon - W /Encl. 255 N. El Clelo Road • Suite 315 • Palm Springs, California 92262 • (619) 325.2245 • (619) 325 -9426 • FAX (619) 325.5130 FOR SIMON PLAZA CONDITIONS Q. SEP 2 7 1991 CITY OF to CUINTA PIAKM;N00 DEPARTMENT The project is a 5.7 acre Office /Retail complex located at the southeast corner of State Highway 111 and Washington Street in the City of La Quinta. A site plan is attached. PURPOSE . To determine the peak run -off and the required volume of retention for the 100 year storm. METHOD Peak run -off and volume of retention were calculated using the "Unit Hydrograph Analysis ". The analysis is attached. CALCULATION RESULTS The results of the Unit Hydrograph Analysis are as follows: 1. The peak run -off rate is 2.58 cubic feet per second. 2. The required volume of retention is.1.34 acre feet. RECOMMENDATIONS Due to the configuration of the proposed site, the ability to retain storm run -off on -site is hampered. It's recommended that the developers of Simon Plaza attempt to participate in a redevelopment type program to eliminate their problem as.well as larger regional problem of storm water flooding at the corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. Currently approximately 150, acres drain to this corner and preliminary hydrology studies suggest that the peak run -off of a 10 year storm could be as great as 150 c.f.s.. There exists a small sump pump to handle nuisance water at this location but the capacity is inadequate during significant storms. It is recommended that the City enter into a redevelopment program to install•a gravity storm drain from the Simon Plaza project north under Highway 111 to the Whitewater River Channel. i1 of ESSIp q y v G W CC l N0. 43880 �♦c ev. C - 3o •93 �l"�lE OF CAl o��P i U n i t H y d r o y r a o h :; n a I v s i s Copyright (c) CivilCadd /CivilDesion. 1990. Version 2.1 Study date 9/26/91 + t + + + +......... ... .... ++ +t + +..... - + +tt +4.... + +t.I. ... ............... ++ +- Riverside County Synthetic_ Unit Hvdroloo-'./ Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April X978 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Drainao_e Area = 1--.66 Acre =. _ :::.iH OCI Mi. - - - - -- Length along longest watercourse = 600.00 Ft. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid = 400.00 Ft Length along longest watercourse .= ().114 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured fo centroid = 0.076 Mi Difference in elevation = 1.50 Ft. Slope along waterco;-cr -e = 17- ^2)C C ci Ft .; Mi . Average Manning's 'N' 15 Lao time = i .03w1- Hr, Lag ti11)e = 17 Mi' -1. r, u . of lac ti IT, e. - i ?.54 Min. 4 of lag time = Q.67 Min. Unit time = 15.00 Min. LLcration of storm = 24 Hours) Area rainfall data: Area(Acres)(17 Rainfall(In.)C23 •Weighting[1 *2] 5.66 3.50 19.81 Point rain (area'averaged) = 3.500 (In.) Area! adjustment factor = 100.00 7. Adjusted average point rain = :.500 (In.) RI Infil. rate Impervious Adj. ' Infil. Rate Area% F (In /Hr) (Dec.'' %) (In/mr) (Dec.) (In /Hr) 1 .C-00 1i,02S Sum (F) = 0.028 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In /Hr) 028 Minimum soil loss rate (In /Hr) = 0.014 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil lout loss rate --------------------------------------------------------------- (decimal) _ 0.GoO - - - - -- U n i t H y d r o g r a p h Foothill S -Curve Unit Hydrograph Data --------------------------------------------------------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % cfs- hrs /in --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.250 69o.666 80.717 4.6 2 0.500 1381.332 19.283 1.1 Sum = 100.00 Sum= 5.7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- (Hr.) Percent (in. /hr.) Max Low (in. /hr.) 1 0 : 25 Q . 20 0.0218 0. . (749 0,f' ''22 0.01 0.50 0.30 0.042 0.049 0 34 0.01 3 0.75 0.30 0.042 0.048 0.034 0.01 4 1.01:) 0.40 17.056 0.048 - -- 0.01 5 1.25 0.30 0.042 0.047 0.034 0.01 6 1.50 0.30 0. . C.142 _ 0.047 0.034 0.01 7 1.75 0.30 0.042 0.046 0.034 0.01 e -4.()() 0.40 (:7 . (:)56 0.045 - -- 0.01 9 2. 25 0.40 0 . 056 C). 045 - -- C) . 01 10 2.50 0.4(7 ().(756 1).(144 - -- ().01 11 2. 75 0.51) C7 , (' '7 (1, 044 - -- 12 3,0.70) (7,50.7 (7.(77(7 0).0.743 13 3. 25 (7.5(7 C) . () 7 0 0) , (14` - -- 0.03 14 3.5(7 1:7.50 0).(17(7 (x.042 - -- 0.03 15 3.75 1 :7,51:1 (7,Ci7(7 1).(142 - -= 0.(7;; 16 4.00 0.60. (7 ,1184 0. o41 - -- 0.04 17 4.2G C.61:7 () . 041 - -- 0.04 1$ 4.50 (-7.7(1 0.1798 0.041") - -- 0.O6 19 4.75 C) . 7(1 (7 , (798 0. 04(.') - -- 0.06 2( :7 ' 5.1:7(7 0) . 811 1 i . 1 12 () . 039- - -- 0.07 21 5.25 i) , 6i) i) .0)84 i) . 03 9 - -- ( 7.05 22 5.50 0) . 70) 0. C)98 (7.038 - -- 0.06 23 5.75 ().8(7 (1.112 (;,1;38, - -- :1.(:1'7 24 6.(1(1 (I . F3 C-) (.1 . 11 1) o7 ..5 6.25 ().9() 0 12 6 26 6.50- O.9() 0) . 126 (; . ( >3b 7 6.75 1 .01:7 (:) D. 1411 (7.0;;6 - -- (; 28 7.01:7 1.0C) 0.140 C) . 035 - -- 0. 1(; 29 7.25 1.00 1) . 140 0. o'%7)5 - -- 0. 11 30 7.5(7 1.10 0.154 0.034 - -- 0.12 31 7.75 1 .2(7 C . 168 ( 7 . ( 7l.:#:T - -- 0 , 13 8.00 1.30 t 7. 1 d 0.037 - -- 33 8.25 1.50 0.210 C) . 033 - -- 6.16 34 8.5(1 1.50 i 0.210 0.032 - -- (:7.18 35 8.75 1.60 0.224 0.032 0.19 36 9.00 1 .70 0.031 - -- 07.21 37 9.25 1.90 0.266 0. ()31 - -- 0.24 38 9.5(:7 2.00 0.280 0.031 - -- 0.25 39 9.75 2.10 0.294 0.030 - -- 0.26 40 10. 0C) 2.20 (').308 o. 030 - -- 0.28 41 10.25 1.50. (7.21 (:; 0 0( 9 - -- 42 1(7.50? 1.50 ( ?.21(1 f) 02 9 - -- 4:Z) 10.75 .0 <') (? .28(1 0. o: o - -- (".-25 44 11 . of) 2 , (7C) (1 . 2 jC7 (:1 . (:72$ - -- 45 11 . 25 1.9C) (1, 266 C). (728 - -- . 24 46 11.5o 1 .90 (i .266 0.027 - -- 0.24 47 11.75 1.70 0 2;;8 0.027 - -- 0.21 48 12. 00 1 .80) (7 , 25 � 0 .02. 6 - -- 49 12. ^5 2.5() 0. 350 11.(7: f -__ (). i:: 5o 12.50 2.60 0.364 i ) . 026 - -- <? . 34 1 12.75 2.80 0.39^ 0. 025 - -- 0.37 52 13.00 2.90 0.406 0.025 - -- 0.38 53 13.25 3.40 0.476 0.024 - -- (7.45 54 13.50 3.40 0.7.476 0.024 - -- 0.45 55 13.75 2.30 0.322 0.024 - -- 0.30 56 14.00 2.30 0.322 0.023 - -- 0.30 57 14.25 2.70 0.378 0.023 - -- 0.36 58 14.50 2.60 0.364 0.023 - -- 0.34 59 14.75 2.60 0.364 C) . C)22 - -- 0.34 60 15.00 2.50 0.3517 0.022 - -- 0.33 61 15.25 2.40 C).336 0.022 - -- 0.31 4.- 1 C� • :1 ( 67 16. 7.• 0.3C) 0.042 0.020 - -- 0. . 02 68 17.00 0.30 0.042 0.019 - -- 0.02 69 17.25 0.50 0.070 0.019 - -- 0.05 70 17.50 0.50 0.070 0.019 - -- 0.05 71 17.75 0.50 0.070 0.019 - -- 0.05 72 18.00 0.40 0.056 0.018 - -- 0.04 73 18.25 0.40 0.056 - 0.018 - -- 0.04 74 18.50 0.40 0.056 0.018 - -- 0. . 04 75 18.75 0.30 i > .042 0.017 - -- 0.02 76 19.00 r).2)0 i),(:Q8 {:x.017 - -- {:;.C)1 77 19.25 ;;i) i),r)42 0,017 0.0044 76 19.51; 0. . 4(') i) . 056 0.017 - -- r) . 04 79 19.75 0.30 C). r X42 0.017 - -- 80 20.00 0.,70 C). 028 0.016 - -- i) , c ;)1 61 20.25 0. 30 C; . 042 0.016 - -- 0 , C) 82 20.50 Q. 30 0.042 0.016 - -- 0.0'_1 8;; 20.75 i�,;;0 C).i)42 0,016 - -- i),C)z 84 21.00 0.2O 0.028 !i,015 - -- Q' 65 21.25 0. -Z(;; 0.042 1 :).0i5 - -- 0.0130 86 21 .50 i) . 20 <) .028 0.01.5 - -- c;; .0I 87 21 .75 0.30 0 , 042 0.015 88 22.0r.'� Q.20 0.0194 ().015 - -- (,).o1 69 22. 2° 0 , 30 0 . C) 4 2 C .010 0.16 Q 91 -,`.7. f c_: Q 14 - -- C).��1 94 2%;.5C) O.2i; ?,()2: =; i;,i)1:; 95 2,..7`• 0 .2i) ri. 0.i)14 - -- i;.i)1 96 24 . o) i ) .' o 0.028 0.014 - -- SUfrt = 100.0 S! )m = 11.4 Flood volUme = E`ective rainfall 2.85 (in.) times area 5.7 (Ac.) 112 = 1.7-1 Acre Feet Total soil loss = 0.65 (In.) .Total soil loss = 0.1 -105 Acre Feet Total -------------------------------------------------------------- rainfall = 3.50(In.) - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++ i•+++++++++++++++ i.++++++++++++ + + + + + + ++ + + + + + + ++f + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ 24 - H O U R S T O R M R u n o f f H v d r o g r a p h ------------------ L-!:drocraph 7 ------------------------------------------------- in 15 MinUte intervals (CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Time (h +,T,) Volume (AF) CFS , :! 2. 5 =,i;; 7, °, ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 +15 0. i).1);; Q 0 +45 0. 0024 )24 i ) , 05 p 1+ C) 0,i)r %Z4 i),c;)5 Q ; 1+15 0.0044 0.05 O 1 +30 0.0054 O.O5 Q 1+45 o.0064 i) , 05 O f 2+ 0 0.0076 0.06 Q ' .2 +15 0.0089 0.06 Q 2 +30 0.0103 0.07 Q' 2 +45 0.0130 0.1:3 Q ; 3+ 0 0.0162 0.15 Q 3 +15 0.0194 0.16 Q 3 +30 0.0227 0.16 Q 3 +45 0. 0260 0.16 Q 5+ Q . () 575 0.40 0' 5 +15 0.0634 0.29 .0 5+30 0. )702 0.33 QV l S 5 +45 0.0786 0.41 1 Q ; 6+ Ij 0.0874 0.43 :QV 6 +15 0.0977 0.49 .QV ; 6 +3(:) 0.1082 0.51 QV ; 6 +45 f1. 1202 0.58 QV ; 7+ i► I_i.1326 0.60 QV ; 7 +15 C?. 1450 i;,6() Q V 7 +`X) 1;.1588 ().67 Q V ; 7 +45 i;.1741"� 75 Q V ; 8+ () 0.1915 0.83 Q V ; 8+15 0. Z2 1 17 0.98 Q V ; ;"27 1.01 1 Q V 1 1 o 9+ c :; ! :; . 279 1.16 Q V ; 9+15 1:) C )61 :. 1 Q 'J 9 +30 '. _�JS 1 1.41 Q V: ; 9 +4 659 1.49' f Q V ; lo+ i 1i.: 984 1.57 1 Q 1 10 +15 1;.4219 1.14 Q V ; 1 + 44 :�2 1.Ii:� 0 v ' fir +45 C',.471- 1.--S6 rl 'J , ' 11+ c; i;.5i;llj 1.44 G! 'v ; 11 +15, C., 2 ?4 1. 1 11 +45 ii. -1B31 1.4 Q V , 12+ i; 1;.609.= 1.27 Q V 12 +15 0.645:; 1.74 ; Q i V; ; 1412+30 6848 1.91 Q V ; 12 +45 i . 7274 2 . 06 Q V ' 13+ '0 0. _772) 2. 16 Q V ' 1;; +15 0.627 2.5f G,; J ; 13 +31 i 0.8769 2.58 0 V ; 13 +45 ().9156 1.87 0 V ; 14+ C, 0. 95 (:)8 1.7o 0 V , 14 +15 0.9913 1.96 0 V7 14 +3i � 1 .()319 1.96 Q V 14 +45 1.0721 1.95 Q ;V .15+ () 1.1111 1.89 Q V 15 +15 1.1465 1.81 0 V 15 +30 1.1842 1.7, Q V 15 +45 1.144 1.46 Q `J 16+ !:� 1 . �4 JJ 1 . 4i? ; �� V 16 +15 1 `22 t ►.43 ; Q V 16 +30 1 .2565 1.1.21 Q f V 16 +45 1.2594 0.14 0 1 V 17+ 0 1.2621 o.13 Q V 17+15 1 .2674 C.). 26 . Q V 17 +30 1 .27.3,5 0.29 f Q V 17 +45 1.2795 o.29 ;Q �. 18+ 0 1.2843 0.23 Q 18 +15 1.2887 0.22. Q t 18 +30 1.2933 0.22 Q 18 +45 1.2965 0.16 Q 19+ 0 1.2980 0.08 Q 19 +15 1.3007 0.13. Q • 19 +30 1.3050 0.21 Q 1 , 19 +45 1.3083 0.16* Q ; 20+ 0 1.31017 0.08 Q `(: )+ 15 1 .1 127 0. 