The URL can be used to link to this page

PP 1991-466 (3)PROPONENT: % 4 4v Qa4 Aaj EA No. CASE No. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ?-% J/ - ( DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: SECTION /TOWNSHIP /RANGE: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: MITIGATION'MEASURES: LEAD AGENCY: DATE OF ISSUE: Environmental Review Officer (�t-�) Ins if3S b� •• -c)-� �r' tr s.�i- �' ]�1 C� � � � 1 �/7 -6Za --0SO 4a ®'ass The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant ad- verse impact upon the environ- ment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. This decision was made after review by the Lead Agency of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public on request. ( were) ( were not) made a condition of approval of the project. CITY OF LA QUINTA Y ,. .- - u � PROPONENT: -&t�t 4 EA No. CASE No. NEGATIVE DECLARATION DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: LOCATION OF PROPOSAL: SECTION /TOWNSHIP /RANGE: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: MITIGATION MEASURES: LEAD AGENCY: DATE OF ISSUE: Environmental Review Officer The Lead Agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant ad- verse impact upon the environ- ment. An Environmental Impact Statement is not required. This decision was made after review by the Lead Agency of a completed Environmental Checklist and other information on file with the Lead Agency. This information is available to the public on request. ( were) ( were not) made a condition of approval of the project. CITY OF LA QUINTA 1 .. win 1. . W- All. r, i owl- NOT AM` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FI SIMON PLAZA LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Table of Contents Investment Summary Section I Renderings Section II Maps, Aerial, Site Plan, Subject Photos Section III Cost Breakdown Section IV Proposed Tenant Background Information Section V Rent Roll Section VI La Quinta Section VII 1 1 N i Li IINVESTMENT SUMMARY SIMON PLAZA La Quinta, California Investment Description ---------------- - - - - -- t a Amount /Type: Simon Plaza, a California Corporation , proposes construction financing in the amount of $19.5 million to construct a 163,825 square foot commercial center with a medical center and office building, general office building, a bank /restaurant, bowling center, 2nd restaurant & fitness center. The project also includes a 198,192 square feet parking structure for 576 cars. Terms: A term of one year at a negot- iable rate and fee. Funding Date: The project is scheduled to break ground during April, 1992. Pre - Leasing: Of the 163,825 square feet, currently 108,977 square feet have been leased (66.5 %). Major tenants include: a group of physicians offering out - patient surgery, radiology, urgent -care center laboratory and pharmacy (48,687 sq ft), Family Fitness (12,000 sq ft), Curly's Bowl (37,240 sq ft), Opthalmologist (6,050 sq ft), JJ's Restaurant (5,000 sq ft). t a t a t SIMON PLAZA Physical Description SF /Type Property: Simon Plaza is a project which when constructed will total approximately 164,000 square feet of leasable area, situated on a 5.6 acre site on the corner of Washington St. & Highway 111 in La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The subject property is located within a high growth area with numerous residential develop- ments planned and under con- struction. The property is situated at the beginning of the City of La Quinta and there- fore represents a land mark site. The following is a summary of the subject project's characteristics: - Avg Rent Building Total -Sq -Ft Sf /Mo /NNN Bowling Center 37,240 1.10 Fitness Center 12,000 1.15 Medical Building 40,000 2.00 Restaurant #1 8,000 2.25 Restaurant #2 5,000 1.75 General Offices 43,435 2.00 Medical Offices 12,100 2.00 Opthalmologist 6,050 2.00 Architect: 163,825 1.78 Merlin Barth & Assoc. Neighborhood Area: Simon Plaza is located in the City of La Quinta in Riverside County, the fastest growing county in California and one of the most dynamic markets in the United States. Situated in the Coachella Valley, La Quinta had a population growth rate of 237% from 1980 to 1990 to a current total of 11,215. The Coachella valley reported a 78% increase to over 182,000. The "Inland Empire" which includes Riverside and San Bernardino Counties now has much more than 2 million people and ranks ahead of San Francisco, Denver, Seattle & Phoenix in population. 1 The dynamic growth in pop- ulation has been fueled by the availability of housing at an average cost approximately 30% below the comparable price in Los Angeles amd more than 40% below the average cost of a home in Orange County. r t f t The Coachella Valley has attracted over the years an affluent population drawn to the country clubs /golf courses and spas and climate of the Palm Springs area. It has also become an attractive location for the retired. As a result of the population boom, increased medical facilities are required and the subject development will bring a much needed medical center and doctor's facilities to the area of La Quinta. In addition, a younger population has been attracted to the area to fill the large number of service related jobs in the restaurants country clubs, hotels etc. No entertainment is provided in the city for this segment and the bowling center will satisfy this demand as well as a source of "cool" entertainment in the summer. Start Date: The project is scheduled to break ground during April, 1992 Developer: Simon Plaza, Inc. Q.w.n.e.r. s.bip.. ... Owner /Entity: The borrowing entity is Simon Plaza Inc., a California Corporation. N I w L� I I i i 0 0 m $Mimi mimmmwo on MR.M m � on IMOSIM WIR 1 077� isimum I ". WON i 9 , m MW . ... . ..... IR 4 . 71 7 Tf 1-1 1 um I osm I MM = m +ter MIM m m mm w m w m r*a ter_ M m w e L' a to 0 R r 4.-T 1 1. rya 17 i to %wQwT,*4,9 4alimus.-C 74ft- MR-At? - PIT. Jj[ j 4�1 T 7 71 I INN Ir - - --------------- �VT4r m w m w m m w = w w w m w w m w m w w M mm Mon w m m m an mm Mao m M m m r Mae." m age Ft R-ur-44Z 041 6N, ut - IFI ' cufFm - ,-tREMMANT D nIl FT R-1 rf I EAST F _ J _ E V A T I OKI • HVY I I I v! 1. as J PG 9:37 A A L t "49KTM e�,'A _41 CURLY'S B.,WL rjr EAST F _ J _ E V A T I OKI • HVY I I I v! 1. as J PG 9:37 A W mm m m m m m m m m m m m! mm m a M" M40 m s m M� mm lam � Mr l as m 1,LY - FITN'Z"Sz`� %"*`aoENTE. • I` c J l.. i l LY B(!)WL S16T`l lTJ EAST"r- �yx on (SwKEDl&You-r) 4i N I I,IofZTH F-LEvATION (aHE•LireLAVou -r) DYJMI OnllgRbC .OU.,IOtl 5 CASE NO. llppn GYwti. I!1!1 WM! ' m m m m m m w m m m w m w w m w m s rr 4'- 's"< • -.oup-1 —L. 4 1U.M I FIVE. Surma LINE L IF ��E X Ft.: a F-AiNlEL, NAIA-0 W-17E 1A TRI o - CLt, P FACE s c F LraT rfz:l -n:) 1!�F- OLUE� ALL. I�TLWNaL lt.LV0IPA'ftC4J Ir) E�_ 421� tIbL. LAMP.& 7---k Y'2. ;.� '*JT e,"I- -TVIO tm#-Nl t�h r4,Tr -Tv-x7uaF-) 9 F--j " V-5-- T (ITLACC.0 MiS61c)w -nL.L- -tO vp-M.- okKrl4F -MCE CN QLDC;r. (Vin't.irr.D "NVAM& %piorle -Tov vlr-vj p q M�JNTSD NAVAHO WH17C (t,IA-rrf- FlUICnH O GA"G9 lwf,ILWIA QPT-CIK):IAI, (Iyf') U) yr iNT. ILLU10. DIQE,�FloNt.L-5 ( owe. (1) wEQD ) " - C- 0" \--,/ D GO 11 11 Coion, Coldomia 619,5854"2 E cc LM 0 0 a °- Cl) Z oc� C, cc cn m LEYtN f=AcEs -SPRAY M"TTV-0 5"owfl Suert-fr- SW6 CCn'Y ON tA&VCltlC) WHITC BlKa,f), 10 WTCA 34 PARKING SIM-0 51to- (ABCVr INT. (LW",P4ATM wl 4212 I-I.A. GARAGE! fl PRINT ROT (STUCK -D -WMW]r) M-JT NAVAHO vu&4rrc (,lArm Flwts4j) lV KU--610fJ RED -"LE 10 tAA' C-b-1 -nLE ON OJD(q, lwf,ILWIA QPT-CIK):IAI, (Iyf') U) yr iNT. ILLU10. DIQE,�FloNt.L-5 ( owe. (1) wEQD ) " - C- 0" \--,/ D GO 11 11 Coion, Coldomia 619,5854"2 E cc LM 0 0 a °- Cl) Z oc� C, cc cn m m m m Ww-r I I I ' Wfiy. aS rI�R Liw[ K I _ OrfIGE 6LRG. I �/ -- s • .� etwcf r C +s4aY w.a � � \:• L ey m m m r m m = r r w = m m = m m m 6e 0 ... ...... ... ..... . .. 0 C, 60 0 c 2 : 19 CD i4 61 11 L2s; -30 do. Trailer Park J) Trailer :P d'r k ILL F7 i TF-7 e 1 ILI I L.AY N U E W,ell jo �r K C) c 0 LU p ..... . LU 3� • NUE 31 !3 R— ------- r 41 o V; q 00 50 Well 1 34 Y4 I_ AVENUEIIL- Well ta Z 40 W e r 1 LU 0-" L uj C, 40 LA QUINT A,::' ALIF 1-4 PALM: DESERT 15 A6R' ANGLE N3337.5—WI 1�5l 7 5 . 1959 PHOTOREVISEb' 168o DMA 2751 111 NE—SERIES 1 I N E 1 �1 t u a 1 SIMON PLAZA ----- - - - - -- Project Incl. Medical Office Building Date: 11-X-05191 Square Footage: 40,000 REVENUES - TENANT SQ FT RENT PER FT REVENUES PER REVENUES PER ------------------------------------------------------------------ MONTH YEAR 1 Bowling 37,240 $1.10 $40,964 $491,568 Fitness /Office 12,000 $1.15 $13,800 $165,600 Medical Center 40,000 $2.00 $80,000 $960,000 Restaurant #1 8,000 $2.25 .$18,000 $216,000 General Office 43,435 $2.00 $86,870 $1,042,440 Restaurant #2 5,000 $1.75 $8,750 $105,000 Opthalmologist 6,050 $2.00 $12,100 $145,200 Medical Offices 12,100 $2.00 $24,200 $290,400 TOTAL 163,825 -- - - - - -- -------- $284,684 -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- $3,416,208 ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- Vacancy(5 %) ($170,810) EFF. GROSS INCOME $3,245,398 ---------------o- EXPENSES: Management(3 %) ($97,362) Reserve(1 %) ($32,454) NET OPER. INCOME ---------- - - - - -- ---------------- $3,115,582 ------ - - - - -- Debt Ratio ------ - - - - -- 1.2666 Interest Rate 10.00% Loan Amount $24,597,992 Cap Rate 9.50% Econ. Value $32,795,597 Loan to Value 75.00% S.F 163,825 Loan Per SgFt $150.15 Debt Service $2,459,799 Breakeven 78.95% NET INCOME ---- -- $655,782 - - - - ---------- ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- I! Ll s CONSTRUCTION COSTS Tenant Sq Cost Per Ft TI Per FT Total Cost ------------------ --- Parking -Ft- --------------------------------------- 198,192 $17 $0 $3,369,264 Medical Center 40,000 $50 $47 $3,890,000 Restaurant #1 8,000 $50 $30 $640,000 Bowling 37,240 $30 $20 $1,862,000 Fitness /Office 12,000 $35 $30 $780,000 General Office 43,435 $50 $30 $3,474,800 1 Restaurant #2 51000 $30 $30 $300,000 Opthalmologist 6,050 $30 $30 $363,000 Medical Offices 12,100 $30 $30 $726,000 TOTAL -- -------- 362,017 - - - - -- $15,405,064 ------ - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- Land Draw $2,600,000 Int. Carry $1,080,304 �. Sub.Total 19,085,368 Balance of Land subordinated $2,600,000 Int. Carry @ 11% for 1 year $286,000 Sub Total - $21,971,368 ' Points (2 %) $381,707 Total Cost incl Land -------------------- $22,353,075 ------ - - - - -- Loan @ 75% LTV $24,597,992 Potential Cash Out $2,244,917 . PROFIT (Econ. Value ------------------------------ less Total Cost) - - - - -- $10,442,522 ------ - - - - -- I! Ll s Analysis with Sale of Medical Building ----=---------------------------------- ,. M.O.B Sale Price $7,568,720 Loan amount $24,597,992 Less Medical Sale Revenue $7,568,720 TOTAL DEBT $17,029,272 Annual Debt Service $1,702,927 Annual Revenues less Medical $2,235,149 1st Year Bowl Income $207,000 Net Income 1993 $739,222 Net Income 1994 - - -- $1,079,576 Net Income 1995 $1,131,286 1 i 1 1 t i � J Pi CURLY'S BOWL La Quinta, California Introduction: Curly's Bowl will offer much needed non - country club entertainment in La Quinta to those who do not play golf /tennis etc. The proposed center will consist of 40 lanes within a 37,240 sq ft facility. It will include state of the art equip- ment including color monitors above each lane providing automatic score keeping. A large sports bar with satellite TV. A snack bar and Video arcade. There will also be a nursery to drop kids off while the parents enjoy the bowling. In all Curly's Bowl will provide a total entertainment center. The interior layout of the subject will therefore be heavily influenced by a contemporary design that will offer a high degree of bowler comfort and enter- tainment in environment that is open and free flowing. Competition: The main competition comes from 2 centers. One located in Indio approximately 4 miles away, which is over 20 years old. It has 24 lanes, poorly maintained bowling surfaces and no up to date equipment. The second center is located in Palm Springs. This center is also 24 lanes and is even older. Neither of the centers pose much competition to the proposed center. Owners: The owners of the center are Simon Plaza Partnership comprised of members of Simon Plaza Inc. The managing partner will be Mr Rudy Leewaye a 16 year veteran with Brunswick Corporation whose resume is enclosed. i Information # of Bowlers Av.Lines /Bowler Lines /Lane Linage Av. Price Revenue Bowling Proshop Vending Arcade Shoe Locker Subtotal PROJECTED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS 1993 -1997 ------------------------------------------- 1993* 1994 1995 1996 1997 - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 3,000 3.75 11,250 450,000 2.94 3,500 3.75 13,125 525,000 $3.09 3,500 3.75 13,125 525,000 $3.24 3,700 3.75 13,875 555,000 $3.40 3,700 3.75 13,875 555,000 $3.57 1,323,000 1,620,675 1,701,709 1,888,897 1,983,342 10,000 10,500 11,000 11,500 12,000 70,000 71,400 72,828 74,284 75,770 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 70,000 73,500 74,970 78,719 82,654 1,673,000 1,976,075 2,060,507 2,253,400 2,353,766 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Bar 26.5% 443,345 523,660 546,034 597,151 623,748 Food 15.0% 250,950 296,411 309,076 338,010 353,065 Total Rev. 2,367,295 --------- 2,796,146 --- - - - - -- 2,915,617 --- - - - - -- 3,188,561 --- - - - - -- 3,330,578 --- - - - - -- Cost -of -Goods Bar 22% 97,536 115,205 120,128 131,373 137,225 Food 38% 95,361 112,636 117,449 128,444 134,165 Vending 55% 38,500 39,270 40,055 40,856 41,674 Arcade 55% 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 Shoes 6% 4,200 4,410 4,498 4,723 4,959 Total COG 345,597 381,521 392,130 415,396 428,022 Net Revenue 2,021,698 --- - - - - -- 2,414,625 --- - - - - -- 2,523,487 --- - - - - -- 2,773,164 --- - - - - -- 2,902,556 --- - - - - -- u Salaries Bowling 19.50% 257,985 316,032 331,833 368,335 386,752 1 Bar 18.75% 83,127 98,186 102,381 111,966 116,953 Food 32.00% 80,304 94,852 98,904 108,163 112,981 Tot. Pay* 515,000 515,000 533,119 588,464 616,685 Payroll Tax 51,500 51,500 53,312 58,846 61,669 Benefits 17,253 17,253 17,859 19,714 20,659 Workers Comp. 30,900 30,900 31,987 35,308 37,001 Property Tax 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Utilities Elec. 80,000 81,200 82,418 83,654 84,905 Gas 10,000 10,150 10,302 10,456 10,613 Water 12,000 12,180 12,363 12,548 12,736 Paper Supplies 16,000 16,480 16,812 17,149 17,492 Security 15,000 15,500 16,000 16,500 17,000 Advertizing 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Office Supplies 15,000 15,750 16,538 17,364 18,232 Laundry 6,000 6,250 6,500 6,750 7,000 Liab Ins 58,000 59,160 60,343 61,550 62,781 Postage 5,000 5,250 5,500 5,750 6,000 Licenses 5,000 5,050 5,100 5,150 5,200 ' Telephone Equip. Mtnce 14,000 22,000 14,500 23,000 15,000 24,000 15,500 25,000 16,000 26,000 Uniforms 10,000 6,000 6,500 6,700 6,900 Conf. /Travel 4,000 4,100 4,200 4,300 4,400 Legal /Prof 12,000 12,250 12,500 12,750 13,000 Awards 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 Bowling Pins 9,000 9,250 9,500 9,750 10,000 Janitorial Rent 24,000 491,000 25,200 510,640 26,400 531,066 27,600 552,308 28,800 574,401 Tot. Expenses 1,524,653 1,549,563 1,601,319 1,698,111 1,763,473 Oper. Income 497,046 865,062 922,168 1,075,053 1,139,083 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Debt Svc 215,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 Sales Tax 7.25% 50,336 59,455 61,995 67,799 70,819 Mngmt Fee 5% 24,852 43,253 46,108 53,753 56,954 Distribution 206,857 547,354 599,064 738,502 796,310 * Note: Minimum salaries are $515,000 ** Note: Short season beginning in January u t Information # of Bowlers Av.Lines /Bowler Lines /Lane Linage Av. Price Revenue Bowling Proshop Vending Arcade Shoe Locker Subtotal PROJECTED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS 1998 -2003 ------------------------------------- - - - - -- 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3,700 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 13,875 13,875 13,875 13,875 13,875 555,000 555,000 555,000 555,000 555,000 $3.75 $3.94 $4.14 $4.34 $4.56 2,082,509 2,186,634 2,295,966 2,410,764 2,531,302 12,500 13000 13500 14000 14500 77,285 78830 80407 82015 83655 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 86,787 91126 95682 100466 105490 2,459,081 2,569,590 2,685,555 2,807,245 2,934,947 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Bar 26.5% 651,656 680,941 711,672 743,920 777,761 Food 15.0% 368,862 385,439 402,833 421,087 440,242 Total Rev. 3,479,599 --- - - - - -- --------- 3,635,970 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 3,800,060 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 3,972,252 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 4,152,950 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- Cost -of -Goods Bar Food Vending Arcade Shoes Total COG Net Revenue Salaries Bowling Bar Food 22% 143,364 149,807 156,568 163,662 171,107 38% 140,168 146,467 153,077 160,013 167,292 55% 42,507 43,357 44,224 45,108 46,010 55% 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 110,000 6% 5,207 5,468 5,741 6,028 6,329 441,246 455,098 469,609 484,812 500,739 3,038,353 3,180,872 3,330,451 3,487,440 3,652,211 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 19.50% 406,089 426,394 447,713 470,099 493,604 18.75% 122,186 127,677 133,439 139,485 145,830 32.00% 118,036 123,340 128,907 134,748 140,877 Tot. Expenses Oper. Income Debt Svc Sales Tax 7.25% Mngmt Fee 5% Distribution 1,831,566 1,903,470 1,978,286 2,056,142 2,137,181 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 1,206,787 1,277,402 1,352,164 1,431,298 1,515,030 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 215,000 Tot. Pay* 646,311 677,410 710,058 744,332 780,312 80,802 84,463 - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - -- 75,752 Payroll Tax 64,631 67,741 71,006 74,433 78,031 Benefits 21,651 22,693 23,787 24,935 26,140 Workers Comp. 38,779 40,645 42,604 44,660 46,819 Property Tax 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 Utilities Elec. 86,182 87474 88787 90119 91470 Gas 10,773 10935 11099 11265 11434 Water 12,927 13120 13318 13518 13720 Paper Supplies 17,842 18199 18563 18934 19313 Security 17,500 18000 18500 19000 19500 Advertizing 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 Office Supplies 19,144 20101 21106 22162 23270 Laundry 7,250 7500 7750 8000 8250 Liab Ins 64,000 65280 66586 67917 69276 Postage 6,250 6500 6750 7000 7250 Licenses 5,250 5300 5350 5400 5450 Telephone 16,500 17000 17500 18000 18500 Equip. Mtnce 27,000 29000 31000 33000 35000 ' Uniforms 7,200 7500 7800 8100 8400 Conf. /Travel 4,500 4600 4700 4800 4900 Legal /Prof 13,250 13500 13750 14000 14250 Awards 21,000 22000 23000 24000 25000 Bowling Pins 10,250 10500 10750 11000 11250 Janitorial 30,000 31200 32400 33600 34800 Rent 597,377 621,272 646,123 671,967 698,846 Tot. Expenses Oper. Income Debt Svc Sales Tax 7.25% Mngmt Fee 5% Distribution 1,831,566 1,903,470 1,978,286 2,056,142 2,137,181 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 1,206,787 1,277,402 1,352,164 1,431,298 1,515,030 --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --------- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- 215,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 215,000 73,988 77,313 80,802 84,463 88,305 60,339 63,870 67,608 71,565 75,752 857,460 921,219 988,755 1,060,270 1,135,974 1 1 1 1 w i 1 w r Tot. Pay* 817,831 Payroll Tax 81,783 Benefits 27,397 Workers Comp. 49,070 Property Tax 80,000 Utilities Elec. 92842 Gas 11606 Water 13926 Paper Supplies 19700 Security 20000 Advertizing 6,000 Office Supplies 24433 Laundry 8500 Liab Ins 70661 Postage 7500 Licenses 5500 Telephone 19000 Equip. Mtnce 37000 Uniforms 9000 Conf. /Travel 5000 Legal /Prof 14500 Awards 26000 Bowling Pins 11500 Janitorial 36000 Rent 726,800 Tot. Expenses 2,221,549 Oper. Income 1,600,558 Debt Svc 0 Sales Tax 7.25% 92,260 Mngmt Fee 5% 80,028 Distribution 1,428,270 ------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- ------------ - - - - - -- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 2003 Information # of Bowlers 3,700 Av.Lines /Bowler 3.75 Lines /Lane 13,875 Linage 555,000 Av. Price $4.79 Revenue Bowling 2,657,867 Proshop 15000 Vending 85013 Arcade 200,000 Shoe Locker 108500 Subtotal 3,066,380 Bar 26.5% 812,591 Food 15.0% 459,957 Total Rev. 4,338,928 Cost of Goods Bar 22% 178,770 Food 38% 174,784 Vending 55% 46,757 Arcade 55% 110,000 Shoes 6% 6,510 Total COG 516,821 Net Revenue 3,822,107 Salaries Bowling 19.50% 518,284 Bar 18.75% 152,361 Food 32.00% 147.,186 1 1 Competition: There are currently no restaurants in La Quinta serving breakfast! We feel that this restaurant will be an outstanding success. 1 1 Uraat Introduction: This family owned and operated rest- aurant serves breakfast, lunch and dinner. Breakfast is priced at less than $5.00 and entrees at Lunch and Dinner are priced at under $12.00. The decor will be bright but comfortable giving a "family- style" ambience. It will be located at the entrance courtyard to the bowling center and will receive a considerable traffic. Its visibility to Highway 111 will give it exposure to 24,000 cars per day. Competition: There are currently no restaurants in La Quinta serving breakfast! We feel that this restaurant will be an outstanding success. 1 1 Opthalmologist Introduction: An Opthalmologist currently operates an opthal- urology center near the campus of the Eisen- hower Medical Center. Because of its success, he is looking to expand his operations. In addition to his normal service he will be offering state of the art laser surgery at this facility. ICompetition: None in La Quinta. 1 1 Physician Group Introduction: A Physician Group comprising approximately 20 physicians will offer an out - patient surgical center with two to three operating rooms, out - patient imaging, linear accelerator for cancer treatment, urgent care center, laboratory for blood study etc., 1 and a pharmacy. In addition physician offices would be located on the second floor. Competition: Eisenhower Medical Center has a small urgent care center located at Plaza La Quinta. This location is extremely poor, providing inadequate parking and no highway visibility. There is a small medical facility sponsored by JFK Hospital in the downtown area of La Quinta. Neither of these faclities are seen as providing competition. 1 1 1 1 1 1 J —1 1 i 1 N .yam INFORMATION SHEET Q 7,T Each Family Fitness Center location is a separate corporation. This accommodates diverse ownership for overall management as well as local operators which contributes largely to Family Fitness Centers' growth and success. The first Family Fitness Center opened in La Mesa, California In 1978. Today there are 25 locations operating and 4 pre - selling. Combined Annual Gross Income: Year: 1984 1985 1986 Income: $12,376,000. $14,033,000. $16,821,000. Number of Clubs: 17 18 19 Location and Landlord Reference List: Family Fitness Centers (Lakewood), Inc. 4678 Daneland Lakewood, CA 90712 Pico Blvd. Fitness Center, Inc. 9911 W. Pico Blvd. - Los Angeles, CA 90035 Family Fitness Centers (Costa Mesa), Inc. 1600 Adams Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Family Fitness Centers (LAX), Inc. LAX Hilton Hotel 5711 W. Century Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90045 Family Fitness Centers (UTC), Inc. 4404 La Jolla Village Dr. San Diego, CA 92121 Family Fitness Centers (Laguna), Inc. 25252 McIntyre Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Family Fitness Centers (Escondido), Inc. 409 W. Felicita Ave. Escondido, CA 92025 . Lessor 1987 $19,529,000. 