Loading...
2018 10 23 PCGEM oftbe DESERT — Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are now available on the City's web page: www.laquintaca.gov PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta REGULAR MEETING on TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2018 AT 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Commissioners Bettencourt, Caldwell, Currie, Proctor, Quill, Wright and Chairperson McCune. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA At this time, members of the public may address the Planning Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. The Planning Commission values your comments; however, in accordance with State law, no action shall be taken on any item not appearing on the agenda unless it is an emergency item authorized by GC 54954.2(b). CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVE MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 BUSINESS SESSION - None STUDY SESSION - None PUBLIC HEARINGS Declarations regarding Public Contacts. 1. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0008 SUBMITTED BY T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSING TO AMEND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787 TO ALLOW A 45% INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 1 OCTOBER 23, 2018 RESIDENCE ON LOT 191. CEQA: THE DESIGN AN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-048, WHICH WAS PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2003-093, ZONE CHANGE 2003-116, SPECIFIC PLAN 2003-067 AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787, AND CERTIFIED ON DECEMBER 16, 2003. LOCATION: 59895 SEVILLE. [RESOLUTION NO. 2018-0121 2. SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001, AMENDMENT 3 TO JEFFERSON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 SUBMITTED BY CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS LLC PROPOSING A THREE-STORY HOTEL WITH UP TO A 160-ROOM HOTEL AND FOOD MARKET WITH OR WITHOUT RETAIL SHOPS. PROJECT: JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL. CEQA: THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 FOR THIS PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT BECAUSE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. [BEGIN WITH RESOLUTION NO. 2018-0131 REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS STAFF ITEMS - None ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on November 13, 2018, commencing at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Wanda Wise -Latta, Commission Secretary, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber at 78-495 Calle Tampico, and the bulletin boards at 78-630 Highway 111, and the La Quinta Cove Post Office at 51-321 Avenida Bermudas, on October 19, 2018. DATED: October 19, 2018 WANDA WISE-LATTA, Commission Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 2 OCTOBER 23, 2018 Public Notices The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the Planning Division of the Design and Development Department at 777-7118, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the Planning Division of the Design and Development Department at 777- 7118. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Assistant for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item(s) on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Design and Development Department's counter at City Hall located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California, 92253, during normal business hours. PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA 3 OCTOBER 23, 2018 CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Chairperson McCune. PRESENT: Commissioners Bettencourt, Caldwell, Currie, Proctor, Quill, Wright and Chairperson McCune. ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Acting Assistant City Attorney Travis Van Ligten, Planning Manager Gabriel Perez, City Engineer Bryan McKinney, Senior Planner Cheri L. Flores, Consulting Planner Nicole Sauviat Criste, Commission Secretary Wanda Wise -Latta and Administrative Assistant Mirta Lerma PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA - None CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA - confirmed ANNOUNCEMENTS, PRESENTATIONS AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Bettencourt to approve the Consent Calendar as recommended with the following amendment to the Planning Commission Minutes of September 11, 2018: • Page 2, Study Session No. 1, Paragraph No. 4 to read: "Commission discussion continued about restrictions regarding entertainment establishments in certain shopping centers' CC&R's; economic viability of the Highway 111 Corridor; potential "retailtainment" use; CV Link; potential for commercial uses to the rear of buildings along the CV Link; big box vacancies; pedestrian districts; landscaping; shade; and apartment housing. " PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1 SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Caldwell, Currie, Proctor, Quill, Wright and Chairperson McCune. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioner Caldwell (counted with the majority based on City Council adopted Rules of Procedure Resolution No. 2015-023). Motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS DECLARATIONS REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC CONTACTS None to report. 1. SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0002 SUBMITTED BY BEAZER HOMES HOLDINGS CORP. PROPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF 82 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON 20.8 ACRES. PROJECT: FLORESTAS. CEQA: PREVIOUSLY ANALYZED UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2014-638 AND PROJECT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THAT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED, CONDITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED, PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES IMPOSED IN EA 2014-638 AND NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED. LOCATION: NORTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND AVENUE 52. Consulting Planner Nicole Sauviat Criste presented the staff report, which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Ms. Criste stated correspondence had been received and distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting requesting Planning Commission consider a modification to the Conditions of Approval to designate the westerly units within the project as single -story homes. Ms. Criste noted that the phasing plan for the project is contained in the specific plan and a site development permit does not require the submittal of a phasing plan. Planning Commission questioned staff regarding the rough grading plan of the egress to Jefferson Street on the east side of the project; revisions to the Final Tract Map; square footage of homes; safety and site distance related to the egress onto Jefferson Street; maintenance of common areas; providing redline version of original text when Planning Commission is asked to consider revised site development permits; front yard maintenance; rear yards; phasing plan; recreation area parking; on street parking; perimeter units as single -story homes; egress and ingress at main entrance of the project on Avenue 52; traffic; and rear yard drainage. Chairperson McCune declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 6:31 p.m. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Loni Ellison, Beazer Homes Holdings Corp. - introduced himself, thanked city staff, and provided additional information regarding the project. He addressed comments from the Planning Commission regarding the possible access gate to the Citrus Club on the northside of the project; construction phasing; HOA-maintained front yards; off -site improvements; installation and maintenance of perimeter PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 landscaping; egress to Jefferson Street; and project signage; and short-term vacation rentals. Staff addressed commissioner's comment regarding naming the City as a third -party beneficiary with regards to the maintenance of the perimeter landscaping. Chairperson McCune declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 6:43 p.m. MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Wright to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2018-011 approving Site Development Permit 2018- 0002, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval and adding the following conditions of approval: 1. Homes abutting the western and northern boundaries of the site shall be single story models. 2. With regards to the perimeter landscaping, the City shall be listed as a third - party beneficiary to the maintenance obligation to the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Caldwell, Currie, Procter, Quill, Wright and Chairperson McCune. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed unanimously. 2. SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 SUBMITTED BY CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS LLC PROPOSING A 160-ROOM HOTEL, 8,849 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND 25,778 SQUARE -FOOT INDOOR FOOD MARKET TO THE EXISTING JEFFERSON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER. PROJECT: JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL. CEQA: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE. Senior Planner Cheri Flores presented the staff report, which is on file in the Design and Development Department. Ms. Flores stated correspondence had been received and distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Planning Commission questioned staff about the view corridors included in the staff report as the relate to the homes south of the project. Planning Commission discussed the challenges of understanding the aesthetics and architecture of the hotel building based upon the information provided; exterior design elements; proposed retail space; building height; use of shipping containers; patios on the west side of the hotel; landscaping; and park. Chairperson McCune declared the PUBLIC HEARING OPEN at 7:13 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 PUBLIC SPEAKER: Jim Premro, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due to the architectural design of the hotel, traffic, hotel guests using park, and noise. Judy Premro submitted a Public Speaker Form opposed to the Jefferson Square Hotel project but did not wish to speak. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Jeff Stahl, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due location next to homes and public park, hotel height, to loss of scenic views, balconies facing the park, land use, and noise. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Tim Kemp, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due to noise, view from hotel into residential backyards, architectural design, privacy, and proximity to homes. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Marian Stahl, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due to project being inconsistent with surrounding development, hotel height, zoning, traffic, noise, and loss of scenic views. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Greg Cairns, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due to loss of scenic views and possible empty store fronts. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Diana Gardner, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due to architecture, noise, hotel deliveries, and hotel height. Jean Boldi submitted a Public Speaker Form opposed to the Jefferson Square Hotel project but did not wish to speak. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Holly Sterling, La Quinta - spoke in opposition to the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project due to proximity to public park, privacy, and noise. Chairperson McCune thanked the residents for sharing their comments regarding the Jefferson Square Hotel commercial project. PUBLIC SPEAKER: Paul Mercer, CCD Hotel and Resorts LLC - introduced himself and stated he appreciated the comments from the Planning Commission and residents. He addressed comments regarding the block work on the exterior of the hotel, hotel building elevations, height, courtyard configuration, landscaping, hotel and retail component of the project, and hotel operator. Commissioner Quill said that based upon the information provided he would not be able to support the project as presented. Commission discussed the structural components of the hotel building and use of the shipping containers; aesthetics and design elements; size and height of project for the site; retail component of project; hotel occupancy; and traffic. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4 SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 Commissioners Wright and Proctor indicated that they could not support the project as presented. Chairperson McCune declared the PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED at 7:58 p.m. Acting City Attorney Van Ligten suggested, that based upon comments made and before a vote to deny or recommend denial, the hearing be continued to a date certain and allow staff to present appropriate findings to support such a resolution. MOTION - A motion was made and seconded by Commissioners Quill/Bettencourt to continue Specific Plan 2018-0001, Site Development Permit 2018-0001, and Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 submitted by CCD Hotel and Resorts LLC to the October 23, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Bettencourt, Caldwell, Currie, Procter, Quill, Wright and Chairperson McCune. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. Motion passed unanimously. BUSINESS SESSSION - None STUDY SESSION - None REPORTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS - None STAFF ITEMS Planning Manager Perez provided an update about the appeal of Conditional Use Permit for Smartlink on behalf of AT&T; and noted that a Joint Study Session of the City Council and Planning Commission is being scheduled for October 2, 2018 regarding code amendments, Highway 111 Visioning and the auto dealerships along Highway 111. Mr. Perez also announced his upcoming departure as he has accepted a position with the City of San Clemente. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Wright/Proctor to adjourn this meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, WANDA WISE-LATTA, Commission Secretary City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5 SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2018 CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0008 (SDP 2003-787 AMENDMEN NO. 1) APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018- 0008, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787 FOR MODIFICATION TO PLAN 25 ON LOT 191 TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 4,301 TO 6,228 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW FOR CUSTOM MODIFICATIONS. CEQA: THE PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2003-483. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. LOCATION: SOUTH OF AVENUE 58, EAST OF MADISON STREET, WITHIN ANDALUSIA LEGAL: TR 31681-3, APN 764-710-017 RECOMMENDED ACTION Adopt resolution recommending City Council approve Site Development Permit (SDP) 2018-0008 and find the project consistent with Environmental Assessment (EA) 2003-483. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • The proposed SDP amendment includes increasing the square footage of Andalusia Plan 25 on Lot 191, from 4,301 to 6,228 square feet (Attachment 1). Page 1 of 3 BACKGROUND The Andalusia at Coral Mountain project (Attachment 2) was originally approved by the City Council on December 16, 2003 as General Plan Amendment 2003- 093, Zone Change 2003-116, Specific Plan 2003-067, SDP 2003-787 and EA 2003-483. The development plan included two golf courses and club amenities, 1,400 residential units and supporting infrastructure. SDP 2013-934 was approved in 2014, which modified a few of the original floor plans. Modification By Applicant (MBA) 2013-055 approved, in December 2013, slight modifications to original plans including design, architectural, square footage and interior floor plan changes. Plan 25 was included in this revision and square footage was limited to 4,301 square feet. PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS Overview: The proposal includes a modification of the square footage to Plan 25, from 4,301 to 6,228 square feet (45% increase) to accommodate a semi -custom dwelling proposed on Lot 191 (Attachment 3). The prospective buyer of this lot has requested to add an art studio, pool bath, and dining area to the approved floor plan. No modifications to architectural or landscape design to the exterior is proposed. A SDP amendment is required since the increase in square footage exceeds 10% above what is currently approved. The proposal remains consistent with the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan and underlying zoning. Architectural Design: The proposed modification incorporates the approved Spanish architectural style of the Andalusia community (Attachment 4), consistent with and compatible to existing units. Wall materials consist of stucco with decorative tile, concrete and wrought iron elements and concrete tile for the roof (Attachment 5). The color palette consists of white, gray, blue and tan, which is consistent with other homes of this type in the community. Revisions to the original plan include adding a 1,460 square -foot art studio and 56 square -foot pool bath, converting a den and patio into a dining room (which adds an additional 210 square feet), adding a 71 square -foot equipment room at the rear of the art studio and a 357 square -foot covered pergola in the courtyard (Attachment 6). The proposed lot coverage is 31% and is compliant with the Andalusia Specific Plan standards. Landscaping: The proposed landscaping of the modified plan is consistent with the existing approved landscaping. There is less landscape area in the front yard due to the proposed building expansion. Page 2 of 3 Lighting: Lighting proposed for the project includes wrought iron sconces at the entry and garages of the homes, and landscape lighting in the front yards (Attachment 7), typical of the Andalusia development. PUBLIC REVIEW Public Notice: This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. To date, no comments have been received. Any additional written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project was reviewed under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Department determined that the application is a "project" as defined by CEQA. The Department also found that Environmental Assessment 2003-483 reviewed plans for Andalusia at Coral Mountain, and that the currently proposed project is consistent with the assessment approved in 2003. As a result, the previously approved Environmental Assessment will be applied to the currently proposed project. Prepared by: Cheri Flores, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gabriel Perez, Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Project Information 2. Project Area Map 3. Lot 191 Site Plan 4. Approved and Proposed Elevations 5. Approved Materials Board and Color Palette 6. Approved and Proposed Floor Plan 7. Plan 25 Photos Page 3 of 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787 FOR MODIFICATION TO PLAN 25 ON LOT 191 WITHIN THE ANDALUSIA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 4,301 TO 6,228 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW FOR CUSTOM BUILDING MODIFICATIONS CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0008 (SDP 2003-787 Amendment No. 1) APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT, L.P. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by T.D. Desert Development, L.P. for approval a modification to Plan 25 on Lot 191 within the Andalusia Residential Development, generally located south of Avenue 58, east of Madison Street, within the Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan, more particularly described as: LOT 191 OF TRACT 31681-3, APN 764-710-017 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. The City's General Plan policies relating to Low Density Residential encourage a full range of Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Site Development Permit 2018-0008 Andalusia Lot 191, Plan 25 Adopted: October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 single family residential units within the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and Andalusia at Coral Mountain Specific Plan in terms of architectural style and landscaping. 3. Compliance with CEOA The Design and Development Department has determined that this project is consistent with Environmental Assessment 2003-483 and no further environmental review is required. 4. Architectural Design The architecture and layout of the project is compatible with, and not detrimental to, the existing surrounding commercial land uses, and is consistent with the development standards in the Municipal Code. The revisions are concluded to be appropriate for the proposed location. 5. Site Design The site design of the project is compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the city. 6. Landscape Design The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The project landscaping for the proposed buildings, as conditioned, shall unify and enhance visual continuity of the proposed residential units with the surrounding development. Landscape improvements are designed and sized to provide visual appeal. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to enhance the building architecture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Site Development Permit 2018-0008 Andalusia Lot 191, Plan 25 Adopted: October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 SECTION 2. That the above project be determined by the Planning Commission to be consistent with Environmental Assessment 2003-483 SECTION 4. That it does hereby approve Site Development Permit 2018- 0008 (SDP 2003-787 Amendment No. 1) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23rd day of October, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0008 ANDALUSIA LOT 191 PLAN 25 ADOPTED: Page 1 OF 2 SITE DEVELOMENT PERMIT 2018-0008 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. The applicant is permitted to make changes to the home's square footage and interior floor plan of Plan 25 on Lot 191 within TR 31681-3, approved under Site Development Permit 2003-787. 