13 Q 1 1 ' , , ' 1 , , 1 , , , , , 1 , 1 1 , , 1 1 , , , , 1 V ; V ; V V V V V V V 1 V 21 +30 1.3253 O.09 0 ; r ; V; 21 +45 1.3282 0.14 0 ; ; V; 22 + 0 1 .3301 0.69 Q ; ; V ; 22 +15 1.3330 0.14 Q ; ; ; V; 22 +3( i 1.3349 0.09 Q ; ; V: 22 +45 1 -. 3';65 0.08 0 ; ; ; V ; 23+ C) 1.3381 0.08 Q v , 23 +15 1.3397 0.08 0 ; ; ; V; 23 +3o 1.3413 0.08 Q ; ; ; V ; . +45 1 .3431) 08 0 ; V ; 24+ i 1 .3446 i , 08 Q ; 24 +15 1.3450 0.02 Q ; V Dear Mayor Pena: As you are no doubt aware, Simon Plaza, Inc. has a design review application pending before the City to allow construction of a restaurant /banking facility, a three story medical office building, a two story recreational facility, as well as an attendant parking structure to service each of the foregoing buildings. This parcel, currently in escrow, is owned by 3S ,Partnership which consists of Fred Simon, John Sanborn and myself, and Pomona First Federal. In general, the proposed development has been well received by the City staff, as well as many other residents and officials of the City with whom we have shared it. The staff has requested additional information which is currently being assembled and will be forwarded to them promptly. In addition, Simon Plaza and City staff are having ongoing discussions dealing with the City policy, contained in the General Plan, which provides that the City should pursue low density (low level) structures along major arterials. We understand that the City policy is to require one story structures within 150 feet of the property line. It is further our understanding that under appropriate circumstances the City Council may modify that policy if such modification, on balance, serves the interests of the City. I. am writing this letter to you because of the long history of discussions and correspondence you, Mr. Simon, Pomona and I have had with respect to the property and the Washington Street Corridor Plan of the City. The purpose of this letter is to review that history and to point out why we believe a modification PT$15482 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A FWT1410'r I CLyprO HIO•91004JL 00"v ta"111 LAWYERS ARTHUR L. UTTLEWORfH' DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' WILLIAM 0. GAHLING. JR. KENNETH R. WEISS 600 EAST TAHMATZ CANYON WAY OLEN E. STEPHENS* ANTONIA ORAPHOS TERESA J. P'RISTOJKOVIC J. CRAKE JOHNSON P06T OFFICE BOX 2710 WK.UAM R. DOW00V GREGORY K. WILKINSON VICIORIA N. KO O SUSAN C. NAM PALM SPRINGS. CAUFORMA 92267 OAR TON C" G T* WYNNE !. FURTH MATT N. MORRIS CHRISTOPHER DODSON PAUL T. SELLER' DAVID L. BARON JEFF NET V. DUNN MARK R. HOWE TELEPHONE (619) 726-7264 DALLAS HOLMES• VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS STEVEN C. D.BAUN BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON TELECOPIER (619) 725.0769 CHRISTOPHER ►. CARPENTER• EUGENE TANAKA :RANI H. OVEIRIN ELAINE E. HILL RICHARD T. ANDERSON' BASIL T. C14APMAN ERIC L. GARNER WKUAM J. ADAMS JOHN D WAHLIN' 11401HY M CONNOR DENNIS M COTA WAHOA S MCNEIL MICHAEL D. HARRIS' VICTOR L" WOLF JULIE HAYWARD BIGGS KEVIN K RANDOL ►H W CURT EALY' DANIEL E OLIVIER RACHELLE J. NICOLLE EUGENIA J. MOREJ21 THOMAS S. SLOVAK' DANIEL J MLHUGH ROBERT W HARGREAVES JAMES B GILPIN OF COUNSEL JOHN U BROWN• HOWARD B GOLDS JANICE L. WEIS JAMES M. KEARNEY JAMES B. CORISON MICHAEL I. RIDDELL' STEPHEN P. DEIISCH CHRISTIAN E. HEARN MARSHALL S RUDOLPH RICHARD A. OSHINS' MEREDITH A. JURY* MARC E" EMPEY SHARn WALKER KIM A. BYRENS MICHAEL GRANT* JOHN R. ROTISCHAEFER PATRICK W PEARCE CYNTHIA M GERMANO RONALD 1. VERA FRANCIS J. BAUM' MARTIN A. MUELLER KIRK W. SMITH MARY E. GKSTRAP - - - &A0WrrE0 w1 rsW q104 KVOXWy ANNE T. THOMAS' - J. MICHAEL SUMMLROUR KLYSTA J. POWELL GINEVRA C. MARUM WAA..HOrCft Ot. COLT CO GUAM 0. MARTIN NETHERY' JEFFERY J. CRANOALL JASON O. OABARCINER DANIEL C. PARKER. JR. GEORGE M. REYES SCOTT C. SMITH HAYDN WINSTON NGUYEN D. MAN WILLIAM W. FLOYD. 1R. JACK B. CLARKE DAVID A. PRENTICE PAUL 0. GIBSON MICHAEL A. CRISTE' JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KYLE A. SNOW CRAIG S. DYNE! GREGORY L. HAROKE BRIAN M. LEWIS MARK A. EASTER CHARLES E. KOLLER OFFICES W KENDALL H. WrVEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD DIANE L. FINLEY CLARK H. ALSOP GEOFFREY K. WILLIS MICHELLE OUELLETTE RAYMOND BEST (1666 -1907) RIVERSIDE (7111666 -I450 DAVID J. ERWIN' KANDY LEE ALLEN PETER M. BARMACK JAMES H. KRIEGER 09) 3-)970) RANCHO MIRAGE (619)566.7611 MICHAEL J. ANDELSON' ELISE K. 1RAYNUM. DAVID P. PHIPPEN EUGENE BEST 11697 -19611 ONTARIO (714) 9896564 'A • DFLUON. CCMMMATON September 5, 1991 �17 D John J. Pena, Mayor CITY 0i L; UalI'I fA, City of La Quinta :ILA S RI" -' -°. ^r11r; P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Mayor Pena: As you are no doubt aware, Simon Plaza, Inc. has a design review application pending before the City to allow construction of a restaurant /banking facility, a three story medical office building, a two story recreational facility, as well as an attendant parking structure to service each of the foregoing buildings. This parcel, currently in escrow, is owned by 3S ,Partnership which consists of Fred Simon, John Sanborn and myself, and Pomona First Federal. In general, the proposed development has been well received by the City staff, as well as many other residents and officials of the City with whom we have shared it. The staff has requested additional information which is currently being assembled and will be forwarded to them promptly. In addition, Simon Plaza and City staff are having ongoing discussions dealing with the City policy, contained in the General Plan, which provides that the City should pursue low density (low level) structures along major arterials. We understand that the City policy is to require one story structures within 150 feet of the property line. It is further our understanding that under appropriate circumstances the City Council may modify that policy if such modification, on balance, serves the interests of the City. I. am writing this letter to you because of the long history of discussions and correspondence you, Mr. Simon, Pomona and I have had with respect to the property and the Washington Street Corridor Plan of the City. The purpose of this letter is to review that history and to point out why we believe a modification PT$15482 Ln.. v.rr..aa v. BEST, BEST & KRIEG -- John J. Pena, Mayor September 5, 1991 Page 2 of the City policy with respect to building height, in this case, serves the interest of both the City and the developer. As you will recall, this property was subdivided pursuant to the terms of Parcel Map 18418 in 1982, shortly after the incorporation of the City. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of that Map, the 3S Company, and Pomona, the owner of Parcel 6 of that Parcel map were required by the City to make certain dedications of rights of way along Washington Street and Highway 111 and to improve those rights of way with paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and traffic light modifications. In addition,. of course, we were required to install water and sewer improvements to serve not only our property, but also other properties in the area. Those improvements were later installed at substantial expense to us. In early 1986, we became aware that the city was considering an amendment to its General Plan which would adopt as • part thereof the Washington Street Corridor Plan which would have • significant impact upon our properties. As the attached correspondence will attest, we violently objected, and informed the city that we believed that they city could not exact additional rights. of way and improvements from us, and that if it adopted and implemented the proposed plan, it could not count on our project to voluntarily, or as a condition of development, dedicate or improve the rights of way which would have been required to implement the plan. We had several meetings with the staff at that time, and went to considerable time and expense in preparing and presenting plans which were alternatives to those set forth in the Washington Street Corridor plan. We were assured that nothing would happen without further discussions with us. Unfortunately, in 1987, and without notice to us, the City, adopted a plan which resulted in a proposed widening of Washington. When we became aware of the change, we immediately contacted. you and the City Manager, and again reiterated our position that we did not intend to dedicate or improve any addition right of way along either Washington Street or Highway 111; that we had an absolute vested right to develop our property in a fashion consistent with our approved Parcel Map and the zoning applicable to the property at the time we began development., and that if the City really intended to implement its plan for Washington, it should plan on condemning the property, because we would not dedicate it. We also pointed out that with the Washington Street Plan in place, and the set backs required along both Washington Street and Highway 111, the parcel owned by Pomona, and our parcel situated adjacent to Washington Street had become virtually undevelopable, and would result in a claim by us and Pomona that the remainder of those parcels not taken for street expansion had PM54a2 LAW OrrIC[i Or BEST, BEST & KRIEGE John J. Pena, Mayor September 5, 1991 Page 3 been rendered virtually useless resulting in a claim by us and Pomona that the remainder had been taken by inverse condemnation. Thereafter, we had several meetings with both you and the City Manager. At a meeting held on October 1, 1990 with Mr. Kiedrowski, the City Manager, we informed him that we had several potential buyers for the property, but that we were unable to proceed with any one of them until the issue of the Washington Street right of way and set backs had been resolved. He told us that it was unlikely that the matter could be resolved without specific development plans being submitted