21 Lakewood Center Mail P.O. Box 578 Lakewood, CA 90712 Tishman West Mgmt. Corp. 9911 W. Pico Blvd., Ste. B21 Los Angeles, CA 90035 C.J. Segerstrom and Sons P.O. Box 1486 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Sun -Cal Properties, Inc. 233 S. Beaudry Ave., #1100 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Ernest Hahn Company 4545 La Jolla Vlg. Dr., #E25 San Diego, CA 92122 Coldwell Banker P.O. Box 9406 Los Angeles, CA 90074 John Burnham and Co. 203 E. 2nd Ave. Escondido, CA 92025 P.O. BOX 4356 CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 92008 1988 $25,229,000. 25 Family Fitness Centers (Chula Vista), Inc. 835 3rd Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92011 First Whittier Management, Inc. 15600 La Forge St. Whittier, CA 90603 Family Fitness Centers (La Mesa), Inc. 7450 University Ave. La Mesa, CA 92041 Y 1 Donald Thurston, M.O. 17865 Cmnto. Pinero #248 San Diego, CA 92128 John A. Burnham and Co. P.O. Box 2910 San Diego, CA 92112 John A. Burnham and Co. P.O. Box 2910 San Diego, CA 92112 Edinger Plaza P.O. Box 12640 Santa Ana, CA 92712 Four Cities Property Mgmt. 480 N. Magnolia, Ste. 1 El Cajon, CA 92020 Atomic Investments 3200 B 4.2 Highland Ave. National City, CA 92050 G & W Partnership 3575 Long Beach Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90807 Fred Kavil 14501 Los Angeles Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Golden Showcase, Ltd. P.O. Box 18406 #241 Las Vegas, NV 89114 Cameron Brothers 7766 Balboa Ave. San Diego, CA 92111 Town & Country Center 2233 El Camino Real, Ste. Oceanside, CA 92054 Lusk Company P.O. Box 19560 Irvine, CA 92713 La Mesa Association 9595 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Family Fitness Centers (Point Loma), Inc. 3545 Midway Dr. San Diego, CA 92110 Family Fitness 6enters (Santee), Inc. 9635 Mission Gorge Rd. Santee, CA 92071 Family Fitness Centers (Hunt. Bch.), Inc.. 7454 Edinger Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Family Fitness Centers (El Cajon), Inc. 850 Arnele Ave. - El Cajon, CA 92020 Family itness Centers (Stadium), Inc. Y ( ) 5885 Rancho Mission Road San Diego, CA 92108 Family Fitness Centers of California, Inc. 4141 Katella . Los Angeles, CA 90720 Family Fitness Centers ( Yorba Linda), Inc. � 18200 Yorba Linda Blvd. Yorba Unda, CA 92686 Family Fitness Centers 3055 S. Valley View Las Vegas, NV 89102 Family Fitness Centers (Balboa), Inc. 7620 Balboa Ave. San Diego, CA 92111 Town &Country Associates 2231 El Camino Real i. Oceanside, CA 92054 First Whittier Management, Inc. 15600 La Forge St. Whittier, CA 90603 Family Fitness Centers (La Mesa), Inc. 7450 University Ave. La Mesa, CA 92041 Y 1 Donald Thurston, M.O. 17865 Cmnto. Pinero #248 San Diego, CA 92128 John A. Burnham and Co. P.O. Box 2910 San Diego, CA 92112 John A. Burnham and Co. P.O. Box 2910 San Diego, CA 92112 Edinger Plaza P.O. Box 12640 Santa Ana, CA 92712 Four Cities Property Mgmt. 480 N. Magnolia, Ste. 1 El Cajon, CA 92020 Atomic Investments 3200 B 4.2 Highland Ave. National City, CA 92050 G & W Partnership 3575 Long Beach Blvd. Long Beach, CA 90807 Fred Kavil 14501 Los Angeles Ave. Moorpark, CA 93021 Golden Showcase, Ltd. P.O. Box 18406 #241 Las Vegas, NV 89114 Cameron Brothers 7766 Balboa Ave. San Diego, CA 92111 Town & Country Center 2233 El Camino Real, Ste. Oceanside, CA 92054 Lusk Company P.O. Box 19560 Irvine, CA 92713 La Mesa Association 9595 Wilshire Blvd, Ste. 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 a I 1 1 ;1 Family Fitness Centers (Miramar), Inc. 9550 Miramar Rd. San Diego, CA 92126 Family Fitness Centers (East Anaheim), Inc. 2300 E. Lincoln Ave. Anaheim, CA 92806 Family Fitness Centers (Orange). Inc. Chapman Ave. & Prospect St. Orange, CA 92668 Family Fitness Centers (128). Inc. 3633 Rosedale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93308 Family Fitness Centers (129), Inc. 6429 Fallbrook Ave. Canoga Park, CA 91307 Family Fitness Centers, Inc. 2605 South Eastern Las Vegas, NV 89109 John Hancock Mutual life 9699 Tierra Grande San Diego, CA 92126 Stewart, Green Associates 2914 One Calgary Place, 330 -51h Ave., S.W. Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2P OL4 Chapman Prospect Partners, Ltd. Senco Development Group, Inc. 4201 Long Beach Blvd., Ste. 403 Long Beach, CA 90807 D.S.L. / Griffith P.O. Box C19525 Irvine, CA 92713 Fallbrook Square Partners P.O. Box 68037 El Monte, CA 91785 Sterik Company 430 Lexington St. Auburndale, MA 02166 Family Fitness Centers (Moreno Valley), Inc. Parco Development, Inc. 14051 Indian Ave. 2402 Michelson, Suite 200 Moreno Valley, CA 92388 Irvine, CA 92714 Family Fitness Centers (130), Inc. Rolling Hills Plaza 2685 Pacific Coast Highway Torrance, CA 90505 Lacaze Develcpment Co. 2601 Airport Dr., Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90505 Family Fitness Centers (132). Inc. Laurentian Center, Ltd. 2403 -8 S. Vineyard Ave. 8033 Sunset Blvd., Suite 300 Ontario, CA 91761 Hollywood, CA 90046 Monthly Advertising Budget: $15o,000 plus. Size of Clubs 12,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. Approximate Expenditure on New Location: $300,000 to $650,000 In Fitness Equipment (depending on size of club). $360,000 to $900,000 In Leasehold Improvements ($30.00 per foot after the shell is built). rZ ` We intend on opening two additional locations in the San Diego area. This will bring us to thirteen (13) Family Fitness Centers in the San Diego television area, which has a population of approximately two (2) million people. We presently have fifteen (15) locations in the Los Angeles television area. This triangle area between Laguna Hills, San Bernardino and Santa Barbara has approximately twelve (12) million people. So, over the next decade, we intend to expand to many more locations in this television area. We have two locations in the Las Vegas area. We consider the Las Vegas television area fully covered with two locations. We have one location in Bakersfield. We consider the Bakersfield television area full covered with one location. We are possibly interested in other cities, but intend to do the Y of our expansion ansion in . P Southern California. 1 1 r t i IJ i Pi i 'I 'I l* I � I I 'i 1 .1 [I G 1 1 7 1 t 1 Simon Plaza Rent Roll as of: October 29th, 1991 Leasable Minimum Rental Lease Unit # Tenant Sq Ft Base Rent SF /MO /NNN Term ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Al Curly's Bowl 37,240 $40,964 $1.10 20 yrs A2 Family Fitness 12,000 $13,800 $1.15 20 yrs A3 Opthalmologist 6,050 $12,100 $2.00 10 yrs A4 JJ's Restaurant 51000 $ 8,750 $1.75 10 yrs A5 Vacant 6,050 $12,100 $2.00 A6 Vacant 6,050 $12,100 $2.00 B1 Physician Group 48,687 $97,374 $2.00 Purchse C1 Vacant 34,748 $69,496 $2.00 D1 Vacant 8,000 $18,000 $2.25 ------------------------------------------------------------ Total 163,825 $284,684 $1.81avg Leased 108,977 $172,988 % 66.5% 1 1 1 i 1 t 1 1 County will lead state i n growth Population boom predicted in report By JAKE. HENSHAW Gannett News Service SACRAMENTO — The booming counties of Riverside and San Ber- nardino will lead the state to a popu- lation of 39 million in 2005, accord- ing to a state report released Thursday. - _.: The Department of Finance esti- mated Riverside County will grow by 70 percent in the next 14 years, making it the fastest - growing county in the state, and San Bernardino will be second at 67 percent. "We're not seeing any slowdown in migration into these counties and the fertility rates are up," said Mary Heim of the department's demo- graphic research unit. The state figures are based on the 1990 federal census, which showed that as of last. summer, California had 29.98 million people. That was just more than a million more Californians than state demog- raphers expected. State officials at- tributed the unexpected boon to high- er net migration and birth rates and fewer than expected deaths. Since 1986, when the current method of estimating population was established, "California has seen phenomenal population increases," the study $aid. Based on their revised calcula- tions, state experts expect every county except San Francisco to grow during the next 14 years. San Fran - cisco is projected to lose 91,600 peo- ple by 2005, leaving the city with 632,300 residents. Movin' in/county growth RIVERSIDE: The population is projected to increase from 1,195,400 in July 1990 to 2,027,500 in July 2005. The changes are expected to be caused by a net increase of 664,300 migrants, 387,360 births and 219,580 deaths. SAN BERNARDINO: The popula- tion is 'projected to increase from 1,440,700 in July- 1990, to 2,399,500 in July 2005. The changes are expected to be caused by .a net increase of 628,600 migrants, 539,770 births and 209,580 deaths... Marin County will be the slowest growing of all the other counties, increasing at a very modest 6.2 per- cent, state experts predicted The largest gains in population will be in Los Angeles and San Diego counties, which are projected to gain more than 1 million each by 2005. By that year, Los. Angeles County is expected to have 10.43 million res- idents, and San Diego should have 3.6 million, allowing them to retain their positions as California's two most populous counties. Sacramento County is expected to experience the greatest population increases in Northern California, gaining nearly 500,000 by 2005. But for rate of population growth, nothing compares to Riverside and San Bernardino. They are the only two counties among the top 10 fast- est-growing counties that already have a population of more than 1 million residents each. - so II PROJEC _ DESCRIPTION C NFRAL, LjOCATION "�'he site for the proposed AM T)esert Project is lo- cated in-the Coachella Vallev re ?ion of southern California. It is approximately 15 miles southeast of the City of Palm Springs, as shown on Figure 2 -1. FIGURE 2 -1. GENERAL LOCATION V1CIN:TY LCCATION The proposed project site is approximately one mile to the northeast of the unincorporated community of L..Quinta, one mile to the southeast of the City of Indian. Wells, and three miles west of the City of iIldio, as shown in Figure 2 -2. State Highway 111 passes approximately one mile to the north of the site. 4 rz� ? i it DESERT �( EasoN ewo� NOTSPRINGS y I II ZI i � D. LL ON 10 Yq 40 '� • Q PALM i al p SPRINGS f • AAMON R � � p `� 6 EASE 3i °i 10 p4i4 C D I a NY °� O ; ,�1 Z NT V O m 4 m PALM RANCHO DESERT MIRAGE INDIAN NOT TO SCALE WELLS 1 INDIO SITE �• 50TH 74 LA OU//q TA 86 FIGURE 2 -2. VICINITY MAP As shown in Figure 2 -2, the project site approxirm tes a "T" configuration. The site extends northward from 50th Avenue to the top of Section 32 of Township 5 South, Range 7 East (T5SR7E). The western arm of th- "T" extencls to Washington Street, and the eastern ann to Jefferson Street. m an an a" MW m ,w © Wheeler's Desert Latter Page 3 - CONSTRUCTION NEW NEW BUILDING VALUATION - DECEMBER 1990 & YEAR 1990 (Millions of Dollars) Palm Desert Palm Springs La Quinta Cathedral Ci-ty Rancho Mirage Indio Indian Wells Desert Hot Springs Coachella Unincorwrated: Desert Sands District Palm Springs District Coachella District Dec. Dec. Change YEAR Change 1920 1989 vs ,89 1990 vs ,89 $ 3.202 $ 3.025 6% $ 89.913 -30% 2.327 4.431 -47 53.239 -11 2.569 2.432 6 147.034 47 1.845 7.757 -76 98.975 -24 1.119 5.525 -80 53.884 -49 2.686 0.773 247 41.498 -27 0.438 4.136 -89 28.029 -44 0.931 3.617 - -74 24.892 20 0.817 2.456 -67 10.772 -12 1.288 5.324 -76 86.911 56 1.900 3.020 -37 42.412 6 0.712 0.103 589 11.665 74 TOTAL $19.836 $42.601 -53% $689.224 -7% on an 0 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 1. The population of La Quinta has increased from 3,789 in the 1980 census to 7,464 in 1986 (an increase of 97.0 %). This is based on a California Department of Finance Special Census. 2. In terms of the City's age distribution, the following changes occurred during the 1980 -1986 period: 1980 Cases 1986 Percent Survey get Age Group of Total Percent of Total Change a. 0 -14 years 24.5% 27.9% +3.4% b. 15 -44 years 47.2% 48.7% +1.5% c. 45 -64 years 18.0% 14.6% -3. 4% _ d. 65 -74 years 6.3% 6.8% +0.5% e. 75 years and 3.9% 2.0% -1. 9% older It is evident from the above that the City's population is be- coming younger. The most rapidly growing age group of the popu- lation during the period of 1980 to 1986 was the 0 -14 years age group. The 15 -44 years age group had the second Zar+gest net increase. 3. The 1986 distribution by race is as follows: Race Percent of Total a. White 75.3% b. Hispanic 20.3% c. BZack 1.4% d. Other 3.0% 4. In terms of the labor force in 1986: a. Full -time workers - 40.0% of population b. Part -time workers - 5.5% of population c. Unemployed - 1.7% of population d. Students - 2.9% of population e. Retired - 10.2% of population f. Not in Labor Force- 37.1% of population g. Other - 2.6% of population S. There were 3,880 housing units in the City in 1986. •They were distributed as follows: ' a. Housing Unit Type Percentage of'Totat 1. Single 2. Singte- Attached 16.9% 3. Duplex 1.0% 4. Fourpl.es 0.2% 5. Multiple (5 -10) 0.5% 6. Multiple (10 +) 1.1% 7. Mobile Home 6.0X• 1 - 2 - 6. In 1986, 33.7% (1,306 units) of the housing units were vacant. Reasons for vacancy were distributed as follows: a. b. c. d. e. Reasons for Vacancy Percent of Vacant Units Second Home 24.0% For sale 20.9% Other 17.0% Usual residence elsewhere 15.9% For rent 9.0% 7. A survey of City residents was also undertaken as part of the study. The results are as follows (based on a sample of 2,574): a. What is your opinion of the City's economic growth and -physical development? - About right (1,059 or 41.1 %) - Too fast (468 or 18.2 %) - Too slow (298 or 11.6 %) - No response /other (749 or 29.0 %) Clearly, economic development is desired by City residents. b. Do you think there has been a significant improvement in the appearance and design of new buildings in your neigh- borhood in the past three years? ' - Yes (1,160 or 45.1 %) - No (600 or 23.3 %) - No response /othe,r (814 or 31.6 %) c. Would you be willing to pay for the following.improvement through an assessment district? - Sidewalks, sewers, and streetZights 1. Yes (1,201 or 46.7 %) 2. No (556 or 21.6 %) 3. No response /other (817 or 31.7 %). - Street resurfacing, gutters, curbs and local drainage 1. Yes (1,172 or 45.5 %) 2. No (560 or 21.8 %) 3. No response /other (842 or 32.7 %) d. of the total sample's length of residence. - 962 or 37.4% were residents of greater than four years - 661 or 25.7% were residents of one to four kears - 387 or 15.5% were residents of less than one year - 564 or 21.4% had no response' 1 It Location Economic Growth and Trends Climate Transportation IJ COMMUNITY ECONOMIC PROFILE for LA QU 1 NTA RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared In conjuncffon with the City of La Quinta and La Quints Chamber of Commerce La Quinta, incorporated May 1, 1982, is located 127 miles east of Los Angeles and 516 miles south of San Francisco. I.State Department of Finance, January 1, 19890 2.State Board of Equalization, calendar year 1989.Add 000. 3.1980 Census, Occupied Dwellings. 4.Desert Sands Unified School District 1986 -87 school year.Figure includes enrollment for Indio and Palm Dexrt. 5. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. AVERAGE TEMPERATURE 1960 1970 1980 1990 Population - County ................ 306,191 456,914 663,923 1,110,000, Taxable Sales- County ........ $356,225 $828,578 $3,274,017 $8,699.030= Population -City ...................... N.A N.A. 1,394 11,850, Taxable Sales- City .................. N.A N.A. N.A. $63,475= Housing Units -City ................ N.A. N.A. 1,611, 4,917, School Enrollment K -12 ........ N.A. N.A. 9,414 12,984 I.State Department of Finance, January 1, 19890 2.State Board of Equalization, calendar year 1989.Add 000. 3.1980 Census, Occupied Dwellings. 4.Desert Sands Unified School District 1986 -87 school year.Figure includes enrollment for Indio and Palm Dexrt. 5. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. AVERAGE TEMPERATURE RAIN HUMIDITY Period Min. M:an Mss. Inches 4 A.M. Loon 4 P.M. January 37.8 54.1 70.4 0.50 57 32 32 April 57.0 72.3 87.5 0.10 55 22 19 July 76.9 92.1 107.2 0.12 60 28 25 October 58 7 75.5 92,2 0.23 551 27 2 Year 57.2 73.1 89.0 3.38 58 27 2 'Data from Indio weather station. RAIL: Southern Pacific - 1 per day.Freight office at Indio - 8 miles northeast. TRUCK: 8 carriers for direct daily service (Indio, 8 miles northeast). OVERNIGHT DELIVERY TO: Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Phoenix. AIR: Palm Springs Municipal Airport, 17 mi. northwest, is served by Alaska, American, American Eagle. Delta (winter). Skywest with Delta connection,TWA. United. Waited Express, and USAir: general facilities, 8,500 ft. runway. Bermuda Dunes (private airport) located 3 miles north. Thermal Airport. 5 mi. east of City limits, operated by La Quinta Air Services. The airport services agricultural shipping. small craft and corporate jets with no commercial airlines operating at this tirne. The Goodyear Blimp is anchored at the airport, usually for the purpose of televising special sporting events in the area. BUS: SunBus by Sunline Transit Agency. 1990 1 Industrial Sites There is no industrially -zoned property in the City of La Quinta: however, the La Quinta General Plan designates approximately 10 acres along the south side of the Whitewater River Channel as Commercial Park. The area is bisected by the Adams Street alignment, and is vacant, with sandy subsoils, level terrain and good drainage characteristics. Public Service WATER: Coachella Valley Water District is the only supplier of water in La Quinta. The Southern California Water Company was taken over by Coachella Valley Water District in 1985. Coachella Valley Water District provided 22.5 million gallons of domestic water in 1988- 89, and per capita consumption was 242 g/d (seasonal; 319 g/d summer). Billings are based on $.46/100 ct. ft. of consumption plus a $5.00 per month service charge. Connec- tion costs are $200 to $685 for a 3/4" meter; $625 for a 2" meter with a $6000 surcharge. Coachella Valley Water District assesses a residential surcharge for some of the lots in subdivided areas east of Desert Club Drive and Washington Street. The amount of the surcharge is $2,000 per residential lot, which covers the cost of extending mains to these currently unserviced areas. SEWER: The Mid Valley Coachella Valley Water District plant, which serves La Quinta, has a capacity of 2.2 mg/d with an average flow of 500,000 gal/day, peaking to 1 million gal /day. Residential connections vary for lateral and capacity charges. Commercial connections are assessed on an equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) basis depending on occupancy. The established cost is $1,750 per EDU for 4" laterals; $1,900 per EDU for 6" laterals. Infrastructure The city is currently reviewing a draft Master Plan of Drainage (MPOD) for subsequent Council adoption. No drainage fees are being levied at this time; however, development is being conditioned to require compliance with the provisions of the adopted MPOD, relative to fees and/or improvements. Right -of -way dedications and street improvement construction are required, based upon La Quinta General Plan standards in effect at the time of development. These improvements generally include curb, gutter, sidewalk, paving and landscaping, and median islands. Utilities GAS: Southern California Gas Co. For rates applicable to the City of La Quinta, contact Southern California Gas Co., Energy Systems Engineer, 3630 Central Avenue, Riverside, California 92506.(714)369 -8988 or (800)367 -2691. ELECTRIC: Imperial Irrigation District. For rates applicable to the City of La Quinta, contact Imperial Irrigation District, Power Division, 1684 9th St., Coachella, CA 92236. (800)398 -5811. TELEPHONE: General Telephone. For rates and types of service available to La Quinta, contact Phone Mart store at Palm Desert Town Center in Palm Desert. California. (800)482 -6727. Governmental La Quinta has the council - manager type of government with a Mayor and 4 council Facilities- Tax seats. Assessed valuation minus exemptions; $613,547,539', County:S29.5 billion. Ratio of assessed value to appr;used value: 100% of real cash value. and Insurance Industrial property tax rates: No industrial land in La Quints. Rates - Commercial property ta,- rates 1985 -86 per $100 assessed valuation. Code area 75- '� 004. City rate:-O-, County:$ 1.00043. School:S.01937. Other:$.02510: TotaLS1.06029. • Retail Sales Tax:State 4.75 %. County /City 1%, Mass Transit Authorities 0.25%: County Transportation o.50 %, Earthquake Relief 0.25%, Total 6.75 %. • Police Department: The City is currently under contract with the Riverside County 1990 Y: The La Quinta Labor Market Area Characteristics of the Labor Force r Sheriff's Department for coverage 5 police officers and .5 uniformed public safety officer on 8 hour shifts. The uniformed police officer coverage is rotated between various shifts and individual officers. • Fire Department: Under contract with Riverside County Fire Department (5 eight - hour shifts per day. 7 days). There are 2 fire stations within the City mwuied by 2 paid personnel plus backups from two volunteer fire companies and nearby commu- nities. Fire Insurance Classification: Source of Rating: Insurance Services office, City rating: 6 to 9. Major projects authorized for improvement of city services: An 8 acre community park site has been established, which also provide a sports complex. This is adjacent to the La Quinta public school site on Avenue 50, which is nearing completion. A Civic Center is currently breing planned on a 16 acre site at the entrance of The Village at La Quinta. Also, phased improvements are being made to the Washington Street corridor in accordance with the adopted Washington Street Specific Plan. Parks are also being dedicated north of whitewater wash where single housing homes are predominent . Area includes the cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Indio. Estimated area population: 50,311 Agriculture, Forestry ............ 2,155 Construction ........................ 2,370 Manufacturing ...................... 1,101 Transp /CominfUtilities ........ 1,509 ..................... ............................... SOURCE: 1980 Census, Zip Codes 92201, 92253, 92260 Estimated total employment: 21,565 Wholesale Trade .............. 4,160 Retail Trade .......................... 616 Fn., Ins., Real Estate ........ 1,796 Services ............................ 7,030 Government .......................... 828 Extent of Unionization: Construction workers are unionized as are retail clerks in major supermarkets. Date and citrus packing house and restaurant workers are generally union- ized. OTHER: Country clubs and construction types in La Quinta are a major source of em- ployment. In addition, present and anticipated employment for La Quinta community is for hotel and service workers, construction and landscape architecture and maintenance. The La Quinta community is expanding rapidly. By the year 2000 many new major country clubs will have been constructed. All will include housing, condominiums, restaurants, as well as golfing or tennis facilities. Retail trade is expanding at both the Village at La Quinta and Hwy 111 corridor. An automobile dealership has relocated to La Quinta from Indio. Wage rates, extent of unionization. fringe benefits, and related information for specific industries and job classifications may be obtained from the state Employment Develop- ment Department located at 91- 152 Reyua. Indio, California 92201. or at 800 Capitol Mall. Sacramento, California 9581.4. The COMMUNITY AREA referred to below includes La Quinta, Indian Wells. Palm Desert . Indio. Although there are no manufacturing plaltts within the city limits of La Quinta there are numerous manufacturers in the nearby communities of Palm Desert (6 mi. west) and Indio (8 rni east). Major group classes of products are publishing, building supplies, food pre- serving and ready -mix concrete. 1990 e Manufacturing Employment Non - Manufacturing Employment Community Facilities Housing Availability, Prices & Rentals Remarks Name of Company Employment Cal -Date (div. of Tenneco West) .. 700 ( Indio) Massey Sand and Rock (Indio) .... 350 Organization Employment Palm Desert Town Center .......... 2000 Eisenhower Medical Center ........ 1,042 Desert Sands Unif. School Dist..... 800 Coachella Val. Unif. School Dist. 700 Sun World, Inc ............................. 500 Marriott Hotels .......................... 1800 Coachella Valley Water District .. 352 La Quinta Hotel /Resort ................ 300 JFK Memorial Hospital ................ 300 PGA West ..... ............................... 200 Plaza La Quinta ............................ 100 Village Area ... ............................... 50 Stoffer Esmeralda ........................ 800 Hyatt Grand Champion ................ 500 Products Dehydrated dates, date - flavored Ready -mix concrete Description Retail shopping mall Private medical center Public school system Public school system Produce processing Resort Hotels Public water agency Resort hotel /golf and tennis amenities Hospital Golf /tennis resort Retail shops, supermarket and restaunutts Retail shops and restaurants Resort Hotel Resort Hotel HEALTH: La Quinta has 2 Immediate Care facilities within the city limits with approved plans for expanding medical services to the city. Indio (8 mi. northeast) has a general hospital with 112 beds. a 24 -hour emergency care facility and is base for paramedic service; 41 physicians /surgeons, 9 dentists, 8 optometrists and 6 chiropractors. Palm Desert (6 mi. northwest) has 1 privately- endowed general hospital, 16 physicians /surgeons, 23 dentists, 3 optometrists, 8 chiropractors. EDUCATION: (Desert Sands Unified School District) 2 elementary schools, 1 junior high school, 3 high schools, College of the Desert (2 -year college, Palm Desert); Chapman College (4 -year college, Palm Desert). Future plans are to have 2 primary, 2 intermediate, 1 high school. Will rebuild in 4 -5 yrs. CULTURAL: 3 churches, 7 radio stations 2 TV channels received direct, 1 cable TV system, I savings and loan, and 2 full- service banks. Other recreational facilities include: a major resort hotel, several country clubs, several golf courses, and Lake Cahuilla Re- gional Park. The La Quinta Arts Festival is held annually in March. Rentals for one and two bedroom apartments and duplexes range from $425 to $450 per month. Rentals for two and three bedroom houses range from $550 to $850 per month. Sales prices of existing homes were from $70,000 to S2.5 million. There is 1 hotel with 719 total rooms near La Quinta in the Village at La Quinta area. A proposed hotel at PGA West with 1,000 rooms is scheduled to open in November 1992. La Quinta is a conference and resort- oriented community approximately 20 miles from Palm Springs. It is a 2 -hour drive by freeway from Los Angeles wid Orange County. La Quinta features quality homes. a major resort hotel, several country clubs and several golf courses. Developments currently being pl utned are lake and golf- course oriented. Out- door recreation activities such as hiking and camping are also available. Village at La Quinta is being developed according to approved specific plan as a pedestrian oriented shopping district. 1990 t 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 CITY OF LA QUINTA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT U = =- 1 - I�cOKPORA= G ti5 OF T1� REVISED AS OF JANUARY 1, 1991 CITY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PHONE (619) 564 -2246 Next Revision: April 1991 CITY OF LA QUINTA HISTORIC RECORD OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Cumulative Totals 4,418 175 3,430 239 N/A 8,262 N/A See notes on following page regarding the Record of Housing Development. CS /DOCWN.003 2 Calendar No. Single No. Apts.. No. Condo. Mobile Annual Cumul. Annual Year Family Units Units Homes+ Total Total % Growth Detached Attached Rate Prior to 1983 2,180 168 1,109 229 N/A 3,686 N/A 1983 20 10 227 1 258 3,944 +7.0% 1984 82 2 202 .1 287 4,231 +7.3% 1985 74 0 307 1 382 4,613 +9.0% 1986 158 3 237 1 399 5,012 +8.6% 1987 143 0 123 2 268 5,280 +5.3% 1988 467 0 712 2 1,181 6,461 +22.4% 1989--- - ----- - - - -- 587----- - - - - -6 --- - - - 142--- - - - -- - - - -0 ------------------- 723 7,184 --- --- - - - - -- 1990 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 707 -2 371 2 1078 8,262 +15.0% - - - - -- Cumulative Totals 4,418 175 3,430 239 N/A 8,262 N/A See notes on following page regarding the Record of Housing Development. CS /DOCWN.003 2 1 1 HISTORIC RECORD OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Note: o Units are counted upon building permit issuance; where completed unit counts are given, they are based on: 3 months backrating for Single Family Dwelling; 6 months for multi- family /attached condominium. o High 1988 counts attributable to building fee increase effective January 1, 1989. o Detached condo units at PGA West, detached condos at Laguna De La Paz, Los Estados, and any zero lot line developments shown as single family detached. Source: State Department of Finance (1986 Special Census; April 19, 1986) City of La Quinta Building Division (Building Permit Records) + Note: Mobile home set -up permits only; no accounting for move -off activity. Revised: As of January 1, 1991 CS /DOCWN.003 3 DEVELOPMENT STATUS SUMMARY REPORT APPROVED RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS (Up to January 1, 1991) Residential PROJECT Units Permits Units Round Approved Issued Remaining Acre La Quinta Cove Golf Club 916 536 380 638 �1. (Santa Rosa Cove)- Specific Plan #121 -E Includes Tracts 14496, 21120, 18765 and 23813, 25237 & 26251 (in process) 12. Duna La Quinta Specific Plan No. 83 -001 861 120 741 180 Condos, Single - Family & Apartments Includes Tracts #)20158, 20218, 18767, 21123 & 25389 �3. PGA West - Landmark Land /Sunrise Co. Specific Plan No. 83 -002 5,000 1,531 3,469 1,685 Condos, Single - Family & Apartments Includes Tracts #20717, 21381, 21846 22432, 24317, 24801, 25397, 25499, 255000, 26139 & 26140 (in process) 14. The Pyramids (AKA Grove) Specific Plan No. 84 -004 1,500 0 10,500 693 Tract #24545 5. Oak Tree West Specific Plan No 85 -006 2,245 46 2,199 1,025 Tract #24890 - JM Peters 6. Palm Royale Condos Tract No. 18915 354 296 58 60 7. Laguna De La Paz 18. Tract No. 20052 396 210 186 100 Parc La Quinta Tract No. 21555 150 150 0 40 19. Valley Land Development /IDG Corp. 330 0 330 746 Tentative Tract 21880 110. Valley Land Development /Acacia Homes Tract #23268 201 47 154 48 Ill. Triad Pacific Development Tract 23269 La Quinta Highlands /La Quinta Vistas 255 85 170 72 '12. Cactus Flower 142 134 8 40 Tract 22982 113. Santa Rosa Developers Tract #23519 (Revised) 111 0 ill 30 CS /DOCWN.003 4 60 94 45 0 116 14. Starlight Dunes 182 50 32 Tract #23773 154 0 238 74 4 277 15. Quinterra 55 27 0 Tract #23913 116 0 16. Topaz - GWR Development 196 37 9 Tract #23935 117 32 17. Deane Homes 228 0 31 Tract #23971 1 82 18. Jefferson Square 238 35 0 119 Tract #24197 0 85 19. Lake La Quints 281 10 0 18 AG Spanos /Wilma Pacific Tract #24230/26152 20. Rancho Ocotillo - Williams Development 91 Tract #24517 21. Williams Development 68 Tract #24208 22. A. G. Spanos 1,053 Tract #23995 23. Chong Lee 37 Tract #24950 24. Strother Enter. 117 Tract #25125 25. Valley Land Dev. Co. 98 Tract 25154 26. Williams Development 31 Tract #25290 27. Chateau Estates - Painted Cove 83 Tract # 25429 28. Steven Brummel Z5 Tract # 24507 29. Vista Development 119 Tract # 24774 30. Santa Rosa Developers 85 Tract 25363 31. Richard Deman 39 Tract 25691 32. Chateau Estates 18 Tract 26016' CS /DOCWN.003 5 60 94 45 0 116 33 14 182 50 32 196 70 0 238 74 4 277 151 36 55 27 0 68 20 0 1,053 132 0 37 9 0 117 32 0 98 31 0 31 9 1 82 36 0 25 35 0 119 40 0 85 20 0 39 10 0 18 5 33. Thomas Schmidt 144 0 144 38 Tract 25953 34. Vista Development /Robert Pippin 14 0 14 15 Tract 26008 35. Vista Development /Robert Pippen 50 0 50 22 Tract 26009 ' 36. Amcor Realty 55 0 55 14 Tract 26148 37. Strother Enterprises 44 0 44 38 Tract 26524 ■ TOTALS 15,167 3,265 12,244 6,304 * Includes model home Pe rmits, which are part of total units in project approval. + Does not include 10 acre multi - family parcel - potential for 160 units i CS /DOCWN.003 6 1 1 1 I� LA QUINTA OVERVIEW Nestled at the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains just 18 miles east of Palm Springs is La Quinta - a peaceful, relaxing village 1 known as the "Gem of the Desert ". Found within this jewel are world -class golf, tennis and resort facilities; fine arts and cultural activities; residences which range from affordable housing ' to the ultimate in luxurious living; and a climate beyond compare. The area was first inhabited by the Cahuilla Indians, who believed that the area now known as La Quinta was the original Garden of Eden; the cradle of civilization where human life began on earth. In the 16th century, the Spanish conquistadors arrived and were followed by the missionaries, aiming to convert the Indians to Christianity. Early trading posts such as "Point Happy ", established in the 1800s, represented the first permanent settlements. But it was a permanent settlement of a different sort which propelled La Quinta into its present glory. In Mexico, a secluded country retreat is known as a "quinta ", and this area was seen as such by a local rancher. The name of "La Quinta" was adopted by a wealthy San Franciscan, Walter Morgan, in 1926 when he built the world- famous La Quinta Hotel. This hotel became a well-known destination resort for Hollywood celebrities, sports figures, politicians and high society members. Since opening its doors, La Quinta has remained a popular retreat. During the 1930s, the Desert Club of La Quinta was built, introducing residential sites in the Cove, which has become the primary living area of the community. During the following decades, La Quinta remained a quiet residential community amid the booming growth of the Palm Springs area. Realizing that growth was inevitable, the people of La Quinta incorporated in 1982 in order to better expedite and regulate the growth and development of the community. 1 During the years since its incorporation, La Quinta has tripled in population and quality commercial development is replacing agriculture as an economic base. World -class resorts, hotels and events have proven a positive presence in La Quinta, attracting thousands of visitors from around the world. The PGA of America and PGA Tour have chosen La Quinta as the site of their Western headquarters. The City is also home to the Skins Game, La Quinta Arts Festival and Bob Hope Chrysler Desert Classic. Today, the City of La Quinta faces a promising and challenging future. In the last three years, the City has averaged over 900 residential housing starts annually. The balance between resort and residential development creates a positive environment in which to live and work. The City has created a master development plan with upscale design standards to ensure and control quality growth. There is tremendous potential for both residential and commercial development. 1 HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR TAKE A LOOK AT THE POTENT =AL • THERE ARE 325 CONTIGUOUS ACRES OF COMMERCIALLY ■ ZONED, DEVELOPABLE LAND ON HIGHWAY 111. • HIGHWAY 111 IS THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH THE COACHELLA VALLEY, OFFERING EASY ACCESS TO TENS OF THOUSANDS OF RESIDENTS AND RESORT SHOPPERS. THE MARKST AREA 31s AL I VE W Z TH GROWTH AND DOLLARS TO SPEND • FROM 1980 TO 1989 THE POPULATION IN THE AREA OF LA QUINTA GREW 184 %. THE PER CAPITA INCOME IS $22,833. ' THE DESERT AREA ATTRACTS OVER TWO - MILLION TOURISTS EACH YEAR, ALL WITH DISPOSABLE INCOME AND THE LEISURE TIME TO SHOP. • EXPANSION PLANS FOR THE MAJOR RETAIL SHOPPING CENTERS ON EACH SIDE OF LA QUINTA CONFIRM A SOUND AND GROWING MARKET: PALM DESERT TOWN CENTER + 400,000 SQ. FT. INDIO FASHION MALL + 350,000 SQ. FT. WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE YOU EVEN MORE SUCCESSFUL • THE CITY AND ITS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ARE ENCOURAGING YOU TO DEVELOP HERE. THEY HAVE MADE A VARIETY OF FINANCING MECHANISMS AVAILABLE. • THE CITY'S SPECIFIC PLAN WILL ENSURE QUALITY DEVELOPMENT WITH HIGH DESIGN STANDARDS. WE NEED DEVELOPERS WITH IDEAS AND ■ 2MAG =NATION 3 PROJECT AREA — DESCRTPTION 1 THE STTE There are more than 500 contiguous acres along Highway 111, the Coachella Valley's main corridor, that are ready for development. The majority of this land, approximately 325 acres, is zoned commercial. (See Major Land -Use Area Map.) Due to its prime location, tens of thousands of residents and visitors have access to the area. With the majority of the site undeveloped it is a wonderful opportunity to set the tone for the entire Highway 111 corridor. The City's focus for the area is to ensure an attractive, quality environment that will provide a lasting setting in which future development can prosper and grow. SPECIFIC PLAN AND ZONING The project site is more than 500 acres in size, approximately 325 acres are zoned commercial. The purpose of the general commercial designation is to allow the development of various types of retail, office, hotel and service commercial uses. The focus will be on regional- oriented development, drawing shoppers and tourists from throughout the Coachella Valley. IPRESENT OWNERSHIP ' The site is composed of approximately 25 parcels, ranging in size from 2 to 130 acres, and represented by about fifteen owners. The larger parcels are suited for mixed retail and commercial uses. A few of the landowners have indicated that they would consider joint venturing. HIGHWAY 111 CORR =DOR DEVELOPMENT SDEAS VALUE OF HIGHWAY 1 1 1 ■ HIGHWAY 111 WILL REFLECT THE IMAGE OF LA QUINTA. ITS DEVELOPMENT WILL FORM IMPORTANT IMPRESSIONS FOR THE PRESENT AS WELL AS THE FUTURE. THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT OF THIS AREA, THEREFORE, IS CRITICAL. DEVELOPMENT GOALS FOR THE AREA - NODE OR CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT WITH REGIONAL IMPACT; ' - DESTINATION SHOPPING CENTERS DRAWING SHOPPERS FROM ALL AREAS OF THE COACHELLA VALLEY; A PARK -LIKE WINDOW ALONG THE 111 CORRIDOR (FROM ' WASHINGTON TO JEFFERSON), ENHANCING ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. DEVELOPMENT SDEAS THESE ARE JUST A FEW IDEAS OF PROJECTS THAT WOULD SUCCESSFULLY ENHANCE THE HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR AND THE COMMUNITY. ' * COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER * BUSINESS PARK * AUTO SERVICE WORLD * SPORTS AND HEALTH CENTER * FASHION APPAREL CENTER * THEME ARTS & CRAFTS CENTER ' * HOTEL/ ENTERTAINMENT CENTER * GOURMET CENTER * HIGH -END FACTORY OUTLETS * DESTINATION RESTAURANT * HOME IMPROVEMENT CENTER * THEME SHOPPING CENTER 1 i T IF I / I M r M = = 1=1 1W = = Ml Twvl Q4 �ii QKUUCV In I :lt) MAJOR. LAND —USE AREAS 111HCommercial Only >()CO 1000( Possible Mix Commercial and Residentle, � oss es en • . _ Pible Ridtial = Z. � �. c: a I,tr _•• .I�I t1 �o4�ti ii Trailer � —_ •.� C;i �,�� ••• I t E << ° -hark_ �- - :. - . :. =I •�D.. �i y I - y - ! VPLLE 11 , f I I�.I 1► � 1�i11 �1 :....� .. � .1 ... ILL l Il +l�lrl IIII ...:� ..► ...., «._� � .__ -..._ .�, ,� . Il _ ��$0 -•:�� - :.. :.•.;� _ I .• O " .. ' • � •• ...l .. «« .. N» h N 101 l l 1\ F I V I) V I I r••» • l N« M« I l N) I N K h K N I/ X• V V I - •'••I• r«»/• !•)lr1(HK)lX1ltiXNI••'III(I \1..' .NN»»NhN)VV(NI•ICX)000I C9 r �.(« K7.)I)IN1C1t -•(1(X )()V(,IJOC.. 1')()(H 1. J, .IC).NNN IO•)O \NM)i1C)(>000` Z _ N)' '• ' •rl «NNN•1�. )111.1l1NHr N NlI•(I)N()N(1K01�(J)I(N )O )CIJKONON()•OOI(JNn . •'1N1 NJlPN )11 Kl NH )I)Vl Nl)OCJO'X)O• O ) ()CC : (II IVO4) OCX N K V(r I\1( O• l/ �/1 ) _ «j•N. »)1 »N,.MNN)O/iCKK)• I .VIH )VVIXh N) r I ti« .. ;I :: . . nOUM KlX)(h 1• N N » .• ti •. « N •1 N N 11 I. 11 'INN » •1 « . N « I • .( II N N .l I( 1()1 I I ) (1( « Lu •..• • LL ,. I\ Well Trader . Park Trader Park ell ti p I I - AVENUE t 2, = m = = = m m m m m m m = = = = m m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DESERT HOT SPRINGS \ e�1 LOCATION MAP s � �• � CATHEDRAL CRY n m / RANCHO �T1 t"i MIRAGE n f0 PALM PAL ~ : WDIO SPRINGS INDIAN ; k COACHELLA DESERT WELLS?s Highway i 6 t 4 a C Ir of LX QUINTA LA QUINTA Lj Thermal Airport i Rn OR A 5Y 4? ze �`P.t .. ..... .. iy. o'S z Rl r1 - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ r1 - Fa�as .9, 0.*:� Ok), 7po"w.. d w ��L Sb(a(�.d 86 (9:UTg. el-L- '� it Rof�e�D�s �n t ®- Lj m 6veFte �S%]t-b&jg ��5�. IT. <2 Sao /Rest ^ (`� CS(t-r-1��z / ►°� ©v1�ga�° . �� fib% / ' � ��.1 .. '� it Rof�e�D�s �n .y _ Y�, . � . • i �' � y jA �, � " t ,7♦ . i,, � >i .J .. i A �" , �:. ii'.° . Tr :r' • ' ti -.. 1 ..t 4 :1} .. a i d Y � - . � � � � . �� r .. ., n .. � .. ., � .� � r . r' a r' ,. 1 YJ �� i d Y � - . ....: �'� � � ��• �.�n .. � .� � r . r' a r' ,. 1 YJ t,� - `y f { � � t it J1 'b 'd j_ _ } > .'1 � � r. s .� '' � .e � 4 ._. �' ��. � .. ,�. �� i . yJ p.. 4 � t: yli � 5.5 fte- j4 0 ts�,av-L# = G I -) T 157 19 Zy I 3 (. 3 ;NA �. i ' .r i . .. _ � '�4. � .�, ja& .4, im f4- - + Nov a 71 � C. .1 A� I�� is j -n L"s. si. q6 0 + 41 ) 'r- I�j 4D qfi -t 3SK- F. s4,r- : , 9f� P . Y \2 \K b 6► J b. The loading and unloading area must be of sufficient size to accommodate the numbers and types of vehicles that are likely to use this area, given the nature of the development in question. The following table indicates the number and size of spaces that, presumptively, satisfy the standards set forth in this subsection. However, the City may requi d unloading rea i €— seasonably necessary to satisfy the forecgoinri tan ;;r-A J n T— Ab a 2. TABLE 2 Gross Leasable Area of Building Number of Spaces 1,000 - 19,999 1 20,000 - 79,999 2 80,000 - 127,999 3 128,000 - 191,000 4 192,000 - 255,999 5 256 -000 - 319,999 6 320,000 - 391,999 7 Plus one (1) space for each additional 72,000 square feet or -fraction thereof.- C. Each Ioadin berth shall be not less than forty -five feet in length and twelve feet in width exclusive of aisle or maneuvering space, and shall have an overhead clearance of not less than fourteen feet. d. Such space may occupy all or any part of except front and shall not any required yard space, and exterior side yards, entrance by a wall not less than feet in height. eight e. Loading and unloading areas shall be so located and designed that the vehicles intended to use them can (1) maneuver safely and conveniently to and from a public right -of -way; (2) complete the loading and unloading operations without obstructing or interfering with any fire lane, public right -of -way or any parking space or parking lot aisle, and (3) be internalized whenever possible. BJ /ORDDRFT.004 - 20 - i C. Fire Lanes. 1. Fire lanes, meeting Fire Department standards, shall be provided to access all structures (both in front and to the rear). Fire lanes also serve for .medical emergency and law enforcement purposes. 2. Fire lanes shall be kept separate from loading .or. servicing areas and shall have a minimum of- parking capable of backing into -the fire lane and blocking it. 3. Fire lanes shall be adequately marked and patrolled to prevent parking which may block access. D. Pedestrians 1. The purpose of a parking lot is to provide for the transition from vehicular to pedestrian movement. All parking lot arrangements shall be designed to provide for maximum safety and convenience of pedestrians in their movement to and from the parking area. 2. Where possible, landscaped areas shall also contain paved pedestrian walks for the safe movement of pedestrians. �i 4. 3. On major driveways, crosswalks shall be �� w provided to call attention to the vehicular �. driver the place to expect cross - vehicular pedestrian movement. 4. Textured surfaces and speed bumps shall be used to keep vehicular speeds within a tolerable range. E. Service 1. Off - street Loading Requirement. a. Whenever the normal operation of any development requires that goods, merchandise, or equipment be routinely delivered to or shipped from that development, a sufficient off- street loading and unloading area must be provided in accordance with this section to accommodate the delivery or shipment operations in a safe and convenient manner. BJ /ORDDRFT.004 - 19 - I V,9 � It 5) 1 r �4ti�ll� �� zL SC ql - /'.e g I i t)1^00 FLAZA I A �RUIN'"A/ GA. - 5A-S, P. 954 U I p9/rf, rl S III II1e F G mFI6$ - S•F RECTA U FA N'r5 - 13, eoo F, x So �v x 20, !Ova e5avLI1-J4 eawr (Z e '1 GAP4.1 L, N F, SC 4-O Ash //�P'rIONS I&Ave. AI-E - a G(.EAtE WOp�T GASF, GO�DI- (IONS. -U I I.DI W6 ON 6oI;NE2 \al L-L_ 66 A r_E�,.JAURANT 2. NI4�+5.s r SgAioNAL LJSrs- <AKEN j. ICES•- AU2AN'r5 - iAKFrl f1s So Yo OF AK9^ rvr_ FUEwe- Ljl. . s�. ri flsF�s As to i z1s °p or- AP-EA e r0eL.16 I�s� Jr-'• USA. r-IrNEShl5ovll.IN� GEN'�E�S 1=r�o /r<I �x�{l&1'r 28, UP_r4AN t✓aNv INSTITUTE - �P��I�!- �ATI�>~ µvUrt.Y A C C LL /^ U l.A I O lei E;lf 7afZc,'UN A 4 6 o F.,AIK ou K, -- Or r4 RE! 'AugAN'1'S DUI1.1G F �� ES S p GARS o GARS - �- GA>z�s_ °j0_ G/t�s To'(AI,GAo5 - ;� 63 , 26 Zo z4 ro 2-1 -11 44 2m 1� 13 2a 2Q- 5o 6_o z7 -?,S3 412 /Do 311 20 26 49 48 - - -7 W 311 �0 3q 50 ell - _- - -- �:.-ov PIS • qc zr3v �o q 1 �o �o so z1 9-�8 — ';Gpj Z� SA - -- IAA U - -- - -�i': CYl ?i 23q X05 25 50 2"7 341, 1 41 1 *4 -7o .11 80 -� : 3� It 2 51 _- -(o: 100 7Z �fo t 1 '1 Ioo _ I c log 53 3G z - 7 ip0 1 Z z /DO J 30 h 12. c -' 100 53 3 ZS -B.DO 1 2z loo 13v loo 120 !co s3 32S q:OV 3 loo 130 loo J ^" I G'o 53 ", ►2 73 20 i'AtzK�►�G l2 QUIrz�D X67 GAr 1 1 Excerpt from the adopted General Plan - Urban Design Component POLICY 6.5.4 — SPECIAL GATEWAY TREATMENTS AT MAJOR ENTRIES TO THE CITY AND TO THE DOWNTOWN SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING: HIGHWAY 111 /WASHINGTON, STREET — ISLAND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING A MONUMENT SIGN AND OTHER SPECIAL FEATURES. VILLAGE GATEWAY — SPECIAL PAVING AND LANDSCAPING. POLICY 6.5.5 — SECONDARY GATEWAY TREATMENTS SHALL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INTERSECTIONS: ° EISENHOWER DRIVE AND WASHINGTON STREET ° CALLE TAMPICO AND WASHINGTON STREET ° FRED WARING DRIVE AND WASHINGTON STREET ° JEFFERSON STREET AND.AIGHWAY 111 ° CALLE TAMPICO AND EISENHOWER DRIVE ` 115 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 DES "I -GNED, BUT SHALL GENERALLY BE AS f FOLLOWS: MAJOR AND PRIMARY ARTERIALS — 20 FEET HIGHWAY 111 — 50 FEET OTHER STREETS — 10 FEET TRADE —OFFS FOR IMAGINATIVE DESIGNS MAY BE CONSIDERED. ` 115 L II II 1� II tl 11 11 11 II It II RIGHT TURN I I I ONLY LANE (TYPICAL) V ,t tt d FAR ~ SIDE Bus ZONE (TYPICAL) R, 1 O' TYPICAL 10' 10, TYP. YP. ; 3 11 I. t 140- Q 120. ol CR /l SECTION Z� /� 3 3 c% (`! I I 1 1 12' C&I va SECTION II 111 Figure 10 WASHINGTON STREETIHIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING -31- s. J � _, ,tii:. 'a > ✓: ;;a `ii ; ;?*Y� i:. k-' •'a'r:• is " - ;..5'.i:i.:.:>:;,.':i:'.1 - •�:�;w r� Existing - Traffic Signal Vacant Land Plaza La Quinta Parking Beef & \ Brew i d C� Point Happy Ranch Existing Tract Homed Washington Street Frontal Road %%_ a Raised Median CASE MAP CASE No. SIMON PLAZA PROJECT LOCATION MAP 4 Vacant Building ORTH SCALE: NTS RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE (TYPICAL) d� d✓ 1� Figure 10 WASHINGTON STREETMIGHWAY 111 cl. INTERSECTION WIDENING -31- Vacan Existing-,Traffic Signal Vacant Land Plaza La Quints Parking Point Happy Ranch Beef & \ Brew i d 'fin lid 9 Existing Tract Horses Washington Street Frontage Road `� p 4 Vacant Building Raised Median CASE MAP CASE No. SIMON PLAZA PROJECT LOCATION MAP a i Dn 3qg g d4, cly► 1161 C� �Ja . a 7, lqq 16, 7860 �, f � - IN S-- "I CM4 - + CL? C&t-� 7444- " 6�° � 2 11 I iNl 4A) � 1 � lit C, IYLD d � � 2 3 I n� `� V a ^ i 9 _ —a � _ � ' _ 7 . *' .