to the City, and he encouraged us to prepare a plan which would accommodate the needs of both the city and the owner of the property. He specifically told us that he thought that the matter could be resolved to the satisfaction of both the city and us if each of us was mindful of the concerns of the other. He acknowledged that the right of way issue was of concern to the city, and suggested that if we were willing to compromise with respect to the dedication, the city might very well be willing to compromise with development standards which might otherwise be applicable to the property. He urged us to keep in touch with the City as our plans progressed. Based upon our discussions with both Mr. Kiedrowski and you, we have worked assiduously to plan a development for the corner which will serve the interests of both the City and ourselves. That plan is embodied in the documents which we have submitted to the City for review and approval, and includes the dedication by us of Washington Street to its planned width as desired by the City. It should be noted that in order for us to accomplish the plan, we have agreed to purchase the Pomona parcel so that we can offer the dedication and develop the property as an integrated project. In return, we are requesting that the city policy regarding- height in this area be modified. We believe that our proposed development will be a significant asset to the city and will result in a project on this most important intersection at the entrance to the cove in which the city may well be proud. We think that this is truly a win -win solution to our mutual problem. The City gets its right of way, and both we and the city get a quality development with which we may both be very pleased and satisfied. In the event the city is unwilling to modify its policy regarding height in this area, we will have no alternative other than to return to development of our portion of the property within the parcels as set forth in our approved map, and consistent with the applicable zoning ordinance and policies in effect at the time. In such event, we will not be in a position to purchase the Pomona parcel or to dedicate the Washington Street frontage. Pomona will ►tst5ta2 LAW OFFICES OF BEST, BEST & KRIEC John J. Pena, Mayor September 5, 1991 Page 4 undoubtedly develop its parcel independent of us. Furthermore. we are of the legal opinion that the City may not, in such event, require the dedication as a condition of the development. We believe that this alternative is a lose -lose proposal. The city does not get its right of way, and both the city and we get a development which will not match what we are currently proposing in terms of quality. We hope that we are not left in this position. As always, we remain ready, willing and able to meet with you, the City Council, the Planning Commission and staff at any time to discuss the matter further. If additional information is desired, please give me a call, and we will respond immediately. We are most anxious to have this matter resolved at the earliest possible time. Since 1986, we have entered into agreements to sell the property to three separate buyers. Each one of them has walked away from the transaction because of the uncertainty surrounding the dedication and set back issues. We hope that we can finally put this matter behind us. Thank you for your consideration of this most important matter. Yours very truly, Paul T. PTS /ssk. Enclosures cc: Ron Kiedrowski, City .Manager ✓Jerry Herman, City Planner Gilbert F. Smith, Pomona First Federal Philip M. Pead, Simon Plaza, Inc. Fred Simon, 3S Partnership John Sanborn, 3S Partnership PT$154U July 22, 1986 Mr. John J. Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear John: Pof mT C ?RUCK! I would like to acknowledge your correspondence of July 18, 1986, in reference to the road design of Highway 111/ Washington Street Intersection. We are in the process of the final negotiations of selling the property to a developer and it would certainly be beneficial to get some commercial property established on that corner as soon as possible. I am sure that with the interest you have expressed in your letter, once we have a Developer's Plan suitable for submission, we.can move ahead for final consideration. I will continue in my efforts and hope we can get develop- ment started with the City's assistance.- Sincerely, S IMON MOTORS, , INC . red J. Simon President FJS:mec CC: City Council Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager Larry Stevens, Community Development Director Robert Weddle, City Engineer • " John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb Paul Selzer, Best, Best & Krieger Bob Nichols, Pomona First Federal The Home of Personal Service" P. O. Box 1461, 78 -611 Highway 111, La Quinta, Califomia 92253 (619) 346 -2345 LIL IL �1w !f „f ycC 78.105 CALLE ESTADO LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 (619) 564.2246 July 18, 1986 Fred J. Simon, President Simon Motors, Inc. P. 0. Box 1461 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Fred: Pursuant to your request, the Community Development Department has reviewed both of your proposed revisions to the road design at the Highway 111 /Washington Street intersection. The City appreciates your efforts in preparing alternative designs for the area which take into consideration both your concerns about additional right -of -way and community concerns relating to traffic safety. With regards to the designs proposed by Sanborn /Webb, they represent acceptable design possibilities *for the Washington Street corridor near the Highway 111 intersection. Each generally provides for adequate capacity and uses accepted traffic design standards. Each would also be considered as consistent with the adopted Washington Street Specific Plan. You should be aware that it was not the purpose of the Washington Street Specific Plan to select a precise road design and no such design has been determined at this time. The Specific Plan was intended to provide general design and right -of -way criteria for the corridor and any number of design alternatives, including those prepared by Sanborn /Webb, will be considered in the upcoming phases of plan implementation. While it is premature to select a particular design at this time, please be assured that it is certainly the City's intent to minimize potential right -of -way acquisition to give due consideration to existing improvements, to carefully evaluate impacts on affected property owners and to minimize road improvement costs in the ultimate improvement of this important road corridor. The City is currently preparing a precise alignment study and a financing feasibility study and, following that, experts to prepare .improvement plans in its efforts to improve the Washington- Street corridor to at least a four -lane condition as soon as possible. In the event that your desire to secure approvals for and develop the Washington Street frontage parcels would occur prior to the completion of these studies, the City will attempt to resolve the MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 1504 • LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Fred Simon, President Simon Motors, Inc. July 18, 1986 Page 2. precise design issues as part of any development application that would be submitted for the affected parcels. It is expected that the general comments on the Sanborn /Webb revisions would provide adequate guidance to prepare site development designs suitable for submittal. In preparing those plans, you should feel free to work with Larry Stevens, Community Development Director, and Bob Weddle, City Engineer, in order to minimize the impact of changes that typically occur through the development review process. It is hoped that this response gives you adequate assurance that we can work in concert in resolving mutual concerns along this very important corridor. I believe that we can achieve our common goals best by continuing to work together. Your interest in resolving any differences and continuing to progress towards mutually acceptable solutions is appreciated. Sincerely, „i ohn J. en AT Mayor JJP:LLS:dmv cc: City Council Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager Larry Stevens, Community Development Director Robert Weddle, City Engineer John Sanborn, Sanborn /Webb Paul Selzer Bob Nichols Pomona First Federal Savings and Loan Association Since 1892 July 3, 1986 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post °Office Box 1504 La Quinta, Calif. 