� —1 mil.' � t .i .. s . .r Gi r- ` p � .} 4 ' • J it ' 4 �� ` ��i. e • � � � � V � n� `� V a ^ i 9 _ —a � _ � ' _ 7 . *' .� —1 mil.' � t .i .. s . .r Gi r- ` p � .} 4 ' * - J , .� r _. aA � t ' � � y � .. _ 1 _ _ ,' . �� 1 W ti ;. s� a' , ,. .. � , � . y_ t t .. .y i ,� ti, .,o �'t �I.. a .�/',ir 3 � , � . " .. .c ,;� .. .. 4'^ .. . .a �~ 6 t b �`. 'a � . + •� i 7. 1 v ti .. ... �_1 �., � �4 . is ,2. .. 0, � .. .. • A t-• s 1 � -. _. aA � t " � � � � T � . ., � z. _ .. _ �' } . ,; ' .. Y.` � , �a' 3Y {� .. - �Y-$ ... u._ '� J ` �i�. � � I J S j,� R , ' � s ¢a �o 6' 0 v �^ r I I �+ -r- Q, Z � n N i1 l+ i 1 1y d p O V � J P S 3 d G 14 s ' I] -� J^ d r � � � F r �A , , F Rmw-z--)lp- N n P c . ,. � s - . �, _ . 4 � _., � �l _ .. ._ � .. � '�' �' 1t ` I , ? _ � , � � ' � .' � � .. ♦. � .. _ ' _ - � r. 4 - ..::j j ` • _ � � ?f � w .. ' � � . � r' .t , .iS ..r ' , � + + ' f, � i l 02 'Fi . �- i 6� a co r� -s 2S 66C. � l / F911 S4fl i III Ldr - 1 C&A. jzes a sp. i OS z G3 �j a L ced _ � � � y � L .. ..- � � � `� '`� ,. �. ' v o+ � .4 w '�' � j 1 �` � x .. .. � t t � '� !•' ./ � ` ' - � ^3._ . ___ _ �.Y ., .. .._ . . °�� _ ,` 2 r _ , � `� �j of 0 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JANUARY 14, 1992 (CONTINUED FROM OCT. 22ND, NOV. 26TH, & DEC. 10, 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 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. STAFFRPT.070 /CS -1- -�. u�.�.� .,.�u � BACKGROUND:. The previous report of December 10, 1991 is attached. DECEMBER 10, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION: 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 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 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. 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 STAFFRPT.070 /CS -2- 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 Simon Motors he had to Quinta was built they their project. - Mr. Simon, Sr. stated that when he built examine water retention, but when Plaza La did not have to accommodate water run -off in 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. 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 STAFFRPT.070 /CS -3- 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. b PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 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 on 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? 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. STAFFRPT.070 /CS -4- 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 to his knowledge. 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: 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 53,628 sq. ft. of floor space STAFFRPT.070 /CS 134,018 sq. ft. total floor space -5- 0 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.)= 215 pk. spaces or Office Medical (1 sp /200 sq. ft.)= 268 --------------- pk. spaces - Approximate Total Required 518 pk. spaces or 561 pk. spaces 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. The project submittal is closer to meeting the city parking requirements. However, 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 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 your last meeting. 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. We anticipate that this material might be presented at the 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. STAFFRPT.070 /CS -6- 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. 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. C. Desiqn 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. STAFFRPT.070 /CS -7- Staff did not receive a time -share study from the developer by January 6, 1992, as requested. 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. 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 their on -site parking needs, landscape setbacks and building heights along Washington Street. In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However, the City's General Plan (Policy 6.5.8) states that the City may 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, STAFFRPT.070 /CS -8- Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Large Plans dated January 6, 1992 3. Past Staff Report (December 10, 1991) 5. Draft Resolution 92- , Variance 91 -019 (Denial) (Approval) 6. Draft Conditions of Approval, PP 91 -466 STAFFRPT.070 /CS -9- PLANNING COMMISSION PH -3 STAFF REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 10, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 26, 1991 PROJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL CENTER WHICH MAY INCLUDE A-- RESTAURANT/BANK-j-'-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 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. 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 , 'E: 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 BUILDING RIGHTS (Prior to Novembe 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 /PAR IG PLAN: The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public street. The driveways on Highway Ill and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 91 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the parking garage located at the southeast corner of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 480 cars. The developer has prepared a traffic study to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City streets, and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the future level of service: - of._;Washington . Street /Highway__ 111._ Discussion on the traffic study will occur later. in this report,..-._ VIEW CORRIDOR: The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City. Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary street image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to assure a Low Density character and appearance ". The City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and has been a condition on all of the development cases along Washington Street. The attached plan does not meet this provision, and the developer has requested a waiver from the policy. A letter from Best, Best and Krieger is attached to justify the request. STORMWATER RETENTION: The on -site storm water retention study from the developer is attached to the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that much of the site is devoted to impervious materials (buildings and parking). The developer has requested that the City assist them in the development of an off -site drainage system. VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUIRED: In the initial submittal, the architect did not meet the side yard requirements of the CPS Zone District for the east side of the project (i.e. parking structure). The standard states that any building which is higher than 35 feet (up to 50 feet) shall have a minimum property line setback of not less than two feet for each one foot above 35 feet. However, the new submittal (dated November 27, 1991) would meet the CPS requirements. The only outstanding 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 /C_S -4- DESIGN REVIEW Bl .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 propo. i parking lot lighting ply should 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 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 sues) : A. PARKING STRUCTURE C. 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 t :ectify the setback problt on Washington Street would be to shift the buildings to the east onto the proposed property line. D. SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS ON WASHINGTON STREET The City's General Plan currently has a policy which encourages single story buildings along major arterials within the City. This policy has been utilized for the projects along Washington Street. Generally, the City has conditioned projects to be one story but the height of the structure has varied on a case -by -case basis. As noted earlier, the Design - .Review Board -has indicated they feel comfortable with allowing a two -story project which should not exceed 28 feet in height. This type of recommendation would definitely set a new precedence for. the City and for Washington Street in general. Staff would rather have the Planning Commission debate the merits of the height of a building but not allow a two story building on Washington Street within 150 feet of the new property line. In order to facilitate review of this matter, staff has prepared a city wide building height survey which lists the development approvals for the City of La Quinta. E. TRAFFIC STUDY: The traffic study by -MGA, was initially submitted on October 18, 1991, for the project proponent. A copy of the report was also mailed to the District 11, Caltrans office. The 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 projec access (driveways) on Hig ly 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 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 f low at.-al-1 --three- driveways -_ -along_:with = suitable traf fic 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 str. .ure will create view winc a through the site thereby enhancing the City's desire to encourage low density development along primary image arterials. Staff would further request that the developer explore other subsurface parking areas, off -site parking arrangements or reduce the building square footage to conform with the City's minimum standards. CONCLUSION: In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However, the City's General Plan (Policy 6.5_.8) states that the City can consider trade - o #fs= - -i -n- -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 /G5 -10- 1 Vacant 0. j Existing,-Traffic Signal- Vacant Land Plaza La Quinta Parking Beef & Brew Vacant Building - w ® Point Happy Ranch U 1D Q P 9 * _ Existing Tract Hones Washington Street Frontage Road `_. Raised Median CASE MAP CASE Nm SIMON PLAZA PROJECT LOCATION MAP I-- = O gC ..... J- IV lit BM 61 �P „k / Tt /dtt Park ``I �� .. /\� < •'• r /ilv Park .. • � i_ }/ � � .• lr� AarIMUC Well . .� `*Well. O r r C 32 Oly co 4p Cj SO • t �s e/ AVCNVC ' Wtll Wtll • o' r I ;� • t N • Wt C r Y• •►• r 0 • • I IL ,;.'.. LA OUI�iTA,, ALIF: r . .. HE/t PALM DESERT IS ADRAI+GIE N3337.5— W11611/7.5 i 1959 PH 1080 1990 • • e DMA 4751 111 NE— SERIES V895 a - 8K 38 RIGHT TURN ONLY LANE (TYPICAL) FAR RICE I)us ao*E (TYPICA 3°°• TYPICi IO� TYP. CASE MAP CASE NO. Plot Plan 91 -466 Specific Plan 86 -007, Resol. 86 -14 (Exhibit) WASHINGTON STREETMIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING II 11 II 11 - 1.1 II iI 11 11 I 11 11 II 41 1 1 I 1 d a or 10, 3 3 Y P. 11 I' t I I I I CROSS LL 0• EC ION I 1 ( I I1 11 t 3 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 14• I 1 Cgoss 11 1 I SECTION 11 MAP CASE NO. Plot Plan 91 -466 Specific Plan 86 -007, Resol. 86 -14 (Exhibit) WASHINGTON STREETMIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING I T t ............. I rWl \i� - -. , -��.- - J. EXHIBIT f crrlac -CASE NO.-L.-- NOV 2 7 1991 WY OF U, QUINVA PLANN;NG I)EPARTMENT 0 '67 1 ` !is L �%H V, NnV 7 7 jqqj T Y e-EmP�'-'MP:f!� PAT 7m 7177 L .: , I —J tJ�TH eL-n-ATI.�,J EXHIBIT 12? - CASE NO.:9 ©o. , 71 I F! rg. r MRS rman is l, f � EXHIBIT 12? - CASE NO.:9 ©o. ti :tsi is - :� a r.:i r.�s � # ';r •x! :. EXHIBIT CASE NO. 1- E t L S LW EP 2,6 1991 (WINTA PI- ��NtV� DEPARTME04T TIN EXHIBIT CASE NO. NO. y • 416 polo 11"WO., TZ) y 'A U! [2SEP 26..,1991 • big EXHIBIT _CASE NO. 1 yfm rt: Tai TZ) y 'A U! [2SEP 26..,1991 • big EXHIBIT _CASE NO. 1 fill SEP 2 6 1991 EXHIBIT CASE NO. Is the EXHIBIT CASE NO. Its'. . k JUL 2 6 91 C=:j I', ftT 8 pre, Vc — LOAM. tan�% jib 0 z LU Ch r� wo-M 0..%Ano M it cr) :4 iz. �. 4" W- 1.- -1.1 it VIII u pr &Cldoft4 MUM 0 I i - I Z fir. cr) cn LAJ uj pr &Cldoft4 MUM 0 I i - I illll 'o 1 • �I V 1' 2; r utTl�tt 11i�t� � , �I V 1' 2; r . . 1 Restaurant /Bank 2 Story Above Ground Office .Complex w/ 1 Stc Below Ground ziu` vt-Ht U Highway— 11 1 .... ��+ � �O r Ir Rest. ; 'lydt Bowl i ng � Center 'I F i tness � I �wvw1� MPARTMENT 1 Parking Structure i .+ Story Offices 72-4 %oil 'EXHIBIT -4 25' —gill — ra 1 LT wo lul liff 14(i LUAL jJ EXHIBIT 1 CCD 7 r. taaiL oz ��- cln OY U QUIRT 6!p- 773 - .� 3 (/J5 o t!� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. BACKGROUND :51-446 , 1. Name of Proponent: 01 2. Address and Pho a Number of Pro onent: d '16 *78 3. Date of Checklist. /D - / —!%/ 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: _ CI CA 6A C'�v .+T,4- S. Name of Proposal, if applicable: �H o�► 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? t/ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach, sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, / inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? (/ b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? c. Alterations to the course of flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? — g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an 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)? _ S 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, or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new / Tight or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? v 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of any use of any natural resources? L/ b. Substantial depletion of any renewable natural resource? ✓ 10. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk oT an exp osion or the release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ {� 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, — density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation /Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? �f b. Effects on existing'parking facilities, or / demand for new parking? 14 15 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. (5) Yes Maybe No c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation / systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and /or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _je f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? )� Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in -a need for new-or altered- govern-. mental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? !/ _ d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ f. Other governmental services? Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? {/ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the 0o stern 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? (5) L Yes Maybe No b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short -term, to the disadvantage of long -term, en- vironmental goals? (A short -term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long -term impacts will endure well into the future.) c. Does the project have_impacts which are indi- viduallyelimited,-but cumulatively considerable? _- (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation; I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant —' effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. �/ ffind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: 4�f4 / , /ffz_ If 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 -(e0g -;_ 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 building(s) and /or parking lot /landscaping will include lighting. However, at this time, much of the material has not been submitted to staff but it is assumed that during the plan check process of this case in the future the applicant will be required to gain approval of this material from the City's Design Review Board and the Planning and Building Department prior to construction permit issuance. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). All lighting will have to comply with the City's "Dark Sky Ordinance ". Additionally, light sources shall be shielded to eliminate light glare and off -site spillage onto abutting vacant or developed properties. Exterior pole light fixtures should be low level fixtures in order to maintain both human scale to the project and reduce glare from the fixtures on to abutting City thoroughfares. 2). A lighting plan shall be submitted for the on -site parking lot and the plan shall include a photometric study of the lighting which analyzes the necessary footcandle light intensity as well as identifies the height of the light poles, spaces of the poles, type of lighting fixtures, and any other pertinent information which is necessary to assure compliance with the City's Off- street Parking Ordinance and the Dark Sky Ordinance. Light poles less than 20 feet in height shall be encouraged. 8. LAND USE(S): The General Plan has designated the property as fit for commercial development. The plan is consistent with this intent, and the Planning Commission will review the development plan in the next few months. MITIGATION MEASURES: None is required because the project, if approved, will be conditioned to meet the City's requirements for on and off -site improvements commensurate with the level of development which is proposed. 9. NATURAL RESOURCES: No major adverse impacts are anticipated with by the construction of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, the applicant shall meet all necessary requirements of the local serving agencies as outlined in the attached agency comments or as mandated during construction plan implementation. This shall include compliance with Title 20 and 24 of the California Administrative Code relating to conserving energy resources which is handled by the Building Department during plan.check review. . 10. RISK OF UPSET: - No adverse impact is anticipated due to explosion or release of hazardous substances. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. However, all construction activities. whether -. -or not.:: they - -are permanent- or -. -: temporary shall meet all necessary safety standards of the Federal, State and local government requirements. 11. POPULATION: It is not anticipated that the proposed project will have an adverse or significant impact on population distribution, density or growth rate in the area. However, the development of the site will increase the need for the City to provide housing opportunities for its residents to support this commercial venture. At this time, the City has approximately 55 percent of its land designated for residential needs. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 12. HOUSING: With the proposed project there may be an incremental demand for additional housing for employees of' the development. However, due to the size of the commercial center any demand would be insignificant because the City presently has an overabundance of land either vacant at this time, but slated for residential development, or developed'at this time with housing units. Single family housing is the primary type of housing at this time, however, multiple family housing projects will be forthcoming in the City's high density areas in the future. Approximately half of the City is designated for residential development or growth. MITIGATION MEASURES: None are proposed. 13. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION: The site is located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 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._ anti- cipated by the development- of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Compliance with all applicable City requirements regarding street improvements of adjacent street(s). 2). The project shall provide adequate on -site parking to accommodate the proposed use of the property. 3). A bus stop (with turnout) and shelter shall be install along the frontage of the site along Washington Street and Highway 111 in a location approved by Sunline Transit and the City Engineering Department unless another site can be developed which is more effective to Sunline. Discussions have been made which indicate that Simon Drive might be more appropriate for a transit site and /or facility than Washington Street or Highway 111 because a bus ,stop on either of these streets could hinder or impede traffic circulation in this area. A transit site on Simon Drive should be pursued. The developer should contact Sunline Transit in order .resolve the Transit Authorities problems in this area. A solution had not been secured as of the writing of this report. 4). Any work on Highway 111 shall require permission by Caltrans since the roadway is a State Highway. 5). The requirements of the traffic study shall be met as determined by the City Engineer and the Planning Commission /City Council. This could include such features as: additional travel lanes on Washington Street, street island medians, deceleration and acceleration lanes, right turn in and out driveways, traffic signal modifications, transit facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalk, or other improvements which are commensurate with the proposed project and, as condition, will improve transportation in this area and assure the level of service at this intersection will not be reduced less than Level D. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The project may create a need for additional fire protection; police protection, solid waste collection, and maintenance of public roads in the area. However, it is anticipated that any increases in this area will be incremental, and further, should only have negligible impacts on existing personnel or services. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant will be required to pay an infrastructure fee of $6,000.00 per acre. This fee will help mitigate impacts as noted above. 2). The project shall comply with all requirements of the Fire and Riverside County Sheriffs Department prior to building permit issuance. 3). The School District mitigation fees shall be paid prior to permit issuance pursuant to the adoption of AB1600 in 1986. 4). The project developer shall make provisions with Palm Desert Disposal /Waste Management to have the project serviced to assure waste products are disposed of without creating health hazards to the community. Necessary facilities shall be built to dispose of product waste. 16. UTILITIES: Except for storm water drainage facilities, no significant impacts are anticipated in the area of utilities which include natural gas, communication systems, water, sewer, and solid waste. MITIGATION MEASURES: All necessary infrastructure improvements has mandated by the City or any other public agency shall be met as part of the development of this site. Copies of the Agency Comments are attached. As mentioned before, the site will be required to install appropriate drainage facilities which will house storm water run- off during seasonal rain storms or to contain nuisance water from both irrigation and surfaced areas (i.e. parking lots, buildings, etc.). The preliminary hydrology study has been submitted and the recommendation of the project engineer was for the developer to pursue and off -site drainage system for their water runoff. The City Engineer is examining the study at this time and his recommendation will be presented to the Planning Commission. 18. AESTHETICS: The site is presently vacant, the construction of buildings will disrupt the site and change the existing views of this area because the applicant is proposing multiple story facilities. The City presently has a policy which discourages multi -level building along Washington Street which are greater than 21 feet (average) within 150 feet of the future property line. The applicant has proposed a plan which does not meet this provision, and it will be up to the Planning Commission and City Council to determine if an exemption should be granted. MITIGATION MEASURES: 1). The height of the building shall not exceed the requirements of the City's Zoning Code or CPS District mandates unless otherwise approved by a Variance application. 