92253 Re: Widening of Washington Avenue Dear Mayor Pena: Pomona First Federal has received a copy of the plans submitted on behalf of Simon Motors, Inc. in regard to the proposed Washington Avenue widening. Although this would still have a detrimental affect on our property, it is much more acceptable'than the previous action taken by the City. It appears that the Groves traffic study, includ- ing projections for traffic through the year 2035, is more realistic than other reports received by the City. The Plan submitted by Mr. Simons substantially re- duces the cost to the city and permits property usage which would result in additional taxes for the city. It also renders our property as being immediately usable rather than unuseable as will result under your present plan and would result in a lower acquisition costs. Our Board of Directors has not had a meeting to discuss the amended plan submitted by Mr. Simon, but I feel confident that it will meet with much more approval by the Board than the present plan. Thanking you in advance for consideration of the pro- posed plan by the La Quinta City Council, I remain Very truly yours, WILLIAM G. BERG AN, JR. Vice Chairman of the Boa d of Directors of Pomona Firs Federal Savings and Loan Association WGB,JR:ps AdminI Off Cive Officer: 350 South Garey Avenue • P.O. Box 1520 • Pcnona. Cal -lorma 91769 • (714) 623-2323 • (213) 625.7666 • (818) 964.7800 • (714) 972.0521 � Por�riAc i am June 26, 1936 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA 00 Post Office Box 1504 L ,o La Quinta, CA. 92253 LV S Dear John: w Enclosed is a work -up that Mr. John Sanborn has completed after visiting with Judith Cox and Larry Allen of the City Council, and Larry Stevens of your Planning Department. The plan submitted to you on June 13, 1986, revised the original plan developed by B.S.I. and your Planning Department, which severely cut the property on the corner of Washington and Highway 111. After submitting our revision and attending the projected traffic study by the Groves, Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Selzer visited with the three individuals mentioned abdpve, and from their discussions, Mr. Sanborn made several additional revisions which show adaquet lanes to accept the traffic patterns as outlined in his correspondence dated June 24, 1986, a copy of which is attached along with revision number 2 by the property owners. I think this plan makes alot of islands are sufficiently wide at six the traffic patterns adaquetly. The property is needed to accomodate. the our first revision and therefore les be necessary in acquiring this land. sense because the median feet, and would seperate end results are that less traffic patterns than on s cost to the City would Even with this revision, Pomona 1st Federal would lose 4050 square feet and 3S loses 6400 square feet, in comparison to the original plan submitted and approved by the City Council which would be well over an acre or close to 50,000 square feet. I hope you will all take this into consideration and allow us to discuss this matter with you if there are any additional questions. Sincerely, S IMON MOTORS, INC. Fred J. Simon President 'The Home of Personal Service cc: Nichols P. O. Box 1461, 78 -611 Highway 1 11, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 3 Se n lzer Stevens _ IVY June 13, 1986 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA. 92253 Dear Sir: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of June 12, 1986, relative to the changes adopted on the corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street, that have taken such a large protion of the land from the East side of the corner, that it renders the parcels owned by Pomona 1st Federal, unbuildable. It also severely disects the parcel owned by 3S on the corner of Simon Drive and Washington Street, which again would make it questionable as to whether or not it would be useable as a commercial site. I have submitted a revised plan to you that has been worked up by Sanborn Webb, Inc., which we think works. It also limits the loss of property to the two owners and would reduce substantially, the cost of acquiring the parcels, by the City of La Quinta, in order to do the plan that was originally adopted. We have included a study done by the Groves that was submitted to the City and was accepted by you as a traffic study for Washington Street. It varies quite drastically from the one B. S..I. is now submitting for the Washington Street corridor.. The groves projection, projects considerably less traffic than the B. S. I., and we, for the sake of common sense, can not see Washington Street carrying more traffic than Highway 111 in future years, and that in essence, is what their study and your planner have done with the configurations on the current plan. Our recommendations have many advantageous points that should be taken into consideration. 1) Adequately covers the traffic project for Washington Street. 2) Allows for stacking on the corner. 3) Eliminates severe loss of property by owners of corner. 4) Reduces cost to City tremendously. 5) Logically allows solutions to problem, so we can proceed with developing the corner immediately. , 6) With the corner developed, we can begin to bring revenue into the City, rather than taking revenue out of the City's coffers. 7) Continues to solve the problem for the people at "Point Happy ". "The Homt of Personal Servict" P. O. Box (461. 78 -611 Highway 111. La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 346 -2345 Mr. John Pena June 13. 1986 Page 2 All in all, this alternative plan resolves the problem at "Point Happy ". It resolves the problem of traffic stacking. It resolves the problem logically for all concerned and limits the need for acquiring entirely the two parcels affected. I hope you can personally participate and I am asking Mr. Bob Nichols of Pomona 1st Federal, Paul Selzer and John Sanborn of 3S, to personally participate with your Planning Department and your City Council to correct this problem as quickly as possible so that we may proceed to develope the land and bring revenue into the City!! FJS:mer cc: Bob Nichols Paul Selzer John Sanborn Larry Stevens Sincerely, SIMON MOTORS, Fred J Presid 0 C. At t i - %r 1...: :d• PAVO i vjlvCN v Cis:. r,LL:,f J. C•., - D C r E, C. IT t :,♦L JAC. L' CLA;•fC A. o:—tAt♦ cz I ;C. L Goa: 1.. 10•?. t. CC. : •L / '•C tir A. r r Tr4sr,,q MA A E f t• WIN L %,C��,NC4LE* A,,),: JL 1 25, 19 C 6 C it y Cc v's) ci I City of La Quinta La Q-jinta, CA 92253 LAw arriccs or f3r:.s•r. DEST C. KRIEGE11 EGO Ct!•T TAHO1L-1lZ-MSCALLV14 WAY r-. G. C. C, Jr. 2 710 PALM !,FrM:3S.C-AL1VOn1#1A 92264 1 E L E PI'01, V.0 1 g -7 ;!64 Tl.t.vy 7Ek73s De--:r ancii 'jile-i-o',bers of tile Council: FILE NvCrosqoc crr:^E E r C E r CC L(f C CC 4--:T •%f .C• r C C "t C L This office represents the 3S Com.pany and Simon Family Partr=-,l-.1L, v,ho are the o-.,,ncrs o; Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and Parcel lf*aD 1841S respect ivel-,, , and this letter is v:-.itten in cornection Your proposed Washington Sl--reet Corrieo-f '-,.n.end:-:,-ent to the Cenera-,. Plan. We hav-:n been informed thr:-- both the City Council and the Pla7-r.-*-.,--R have h-eld Publi--- Ilearings in connection with the r-nd that 1-1-o City Cou:;cil has adopted that to Ganoral Flan. neither the 3S Company the Pa?:,--nc-A-s1,ip received notice of any Public to sey, my object vc-'-c-.-ontly to the proposr.l on b-.,� not 12C.-itoe. to the follOWIM,: 1, `F t 1, e i Ic- � I' C , ..,*:.' %.%? v"er..? ZjLven I)ro--)&--- not`ce o L Col,mcil; ane-1, - 'L' -O. 1`1,1�(. fo:. On t-h-2 ei:zz!- S-*:-,,-�- on c C r i t -2 SC, S has �-,.w : is : 1: i•! -cc; i1--(! TT-.-C 11LIVeell Of the P)'--)POS,�) falls (,-.itii:el\- x::?cn Lho cr,-Mers c-rst of •ashim-ton, Street while ti-io bene-fi,-- lc,].v. to the 0�,71-c-.rs of property west ol: Sheet; 111 CI in tha stuc!v are Fzi.lc-n in C-f-41-ers to purcilnse ,)r,2V1O*.*.-,.-. City Council. April 25, 1986 VaLc Two 5. 7'he exis ;tcnce of the General Plan Amt>ne..7,ent so significantly clouds the tj '-le to the proper. ties o- -ned by my cl:ier,ts as to it unmarketable.__ In view of the foregoing c.:2 would respectfully request that the City reopen the He-irings on this ratter after properly giving notice to each o %.ner entitled thereto in order that we nay have ample opportunity to present evidence and al.ternptives to those plans reco °,—nended by the Plann:i.n(--; Cor,�nissi.on and apparently adopted by the City Council in its S, ceif.i.c Plan Nu -.-jber 86 -007. I.Mile we wish to cooperate with the City in its -ndeavors to ir.,prove the area, I an sure you will understand our. concern when ve fo-..nd out after the fact that after having already dedicated 36 feet along j- :ashington Street, five feet along Higl-,::ay 111 and installing curbs, gutters, side,,:alks and traffic signals all at significant expense arA all within the last t}!ree years, the City no-.-7 wishes to tear out all of that work and render valueless at least taro of the parcels .•ith Parcel Map Number 18418 all without notice to us. In view of the drastic economic effects this is having on our clients at the present time, we would respectfully request an early response to this letter. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this natter. Yours very truly, BEST, BEST & KRIEGER Y�.ul. T. elzer Vi Sts cc: John Sanborn Fre(1 Sir.,Dn bcc: Gilbert Smith, Pomona First Federal 9.88.050 B. There are no yard requirements for buildings which . do not exceed thirty -five feet in height, except as required for specific plans. Any portion of.a building which exceeds thirty -five feet in height shall be set back from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than two feet for each foot by which the height exceeds thirty -five feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing street line un- less a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line ad- joins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the d' same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing 0 adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. �- C. All buildings and structures shall not exceed fifty 4— feet in height,.unless a height up to seventy -five feet is � specifically permitted under the provisions of Chapter 9.192 d of this title. D. Automobile storage space shall be provided as re- quired by Chapter 9.160 of this title. E. All roof - mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand three hundred twenty feet. (Ord. 5 51(part), 1982: county-Ordinance 348 §9.53) Chapter 9.90 C -V ZONE (COMMERCIAL VI ZGE) Section' 9.90.010 9.90.015 9.90.020 9.90.030 9.90.040 9.90.050 9.90.060 9.90.070 9.90.071 9.90.072 9.9VO 9.99.9 Generally. Nrp Pe fitted Acce ory Commer 'a require Design ev uses. ,5,6s permitted. and multifamily plot plan review required. Deve pment tandards. Su ones. -C "The core ubzone. -V -P "The park" s zone. C -V -S "South" subzon C -V -N "North" subzone. GVT' 186 -79 (La Quinta 5/89) a Excerpt from the adopted General Plan- Urban Design Component POLICY 6.5.1 — SPECIAL GATEWAY TREATMENTS AT MAJOR ENTRIES TO THE CITY AND TO THE DOWNTOWN SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: ' HIGHWAY 111 /WASHINGTON STREET - ISLAND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING A MONUMENT SIGN AND OTHER SPECIAL FEATURES. ' VILLAGE GATEWAY - SPECIAL PAVING AND LANDSCAPING. POLICY 6.5.5 - SECONDARY GATEWAY, TREATMENTS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTIONS: EISENHOWER DRIVE AND WASHINGTON STREET ° CALLE TAMPICO AND WASHINGTON STREET ° FRED WARING DRIVE AND WASHINGTON STREET ° JEFFERSON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 ° CALLE TAMPICO AND EISENHOWER DRIVE POLICY 6.5.6 — SPECIAL THEMES INCLUDING MEDIAN LANDSCAPING, PARKWAY LANDSCAPING, STREET LIGHTS, PERIMETER WALLS, SIGNING AND RELATED DESIGN TREATMENTS SHALL BE DEVELOPED. POLICY 6.5.7 — ALONG PRIMARY AND SECONDARY STREET IMAGE CORRIDORS THE CITY SHALL ESTABLISH APPROPRIATE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS TO ASSURE A LOW DENSITY CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE. POLICY 6.5.8 — LARGE PARKWAYS AND SETBACKS ARE NECESSARY TO ASSURE A HIGH— QUALITY AND ATTRACTIVE APPEARANCE ON MAJOR STREETS. SETBACKS FOR WALLS, BUILDINGS AND PARKING AREAS MAY VARY, IF.PROPERLY DESIGNED, BUT SHALL GENERALLY BE AS j� FOLLOWS: MAJOR AND PRIMARY ARTERIALS - 20 FEET HIGHWAY 111 — 50 FEET OTHER STREETS — 10 FEET TRADE —OFFS FOR IMAGINATIVE DESIGNS MAY BE CONSIDERED. l Design Review Board Minutes October 2, 1991 011 6. Th a being o furt r dis ssion, it was ove b Chai n e and co Boar embe Curt toad t Min to Mo n 91 031 re mmendin appr al to a Pla 'ng minis n su 'ect to the Ap licant w king th St on c cern Un 'mou y approved. Plot Plan 91 -466; a request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for approval of a commercial center. 1. Associate Planner Greg Trousdell presented the information contained in the Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development Department. 2. Mr. Phillip Pead, Developer for the project, addressed the Board regarding the project. 3. Chairman Rice stated he felt the project was an excellent solution to the vacant corner. 4. Boardmember Curtis asked if there was not another way of locating the parking structure so as not to be so close to the street. Mr. Pead stated they had spent a great deal of time on the layout of the buildings and this was the only workable solution. Discussion followed regarding possible alternatives for the structure location. Putting one floor of parking below the bowling alley was suggested. 5. Boardmember Harbison inquired if they had considered putting any of the parking floors below grade. Mr. Pead stated there was one floor below grade. Boardmember Harbison stated they needed to soften the height of the building by the use of trees and landscaping. 6. There being no further discussion it was moved by Chairman Rice and seconded by Boardmember Harbison to adopt Minute Motion 91 -032 recommending to the Planning Commission approval of Plot Plan 91 -466 subject to Staff recommendations. Approved with Boardmember Curtis voting NO. Plqt Plan 91-,467; a request of D sert Vi s, Inc. or app val of a pro osed sing story ap rtment _% plex. 1. ssociate nner G g Trous 11 pres ted the 'nforma 'on co tained in a Staff port, a y of w 'ch is on 'le in t Plan 'ng and D elopmen Departm t. 2. Mr. Cra Bryant, A licant dressed a Boar egarding he backgroun of the pro osed p 'ect . DRBMIN -10/2 3 BUILDING HEIGHT SUMMARY November 1991 1. Tract 23773, Starlight Dune (1990), 75% of the dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring Drive shall be limited to one story (20 feet). Along the north property line.of the tract all units shall be one-story (201) except lots 117 and 135 which may be 2 story. 2. Tract 18915, Palm Royale (1983) - Approved by the County of Riverside in 1983. Two story buildings were allowed, however, only a few units are located within 150 feet of Washington Street. 3. Tract 23971, Deane Homes (1990), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). No two story buildings are allowed within 150 feet of Washington Street. 4. Tract 23269, La Quinta Highland (1988), All dwelling units within 100 feet of Fred Waring and Adam Street shall be limited to one story. All dwelling units within 100 to 150 feet shall be limited to one story (20 feet) as approved by the Planning Commission. 5. Tract 23268, Acacia (1988), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 .f eet) . 6. Tract 24517, Waring /Adams Venture (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 7. Tract 23913, Quinterra (1988), 008 of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 8. Tract 25290, Rancho Ocotillo (1989), 758 of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 9. Tract 19903, La Quinta Palms (1984), One story single family homes were built. 10. Tract 25953, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles.Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 11. Tract 22982, Cactus Flower (1988), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring and Dune Palms Road shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 12. Tract 24208, LQ Association /Williams (1989), The R1 Zoning Standards apply. 13. Tract 24950, Chong Lee (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 14. Tract 25691, Deman (1990), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 15. Tract 24197, Triad (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue, Jefferson Street and Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 16. Tract 23995, Spanos, (1989), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Washington Street and Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story for the multiple family area. 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet) for the R -1 area. 17. Specific Plan 88 -014, Transpacific, Per CPS Zoning standards with plot plan review required. Plot plan 91 -468 (Auto Club) is presently being processed at the intersection of Washingston and Highway 111 for a one story building (21 feet). 18. Tract 23519, Santa Rosa (1990) Amend. 1, 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one ° story (20 feet) . No two story units shall be constructed next to each other along Miles Avenue, and the two story units shall be on the lowest building pads. 19. Tract 25363, Santa Rosa (1990), The R1 Zoning standards will apply. 20. Tract 26188, Santa Rosa (1991), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 21. Tract 23935, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 22. Specific Plan 88 -011, Washington Square, Per CPS Zoning standards. No development plans have been processed. 23. Tract 24230 and Tract 26152, Lake La Quinta (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Adams shall be limited to one story (20 feet). No dwelling units within 150 feet of 48th Avenue shall be higher than one story (201) in height. Commercial development is subject to a conditional use permit. Building heights will be determined by the Planning Commission. No development applications have been submitted. 24. Plot Plan 91 -466, Simon Plaza (1991), A two story building (281) has been proposed at the intersection of Washington Street and Highway 111 (SE). However, the plan has not been reviewed by the Commission or the City Council at this time. 25. Specific Plan 84 -004, Pyramids, All dwelling units within 75 feet of the property line shall be limited to one story. 26. Tracts 13640 and 20052, Conditional Use Permit 2262E, Laguna De La Paz (1979), Single story buildings were constructed. 27. Tract 3448, etc., La-Quinta Golf Estates, All dwelling units are limited to one story. 28. Tract 21555, Parc La Quinta (1986 and 88), All dwelling units on Washington Street were limited to one story (21 feet) and have been constructed. 29. Tract 25154, Valley Land (1989), The R1 standards will apply. The two story units will be approved by the Commission but this site does not abut an arterial street. 30. Tract 26148, Amcor (1990), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (17 feet) per the SR Zoning Code provisions. 31. Specific Plan 83 -001, Duna La Quinta (1985), All dwelling units within 200 feet of the tract boundary shall be limited to one story (20 feet). This provision did not apply to the LQ Stormwater channel which allowed building 29 feet in overall height. Two story units were allowed (35 feet max.). 32. Plot Plan 91 -467, Desert Villas LTD. (1991) , All dwelling units within the 109 unit apartment complex are single story. The City Council has not reviewed the applicant's Change of Zone request. 33. Tract 25389, Duna La Quinta /Brock (1990), All dwelling units on lots 1 -5, 17, 18, 31 -48, 91 -116, 203, 204, 207- 211 and 238 -255 shall be limited to one story (25 feet). See Specific Plan 83 -001 for other requirements. 34. Tract 25429, Chateau (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (22 feet). 35. Tract 26524, Strothers (1990), 75% of all dwelling units on 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (22 feet max. ) within 150 feet. All lots on the southerly portion of the tract shall have homes not greater than 22 feet in height (lots 15 -21). 36. Specific Plan 84 -003, Orchard (1990), -75% ;of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 37. Specific Plan 85 -006, Oak Tree West, A11!dwelling units within 200 feet of the property line or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet) within a limited, defined area. 38. Tract 21880, Time Valley Land (ext. '3, 1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of. 52nd Avenue, Avenida Bermudas, and the tract boundaries shall be limited to one story. Other related cases are: Specific Plan 85- 005A and B; 52nd Avenue realignment, 1985, and the Washington Specific Plan -(SP 86 -007, 1989). 