2). Buildings along Washington Street should be low level facilities pursuant to the policies of the General Plan which encourages "low density" development along image corridors. The City policy has been to encourage single story facilities within 150 feet of the property line. 3). The development of the on and off -site landscaping program should take into consideration the unique setting of this property as it relates to the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. The developer should consider vertical type plant material (Palm trees,-etc.)= -and the use of accent type trees (Jacarandas, etc.) which will create view "windows" into the project but accentuate the mountains to the west of the proposed buildings. Native landscaping should be pursued and accent lighting on the landscaping should be encouraged. Parking lot lighting should be discouraged wherever possible without sacrificing pedestrian security. 19. RECREATION: No significant adverse impacts are anticipated in this area. MITIGATION MEASURES: None required. 20. ARCHEOLOGICAL /HISTORICAL: Due to the historical nature of the City, there may be an adverse impact created by the construction of the project. MITIGATION MEASURES: An archaeological survey of the city by qualified archaeologists will need to be completed prior to activities which would disturb the site (i.e. site grading). Compliance with the results of the archaeological survey will be required. The City shall review and approve the study prior to the acquisition of a building permit or grading permit. 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS: It is not anticipated that there will be any adverse impacts by the project in the areas of plant and animal life, long term environmental goals, cumulative impacts, or impacts on human beings. Attached: Agency Comments Letter from Best, Best and Krieger Applicant prepared Hydrology Report. Applicant's prepared Traffic Study TRAFFIC IMPACT* STUDY FOR A PROPOSED MULTIPLE USE SHOPPING CENTER "SIMON PLAZA" IN THE CITY OF LA QUINT& PREPARED FOR SANBORNIWEBB INC. REVISED NOVEMBER 1991 D r%oVO N_ PLk 4L SiutLme 7ransit MEMBER AGENCIES Cathedral City Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Riverside County Mr. Greg Trousdell Associate Planner CITY OF LA QUINTA 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Plot Plan 91 -466 Dear Mr. Trousdell: August 2-1; -- 1991-: - - AUG 2.7 1`1gl C11 Y ur fLK �tiii�YF�, 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, 41641 &Zz- Debra Astin Director of Planning DA/ kh 32 -505 Harry Oliver Trail . Thousand Palms, CA 92276 • (619) 343 -3456 • FAX (619) 343 -3845 A Public Agency Fly a — LA OUINT FORNIA 92263 . 1619) 664.2244 FAX (619) 664 -6.817 FROM: PLANNING 6 DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: oy Manager - �"' a Managementincipal *eral lic Works /Engineering Telephone lanner(s) _ F Marshal (NAJt) v-- wilding & Safety_ r Cable Vision &-SunUne Transit PAssociate Planner(s) r- of Commerce - i-�ltrans (District II) Assistant Agricultural Commission P>mer rial Irrigation City of Indian Wells t anning uthern California Gas City of Indio Director �esert Sands School Dist. w S Postal Service _Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Ery�ironmental Health Owner's Association sheriff's Department LA QUINTA CASE NO(S): - - /q..-4,_.r 9i - �(6 r; PROTECT DESCRIPTION: Xx?UA S 7 i4- -Vc/n p � eutFlPle G� PROTECT LOCATION: /7i.1 ; 04y Iii 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 effects on the environment which cannot please recommend the scope and focus of may be helpful. Please send your response by e U.s T maps /plans if not needed for your files. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La will have significant adverse be avoided through conditions, additional study(ies) which and return the Yod are invited to attend the Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Date: /t/o% Time: Contact Person: 4yS _1L Title: A&sec,Ara Comments made by: .lam Title: Llr�)VTN 1%W6f *V,—y Sr,• Date: %Z'q/ Phone: Agency /Division GLEN ). NEWMAN FIRE CHIEF RIVE1tSID: COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370 (714) 657 -3183 August 13, 1991 To: City of La Quints tt Planning Division Attention: Greg Trousdell - AUG 15 Re: Plot Plan 91 -466 14C Simon Plaza, Inc. Vr Lt, WINTA '�NNfNG & OEYF►G�y1 P� With respect to the condition of approval regarding the above referenced n, the Fire Department requires the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code .and /or recognized fire protection standards: 1. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 2. A combination of on -site and off-site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" x 4" x 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. PLANNING DIVISION 13 WDIO OFFICE O TEMECLJ A OFFICE 79.733 Country Club Drive, Suite F,1who, CA 92201 41002 County Cents Drive, Suite 225, Tearccula, CA 92M (619) 342-M • FAX (619) 775.2on ❑ R1VEMIDE OFFICE (714) 694.5070 • FAX (714) 694.5076 3760 12th Stmt, Rivcrsidq CA 92501 (714) 275.4777 • FAX (714) 369 -7451 t� prinred on recycled paper City of La Quinta 8/13/91 Re: PP 91 -466 Page 2. Simon Plaza, Inc. 5. Install a supervised waterflow fire alarm system as required by the Uniform Building Code. 6. Install a Hood Duct automatic fire extinguishing system. System plans must be submitted, along with a plan check/ inspection fee, to the Fire Department for review. 7. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA, Pamphlet /10, but not less than 2A10BC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. 8. Occupancy separation will be required as per the Uniform Building Code, 4503. 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 b Engineering Staff at (619) 342 -8886. Sincerely, RAY REGIS Chief Fire Department Planner By /d,,,,, Tom Hutchison Fire Safety Specialist 49ES VOST4 N Y � N W T H^ 6ULMAK fn United States Postal Service flo 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 2 ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AUtNCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (619) 3982651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS CDDEKAS, PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON, SECRETARY JOHN W.WFADDEN _ -- - -. - -- __ _ ,Augppt_,12, 1991 OWENMc000K _ 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: RECEivtu AUG 16 lqc- k-A I V Ur u1 VUiNTp Subject: Plot Plan 91 -466, Portion of north #"LNG &DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 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 R 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, &1a kc 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 "it 4 78-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA, CAUFORNIA 92268 - (419) 644 -2244 °f FAX (619) 664-6817 FROM /: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: �i� C y Manager - _- _ d e Management - incipal lic Works /Engineering a eral Telephone Rl-anner(s) F Marshal (Not) t/ � r Cable Vision y"Associate uilding & Safety un ne Transit Planner(s) _ Ch r of Commerce, __,- a trans (District-II) - _ Assistant - Agricultural- C6rvmission P a�merl rial Irrigation City of Indian Wells t anning Ehern California Gas CUY of Indio Director Sands School Dist. S Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: CV Archaeological Society t`' "`" Planning Department Property E ironmental Health — Owner's Association A U 1:' riff's Department _ CITY 0r A , LA QUINTA CASE NO(S) : PROJECT DESCRIPTION: rel/UA S PROJECT LOCATION: S r- e-6xl ear « �j.�ff�•� /ins / _ -�_�� The City of La Quinta Development Review Committee is conducting an initial �1t 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. v 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 406US% ��, 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: No-/ ,�sT/3$lS}�� Time: Contact Person: a S u- Title:oGAT.t Comments /ma Y e b s C/C O�c�i itle: Date &Lf// Phone:) T / /-4/L Agen /Division (Pbt 4 4 QuWA - - c 7 8-106 CALLE ESTADO — LA OUINTA. CALIFORNIA 92263 (619) 561.2246 FAX (6 19) 684-6617 FROM: PLANNING i DEVELOPMENT DIVISION DATE: .Y city Manager _ �i a Management �incipal L _ blic Works /Engineering a eral Telephone Fl anner(s) yMe Marshal (NAj t/ r Cable Vision k1k ociate uildinq i Safety un�ne Transit Planner(s) _1::fC`h.pber of Commerce - ,t- ltrans (District II) -Assistant Agricultural-Commission P er �rial Irrigation City of Indian Wells s�Ianni nq hern California Gas CUy of Indio Director A sert Sands School Dist. PIVS Postal Service Coachella Valley School Dist. Riverside County: _CV Archaeological Society Planning Department Property Ey�rironmental Health Owner's Association sheriff's Department LA QUINTA CASE NO(S) : �� 7 �( 4,,J PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AZW S �n Ai/f' /r% /yuU //�G� USe AUG 6 190' 1�}� UINTA �¢1� T Ci�Ti U�jTITION: 'NNING & 0 TA i A L! / 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 4,lonAf- 3. If you find that the identified impacts effects on the environment which cannot please recommend the scope and focus of may be helpful. Please send your response by 9u.S7T maps /plans if not needed for your files. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE meeting at La Date: N6 �1 Time: ,J25" will have significant adverse be avoided through conditions, additional study(ies) which and return the You are invited to attend the Quinta City Hall scheduled for: Contact Person avSD, u- Title: eAzIt:. 81791. ^, ,` Comments made by: Title: , LOY,_ Date: Phone: 77 y%Agency /DivisionZG -c- . STATE Of CA FORNIA - FAI ESS. TAM 1TATION ARID HOLISM AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11. P.O. BOX 85408. SAN DIEGO. 921865408 (619) 688 -6968 November 14, City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. 0. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell PETE WILSON. OoNmor -s ' ` P��Vj uNOV j a -RIV -111 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 tuming volumes at the SR- 111/Washington Street intersection when compared to those shown in the PSR/PR. Of particular concern is the eastbound SR -111 to southbound Washington Street right turn volume; the eastbound SR -111 through volume, and the northbound Washington Street to westbound SR -111 left turn volume. These volumes, as shown in the traffic impact study need to be resolved since they are approximately twice as high as those in the PSR/PR. The traffic growth rate factors used by the consultant may need to be adjusted at this location. The traffic study includes an intersection schematic for SR -111 at Washington Street (Figure 7) showing eight lanes on SR -111. This is not consistent with the Route Concept Report (RCR) for SR -111 and is probably unnecessary because the traffic volumes assumed in the study may be unable to reach the intersection due to upstream controls. The City may, however, elect to reserve additional right of way to allow for additional channelization on SR- 111 in the vicinity of Washington Street. The developer should be required to mitigate traffic impacts on SR -111 associated with the proposed development. Driveway access location from SR -111 to the proposed development should be prohibited, if possible, or limited to a single opening for right turning traffic only and should be located midway between adjacent intersections. City of La Ouinta November 14, 1991 Page 2 For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way requirements, please contact Bob Lowrie at (619) 688 -3211. if you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Jim Buksa of our staff at (619) 688 -6968. JESUS M. GARCIA District Director BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch cc: CRWest AKosup JBuksa T/P File STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS. TAM' TTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85408, SAN DIEGO, 92188-5408 (619) 688 -6968 PETE WILSON, Goven cEP September 11, 1991,,1- y U� U:, yuINTA Dr„71tlpkmGNT n[Ft 1 -RN -111 Washington Street PP 91 -466 City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell We have reviewed Plot Plan 91 -466 for Simon Plaza located at the 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 stag', at (619) 688 -6968. JESUS M. GARCIA - - -- - District Director By 7:z7e, C / BILL DILLON, Chief System Planning Branch cc: CRWest JBuksa T/P File September 27, 1991=_ -= F -: 91-224 Mr. Jerry Herman Planning Director City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estrado La Quinta, Ca.. 92253 Re: Simon Plaza Dear Mr. Herman: PLA&'N;N" Dt6kt KNT 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, INC. J n L. Sanborn JLS:lm Encl. c.c. Fred Simon - W /Encl. 255 N. El Cielo Road • Suite 315 • Palm Springs, California 92262 • (619) 325.2245 • (619) 325 -9426 • FAX (619) 325 -5130 FOR SIMON PLAZA CONDITIONS SEP 17 i9l CJTY OF LA QUINTA PLANNING 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. Qkpf ESS /o L. 1;�P 0E ,q ``�'y WA�,� t N0. 43880 J ev. c - 3o 93 / *� srgl O l V IV, E OF CAUF� U n i t H y d r o q r a o h A n a l y s i s Copyright (c) CivilCadd /CivilDesign, 1990, Version 2.1 Study-date 9 /26 /S1 ++++• H+++++++++ +-1- + + + + + + + + + + + + +- i- + +�- + + + + +-F +++ + + + +i- + + + + + ++ +. + + + + +t + +t + + + ++ Riverside County Synthetic Unit Hydrology Method RCFC & WCD Manual date - April 1978 Drainage Area 5.66 Acres _ 0.009 Spa. ,h1i. - Length along longest Watercourse ,600.00 Ft. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid 400,00 Ft. Length along longest watercourse'- 0.114 Mi. Length along longest watercourse measured to centroid 0.076 Mi. Difference in elevation = 1.50 Ft. Slope along watercourse = 13.2000 Ft. /Mi. Average Manning'= 'N' = 0.015 Lag time = 0.036 Hr. Lag time = 2.17 Min. 25% or lag tire. = 0.54 Min. 40% of lag time = 0.87 Min. Unit time 15.00 Min. Duration of storm = 24 Hour(s) Area rainfall data: Area(Acres)C11 Rainfall(In.)C ] - WeightingEl *23 5.66 3.50 - 19.81 Point rain (area 'averaged) 3.500 (In.) Areal adjustment factor = 100.00 3 Adjusted average point rain 3.500 (In.) RI Infil. rate Impervious Adj. Infil. Rate Area %. F (In /Hr) (Dec.%) (In /hr) (Dec.) (In /Hr) 77 . x ! 0.279 1 . 000 0.026 1 . i X00 0.02e Sum (F) 0.026 Area averaged mean soil loss (F) (In /Hr) _ 0.028 Minimum soil loss rate (In /Hr) _ 0.014 (for 24 hour storm duration) Soil low loss rate (decimal) = 0.800 ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- U n i t H y d r o g r a p. h Foothill S -Curve Unit Hydrograph Data ------------------------------------------7-----7-------------------- Unit time period Time % of lag Distribution . Unit Hydrograph (hrs) Graph % cfs- hrs /in --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 0.25o 690.666 80.717 4.6 2 0. 500 1381.332 19.283 1.1 Sum 100.09 Sum= 5.7 ---=-------------- ----------------------------------------------- - - - - -- (Hr .> Percent (in. /hr. Max | Low (in. /hr. 1 0�25 0.20 0.028 0.049 0 °22 0.01 2' 0,50 0.30 0.042 0.049 0.."S4 0.01 3 0.75 0.30 0.042 0.04B 0.034 0.01 4 t.00 ().40 0.056 0.048 --- 0.01 5 1 V.30 0.042 0.047 0.034 0.01 6 1.50 0.30- 0.042 ' 0.047' ` 0.034 0.01 7 1.75 0.30 0.042 0.046 0.034 0.01 8 2.80 0.40 0.056 0.045 --- 0.01 9 2.25 0.40 0.056 0.045 --- 0,01 10 2.50 0.40 0.056 0.044 --- 0.01 11 2.75 0.50 0.070 0.044 --- 0.03 12 3.00 �0.5{F �`0.070 0.043 13 3.25 0.50 0..70 0.043 14 3.50 0.50 0.070 0.042 --- 0.03 15 3.75 0.50 0.070 0.04 0.03 16 4.00 0.60. 0.084 0.041 --- 0.04 17 4.25 0.60 0'084 0.041 ' --- 0.04 18 4.50 0.70 0'098 0.040 --- 0.06 ' 19 4.75 0.70 0.098 ' 0.040 --- 0.06 20 5.00 0.80 0-112 0.039 --- � 0.07 � 21 5.25 0'60 . 0'084 0.039 --- 0.05 22 5.50 0.70 0.09B � 0.038 --- 0.06 23 5.75 0.80 0.112 0.038 --- 0.07 24 6.00 0.80 0.112 � 25 � . 6 25 . 0 90 0 126 . 0 037 ' . --- 0 09 . 26 6.50� 0.90 0.126 0.036 27 6.75 1.00 0.140 036 28 7.00 1.00 0.140 29 7.25 1.00 0.140 0.035 --- 0.11 30 7.50 1.10 0.154 0.034 --- 0.12 31 7.75 1.20 0.168 0.034 --- 0.13 32 8.00 1.30 0.182 0.033 --- 0.15 33 8.25 1.50 0210 0.033 --- 0.18 34 8.50 1.50 0.210 35 8.75 1.60 0.224 0.032 --- 0.19 ' 36 9.00 1.70 0'238 0.031 --- 0.21 37 9.25 1.90 0.266 0.031 --- 0.24 38 9.50 ' 2.00 0.280 0.031 --- 0.25 39 9.75 2.10 0.294 0.030 --- 0.26 40 10.00 2.20 0.308 0.030 --- 0.28 41 10'25 1'50 0'210 0029 42 10.50 1.50 0.210 0.029 --- 0'1B 43 10.75 2.00 0.2B0 0.02B -_- 0.25 44 11.00 2.00 0.28V 0.028 45 11.25 1.90 0.266 0.02B --- 0.24 46 11.50 1.90 0.266 0.027 --- 0.24 47 11.75 1.70 0.23B 0.027 4F3 12.00 1.80 0.252 0'026 --- 0.23 49 � 12.25 2.50 0.350 0.026 --- 0.32 50 12.50 2.60 0.364 0.026 --- 0.34 51 12.75 2.80 0.392 0'025 --- 0.37 5Z 13.00 2.90 0.406 0.025 --- 0.38 5Z 13.25 3.40 0.476 0.024 --- 0.45 54 13.50 3.40 0.476 0.024 --- 0.45 55 13.75 2.30 0.322 0.024 --- 0.30 56 14.00 2.30 0.322 0.02 3 --- 0.30 57 14.25 2.70 0'378 0.023 --- 0.36 5S. 14.50 2.60 0.364 0.023 --- 0.34 59 14,75 2.60 0.364 0.022 --- 0.34 80 15.00 2.50 0.350 0.022 --- 0.33 U 61 15.25 2.40 0.336 0.022 --- 0.31 8 o o.071 --- 0'30 o,o+ 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0. 0., � 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 11.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24-HOUR V. MOO v.vIv --- 67 16.75 0.30 0.042 0.020 --- 68 17.00 0.30 0.042 0.019 - --- 69 17.25 0.50 0.070 0.019 --- 70 17.50 0.50 0.070 0 19 --- 71 17.75 0.50 0.070 0.019 --- 72 18.00 0.40 0.056 0.018 --- 73 16.25 0.40 0.056 ' 0.018 --- 74 18.50 0.40 0.056 0.018 --- 75 18.75 0.30 0.042 0.017 --- 76 19.00 0.20 0.028 0.017 --- 77 19.25 0.30 0.842 0.017 --- 78 19.50 0.40 0.056 0.017 --- 79 19.75 0.30 0.042 -0.017 --� 80 . 20100 - 0.20 �'� 0.028 0.016 --- 81 20.25 0.30 0.042 0.016 --- 82 20.50 0.30 0.042 0.016 --- 83 20.75 ' 0.30 0.042 0.016 --- 84 21.00 0.028 {).015 --- 85 21.25 .0.20 0.30 ` 0.042 ' T).015 --- 86 21.50 � 0.20 0.028 0.015 --- 87 � �1.75 0.30 0.042 0.015 --- 88 22.00 0.20 0.028 0.015 --- 89 22.25 0.30 0.042 0.015 --- 90 22.50 0.20 0.028 0.015 --- 91 22.75 0.20 0.02B 0.014 --- 92 23.00 0.20 0.028 0.014 --- 93 23.25 0.20 0.028 0.014 --- 94 23.50 0.20 0,028 0.014 --- 95 23.75 0.20 0.028 0.014 --- 96 24.00 0.20 0.028. 0.014 --- n Sum = 100.0 Sum = Flood volume = Effective rainfall 2.85 (in.) times area 5.7 (Ac.)/12 = 1.3 Acre Feet Total soil loss = 0.65 (In.) ` Total soil loss = 0.305 Acre Feet Total ------------------------------------------------------ rainfall = 3.50(In.) o,o+ 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0. 0., � 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0,01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 11.4 -------------------------------------------------------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 24-HOUR STORM Runoff H y d r o g r a p h -------------------------------------------------------------------- Hydrograph in 15 Minute intervals (CFS) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Time(h+m) Volume(AF) Q(CFS) 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 _______________________________________________________________________ 0+15 0.0005 0.03 Q 0+30 0.0015 0.04 Q 0+45 0.0024 0.05 [J 1+ 0 0.0034 0.05 Q 1+15 0.0044 0.05 O 1+30 0.0054 0.05 Q | | | | 1+45 0.0064 0'05 Q \ | 21 0 0.0076 0.06 Q 2+15 0.0089 0.06 Q 2+30 0.0103 0407 Q | | | | 2+45 0.0130 0,1�; 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 4+ 0 0.0307 0'77 n 4 +45 i � .0492 5+ i} 0.0575 6 +151 0.0634 5+30 0.0102 5 +45 0.0766 6+ i> 0.0874 6+15 0.0977 6+,-,(:) i � . 1082 6 +45 0,1202 7+ t:r 0.1326 7 +15 0.1450 7 +30 0.1588 7 +45 11143- 8+ 0 0.1915 8 +15 0.2117 8+30 0.2327 +45 0.2550 9+ 0.2790 9+15 0.3060 9 +30 O. 3_I1 9 +45 0.3659 10 + () 0.3984 10+15 0.4219 10+30 0.4432 10 +45 0.4713 11+ i; C.).5010 11 +15 0.5294 0.5575 11 +45 0.58=1 12+ i t 0.6093 12 +15 0.x.453 12 +3 0 0.6848 12 +45 0.7274 13+ 'Q 0.7720 13 +15 0.6237 13+30 0.8769 13 +45 0.9156 14+ c i c i , ?508 14 +15 0.9913 14 +30 1.0319 14 +45 1.0721 15+ it 1.1111 15 +15 1.1465 15 + :�C) 1.1642 15 +45 1.2144 16+ ''_) 1 . i4ZZ 16 +15 1.2522 16 +30 1.2565 16 +45 1.2594 Of 0 1.2621 17 +15 1.2674 17 +3 o 1.2735 17 +45 1.2795 18+ i.r 1 1.2843 16 +15 1.2887 18 +30 1.2933 18 +45 1.2965 19+ 0 1.2980 � 19+15 1.3007 19 +30 1 .3o5 o 19 +45 1;3083. 20+ () 1 .3100 20 +15 1.3127 0.33 „ ' 0.4i � 10- it 29 _ . L 1 ' 0 I 1 , 0.33 1 I QV 0.41 :QV 0.43 1QV 0.49 1QV 0.51 1 ' Qv o.56 1 QV 1 0.60 1 QV 1 0.60 1. Q V 1 0.67 1' Q V I 0.75 1 Q V 1 1 0.83 ; Q V 1 �.. 0.98 1 Q V ; 1 1 1.01 1 Q V V 1 1.08 1 Q V 1 ; 1 1.16 1 Q V 1 1 1.31 1 Q v 1.41 1 Q v1 1.49' 1 Q V 1 1.57 1 Q 1 1.14 1 Q 1 V 1 1.03 3 1 Q 1 v 1 ' I 1 1.36 ; Q 1 V 1 1.44 1 Q 1 v 1 1 1 1.38 1 7 1 v ; 1 , i 1•3 !_ - 1 I 1 Q ! 1 V I 1 1 1.24 1 Q i v 1 I 1 1. 2 7 1 1 i it 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 I 1.74 1 Q 1 v1 1 1 1.91 1 Q 1 v 1 , ' 2.06 1 I Q 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 2.16 1 Q ; ; v _ 2.50 1 1 0 1 ' 1 �.i 1 . 1 1 1 2.58 , 0 1 V { 1 ' 1.87 1 0 1 1 v 1 1 1.70 1 0 1 1 v 1 1 1.96 1 0 1 1 V1 1 1.96 1 Q 1 1 V 1 1.95 1 Q 1 1 1v 1 1.89 Q 1 1 1 v 1 ' 1.81 1 Q j v 1 1.71 1 Q 1 1 1 v I 1.46 Q 1 ; V 1 . 4. 1 ( 1 ' Q 1 1 1 l V ) 1 I 0.43 1Q 1 1 1 V 1 0.21 Qv 1 1 1 I 0.14 Q 1 1 1 V 1 0 .13 Q � 1 1 V 1 0.26 10 I 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 0.29 1 Q 1 1 1 V 1 0.29 1 1 Q 1 1. 1 , , V v 1 , cr. 2Z j Q 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 r . a.. i 2 O. 1 1 I 1 1 , � ♦ 1 1 cr. .22 Q 1 / 1 1 V I 1 0.16 Q 1 1 1 V 1 Me Q 1 1 1 V 1 � :r . 1 : .. Q 1 1 1 1 i 1 V , 1 o.21 Q 1 1 1 1 , 0. 16 Q 1 1 1 V 1 0.08 Q 1 1 1 V 1 0.13 0 1 1 1 v 1 1 k) I 21 +15 1.X225 0.14 0 I 21 +30 1.3253 0.09 0 '21+45 1.:1282 0.14 0 ; 22+ 0 1.3301 4.U9 Q 22 +15 1.3331 0.14 Q 22 +3o 1.3349 0.09 Q 22 ++45 1 ; 3365 0.06 Q 23+ C) 1.3381- 0 .08 - Q. 23+15 1 .339.7 0.08 Q 23 +30 �.S 1 • �.J 3413 0.08 Q I I I I 1 23+45 1.3430 0 . 08 Q 24+ 0 1.3446 0.6e 0 24+15 1 .3450 0.02. 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 PTS15482 BEST, BEST & KRIEGER A PARTNEAM.I Mpi00.10 POW t2@9W- I COVCIUTC.AI LAWYERS ARTHUR L. UTTLEWORTH- DOUGLAS S. PHILLIPS' WILLIAM 0. OAHLING. JR. KENNETH R. WEISS 600 EAST TAHOWTZ CANYON WAY GLEN E. STEPHENS• ANTONIA GRAPHOS TERESA J. PRISTOJKOVIC J. CRAJG JOHNSON POST OFFICE BOX 2710 WILLIAM R. D.wout, GREGORY K. WILKINSON VICTORIA N. KING SUSAN C. NAUSS PALM WRINGS. CALJFORNIA 9226) BARTON C. GAUT• WTNNE S. FURTH MATT H. MORRIS CHRISTOPHER DODSON TELEPHONE (619) 323.7264 PAUL T. SELZER* DAVIO L. BARON JEFFREY V. DUNN MARK R. HOWE DALLAS HOLMES* VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS STEVEN C. D.BAUN BERNIE L. WILLIAMSON TELJECOPIER (619) 32"363 CHRISTOPHER L. CARPENTER' EUGENE TANAKA BRANT H. OVEIRIN ELAINE E. HILL RICHARD T. ANDERSON' BASIL 1. CHAPMAN ERIC L. GARNER WILLIAM J. ADAMS JOHN D. WAHLIN• • TIMOTHY M. CONNOR DENNIS M. COTA WANDA S. Mc NEIL MICHAEL D. HARRIS' VICTOR L. WOLF JULIE HAYWARD BIGGS KEVIN K. RANDOLPH W. CURT EALY• DANIEL E. OLIVIER RACHELLE J. NICOLLE EUGENIA J. MORE221 THOMAS S. SLOVAK* DANIEL J. McHUGH ROBERT W. HARGREAVES JAMES 8. GILPIN OF COUNSEL JOHN E. BROWN* HOWARD S. GOLDS JANICE L. WEIS JAMES M. KEARNEY JAMES B. CORISON MICHAEL T. RIDOELL• STEPHEN P. DEITSCH CHRISTIAN E. HEARN MARSHALL S. RUDOLPH RICHARD A. OSHINb' MEREDITH A. JURY! MARC E. EMPEY SHARYL WALKER KIM A. BYRENS RONALD T. VERA MICHAEL GRANT' JOHN R. ROTTSCHAEFER PATRICK W. PEARCE CYNTHIA M. GERMANO FRANCIS J. DAUM• MARON A. MUELLER KIRK W. SMITH - MARY E. GILSTRAP - - -" . -. . —_ ___.a0�a'T[O b NCW vt)A� NCVADA -. - ANNE T. THOMAS* J. MK:HAEL SUMMEROUR KLYSTA J. POWELL GINEVRA C. MARUM WAl.r.OTON. Oz. COLWT OF CLAMO 0. MARTIN NETHERY• JEFFERY J. CRANDALL JASON 0. DABAREINER DANIEL C. PARKER. JR. GEORGE M. REYES SCOrT C. SMITH HAYDN WINSTON NGUYEN 0. PHA/ WILLIAM W. FLOYD. JR. JACK B. CLARKE DAVID A. PRENTICE PAUL 0. GIBSON MICHAEL A- CRISTE• JEANNETTE A. PETERSON KYLE A. SNOW CRAIG S. PYNES GREGORY L. HARDKE BRIAN M. LEWIS MARK A. EASTER CHARLES E. KOLLER Off ICES IN KENDALL H. M.c VEY BRADLEY E. NEUFELD DIANE L. FINLEY CLARK H. ALSOP GEOFFREY K. WILLIS MICHELLE OUELLETTE RAYMOND BEST 0868.1997) RIVERSIDE (714)686.1450 DAVID J. ERWIN• KANDY LEE ALLEN PETER M. BARMACK JAMES H. KRIEGER (19) 3.1975) RANCHO MIRAGE (619)568.263 1 MICHAEL J. ANOELSON• ELISE K. TRAYNUM DAVID P. PHIPPEN EUGENE BEST 0893.19811 ONTARIO (714) 989 -8584 •A PftWEVSK>N I COOVORATON fW September 5, 1991 CITY Us L;=, 1'11A John J. Pena, Mayor tU City of La Quinta ��ghlh!