39. Tract 26855, Kanlian (1991), Unapproved; No action at this time. 40. Tract 26718, Hansch (1991), Unapproved; No action at this time. 41. Specific Plan 90 -016, Landmark Land (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of boundary of the site or public street shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units are limited to two story (30 feet). The City Council has not reviewed this case at this time. 42. Tract 24507, Steven Brummel (1990), Building heights were not addressed in this development approval. Existing R- 1 Zone requirements would apply. 43. Tract 26972, Dr. Darr (1991) , All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (18 feet). The City Council has not approved this case at this time.. 44. Tract 27187, Pudney (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (18 feet). This case has not been approved by the City Council. 45. Tract 24774, Vista Development (1989./90), Building heights were not addressed in the tract map approval. 46. Specific Plan 90- 020 /Tract 26472 /Tract 26473, 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 52 Avenue shall be limited to one story (18 feet), whereas, two story homes ,i shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height. 47. Specific Plan 90 -018, Tracts 26008 and' 26009, Vista Development (1989/90), The specific plan: addressed 20 foot high buildings for this area. 48. Specific Plan 83 -002, PGA West (1989), Amend. 1, A - The portion of the area designated for six story (72 feet) height .south of the Airport- Blvd_ alignment shall .be deleted: -B - All residential units shall-be limited to a max. of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. C - The hotel shall be limited to a max. height of six stories; and the other related buildings, not attached to the hotel, within the Village Core shall be limited to two stories. The original Specific Plan applies and allows one story buildings (28 feet) within 300 feet or more of a public arterial. 49. Tract 25500 (Madison Street, south of 54th), Sunrise Desert Partners (1990), Amendment 1, Single story homes were approved. Note: Numerous Tracts have been approved within the PGA West development per SP 83 -002, however,, the only two story units in the project are west of PGA Boulevard. 50. Tract 26769, Qualico (1991), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Monroe Street shall be one story (22 feet). 51. Tract 27224, Madison Estates /Seastar (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (21 feet). This case has not been reviewed by the City Council. 52. Specific Plan 90 -015, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units shall not exceed 30 feet: The plan has not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the Planning Commission). 53. Specific Plan 90 -017, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (2;0 feet). All other units shall not to exceed 30 feet. This case has not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the Planning Commission). a Fred Warino Avenue 44 Dr• 2 4 68911 1 12 Miles Ave. 3 5 7 10 13 11 SA ttt 6 18 19 17 20 21 • � m n 4 E � c 0 4J 22 d c E IA ar •� .o c 3 3 a ° 48th Ayen6e 26 25 25 90 Aven 27 28 29 25 30 Avenue So 31 31 34 35 36 32 33 Zn 39 Tampico 40 41 37 ; 42 07 Avenue 52 •r L Q 38 37 46 L 4l 3 ' 0 r c a� N W CASE Na 48 Building Height Survey (City -wide) 43 44 in 45 Ave 49 N 51 November 1991 N 50 52 Airport Blvd. 53 I Avenue 58 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND OFF - STREET PARKING STANDARDS OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE CASE NO. VAR 91 -019 - SIMON PLAZA, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, the 26th day of November, 1991, the 10th day of December, 1991, and the 14th day of January, 1992, hold duly- noticed Public Hearings to consider the request of Simon Plaza, Inc. for a Variance to Section 9.160.045 and 9.160.050 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC), to allow a reduction in the setback requirements and on -site parking standards, more particularly described as: NORTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.5.S., R.7.E. APN: 617 - 020 -020 THROUGH 025 WHEREAS, said Variance request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (As amended and adopted by City Council Resolution 83 -68) , in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the denying of said Variance: 1. The strict application of the building setback requirements and off - street parking standards to the subject property will not deprive the property owner of receiving an economic return on his development investment since other properties in the area have met the minimum City requirements. The purpose and intent of the Zoning Code standards is to promote health and safety standards and provide design guidelines which are necessary to insure each property owner has the same privileges as his /her abutting neighbor. 2. Denial of the Variance will prevent the City from granting special privileges to the Applicant consistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property in the area which have had to meet the minimum Zoning Code provisions. 3. The development of the property with reduced setbacks would adversely affect the continued enjoyment of the properties in the area and set a precedent in the City to reduce the City Design Standards to a lesser degree than planned by the implementation of the City's existing Zoning Code and General Plan. RESOPC.053 4. The developer has not shown that this property has special problems which are not unlike other properties in this area of the City. The property is large enough to support urban improvements and no topographic problems are prevalent on this site to warrant a reduction in City development standards due to special merit concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment 91 -211 which indicated that denial of the Variance would not constitute a significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 14th day of January, 1992, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.053 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN 91 -466 - APPROVED JANUARY 14, 1992 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by Staff after the Design Review Board meeting. ** Modified by Planning Commission on January 14, 1992. + ++ Added by Planning Commission on January 14, 1992 GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 91 -466, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street parking requirements. 5. Adequate trash enclosures shall be provided for all structures and provided with opaque metal doors. Plans for trash enclosures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall contact the local waste management company to insure that the number of enclosures and size of the enclosures are adequate. 6. Decorative enclosures may be required by the City around any retention basins depending on site grading requirements. The color, location, and placement of said fence (s) shall be approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Phased improvement plans shall be subject to Planning Commission review. 8. Handicap parking spaces and facilities shall be provided per Municipal Code and State requirements. 9. A noise study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review and approval prior to submission of building plans for plan check or issuance of grading permit, whichever comes first. The study shall concentrate on noise CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation measures for incorporation into the project design such as building setbacks, engineering design, building orientation, noise barriers, (berming, landscaping and walls, etc.) and other techniques. 10. The project shall comply with all existing off street parking requirements including but not limited to shading of parking lot areas and bicycle parking spaces. 11. Decorative screen walls (i.e., berms with landscaping, masonry walls, etc.) provided adjacent to street shall be high enough to screen parking lot surfaces and a majority of parked cars from view of the street. Determination of height of walls shall be made after review of landscaping and grading plans by City. 12. Perimeter landscaping planters shall be provided at maximum widths possible adjacent to property lines and provided in landscaping. 13. The project shall comply with applicable Arts in Public Places Ordinance. 14. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior to archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information, shall be analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan. The plan shall be submitted to the Coachella Valley Archaeological Society (CVAS) for a two -week review and comment period. At a minimum, the plan shall: 1) identify the means for digging test pits; 2) allow sharing the information with the CVAS; and 3) provide for further testing if the preliminary result show significant materials are present. The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final review and approval. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required, by the plan or testing results. A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm employees, and any assistant (s) /representative(s) , shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the Planning and Development Department. CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further grading, excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby areas reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed. Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final report containing the data analysis to be prepared and published and submitted to the Planning and Development Department. 15. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any building or use contemplated by this use, the Applicant shall obtain permits or clearances from the following agencies: o City Fire Marshal o City of La Quinta Public Works Department o City of La Quinta Planning & Development Department o Coachella Valley Water District o Desert Sands Unified School District o Imperial Irrigation District o Caltrans ( District 11) Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above mentioned agencies shall be presented to the Building Department at the time of application for a building permit for the proposed project. 16. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City adopted infrastructure fee program in affect at the time of issuance of building permits. 17. Final landscaping plans shall include approval stamps and signatures from the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioners office and the Coachella Valley Water District. 18. A bus waiting shelter and bus turnout shall be provided as requested by Sunline Transit on Highway 111 when said street improvements are re- installed or unless other site locations are permitted by the transit authority (e.g., Simon Drive) and the City Engineering Department. 19. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Engineering Department an interim landscape program for the entire site which shall be for the purpose of wind and erosion and dust control. The land owner shall institute blow sand and dust control measures during grading and site development. These shall include but not be limited to: a.) use of irrigation during construction and grading activities; b.) areas not constructed on during first phase shall be planted in temporary ground cover or wildflowers and provided with temporary irrigation system; and c . ) CONAPRVL.037 3 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 provision of wind breaks or wind rolls, fencing, and or landscaping to reduce the effects upon adjacent properties and property owners. The landowner shall comply with requirements of the Directors of Public Works and Planning and Development. All construction and graded areas shall be watered at least twice daily while being used to prevent emission of dust and blow sand. 20. Construction shall comply with all local and State Building Code requirements in affect at time of issuance of building permit as determined by the Building Official. 21. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report to the Planning and Development Director demonstrating compliance with those conditions of approval which must be satisfied prior to issuance of a building permit. Prior to a final building inspection approval, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a written report demonstrating compliance with all remaining conditions of approval and mitigation measures. The Planning and Development Director may require inspection or other monitoring to assure such compliance. 22. A parking lot striping plan including directional arrows, stop signs, no parking areas, and parking spaces shall be approved by Planning and Development and Engineering Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 23. All roof equipment shall be screened from view by parapet walls of building or other architecturally matching materials. 24. All compact spaces shall be clearly marked "compact cars only". 25. That all conditions of the Design Review Board shall be complied with as follows: A. The landscape plan shall include an eight foot wide meandering pedestrian /bike trail. The plans should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to submission of the final landscape plan by the Applicant/ Developer. B . The landscape program for Washington Street shall include a variation of planting materials, i.e., Palm trees, accent shade trees, lawn, shrubs, and groundcover. The use of mature California Pepper, Australian Willow, Mesquite, Crape Myrtle, Bottle Trees, and Washington Robusta Palms should be encouraged. Varieties of flowering shrubs such as Texas Ranger, Cassia, Crepe Myrtle, and CONAPRVL.037 4 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 Dwarf Oleander should be utilized. Native (low water use) plants should be used, and the landscape architect should consult the Coachella Valley Water District's plant material list prior to designing their proposal. Uplighted trees or palms shall be used along Washington Street and Highway 111. Incandescent light fixtures will be required (less than 160 watt) . C. The proposed retention areas on -site shall be landscaped with materials which will support growth even though they are accepting water run- off from paved surfaces. D. Any proposed parking lot lighting plan shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes the lighting pattern on the project and meets the City's Lighting Ordinance provisions as explained in Chapter 9.210 and 9.160 (Off- Street Parking) . The height of the light poles shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and the lighting contractor should reduce this height if physically possible during review of the project. E. The Developer shall contribute to the landscape and /or hardscape program of the future median island on Washington Street and Highway 111. F. A one story building height of 21 feet shall be maintained along Washington Street within 150 feet of the ultimate property line (after street dedication has been included) excluding minor architectural appendages (e.g., chimneys, towers, building columns, etc.) . G. Decorative concrete entryways shall be provided for all two -way driveways into the project site. The concrete shall be stamped and colored to accentuate the proposed development. The color, design and location of the concrete should be reviewed by the Design Review Board during a final plan check review. H. The final plans shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to the submission of the plans to the Building Department for final check consideration. The final plans should include but not be limited to landscaping and irrigation, building, signs, mechanical, etc. I. Bike racks shall be provided at convenient areas within the site for usage by bicycle riders. One space for every 50 parking spaces shall be provided as noted in the Off - Street Parking Code. J. The landscape setback on Washington Street shall be a minimum of 20 feet from the new property line. K. All open parking stalls shall be screened by walls, landscape hedges, or a combination thereof to a minimum height of 42 inches. CONAPRVL.037 5 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 L. A master sign program prior to the issuance building structures . CITY FIRE MARSHAL shall be approved by the Planning Commission of a building permit for any of the proposed 26. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 27. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2"), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building(s) as measured along approved vehicular travelways . The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant (s) in the system. 28. Prior to issuance of building permit Applicant/ Developer shall furnish one blueline copy of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review /approval. Plans shall conform to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Plans shall be signed /approved by a registered civil engineer and the local water company with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire Department. " The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and operational prior to start of construction. 29. Install a complete fire sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front, within 50 feet of a hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building(s) . System plans must be submitted with a plan check /inspection fee to the Fire Department for review. A statement that the building (s) will be automatically fire sprinklered must be included on the title page of the building plans. 30. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 31. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be permitted, along with a plan check /inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 32. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet #10, but not less than 2A1OBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 33. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, #503.. 34. Install Panic Hardware and Exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. 35. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 36. Install a Class I Standpipe System. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 37. Applicant shall dedicate public street right of way and utility easements in conformance with the city's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable Specific Plans, if any, and these Conditions of Approval noted as follows: A. Washington Street - Provide right of way as required by the Washington Street Specific Plan. ** B . Washington Street /Highway 111 Intersection - Provide right of way cut back as needed to accommodate a 55 -foot curb return (45 -foot right -of- way). C. Applicant shall dedicate the required right of way within ten (10) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 38. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right of way: A. Washington Street - 20 -feet wide; B . Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 39. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the Washington Street Specific Plan Centerline and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay, .raised median island with landscaping and hardscape, 8 -foot wide sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and existing improvements. 41. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street /Highway 111 intersection. CONAPRVL.037 7 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 42. Applicant shall reimburse City for 25% of the cost to design and install traffic signal at the Simon Drive /Highway 111 intersection. 43. Applicant shall reimburse City for cost to design and install bus stop "pullout" on Highway 111. 44. Applicant shall reimburse City for half of the cost to design and install raised median improvements and landscaping on Highway 111 in the portion contiguous to the project site. 45. Applicant shall enter into a secured agreement with the City to pay for the City installed improvements required by these Conditions of Approval before the grading permit is issued. 46. A thorough preliminary engineering, geological, and soils engineering investigation shall be conducted with a report submitted for review along with grading plan. The report recommendations shall be incorporated into the grading plan design prior to grading plan approval. The soils engineer and /or the engineering geologist must certify to the adequacy Of the grading plan. 47. The grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. 48. The site shall be designed and graded in a manner so the elevation difference between the building pad elevations on site and the adjacent street curb do not exceed three (3.0) feet. 49. Applicant shall provide storm drain facilities with sufficient capacity to evacuate all water that falls on -site and off -site to the centerline of the streets adjoining the site during the, 1 -hour duration, 25 -year storm event. The storm drain facility shall convey the storm water from the site to the Whitewater Channel. The Applicant may purchase capacity on a fair share basis in a storm drain to be designed and constructed in Washington Street by the City, if the City proceeds with said storm drain facility within time constraints which suit the Applicant. The tributary drainage area for which the Applicant is responsible shall extend to the centerline of Washington Street, Highway 111, and Simon Drive. 50. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect for the landscaped setback areas. The plans and proposed landscaping improvements shall be in conformance with requirements of the Planning Director, City Engineer, and Coachella Valley Water District and the plans shall be signed these officials prior to construction. CONAPRVL.037 8 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 51. Applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed grading, landscaping and irrigation plans to the Coachella Valley Water District for review and approval with respect to the District's Water Management Program. 52. Applicant shall landscape and maintain the landscaped setback area and right of way between all street curbing and property lines. 53. Applicant shall construct an eight -foot wide meandering bike path in the combined easterly parkway of Washington Street and southerly parkway of Highway 111 in lieu of the standard six -foot wide sidewalk. A six foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Simon Drive. 54. All existing and proposed telecommunication, television cable, and electric power lines with 12,500 volts or less, that are adjacent to the proposed site or on -site, shall be installed in underground facilities. 55. Underground utilities that lie directly under street improvements or portions thereof shall be installed, with trenches compacted to city standards, prior to installation of that portion of the street improvement. A soils engineer retained by Applicant shall provide certified reports of soil compaction tests for review by the City Engineer. 56. Applicant shall pay all fees charged by the city as required for processing, plan checking and construction inspection. The fee amount (s) shall be those which are in effect at the time the work is undertaken and accomplished by the city. 57. Applicant shall retain a California registered civil engineer, or designate one who is on Applicant's staff, to exercise sufficient supervision and quality control during construction of the tract grading and improvements to certify compliance with the plans, specifications, applicable codes, and ordinances. The engineer retained or designated by the Applicant to implement this responsibility shall provide the following certifications and documents upon completion of construction: A. The engineer shall sign and seal a statement placed on the "as built" plans that says "all ( grading and grades) (improvements) on these plans were properly monitored by qualified personnel under my supervision during construction for compliance with the plans and specifications and the work shown hereon was constructed as approved, except where otherwise noted hereon, and specifically acknowledged by the City Engineer". B . prior to issuance of any building permit, the engineer shall provide a separate document, signed and sealed, to the City Engineer that documents the building pad elevations. The document shall, for each pad, state the pad elevation approved on the grading plan, the as built elevation, and clearly identify the difference, if any. The data shall CONAPRVL.037 9 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 be organized by phase and shall be cumulative if the data is submitted at different times. C . provide to the City Engineer a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of the site grading and all improvements installed by the Applicant. 58. The parking stalls in the parking structure on each side of the aisle nearest Washington Street that are located within in the first 100 feet shall be restricted to either handicapped parking or reserved parking to help eliminate queuing that may extend beyond the parking structure. 59. The driveways on Washington Street and on Highway 111 shall be restricted to right turn movements only. 60. Turning movements at the intersection of Washington Street and Simon Drive shall be restricted to right turns only in accordance with the Washington Street Specific Plan. SPECIAL 61. The Environmental Fees of the State Fish and Game Department and the County of Riverside shall be paid within 24 hours after approval/ review of the proposed by the Planning Commission and /or City Council. 62. The final working drawings shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to building permit issuance. Said plans shall include landscaping, irrigations, signing, addressing, street, mechanical, lighting, utility plans and materials. 63. All required improvements shall be completed prior to first site occupancy of the proposed development. 64. The parking structure shall not exceed two covered levels above ground (plus one top level) in overall height or 27 feet as measured from finished grade pad elevation. Exterior lighting on top level of parking structure shall not exceed six feet and not be within ten feet of outside wall. 65. All mitigation measures of Environmental Assessment 91 -211 shall be met. 66. The parcels shall be legally merged prior to building permit issuance. 67. Prior to issuance of any land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Program, so adopted by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land. 68. Landscaping shall be incorporated into parking structures to blend them into the environment. This shall include perimeter grade planting and rooftop landscaping as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. CONAPRVL.037 10 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 69. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, a parking analysis shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to verify compliance of parking spaces provided based on Urban Land Institute Guidelines. Prior to each subsequent phase beginning construction a new parking study based on existing usage and potential demand shall be submitted. In each study, building size adjustments shall be made if it is determined that a parking deficiency exists. + + +70. Appropriate and adequate service delivering areas (loading facilities) and trash facilities shall be provided as required by the Off - Street Parking Code. The facilities shall be approved by Staff during the final review process. 0 CONAPRVL.037 11 CITY OF LA QUIITA LE �Gr;.;,o U�° ^; PLANNING COMMISSIOYJ TICS OF PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN. that the City Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Calle Estado, on the following item: ITEM: I PLOT PLAN 91 -466 (REVISION) APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. of La Quinta Planning on February 25, 1992, at Council Chambers, 78 -105 LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 ' REQUEST: TO MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PLOT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE STORY BUILDINGS ( +134,000 SQUARE FEET) AND A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE ON +5.5 ACRES ZONED SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. LEGAL: APN: 617 - 020 -020 THRU 025 NORTH HALF OF SECTION 30, T5S R7E The La Quinta Planning and Development Department has previously completed Environmental Assessment 91 -211 on the project. Based upon this assessment, the proposal will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared. The La Quinta Planning Commission will consider adoption of the Negative Declaration along with the above cited case at the Hearing. Any person may submit written comments on the proposal to the Planning and Development Department prior to the Hearing and /or may appear and be heard in support of or opposition to the Plot Plan at the time of the Hearing. If you challenge the decision of this Plot Plan in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues that you or someone else raised either at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning and Development Department at, or prior to, the Public Hearing. The proposed Plot Plan file may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. at the Planning and Development Department, La Quinta City Hall, 78 -099 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Y� � `r ,� � � ._