�,n e DEPT. 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 PTS15482 LAW OFFICES Or 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 PIS15482 LAW OrrIC[S 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 PTS15482 LAW OFFICES Or BEST, BEST & KRIEG' 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, - ss� 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 PTS15482 July 22, 1986 Mr. John J. Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear John: I would like to acknowledge your correspondence of July 18, 1986, in reference to the road design of Highway 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, SIMON MOTORS, INC. red J. Simon President FJS:mec CC: City Council Ron Kiedrowski, City Manager Larry Stevens, Community Development Director Robert Weddle, City Engineer • ' John Sanborn, Sanborn/Webb Paul Selzer, Best, Best & Krieger Bob Nichols, Pomona First Federal "The Home of Personcl Service" P. O. Box 1461, 78 -611 Highway 111, La Quinta, Califomia 92253 (619) 346 -2345 �NVl.�rty' 7 8-1 05 CALLE ESTADO LA QUINTA, 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 financing feasibility study and, improvement plans in its efforts corridor to at least a four -lane precise alignment study and a following that, experts to prepare to improve the Washington Street condition as soon as possible. In the event that your desire to secure approvals for and develop the Washington Street frontage parcels would occur prior to the completion of these studies, the City will attempt to resolve the MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 Fred Simon, President Simon Motors, Inc_. July 18, 1986 = __ Page Z. precise design issues as part of any development application that would be submitted for the affected parcels. It is expected that the general comments on the Sanborn /Webb revisions would provide adequate guidance to prepare site development designs suitable for submittal. In preparing those plans, you should feel free to work with Larry Stevens, Community Development Director, and Bob Weddle, City Engineer, in order to minimize the impact of changes that typically occur through the development review process. It is hoped that this response gives you adequate assurance that we can work in concert in resolving mutual concerns along this very important corridor. I believe that we can achieve our common goals best by continuing to work together. Your interest in resolving any differences and continuing to progress towards mutually acceptable solutions is appreciated. Sincerely, .✓ ohn J . en /GY Mayor G 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 Federa 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. BERatAN , JR . Vice Chairman of the Boa d of Directors of Pomona Firs Federal Savings and Loan Association WGB,JR:ps Administrative Offices: 350 South Garey Avenue • P.O. Box 1520 • Pcrnona. Cabtorn a 91769 • (714) 623.2323 • (213) 625.7666 • 1818) 964 -7800 • (7141 972.0521 M= ® PONTIAC TRUCKS� June 26, 1936 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA- 00 Post Office Box 1504 L 110 La Quinta, CA. 92253 p S Dear John: � Enclosed is a work -up that Mr. John Sanborn has completed after visiting with Judith Cox and Larry Allen of the City Council, and Larry Stevens of your Planning Department. The plan submitted to you on June 13, 1986, revised the original plan developed by B.S.I. and your Planning Department, which severely cut the property on the corner of Washington and Highway 111. After submitting our revision and attending the projected traffic study by the Groves, Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Selzer visited with the three individuals mentioned above, 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 I additional questions. Sincerely, SIMON MOTORS, INC. alad lYIdX>,y�Q, . Fred JSimon President The Home of Personal Service" cc: Nichols P. O. Box 1461, 78 -611 Highway 1 11, La Quinta, California 92253 (619) 3 J'on lzer Stevens iilotars June 13, 1986 Mr. John Pena, Mayor CITY OF LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA. 92253 Dear Sir: •� . Giii :tlll)c't� 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 Ill. in future years, and that in essence, is what their study and your planner have done with the configurations on the current plan. Our recommendations have many advantageous points that should be taken into consideration. 1) Adequately covers the traffic project for Washington Street. 2) Allows for stacking on the corner. 3) Eliminates severe loss of property by owners of corner. 4) Reduces cost to City tremendously. 5) Logically allows solutions to problem, so we can proceed with developing the corner immediately. , 6) With the corner developed, we can begin to bring revenue into the City, rather than taking revenue out of the City's coffers. 7) Continues to solve the problem for the people at "Point Happy ". "The Home of Personal Service" P. O. Box 1461, 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 0 Sincerely, SIMON MOTORS, Fred J Presid I I. :-t rt t % * T . r..•,: 1. 11 - C-*t-• L.Slil' r. C C L -.7, V C r z IT C A.. J, .! C /.A: ;AIR ry k CLA;•Vc L FL C:Z:, A - C ;/ : 6.,. rT7. I. GC . : 0 1., � .. 1A C_ , 14.4a_Ef IC(;[ L VJLO.CGLE -A CCvr.C1r-I.I1V-4 Apr 1 25, 19 0 6 cit...; ccuncil C` t j. y of La Qi:inta La Q-1inta, CA 92253 LAW arriCCS or Br:*s•r. DEST & KRICGEII EGO EAST TAHO',-11Z.FASCALLUM WAY F. C'• CGX 27fO f,FRW 3S, CLALIVOnIIJA 92264 7 ELEMIONC1.6i9; 3.5-10ZGA ILLLY 71-2173E- and 31e-,-,,,bers of the Council: iFILE PoVCPtiLiC Crr:^E p r- CCr 1C1+ (7:4, CL r- - 14 F'L?4CA•-S WPAC-t f_-rICC �OCOZPC, L( C I.. C t.7) ` C C C s. Cr J.-Cs N. rr. cf.[ r This office represents the 3S Co.mpany and Simon Family Partn-2Y_,1-.2Lp ul-.3 are the o-.,,ncrs ojE' Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 and Parcel 1-,'ED 18415 respectivel--,-, and this letter is w-zitten in cornection - .th you---- proposed INIashington S1--reet Corrieo-f Annendment, to the CEneral p 1 an. We hl-vzn been informed the -,-- both the City Council and the Pia --nim-, have held Publi---, 1 g 7 .earins in connection with the G-r-.--eral C> that Vro City Cour.xil has adopted that to Ur.fort.unately, neither the 3S Comparty T:.,-Ir the ra-J.ly PL:?:,-.ncrsj-:Lp received nel,:ice of any Public to say, m.•? c?_j_e:nt,_7 object vc-.'lc-,�ontly to the proposF.1 L)n- C r C to t 1, a f o 11 c- r.:- )-I O'c . c %.0 W017•.? V-,-j'L E.` Lven prop&�_ 1? of the Io. (`Ltv Council; and C, •,,I I 1 I , 0 I - - - - )T 0. 0 , 'a sll �L-On C,) c k--,- and th? Se", � h Sid C, i("r.. h,1S no!,- 1%C:C-11 3. T',-:0 !'Urclell Of tile PVOPOSZ�l fills entirely upon tho cr-mers e:-.st of 1-:1 ,ishingM-, St1-'(?CL: While ti-io benefi,_- ;-.,Is solelv to i J.'1111 - the o.�-;,j-.cj):s of property test 0•: VI`z1_h:*,_:.-.,, Lon SCi:ect; an-J -.a , -o -** - '- - tok.1 in t1 study art' si pii_.. • sot forth im. C- fors to rurcillse I-Cccivoc. b" I City Cotmcil. April l`i, 1986 P a L e Two exis ;tcnce of the General Pl,,in Amc,nd7.ent so si.gnifi.cantl� clouds the ti -'-le to t)-je properties o-,:ned by my cliei is as to rial:e it unm� rket-abl -e.. In view of the foregoing v,? would respectfully request that the City reopen the Hearings on this natter after properly giving notice to each otner entitled thereto in order that we may have ample opportunity to present evidence and alternatives to those plans reco;-1,- ,ended by the Banning Co- ,�»issi.on and apparently adopted by the City Council in its S,)Lcifl.c flan Nu-.-iber 86 -007. I-Mile we wish to cooperate with the City in its - ndeavors to improve the area, I arl sure you N..ill understand ou-_ concern when x•re fo-.:nd out after the fact that after having already dedicated 36 feet along 1•7ashington Street, five feet along Highway 111 and installing curbs, gutters, side,,.,al }:s and traffic signals all at significant expense al-A all within the last three years, the City nova wishes to tear out all of that work and render valueless at least two of the parcels ..ith Parcel Map Nu:2ber 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 matter. Yours very truly, BEST, BEST & KRIEGER T. elzer P'i S t s CC: Joan Sanborn Fr e ci S ir;lon 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 'r 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 < same as required for a front setback. Each side setback 0- Q shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing CrI 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 A,_ feet in height,.unless a height up to seventy -five feet is L 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 Section 9.90.01 Generally. 9.90.015 rpose. 9.90.020 Pe fitted use . 9.90.030 Acce ory u s permitted. 9.90.040 Commer 'a and multifamily plot plan review require 9.90.050 Design ev' w required. 9.90.060 Deve pment tandards. 9.90.070 Su ones. 9.90.071 -C "The core ubzone. 9.90.072 -V -P "The park" s zone. 9.90.07 C -V -S "South" subzon 9.90. 4 C -V -N "North" subzone. 9.9 .080 C_ VT' 186 -79 (La Quinta 5/89) Excerpt from the adopted General Plan - Urban Design Component POLICY 6.5.4 SPECIAL GATEWAY TREATMENTS AT MAJOR ENTRIES TO THE CITY AND TO THE DOWNTOWN SHALL INCLUDE.THE FOLLOWING: ' HIGHWAY 111 /WASHINGTON STREET — ISLAND LANDSCAPING INCLUDING A MONUMENT SIGN AND OTHER SPECIAL -- _ FEATURES. y r r r r i ' 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 FOLLOWS: MAJOR AND PRIMARY ARTERIALS — 20 FEET HIGHWAY 111 — 50 FEET OTHER STREETS —.10 FEET TRADE —OFFS FOR IMAGINATIVE DESIGNS MAY BE CONSIDERED. Design Review Board Minutes October 2, 1991 0 6. Th a being o furt er dis ssion, it was ove b Chai an ' e and conded Boar embe Curt to ad t Min to Mo n 91,, 031 red mmendin appr al to a Pla 'ng mmis n su 'ect\ to the Ap licant w king 'th St on c tern 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 sert Vil s, Inc. or apl proposed sing story ap rtment c plex. 1. ssociate nner G g Trous 11 pres ted the co tained in a Staff port, a y of w 'ch is on Plan 'ng and D elopmen Departm t. 2. Mr. Cra Bryant, A licant dressed a Boar e€ backaroun of the pro osed p 'ect . DRBMIN -10/2 3 of a orma le in rding 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. stor_y..:(20 feet). Along the_ north property line .of-the tract= all --units shal-l.- be one - 6tory (201) except lots 117 and 135 which may be 2 story. 2. Tract 18915, Palm Royale (1983) - Approved by the County of Riverside in 1983. Two story buildings were allowed, however, only a few units are located within 150 feet of Washington Street. 3. Tract 23971, Deane Homes (1990), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). No two story buildings are allowed within 150 feet of Washington Street. 4. Tract 23269, La Quinta Highland (1988), All dwelling units within 100 feet of Fred Waring and Adam Street shall be limited to one story. All dwelling units within 100 to 150 feet shall be limited to one story (20 feet) as approved by the Planning Commission. 5. Tract 23268, Acacia (1988), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet) . 6. Tract 24517, Waring /Adams Venture (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 7. Tract 23913, Quinterra (1988), 80% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 8. Tract 25290, Rancho Ocotillo (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 9. Tract 19903, La Quinta Palms (1984), One story single family homes were built. 10. Tract 25953, Topaz (1989), 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of Miles Avenue -shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 11. Tract 22982, Cactus Flower (1988), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Fred Waring and Dune Palms Road shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 12. Tract 24208, LQ Association /Williams (1989), The R1 Zoning Standards. apply. 13. Tract 24950, Chong Lee (198.9), 758 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 - sha -11 -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,Commiss.ion - -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 -shat- l - -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 -). 36.1 Specific Plan 84 =003, Orchard- (T-9 -90); =75% of all dwell bq-- = - units within 156-feet of 50th Avenue shall be limited to one story (20 feet). 37. Specific Plan 85 -006, Oak Tree West, All dwelling units within 200 feet of the property line or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet) within a limited, defined area. 38. Tract 21880, Time Valley Land (ext. 3, 1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of 52nd Avenue, Avenida Bermudas, and the tract boundaries shall be limited to one story. Other,related cases are: Specific Plan 85- 005A and B; 52nd Avenue realignment, 1985, and the Washington Specific Plan (SP 86 -007, 1989). 39. Tract 26855, Kanlian (1991), Unapproved; No action at this time. 40. Tract 26718, Hansch (1991) , Unapproved;, No action at this time. 41. Specific Plan 90 -016, Landmark Land (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of boundary of the site or public street shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units are limited to two story (30 feet). The City Council has not reviewed this case at this time. 42. Tract 24507, Steven Brummel (1990), Building heights were not addressed in this development approval. Existing R- 1 Zone requirements would apply. 43. Tract 26972, Dr. Darr (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (18 feet). The City Council has not approved this case at this time. 44. Tract 27187, Pudney (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (18 feet). This case has not been approved by the City Council. 45. Tract 24774, Vista Development (190R/90), Building heights were not addressed in the tract map approval. 46. Specific Plan 90- 020 /Tract 26472 /Tract 26473, 75% of all dwelling units within 150 feet of 52 Avenue shall be limited to one story (18 feet), whereas, two story homes shall not exceed 25 feet in overall height. 47. Specific Plan 90 -018, Tracts 26008 and 26009, Vista Development (1989/90), The specific plan addressed 20 foot high buildings for this area. 48. Specific Plan 83 -002, PGA West (1989), Amend. 1, A - The portion of the area designated for six story (72 feet) height ._-south of the Airport- Blvd. - _-alignment shall _be deleted. B - All residential units shall -be limited to a max. of two stories, not to exceed 35 feet. C - The hotel shall be limited to a max. height of six stories; and the other related buildings, not attached to the hotel, within the Village Core shall be limited to two stories. The original Specific Plan applies and allows one story buildings (28 feet) within 300 feet or more of a public arterial. 49. Tract 25500 (Madison Street, south of 54th), Sunrise Desert Partners (1990), Amendment 1, Single story homes were approved. Note: Numerous Tracts have been.approved within the PGA West development per SP 83 -002, however, the only two story units in the project are west of PGA Boulevard. 50. Tract 26769, Qualico (1991), All dwelling units within 150 feet of Monroe Street shall be one story (22 feet). 51. Tract 27224, Madison Estates /Seastar (1991), All dwelling units shall be limited to one story (21.feet). This case has not been reviewed by the City Council. 52. Specific Plan 90 -015, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units shall not exceed 30 feet. The plan has not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the Planning Commission). 53. Specific Plan 90 -017, Landmark (1991), All dwelling units within 200 feet of tract boundary or public street frontage shall be limited to one story (20 feet). All other units shall not to exceed 30 feet. This case has not been approved by the City Council (as recommended by the Planning Commission). PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 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 1 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: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director City of La Quinta, California RESOPC.053 KATIE BARROWS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California 2 G PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ANNOUNCING FINDINGS AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND OFF - STREET PARKING PROVISIONS OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE CASE NO. VAR 91 -019 - SIMON PLAZA, INC. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 22nd day of October, 1991, the 26th day of November, 1991, 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 La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC), to allow a reduction in the setback requirements and deviation in the Off - Street Parking code, more particularly described as: NORTH 1/2 SECTION 30, T.5.S., R.7.E. APN: 617 - 020 -020 THROUGH 025 WHEREAS, said Variance request has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended and adopted by City Council Resolution 83 -68) , in that the Planning Director conducted an initial study, and has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to justify the granting of said Variance: 1. The strict application of the building setback requirements to the subject property will deprive the property owner of receiving an economic return on their development investment if the structures are not permitted, as described. The purpose and intent of the setback standards is to provide design guidance but requirements may be reasonably attained by special conditions of approval. 2. The Variance would not constitute the granting of any special privileges inconsistent with limitations on other similarly zoned property in the area if the Applicant was allowed to deviate from Zoning Code provisions because the property is irregular in shape. 3. The development of the property will not affect the continued enjoyment of the property to the east (Simon Motors) because both properties are owned by the same entity. The architectural character of the multiple story buildings at this intersection will promote view corridor windows through the project thus creating interesting focal points for the project and for the City in general. The design will create a unique setting for this area. RESOPC.062 4. The Conditions of Approval will assure that the integrity of the Washington Street Specific Plan and General Plan will be upheld and this action will not negatively affect adjacent parcels. 5. The Variance request is consistent with the City's General Plan Urban Design Program (Policy 6.5.8) which provides allowance for imaginative design solutions which proposes variation in walls, setbacks, and buildings. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of the Environmental Assessment 91 -211 which indicated that approval of the Variance would not constitute a significant impact on the environment and hereby approves a Negative Declaration of environmental impact. 3. That it does hereby grant said Variance 91 -019 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions ( Exhibit "All). PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 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.062 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL EXHIBIT "A" VARIANCE 91 -019 - PROPOSED SIMON PLAZA JANUARY 14, 1992 CONDITIONS: 1. The Variance shall become null and void if not used in conjunction with the development of the property pursuant to Plot Plan 91 -466. 2. All requirements of the Uniform Building Code shall be met. 3. The front yard setback on Highway 111 as measured from the ultimate street right -of -way, shall be 35 feet for the Bowling Alley complex, 35 feet for the off - street parking spaces and 35 feet for the Restaurant /Bank building. 4. The average setback distance on Washington Street shall be 20 feet, as measured from the future property line, for any proposed building. RESOPC.062 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLOT PLAN 91 -466 - PROPOSED JANUARY 14, 1992 SIMON PLAZA * Modified by Staff after the Design Review Board meeting. GENERAL 1. The development of the property shall be generally be in conformance with the exhibits contained in the file for PP 91 -466, unless amended otherwise by the following conditions. 2. The approved plot plan shall be used within one year of the final approval date; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. "Be used" means the beginning of substantial construction which is contemplated by this approval, not including grading which is begun within the one year period and is thereafter diligently pursued until completion. A one year time extension may be requested as permitted by Municipal Code. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage or sales displays without specific approval of the Planning Commission. 4. All exterior lighting shall be shielded and directed so as not to shine directly on surrounding adjoining properties or public rights -of -way. Light standard type with recessed light source shall also be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Exterior lighting shall comply with Outdoor Light Control Ordinance and off - street parking requirements. 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 impacts on building interior areas from perimeter streets, and impacts on the proposed abutting and provide mitigation of noise as alternative mitigation CONAPRVL.037 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 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 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 Conditions of Approval Plot Plan 91 -466 January 14, 1992 L. A master sign program shall be approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the proposed building structures. CITY FIRE MARSHAL 26. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3500 gpm for a 3 hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. Fire flow is based upon all buildings being equipped with automatic fire sprinklers. 27. A combination of on -site and off -site Super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/211), 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 2AlOBC in rating. Contact certified extinguisher company for proper placement of equipment. CONAPRVL.037 6 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 45 -foot curb return. C. Applicant shall dedicate the required right of way within ten (10) days after receipt of land conveyance documents from the City. 38. Applicant shall provide a fully improved landscaped setback area of noted minimum width adjacent to the following street right of way: A. Washington Street - 20 -feet wide; B . Highway 111, 50 feet wide; C. Simon Plaza, 10 feet wide 39. Applicant shall vacate vehicle access rights.to all streets from the project site except for three locations as proposed by the Applicant as shown on the site plan drawing. 40. Applicant shall reimburse City for design and construction cost for all street improvements to be installed by the City located east of the Washington Street Specific Plan Centerline and contiguous to the project site. The new improvements include street widening, curb and gutter, asphalt concrete overlay, raised median island with landscaping and hardscape, 8 -foot wide sidewalk, traffic striping and signing, along with all appurtenant incidentals and improvements needed to properly integrate and join together the new and existing improvements. 41. Applicant shall reimburse City for 5% of the cost to design and install a new traffic signal at the Washington Street /Highway 111 intersection. CONAPRVL.037 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. 4.6. 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 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. CONAPRVL.037 11 w r, DATE: PROJECT: � PLANNING COMMISSIO 1 PH_3 STAFF REPORT �, CapW DECEMBER 1.0, 1991 (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 22 & NOVEMBER 26, 1991 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 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. 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 001 p 4 DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The proposed +5.5 acre site is comprised of six parcels. The flat and undeveloped parcels were created by the division of land under Parcel Map 18418 in 1982. The property has frontage on 3 streets with 650 feet along Washington Street, 700 feet along Highway 111, and 180 feet along Simon Drive. The site elevation along Washington Street is approximately 60 feet above sea level. The site is improved with street improvements. However, additional widening is necessary on Washington Street to conform with the City's adopted Washington Street Specific Plan Alignment program. A future raised median island is proposed for both Washington Street and Highway 111. INITIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Prior to November 27, 1991, building types similar to applicant was pursuing a six versus the new proposal five and open parking on the top (Prior to November 27, 1991): the developer had proposed a mixture of the attached plans. However, the level parking structure on the property level structure (basement, 3 covered, level). NEW DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 53 pk. spaces C. Bowling Alley (3 sp /Alley)= 120 pk. spaces 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. 002 c INITIAL BUILDING HEIGHTS (Prior to November 27, 1991): The proposed building heights for the project were: 1. Restaurant /Bank: 26 -foot building + 22 -foot tower = +48 -feet 2. Offices along Washington Street: 29 -foot building 37 -foot building & tower 3. Offices along Simon Drive: 22 -feet (2 st.) & 49 -feet (4 st.) 4. Bowling Alley & office: 26 -feet to 40 -feet 5. Parking structure: 47 -feet NEW DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: On November 27, 1991, the applicant submitted a new development plan for the site. It includes revisions which include reducing the parking structure to four levels (with one story below grade), reducing the four story building on Simon Drive to two stories overall, minor architectural modifications, reduction in the amount of office square footage, and a reduction in the number of on -site parking spaces. The proposed building heights for the project are: 1. Restaurant /Bank: 26 -foot building + 22 -foot tower = +48 -feet 2. Offices along Washington Street: 29 -foot building 37 -foot building & tower 3. Offices along Simon Drive: 28 -feet to 31 feet (2 story) 4. Bowling Alley & office: 26 -feet to 40 -feet 5. Parking structure: 37 -feet (four levels above ground) ARCHITECTURE: The project architect, Mr. Merlin J. Barth, of Anaheim, has 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.). 003 CIRCULATION /PARKING PLAN: The developer has proposed one access driveway on each public street. The driveways on Highway 111 and Washington Street will service the proposed courtyard guest parking lot (approximately 91 parking spaces). The driveways lead to the parking garage located at the southeast corner of the site. The parking garage will house approximately 480 cars. The developer has prepared a traffic study to address the developmental impacts of the project on abutting City streets, and the cumulative impacts the project may have on the future level of service of Washington Street /Highway 111. Discussion on the traffic study will occur later in this report. VIEW CORRIDOR: The City's General Plan discusses site views as an important element. of projects which have frontage on major streets within the City. Policy 6.5.7 states that "....along primary and secondary street image corridors the City shall establish appropriate building height limits to assure a Low Density character and appearance ". The City's policy has been that no building greater than one story in height shall be built within 150 feet of the future street property line. This standard has been in effect for the last few years and has been a condition on all of the development cases along Washington Street. The attached plan does not meet this provision, and the developer has requested a waiver from the policy. A letter from Best, Best and Krieger is attached to justify the request. STORMWATER RETENTION': The on -site storm water retention study from the developer is attached to the Environmental Assessment. It should be noted that much of the site is devoted to impervious materials (buildings and parking). The developer has requested that the City assist them in the development of an off -site drainage system. VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUIRED: In the initial submittal, the architect did not meet the side yard requirements of the CPS Zone District for the east side of the project (i.e. parking structure). The standard states that any building which is higher than 35 feet (up to 50 feet) shall have a minimum property line setback of not less than two feet for each one foot above 35 feet. However, the new submittal (dated November 27, 1991) would meet the CPS requirements. The only outstanding 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). i 004 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS: The Design Review Board met on October 2, 1991, and although, there was not a lot of discussion of the overall project, the Committee did express their views on two items: A. WASHINGTON STREET BUILDING HEIGHTS Staff recommended a one story (22 -feet) height for the buildings along Washington Street within 150 feet of the future property line. The Board however felt differently and justified a height higher than that recommended by Staff because the value of the land dictates a need to develop a dense project and the two -story building will buffer the proposed 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 acceDtina water run -off from saved surfaces. 4. Any proposed parking, lot lighting plan should be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to building plan check. A photometric study should be developed which analyzes 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. 006 w - ^ I - - STAFF COMMENTS (Issues): A. PARKING STRUCTURE V 140 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. nmwc�c.nnm ncn /nn M One way to rectify the setback problem on Washington Street would be to shift the buildings to the east onto the proposed property line. D. SINGLE STORY BUILDINGS ON WASHINGTON STREET The City's General Plan currently has a policy which encourages single story buildings along major arterials within the City. This policy has been utilized for the projects along Washington Street. Generally, the City has conditioned projects to be one story but the height of the structure has varied on a case -by -case basis. As noted earlier, the Design Review Board has indicated they feel comfortable with allowing a two -story project which should not exceed 28 feet in height. This type of recommendation would definitely set a new precedence for the City and for Washington Street in general. Staff would rather have the Planning Commission debate the merits of the height of a building but not allow a two story building on Washington Street within 150 feet of the new property line. In order to facilitate review of this matter, staff has prepared a city wide building height survey which lists the development approvals for the City of La Quinta. E. TRAFFIC STUDY: The traffic study by MGA, was initially submitted on October 18, 1991, for the project proponent. A copy of the report was also mailed to the District 11, Caltrans office. The Engineering Department requested revisions to that report 1nd.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 pro.j_ect 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. cirAr 'DDT ncn it a -o 7 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 intersection with full access (left turns and right turns) for entering and exiting vehicles. Separate lanes should be provided for exiting vehicles (right and left turns). 7. Pavement markings are required to indicate the direction of flow at all three. driveways, along with suitable traffic controls installed per City guidelines. 8. The intersection of Highway 111 and Washington Street requires periodic monitoring to check traffic volumes, cycle times, and phasing sequence in order to maintain at least LOS "D: or ICU value below /equal to 0.9. 9. The intersection of Highway 111 and Simon Drive, with cumulative traffic volumes, meets signal warrants. On November 18, 1991, Staff received comments on the proposed traffic study from Caltrans. A copy of the letter is in the Environmental Assessment. The letter was based on the initial traffic report. However, many of their comments are still appropriate. One major change since the initial report was the number of travel lanes on Highway 111 has been reduced from 8 to 6. This. change is .consistent with the City's existing General Plan and Washington Street Specific Plan. Another comment was the proposed driveway location on Highway 111 and its relationship to Washington Street. The driveway is approximately 300 -feet from the intersection. The recommendation of Caltrans was to permit right turn movements into the site or to move the driveway to the easterly side of the project. In discussion with the developer, they state that since a raised median will be developed on Highway 111 a right -turn in and right turn out access driveway would not affect traffic circulation in this area. The City is comfortable that the plans as proposed will work adequately provided deceleration and acceleration lanes are installed for each driveway entrance and certain measures are taken to prohibit vehicle parking along the north /south through driveway to insure traffic stacking will not block vehicle movement from Highway 111 into the site. The Engineering Department has reviewed the attached document and will present their comments at the meeting. However, their recommended conditions are attached. 'ALTERNATIVE DESIGN SOLUTION: One avenue for the developer to consider would be to shift the development to the easterly property line. This would eliminate the setback problem on Washington Street. Another design change we would encourage would be to eliminate the two story office building on Washington Street, this would reduce the overall project size for 167,800 square feet to approximately 135,000 square feet, thus bringing a majority of the project into conformity with the General Plan policy of "Low Density" development on primary and secondary image corridors but the parking structure would still have a portion of its structure inside the 150 -foot height limit standard. emaprnum ncn /r•c -e- 001 A one story structure will create view windows through the site thereby enhancing the City's desire to encourage low density development along primary image arterials. Staff would further request that the developer explore other subsurface parking areas, off -site parking arrangements or reduce the building square footage to conform with the City's minimum standards. CONCLUSION: In summary, staff does not support the variance request. However', the City's General Plan (Policy 6.5.8) states that the City can consider trade -offs in the setback requirements provided imaginative designs are considered. The Planning Commission could permit a variance if the Commission can make findings to support the recommendation. Further, Staff would not support the office complex on Washington Street within 150 -feet of the property line because the buildings are too massive, too close to the street, and would degrade the Washington Street corridor. The City's General Plan (Urban Design Section) states the City should encourage appropriate building heights along primary corridors to enhance the City's image and enhance its character. The City has felt that all buildings should be single story in character but the height of the structure has varied based on the project design and its relationship to abutting projects. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Planning Commission deny Variance 91 -019, subject to the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 91 -466, subject to the attached conditions; or, 2. That the Planning Commission approve Variance 91 -019, subject to the findings contained herein. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission approve by Minute Motion, Plot Plan 91 -466, subject to the attached conditions; or, 3. Continue the project until the Applicant can restructure the development to meet the design guidelines of the City. Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Large Plans 3. Reduced Plans 4. Environmental Assessment with Agency comments 5. Traffic Study date stamped November,. 1991 6. Letter stamp dated September 9th from Best, Best and Krieger 7. Zone District Excerpt (CPS Zone) 8. General Plan Excerpt 9. Design Review Board Minutes 10. City wide building height survey 11. Draft Resolution 91- , Variance 91 -019 (Denial) (Approval) 12. Draft Conditions of Approval, PP 91 -466 010 cmavrPPT ngn /rc -in- Vacant Plaza La Quinta' Parking Point Happy Ranch Beef & \ Brew d Q Q Existing Tract Homes Washington Street Frontage Road Existing,,Traffic Signal Vacant Land NA Raised Median 4 w Vacant Building I� II II 11 II II II it RIGHT 1 I I 1 TURN 1 I I 1 ONLY LANE (TYPICAL) 11 11 FAR SIDE Bus ZONE (TYPICAL) TYPICAL J v d } F TYP. I I I Y 1P. ; 3 ¢ 11 11 O' CROSS SECTION 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ¢ 1 I I I 12' 1 .1 11 1 1 SECTION CASE MAP CASE NO.. Plot Plan 91 -466 Specific Plan 86 -007, Resol. 86 -14 (Exhibit) WASHINGTON STREET /HIGHWAY 111 INTERSECTION WIDENING 11 s) �,e i1r e � r r ,)r�T if ) � �-� -- — � )e r. ._ -_ _- -- •)a r •i �� Q'^�:�`� x. '.�� . -. iooe• _ ....r...: • —a_ �� /t!� �• Sys' t Y _ �.__ -_.. - -. _'�'� A►�- _ .3a_Gf c'�, �'t.i U luol C� ,N -VI+ /\ I I O \ � /WHO \ '.- [r►. �� i ' , � � , � � �T L16 9 v Cl REC TIE ST AREA fS 54 it ''.,� •. - � � � '_ ``+ ' , 1` ' \ g � � see •\ � �_ r � I WIN I %JF &:Pl %duJIVIIA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT T. li f'1 EXHIBIT � P ASE NO @ 0 I ;mi DI w ea Ff I NINNYId LN3WIdvdla 1, ) � jl';) VINIno vi 40.03 KOK 1 _1�'ON3SV3 jjGlHX3 71-T-p-l-Ij I-ril f. IA n4i 77. Si I T 1� L Z noN ON 3SVo A 7 {. A .4 Vacant r Existing - ,Traffic Signal Vacant Land Plaza La Quinta' Parking Point Happy Ranch Beef & Brew Vacant Building w d C T Existing Tract Homes Washington Street Frontage Road �--- Raised Median CASE MAP CASE No. SIMON PLAZA PROJECT LOCATION MAP ORTH SCALE: NTS i J s S'S SI.t Mrs= _T7Z • s��•17 t /!• 1 aaG \ O 3 it. \ CLI AC. 2� L 41 0.93 �\ l 9 �� _ a �,' Par. R.P. 09 9 \ 0 �► ep lb Po/. 2 y 4WTAc. Gr. \ \ 48.68Ac. AY G•.MJfN n6 li jj I_ ' ' t $�jfQ12N/WI:88. INQ_ _tlf A.cn�lecl. ;r�m Jam) S T3 =R AIN IanaM. ).nGrn. A.IA. — PER :. A u uruwt ®illo DEV eLOrER /OWNER EIrION P1424, INC. lG -[II HWY. III I[I�1 ll3 -]31i 4RC..1T ecr e4NaoRN /weea lNC. ]cc e� oe[o oR. eTe. .31c r4�n nr RlNCe. c4. vu] CONCEPTUAL MASSING STUDY — VIEW FROM HWY III LOOKING WEST (INTERSECTION SIMON DR.) A � lu uw.:cnnu: SIMON PLAZA M La. Ownta, Cahfornla o.erl n u. ,CONCEPTUAL MASSING STUDY N M low N CONCEPTUAL MASSING STUDY — VIEW FROM WASHINGTON LOOKING NORTH (INTERSECTION SIMON DR.) B ® SHl li jj I_ JAN 1 4 1992 0 LO z u < r Im wil �ED =E=r- Ho :10 > r -5 (p X 3 0 _iry jgf , ;—it i 3 (P Z P D o m -g T 0 E z p �-R INN A o O 01 3 IT JAN 1 4 1992 X INMIUVdM P -vI Cl) wj "3111 rlWIitW ^ dll' < <= i Z Z ( 3i ii U :3 Lr) A. 3 z c LU z Z Lo dMI t IOU u --E, Lo U) ul ul 0 1-11 1 H E C I T Y 0 ~ 1Y _ (� Quinta 1962 - 1992 Ten Carat Decade January 16, 1992 Mr. Philip Pead, President Simon Plaza, Inc. PO Box 461 78 -611 Highway 111 La Quinta, CA 92253 SUBJECT: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91-019 Dear Mr. Pead: The Planning Commission denied your Variance application, at their January 14, 1992 meeting, however, they did approve your Plot Plan request, with minor changes. The changes were: 1) that buildings on Washington Street should be one story, 2) the bus shelter on Washington Street should not be required, 3) worn the City should insure appropriate service delivery accesses are included, and 4) the trash receptacles are installed. We have received your appeal request and this information will be given to the City Council at their next meeting. The City Council will discuss your project on January 21, 1992. The meeting will begin at 3:00 p.m. and will be held in 5 the City Council Chambers located at 78 -105 Calle Estado in La Quinta. A copy of the report and agenda will be mailed to you by the City Clerk's office on Friday. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, JERRY HERMAN PLA�INING & DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Greg Trousdell Associate Planner GT:ccs Attachment cc: Mr. John Sanborn; Sanborn & Webb, Inc. 3S Partnership; Pomona 1st Federal Mr. Merlin Barth; ArchC -6ggta Quinta Post Office Box 1504 • 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Phone (619) 564 -2246, Fax (619) 564 -5617 Design & Production: Mark Palmer Design, 619346 -0772 v` �` �Y ;r1 1 i J --r 1 .1 7 > r 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 t 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. MEMOGT.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 who tend 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- I � i 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- LA gLi 1N1'A, -6A. 5,A Kf�2 u I R�, t4 S I�ESTAU�ANTS- 13,eoD f �o�o x 20� �OOa 5,vWLithl4 G5-4ffK '1 GAPz-lL, A WF- X 4-c) rifgayti cEN f;. la,ays•�x j3 x ! �+r��lso s F = JAN 14 1992 31 I cA RS Igo � 20 .5.� • AssU//�fIOtJS AAVf, AI-E 'rO 6Ke4Te WOpI,T GA4E GO�:�I'fIONS. J • S,aav ti•F 6LJ) W2lW6 ON GoI -NEB \,dI L L- BE A F-E� 'rAUKANI- 2. N IG Ft F%r'f t5-F -AOvN AL- U Sa OAKEN 3. IC is u2ANrx, -1Ar-r,- N As So 9'o of AK9^ rpgF e;L,G IJ -3 p- i Ttie�6 s N A f A94r,- A P r015 >rlc U5E . 5. u5E �E�G�N'rf� -+E�j A %�I�NEV 'ry �IrNE55 �p50�1�IN� cEN'i'EKS - A�� GONSEK�I,a'rlvE � �E'rEP -,.KIN E� �'f PF�►YA'rE �F- �Ei4Rc}� . I I _ -- '(FI'E Fol•t- a� ►NG G��T 1�� P�o /r< �x�{IgI'r zB, of 'ENE ACGLVAUI.A Iota E�-Sr ELK r>UR. -.. -- OFFIG�S RE5'�At1KAN'1'S �u1 �JG F f (N ES S - -- 0- GAfzs o GA K5 GAK.S To-(AI.GAoS - - - - -- IOW A-11-- 63 Iq+ 5 26 7o Z 2.1 -11 Gj-oO Q.5 ... ZP� Iv /3 20 �4- �}8 50 6'0 27 3s3 -- 412 - - - — - 140 SO 10 26 �{o 2'1 II *.00, 10 3Il 30 $q 50 (oo ro 27.32. 7 - - - - - -- -- -IZ 1. OD q0 280 5o G� �0 5a ov P11 • 10 -ZtV -10 q I sv bo 5o 7-1 ,2? - z� 467 - - -� -- - a 1.0 q7 3oZ Gd 78 $'D !moo rp IAAx . USE - - - -- g ;� 93 2Bq � �8 5v �o so q' %C� �? 239 6�p 65 15 5o -Z -7 34- 1 - .' �p :00 ��► -7Z I0 A 1 "7 3G z lop 5 3 3 25 B:DO 1 2.7- 100 130 100 1 Gi : 00 3 roo 13 v i oo ) ^ •n 120,- I co 5 3 12 - -- �O:pO 3 qo o I 1c. ;� -7o 1 a ?Z 2v 11 1 G�1+ y60C B EXHIBIT 28 REPRESENTATIVE HOURLY ACCUMULATION BY PERCENTAGE OF PEAK HOUR ltw of D fr OFFICE W"Ph"r Saw&" RETAIL Wook"y Srvv/ RESTAURANT tl4•►dry SMVM CINEMA. Dug .. ceD� a R*0CSDIl %*Ob"v Sal ary 11�...�. t.d IcsDl Duly 6:00 a M. 3711. — — — — — — 100% l 00JX 100/ :00 am 20 2019 8% 39( 2X 2X — 8-1 05 , 05 8:00 am 63 60 18 10 5 3 — 79 88 00 0:00 am 93 80 42 30 10 6 — 13 81 8. 1000 am 100 80 68 45 20 8 — 69 44 85 11:00 am 100 100 87 73 30 10 — 59 71 85 1200 Noon 90 100 0; 85 50 30 30'X. 60 71 85 1:00 p m 00 80 100 05 -10 45 70 50 70 35 200 Pm 97 60 97 100 60 4S 70 60 71 A5 300 Pm 93 40 95 100 60 45 70 61 73 45 4.00 Pm 77 40 87 9n 50 45 70 66 75 C7 500 Pm 47 20 79 75 .0 00 70 77 91 90 6:00 P m 23 20 82 65 90 90 80 85 85 92 00 P m 7 20 89 60 100 05 00 94 R' 94 8 OOP m 7 20 8: 55 100 100 100 06 92 96 9:00 p m 3 — 61 40 100 100 100 98 95 9R 1000 Pm 3 — 32 38 00 05 100 00 96 99 1 100 Pin — — 13 13 70 85 90 100 OF 100 12:00 Mid — — — — 50 10 70 100 100 100 night Urban Land Institute, Mixed Use Development, Shared Parking Study optj JAN 0 6 1992 January 6, 199T `= —cam- S. Uloc Ci�'`a` t'�E !.tA i�d1H�?Ttl PE_:k,.NtdNG OZRPM ENT Mr. Greg Trousdell Planning Department City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Greg: We are submitting eighteen copies of the new drawings for the Simon Plaza development folded 82" X 11 ", which consists of: Site Plan dated 12 -20 -91 Bowling Alley /Fitness Center Curly's Bowl Jonathan's Restaurant Opthalmologist Office Parking Garage dated 12 -30 -91 Office Building on Simon Drive with view of Parking Garage dated 12 -30 -91 Medical Office Building on Washington St. dated 12 -20 -91 Floor Plan for Medical Office Building dated-12-20-91 Cross Section of Elevations dated 12 -30 -91 It is extremely important to point out that we have made very significant changes as requested by the Planning Commission. Please note that another floor has been eliminated from the Parking Garage which was requested by the commissioners, The parking structure has been reduced from an original 192,000 square feet to 168,000 square feet to currently 132,000 square feet. Other reductions have been made as follows: Bowling Alley originally planned for 41,000 square feet reduced to 37,000 square feet. Fitness Center originally planned for 20,000 square feet reduced to 17,000 square feet, currently 12,000 sq.ft. Medical Office Building on Washington Street originally planned for 80,000 square feet, reduced to 61,000 square feet, currently reduced to 37,000 square feet. Office Building on south end of Parking Garage originally planned for 36,000 square feet, reduced to 34,000 square feet, currently reduced to 17,900 square feet. Pad Building on corner originally planned for 9,000 square feet, currently reduced to 8,000 square feet. Family style restaurant, named Jonathan's originally planned for 4,000 square feet increased to 5,000 sq.ft. The Opthalmologist Office originally n_lanned for 6,000 square feet has not changed. P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 Ar k Mr. Greg Trousdell January 6, 1992 -2- We also eliminated the bridge between the Medical Office building and Parking Garage to give an unobstructed view of the mountains from Highway 111 as requested by the Planning Commission. We have made adjustments in the Parking Garage by reducing it to two stories above ground and one below. We shall also be showing new renderings that will give you a better perspective of how all this will show the view through the project and the landscaping at eye level. We have reduced the leaseable square footage from our last submission of 165,000(+ or -) square feet to 139,000 (+ or -) square feet, a reduction in building square footage of 22,000 square feet or 16 %. The Parking Garage has been reduced by 33,000 square feet, making a total square footage reduction of 55,000 square feet from out last submission to you. We feel this is a major achievement while still trying to keep this project viable. We hope the Planning Commission will view our continued efforts and cooperation favorably and give us the affirmative vote to proceed with this project. Sincerely you# , SIMON PLAZA, ,9NC, ilia T d resid (Prepa Fred J, Simon, Sr. in Mr. Pead''s absence) ENCLOSURES 18 X The Nature Conservancy California Regional Office 785 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103 (415) 777 -0487 — FAX (415] 777 -0244 December 27, 1991 Greg Trousdell Associate Planner City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr. Trousdell: �d DEC 3 0 1991 5s t': ;! Thank you for your letter of December 12 regarding the Coachella Valley Habitat area. The Habitat Conservation Plan for Coachella is enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We have passed your letter on to Gail Kobetich at the Service for comment. Sincerely, '%�t" Rachel Ambrose Executive Assistant National Office, 1815 North Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 0 Recycled Paper November 29, 1991 For some time now, we have been working with the Planning Staff to develop a project on the corner of Washington Street and Highway 111 referred to as Simon Plaza. You, no doubt, have been advised of this project; and, in the spirit of cooperation, we have made revision after revision after revision in our attempt to develop a very attractive project on the City's most visible corner Our intention has been, and still is, to work within a frame- work of cooperation and ask only that the City do the same. Because the corner is what it is, and is where it is, the property value is very costly. In order to put together a project which is attractive, viable, and monetarily rewarding, it requires special considerations in specific areas. It also requires that we dedicate a sizable piece of expensive real estate for an additional traffic lane on the east side of Washington Street. This is an additional dedication above and beyond the existing curbs, sidewalks, and gutters already in place. Since this property has already been parceled and has an existing legal parcel map, any additional dedication is purely voluntary on the part of the developer. However, in the spirit of cooperation, we think we have put together a magnificent and viable project that will please the City and developer as well. I am writing this letter to emphasize the extraordinary efforts which have been expended to work within the framework of this spirit of cooperation. The viability, visability and the desire for this project to be something of which we can all.be proud, is dependent upon cooperation between the City and the developer, Our record certainly demonstrates that we have this spirit of cooperation - -we can only hope that the City will work with us in this spirit. I hope you will consider these points when we come before you. Very truly yours, SIMON PLAZA, INC. Fred Simon, Sr. Chairman FJS /ww P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 0 * 10'e ?= A Mr. Dale Bohnenberger, Councilman City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, California 92253 Dear Mr. Bohnenberger: November 29, 1991 DEC - 3 1991 i I would like to take this opportunity to express to you the desire of the developer of the Simon Plaza project to work with the City in an atmosphere of congenitally and cooperation. We have recently spoken to some members of the City Council and the Mayor about our project. In the spirit of cooperation, we have made significant adjustments in the building heights of the building attached to the parking structure on Washington Street and the office building on Simon Drive. We feel these modifications are very attractive and are sure you will find them attractive as well. I am pleased to learn that you will visit with Mr. John Sanborn who is our Civil Engineer on the project and who has been closely associated with us for a number of years. I am confident that he will convey to you the time and effort which we have expended to work with the City Staff to develop a magnificent and truly attractive entrance to the City of La Quinta. Our project, we think, gives the City the opportunity for a win`,win situation where we can dedicate the additional right-.of -way required for the traffic lane and comply with the Washington Street Corridor Plan. I hope you will take the opportunity to view this project as we do -- taking a very expensive and vital corner and developing it''. into a project we can all be proud of. In order to accomplish this, and provide for traffic projections, we need a spirit of cooperation between the City and the developer. To-this end, we extend our hand. Very truly yours, SIMO PLAZA, INC, red J. o Sr. Chairma FJS /ww JAN 0 9 199,10 CITY OF %.A QUIN A PLANNNG DEPAIRTW ENT P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA OUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 Mr. Ronald L. Kiedrowski, City Manager City of La Quinta 78 -105 Calle Estado La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Ron, November 29, 1991 �D 9WN DEC °' 3 1991' L CITY OF LA OUINTA Some time has transpired since out last meeting. Since then, I have had the opportunity to visit with the Mayor and members of the City Council and received some specific suggestions and recommendations relating to the Simon Plaza project. Unfortunately, you have been busy and away from your office, so I have not had the opportunity to visit with you, I would like to schedule a luncheon with you, if possible, to bring you into full focus on what we are doing. We are seeking to work within a spirit of cooperation between the City and the developer to develop a project which will be acceptable to all. You and I are aware of some problems that need to be addressed, but, in the spirit of cooperation, I believe we can and will develop a magnificent project on this corner that the City can be proud of and yet remain viable for the developer. I would appreciate your consideration of having lunch or setting aside a time I can visit with you on this matter. I would like to take this opportunity, Ron, to thank you for your cooperation and forthrightness in working with us on this project. I welcome any suggestions or comments you might have that will assist us in accomplishing our project. FJS /ww Very truly yours, SIMON PLAZA, INC, nzo �� Fred J. Simon,`-Sr. (.hni rman ENO 1992 CITY OF LA ®UINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 461, 78 -611 HWY. 111, LA QUINTA, CA 92253 • PH.: 619/773 -2345 • FAX: 619/568 -4567 clu 78 -105 CALLE ESTADO — LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - (619) 564 -2246 FAX (619) 564 -5617 November 15, 1991 Mr. Bill Dillon Chief of Systems Planning Branch Department of Transportation Caltrans - District 11 P. O. Box 85406 San Diego, CA 92186 -5406 SUBJECT: SIMON PLAZA TRAFFIC STUDY PREPARED BY MGA Dear Mr. Dillon: We mailed to your attention approximately one month ago a traffic study for a proposed commercial project at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Highway 111. Since then we have also mailed a copy of the revised document to your office. We appreciate any comments you have on the study because the case is scheduled to be heard on November 26, 1991. If you prefer . to reserve your comments on the document until after the Planning Commission meeting, but prior to the future City Council meeting, we would appreciate a letter to this affect. However if you would like our City to continue the case to December, we would need your letter by November 19, 1991. Please fax this letter to my attention. Our fax number is (619)564 -5617. Very truly yours, JERRY EVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GREQ-TROUSDELL Associate Planner GT : bja cc: Mr. Philip Pead, President, Simon Plaza, Inc. 3S Partnership Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn & Webb, Inc. Mr. Jerry Herman, Planning & Development Director Mr. Steve Speer, Assistant City Engineer LTRGT.018 MAILING ADDRESS - P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 t ' S' EE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSNIG AGENCY 1 -1 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 11, P.O. BOX 85406, SAN DIEGO, 92186 -5406 (619) 688 -6968 U � NOV 1 8 1991 t November 14, 141 per., City of La Quinta Planning and Development Department P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Attn: Mr. Greg Trousdell PETE WILSON, GwWw rr 11 -RIV -111 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. 1.. _ ;�� .r City of La Quinta November 14, 1991 Page 2 For future coordination regarding Caltrans standards or right of way requirements, please contact Bob Lowrie at (619) 688 -3211. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Jim Buksa of our staff at (619) 688 -6968. cc: CRWest AKosup JBuksa T/P File JESUS M. GARCIA District Director I M0000" BILL DILLON, Chief Planning Studies Branch I To • TRANSMITTAL MEMO Date: CTY ENGINEER - -- CITY MAiuOGER - -- F IRE MARSHAL -'�Si �' ✓�E � � - -- CO MNITY SAFETY - -- From : PL.A� [EVIL Subject: PROJECT REVEW Case: 47/ 4 — PLEASE REVIEW AND PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE ATTACHED ITEM BY COMMENTS y�/��w� � �7�� eed C ` -,aw ��jC7� c . ,�� , &-� e-,-- Iva. �" T, 1 . �T � -�.. PLANNING COMMISSION OTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on October 22, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -105 Calle Estado, on the following item: ITEM: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 VARIANCE 91 -019 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. y�gy LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY Ill SR�1Ot1 OR y REQUEST:' TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WHICH WILL FOGHL" INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF pAU4 OR MULTIPLE STORY BUILDINGS ( +1.65,000 SQUARE FEET) AND A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE N (PLUS ONE SUB -GRADE LEVEL) PARKING STRUCTURE ON +5.5 _ ACRES ZONED SCENIC HIGHWAY NORTH ►- M COMMERCIAL. A VARIANCE HAS'.- BEEN REQUESTED TO VARY THE 3 SIDEYARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AVENUE 48 OF CPS ZONE DISTRICT. 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. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- NOT PRINT BELOW THIS LINE PUBLISH '-c i OCTOBER 1, 1991 PUBLIC INFORMA TION NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta City Council of the City of La Quinta will hold an informal study session on November 19, 1991, at 3:00 P.M. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -105 Calle Estado, on the following item: ITEM: PLOT PLAN 91 -466 & VARIANCE 91 -019 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET & HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE STORY BUILDINGS ( +165,000 SQ. FT.) AND A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE (PLUS ONE SUB -GRADE LEVEL) ON +5.5 ACRES ZONED SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. A VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO VARY THE SIDEYARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF C -P -S ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL: APN: 617 - 020 -020 THROUGH 025, NORTH HALF OF SECTION 30, TSS, R7E. The City Council will receive information on the case, however, no formal action will be taken since the matter is only on the agenda for discussion. The Planning Commission will hold a continued Public Hearing on this case at their meeting of November 26, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., and their action on this case will be transmitted to the City Council as a report of action on December 3, 1991. The proposed Plot Plan file may be viewed by the public Monday through Friday, 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MAILED NOVEMBER 8, 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------=------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HNCC . 026 v• • • v• r ♦ 0 V^ v t t I 1 PLANNING COMMISSION TILE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of La Quinta Planning Commission will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on October 22, 1991, at 7:00 p.m. in the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers, 78 -105 Calle Estado, on the following item: ITEM: PLOT PLAN 91-466 VARIANCE 91 -019 APPLICANT: SIMON PLAZA, INC. LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIGHWAY 111 REQUEST: TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIPLE STORY BUILDINGS ( +165,000 SQUARE FEET) AND A FOUR STORY PARKING STRUCTURE (PLUS ONE SUB -GRADE LEVEL) PARKING STRUCTURE ON _ +5.5 ACRES ZONED SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. A VARIANCE HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO VARY THE SIDEYARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF CPS ZONE DISTRICT. LEGAL: APN: 617- 020 -020 THRU 025 NORTH HALF OF SECTION 30, T5S R7E �y S��QI1 y j 4' P,111.K CR N M NORTH 3 AVENUE 48 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. --------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- DO NOT PRINT BELOW THIS LINE PUBLISH ONCE ON OCTOBER 1, 1991 �c i ' ° e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r �• D i D Profile ofa Dynamic Market BAWLING One of the most popular participation sports in America Of you are marketing products or services with broad -based appeal, take a good look at bowling as a marketing tool. Whether your target market is youth, active adults or seniors; upscale or budget conscious; white collar or blue; bowling provides access to, and a common point of recognition for, millions of people. 'Fake advantage of the nation- wide popularity of bowling in your next advertising or promotion campaign. Tie -in to thousands of bowling centers across the country in a joint promotion, or to millions of competitive bowlers in a tournament sponsorship. Use bowling as a theme, or a new state -of- the -art bowling center as a background for your next television commercial. Bowlingwill make a difference in your next marketing effort and the National Bowling Council can help you get it rolling! 51, Bowling is popular nationwide and year -round (Y)ecause bowling is an indoor, all- weather sport, you will find bowlers through- out the country, in small towns and large, along the lines of the general population. Bowling has a nationwide year -round appeal— unlike some particip- ant sports which can only be played under specific conditions. If you want nationwide year -round exposure, bowling has it. Anytime, anywhere ...... ............................... people want to have fun and enjoy the relaxation and competition of sport, a bowling center is just a short distance away. Sources: Market Facts, 1989 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Series P -25, #1024, 1989 Geographic Region East ❑ % U.S. Bowlers South Central Nest M% U.S. Population South Central MI, `c IN'lountain Nest East New North Central No tli entral Engl nd a <3. tr 14 9 �r Mid w� Atlantic + 17.0 16.3 Fr H 6.3 J.7-11.0 3.90 South Atlantic East ❑ % U.S. Bowlers South Central Nest M% U.S. Population South Central Market Balance 38% 35% ® 0 27% Adult Adult Youth Men Women 5 -17 One of every three Americans bowls his massive participant sport is enjoyed by one out of every three men, women, and children in the country today. In fact, 9 out of every 10 Americans have bowled at least once in their lifetime. There are 71 million bowlers who visit thousands of neighborhood bowling centers across the nation at least once each vear. Those 71 million men, women and children bowl an average of 10.8 times per year ... That's 766.8 million visits this year alone, or about 15 million visits every week! Source: Market Facts, Inc., 1989. Bowling is a massive organized market Vowling isn't just one of the most popular sports in America, it is also one of the most organized. Seven million youth, adults and seniors regularly participate in hundreds of thousands of sanctioned leagues throughout the country. League Bowling Adult Men League Bowlers: 3 million Adult Women League Bowlers: 3 million Youth League Bowlers: 1 million Sources: American Bowling Congress, 'total % million 1989 Women's International Bowling Congress, 1989 Young American Bowling Alliance, 1989 DEMOGRAPHICS Bowlers constitute a huge market with real purchasing power Qowlers form a massive market segment. Their incomes, education, household size, and lifestyles make them heavy consumers of a wide variety of products and serv- ices. Most bowlers are very enthusiastic about their sport and relate strongly and posi- tively to bowling promotions and media depictions of the sport. America's bowlers ... Once you see their attractive income, occupation, and education demographics, you'll know why bowlers are the great American market. i lip r— tea• -..�- �� y YS ...,i`•yr., Bowlers offer attractive demographics e merica's bowlers represent an attractive market. They offer a broad spectrum of consumer characteristics in terms of who thev are, where they live, and how much they earn. Bowlers are younger, more affluent and better educated than the national average. Sources: Market Facts, 1989 U.S. DepartmcntofCommerce, Bureau of the Census, 1989 Bowler Profile Profile U.S. Bowlers U.S. Population Median Age 28.2 yrs. 37.7 yrs. 18 -34 38.0% 30.9% 18 -49 59.6% 51.6% 25 -49 46.9% 39.8% Income Households with Income $35,000+ 47.0% 35.7% Median Household Income $33,300 $25,986 Education Level Attained Graduated /Attended College 52.7% 36.7% High School Graduate 93.7% 75.9% Occupation Professional Specialty 17.9% 12.3% Executive /Administrative / Managerial 14.3% 11.4% Households Married 74.6% 59.1% Own Home 75.9% 63.9% Mean Household Size 3.5 persons 2.6 persons Age 5 -11 14.3 10.9 12 -17 9.4 14.0 � 18 -24 12.7 11.8 25 -34 25.3 19.1 35 -49 1 21.6 20.7 50 -54 3.4 59.6% � 4.9 55 -59 2.4 � 4.9 60 -64 � 4.9 0 3.9 65+ 13.4 ❑ % U.S. BoNvlers 0 % U.S. Population Median: 28.2 years 37.7 years Bowling is popular with all age groups owling is a life -time sport that knows no age barrier. All ages enjoy the relaxation and sociability of the game through leagues as well as casual bowling. The majority of league and casual bowlers fall into the 18 -49 age category—the people who purchase the bulk of the products and services sold in the United States. Bowlers represent a very important, and lucrative, mass market. Heart of the Market 38.0% are aged 18 -34 59.6% are aged 18 -49 46.9% are aged 25 -49 Sources: Market Facts, 1989 U.S. Department ofCommcrce, Bureau of the Census Series P -25, #1022, 1989 Bowlers exceed the national average in income hen it comes to income, bowlers do quite well. Their median household income is $33,300, more than $7,300 higher than the U.S. median. Forty -seven percent have annual household incomes over $35,000 and 24 percent over $50,000. Because of their numbers and solid incomes, purchasing power is one reason bowlers are the great American market. Sources: Market Facts, 1989 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Housing Division, 1989 Total Annual Household Income Under $12,500 12.0 24.0 $12,500 — $17,499 7.3 10.2 $17,500 — $22,499 1 1 10.5 9.9 $22,500 — $27,499 0 9.5 8.6 $27,500— $34,999 13.7 11.6 $35,000 — $39,999 6. 9.5 � 6.8 $40,000— $49,999 13.9 10.4 $50,000 and over 23.5 18.5 ❑ %U.S. Bowlers ® %U.S. Population Median: $33,300 $25,986 Mean: $37,200 $32,144 Education Level Attained Did Not 6.4 Graduate High School � 24.1 High School Graduate Attended College Graduated College 93.7 75.9 52.7 36.7 21.6 18.1 El % U.S. Bowlers ® % U.S. Population Bowlers are better educated than the national average odav, three out of every ten adults in the United States have some college training. When bowlers are singled out, research shows that five out of every ten have some college training. Bowlers also exceed the national average in the percentage of college graduates in their ranks. Sources: ;AMarket Facts, 1989 U.S. DepartmentofCommerec, Bureau of the Census Series P -20, #428, 1989 Bowlers come from all walks of life s W]though one -third of adult bowlers are managers or professionals, you'll find people from all walks of life at a bowling center. In fact, ask the people in your office and you'll probably find that you're working with a bowler. Sources: klarket Facts, 1989 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1989 Occupation % U.S. Bowlers % U.S Population Professional Specialty 17.9 12.3 Executive /Administrative / Managerial 14.3 11.4 Administrative Support including Clerical 30.1 15.8 Sales 9.7 12.2 Precision Production/ Craft /Repair 3.5 11.5 Operator /Fabricator/ Laborer 6.2 15.8 Farming /Forestry /Fishing 1.1 3.2 Service 12.7 14.5 Technician /Related Support /Other 4.5 3.1 Marital Status 74.6 % U.S. Bowlers 4 59.1 % U.S. Population h,F 26.3 t 9.8 10.3 y. 7.4 7.2 3.9 1.5 2.4 Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated Bowlers are family- oriented Oowlers' family orienta- tion shows up in their households ... and household purchases. Of course these statistics are to be expected, since bowling appeals to families as a sport in which both young and old can com- pete and enjoy a relaxing pastime together. A majority of the adult bowlers in the U.S. are married. Three - fourths of the bowling households boast three or more members. Bowlers also provide a stable market, with 76 percent of bowlers owning their homes. Sources: Market Facts, 1989 U.S. DepartmentofCommerce, Bureau of the Census Series P -20, #433, 1989 Household Size Size %U.S. Bowlers % U.S. Population 1 8.5 24.0 2 18.2 32.2 3 20.9 17.7 4 29.7 15.5 5 14.4 6.7 6 5.9 2.4 7+ 2.3 1.4 MEAN 3.5 persons 2.6 persons Home Ownership Ownership %U.S. Bowlers %U.S. Population Own 75.9 63.9 Do Not Ovvn 24.1 36.1 Sources: Market Facts, 1989 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Series P -20, #437, 1989 Whatever your product or service, investigate bowlers... The Great American Market Sources: Data for this profile was gathered from a sample of 15,000 demographically - balanced, nationally representative households. The bowling participation of 26,171 persons was surveyed to provide this profile of persons 5 years of age and older, who have bowled one or more times in the past year. If you have any questions not answcred b7 this profile, contact the National Bowling Council. We have been the marketingarm of the sport since 1943, and have helped scores of companies improve their bottom line through bowling. {� / x � .. 001 o \. / .. MUU@HRL [ c@ m@ c�o�a�oa 19]19 PD(,:- a°a��offi a�o�ou�n� �a00o Ob &AMP- ow, CX� ZOM ((ZCZD (65990770 P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 w R FTU R N G 5 E,''-j ID E R ATTEMPTED N 0 K. N 0 W N p SAN BERNARDII-AU CA 92:4 2—IS JS::• O-BVAL jF 77550, 617-020-024 Jamie L Davidson RECEI`p-- Pomona, CA 9176,9; Pomona First Fc--,r-'i — L% L I - 0 S)EIN E IATTEMPMD NOT KNOWN V�e i h f V m P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - pe, PLANNING DEPARTMENT 617-052-003 F B & Marlene'-,Tosti 4712 E Avenu e --Ril 2 Q� c U.S P M 4 1 NZV CAL Lp ETtR Palmdale, CA 93550 WOV 14 1991 9; 11 y s, F LA 0 1i 1 i� -(A- — \\ '1;� T-itit 4 4 Q" P.O. BOX 1504 - LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 U.S.posu clf E p 3 0, �i, E T E n SAN BERNARDIND CA 9Z4 2%S& ols:::r�0--S"AILL-�'�6775506L 617 - 052 -027 0 F B & Marlene U 4712 E Avenue Palmdale, CA .0e ToSti R12 93550 m m � m � m m m m � � � m � � m � a LE EMT Jfl ago it A I LE EMT I A JI --I t- #-AT. 7 � m m m � r m m m m = = m m m m m m 0 it --.M � - i 910 IISE4i t +f; �� x .� x a I I C u u ri I� u 1 1 a, ■ ■ � . y y: \�t � C .f . 1 1 a, ■ ■ 1 11, 1�11 t [I ril G n n 0