3. Site Development Permit 2018-0008 shall comply with all applicable terms, conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 2003-483 Site Development Permit 2003-787 Tentative Tract Map 31681-3 4. The approved architectural changes shall conform to the plans and building elevations on file as part of this application. 5. The exterior building treatment and materials shall be compatible with the exterior treatments on the existing approved units within the Andalusia development. 6. The applicant shall submit a revised precise grading plan to the City's Building Division prior to receiving approval of building permits for construction of the homes. 7. The applicant shall conform to the existing common area and front yard typical landscape plans for all new units within the Andalusia development. A landscape sheet shall be submitted with the building plans. 8. The applicant shall obtain building permits prior to construction of the approved building modifications. ATTACHMENT 1 Project Information CASE NUMBER: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0008 APPLICANT: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY OWNER: T.D. DESERT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0008, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2003-787 FOR MODIFICATION TO PLAN 25 ON LOT 191 TO INCREASE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 4,301 TO 6,228 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW FOR CUSTOM MODIFICATIONS. LOCATION: APN : 764-710-017 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE EAST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE WEST: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE MAP V, r 4 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN n 3 M Z w TD Desert Development, L.P. A I�UaI U9 a 70 CarCa. 92s La La Ouinta, Ca. 92253 Lot N191. 58-895Seville (760) 777-1001 (760) 564-8256 fax L8 Qurnt4 C8 SEAL q.� -"• ,,...,:, �Txe l; -i�,;..1. �: .� t� =��=• No. DATE SHEET DESCRIPTION81- ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN v g";a ecc ASP - APPROVED UNDER MBA 2012-055 DECEMBER 2013 Front Eieantion C 7LL7L a Rear £tewd1on Courtyard Ek"tion Flan 25 Elevations Style "A" swr IW- aVrc•o�- AT CORAL MOUNTAIN PEKAREK le-cCwrRe-ApNianDMEy LL, Inc- T.D. Desert Development 75r x 1$0r Lot 3uttvuminooWvwq, why 2V0 9.W �B�3.20 M�fW^wpWPwPP 716fe Irt 9a A��9i-BP4i 7-13-13 �13-11 9-1-13 SMn MrnM• 2.=d Right Elevation APPROVED UNDER MBA 2012-055 DECEMBER 2013 s� I L Right Elevation T.D. Desert Development 4 AT CORAL MOUNTAJly 75' x 180' Lots Plan 25 Elevations style "A" &&JCS'. 1.-0.. P K-CRANDELL, Inc amh,toUure - planning a,.+, s.ntiuc.v�n..o. wr. sov v.x.ar-ssso ...M..a.�.ro.m airs �.. sao.•.a*aar 7-lJ-r3 :rJ-rt 9•J-]3 ,Skr1 Wuw6rn 234 T.D. Desert Development r1 I I 11 I I li 1I I it ------------- -1 r J -------------- vVi i kl �Q h�l�l ----------------------- -------------1— I------------- I � i i r s� I L 'v 71 4 HNf)F,Lu5I i i AT CORAL MOUNTAIN 75' x 180' Lots APPROVED UNDER MBA 2012-055 DECEMBER 2013 Flan 25 Roof Plan Style "A" S,.L7 '-E. C" mrr—w g PEKAREK-CRANDELL, Iric. rehluelurn - *nnirg �u1+tM welmm wO9 Me 447-Z .V 7-4 f3 r13 Z1 8.1-IJ slxrrrlmnhr.75.2 ROOF PLAN I 0 M ,ROO NOTES ROOF LEGEND PROPOSED UNDER SDP 2018-0008 ELEVATION NOTES acnneci:. mc. TD Desert Development, L.P. A I�UaI U9 a Carboneras La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Lot N191. 58-895 Seville (760) 777-1001 (760) 564-8256 fax Q La ulnta, C8 �� .81-570 J' SHEET DESCRIPTION PLAN 25-PLAN REVISION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 8. ROOF PLAN ELEV.0 r g^;a :-10 --� fill Is WIN 11 °- �T RIGHT ELEVATION M 0 18-0008 I ELEVATION NOTES ¢ TD Desert Development L.P. A ndal U9 a 81-570 Carboneras p n La QUinta, Ca. 92253 Lot N191 e 58-895Seville (760) 777-1001 (760) 564-8256 fax Q La Qulnta, C8 _ _ �`---= °+ �"-°" r. ��"."y �e, =, � SHEET DESCRIPTION PLAN 2LEPLAN REVISION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ELEV.0 " g ;^;a -1 A-1 PROPOSED UNDER SDP 2018-0008 ------------ OTE N�tlmw� a.ew'�`era �an�0a�a�ca. ELEVATION NOTES m� "al. I-FERGOLA SIDE ELEVATION PERGOLA FRONT/REAR ELEV. ¢ vcni�ecix, ice. TD Desert Development L.P. A ndal U9 a 81-570 Catoneras p n La QUinta, Ca. 92253 Lot Nl9l ea58-895 Seville (760) 777-1001 (760) 564-8256 fax L8 Qurnt4 Ca °+ """'� V� � -y Y �`---= - � SHEET DESCRIPTION PLAN 25-PLAN REVISION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ELEV. C r g ;^;a �E� A-12 ATTACHMENT 5 711 Yw r ! x.r.liw M'�.1�Rx��_yw Fig F I ATTACHMENT 6 -'.t Y M ---- ---- — d�a APPROVED UNDER MBA 2012-055 DECEMBER 2013 $ 'io � ri lilt LTE I II Ir � I II Il ' $ `` n E T.D. Desert Development - EDE]El0 3 ,o Plan 25 Floor Plan Square Footage Style "A" "M tr— Gs'In_ SbZ sg-11- WI.W-r-o- �}'�{ T 7 T wi L,.Fy :.3P7 syJe. - AT : O R A 1•, rn n r r pr •r• R T h PEKAREK-C RAN DELL, Inc- afd�IfBIXUfa-IanrKA 7J'xi$arLOts iip:.a"w:wnaes r-ssrs Frj-3'1 r. V FLOOR PLAN NOTES a. -saw. �stm:,■�: . m s•� z FLOOR PLAN ADDENDA TD Desert Development, L.P. SHEET DESCRIPTION avn9 camor,era: n a us a y;,f;p,,� PLAN 25 - PLAN REVISION - f��nw .mm�'m Le OuinW, Ce.92253 Lot N191. 58-895 Seville _Ei' IF ORPLANADDENDA - A-4 p60) ]]]-1001 (760) 564 M far L8 QuintA Ga ELEV. C , x �-Y . �.�-.: _ r _� ti 0 0 Ate s rli1 PUBLIC HEARING NO. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2018 CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001, SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: REGENCY MARINITA LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDER SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001, AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO JEFFERSON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN, AND A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY HOTEL WITH UP TO 160 ROOMS AND FOOD MARKET WITH OR WITHOUT RETAIL SHOPS CEQA: THE DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018- 0001 FOR THIS PROJECT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND HAS DETERMINED THAT ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED PROJECT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT BECAUSE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT. LOCATION: LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff prepared a resolution, described in recommended action No. 1, as requested by the Planning Commission at the regular meeting of September 25, 2018. Resolutions for alternative Planning Commission actions have been prepared as described in recommended actions Nos. 2-6. 1. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council deny Specific Plan 2018-0001, Amendment No. 3 to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP 2002-062) and Site Development Permit 2018-0001, subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval; OR 2. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify Environmental Assessment 2018-00011 a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act; AND 3. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve a Specific Plan Amendment to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP 2002-062), and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 to allow the development of a 160-room, three-story hotel, 8,849 square feet of retail and 25,778 square -foot indoor food market in the existing Jefferson Square Shopping Center; OR 4. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council Environmental Assessment 2018-0001, a Mitigated Negative Declaration under the California Environmental Quality Act; AND 5. Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Specific Plan Amendment to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP 2002-062), and Site Development Permit 2018-0012 to allow the development of a 141-room, three-story hotel and 20,172 square foot indoor food market in the existing Jefferson Square Shopping Center; OR 6. Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council deny a Specific Plan Amendment to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP 2002-062), and Site Development Permit 2018-0012 for the development of a 141- room, three-story hotel and 20,172 square -foot indoor food market in the existing Jefferson Square Shopping Center. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: • The Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP) was approved in January 2004 for commercial use on 10.7 acres of land, consisting of a 113,173 square -foot shopping center including a supermarket, drugstore with drive -through and a gasoline service station. • Two specific plan amendments have been approved for the site, Amendment No. 1 in November 2005 and Amendment No. 2 in May 2008. • The applicant proposes Amendment No. 3 to allow for the repurpose of the existing "Fresh and Easy" supermarket building to an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities, construction of a 160-room, three-story hotel and retail shops, and a Site Development Permit (SDP) for the architecture and landscaping of the hotel, market, and shops (Attachment 1). • The applicant is proposing an alternative that removes the retail shops and reduces the hotel room count from 160 to 141. BACKGROUND The Jefferson Square SP (SP 2002-062) was approved in January 2004 for a 113,173 square -foot commercial shopping center on 10.7 acres at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, consisting of a supermarket, drugstore with drive -through, in -line stores associated with the supermarket, a gasoline service station, three freestanding buildings, ancillary facilities and associated parking. SDP 2002-754 was also approved for architecture, site design and landscaping. In November 2005, Amendment No. 1 was approved that revised the project including reduction of allowable maximum building square footage to 111,470 square feet. Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) 33803 was also approved. In May 2008, Amendment No. 2 was approved for a reduction of maximum floor area of 91,441 square feet to include a Fresh and Easy market; CVS drug store with a drive -through; an OSH hardware store; a bank with drive - through; and smaller retail or restaurant uses. SDP 2007-898 was also approved. TPM 36241 was approved in November 2012 and to date, the Fresh and Easy market, CVS drug store and smaller retail in -line shop buildings have been constructed. Three vacant building pads remain at the southern and eastern portions of the site. The "Fresh and Easy" building was never occupied and remains vacant (Attachment 2). In September 2016, SDP 2016-0001 and CUP 2016-0002 were approved to construct a 37,776 square -foot fitness center on the vacant pad on the southwest portion of the site. The fitness center was not constructed, and the permits expired as of September 2018. On September 25, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the 160-room, three-story hotel with retail shops and an indoor food market. In response to the public hearing comments at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has proposed changes to the project to address residents and Planning Commission's concerns. These changes are presented as an Alternative to the Proposed Project. PROPOSAL & ANALYSIS The applicant requests SP Amendment approval to allow for the repurpose of the existing "Fresh and Easy" building into an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities. New interior and exterior retrofits to the existing building are proposed. In addition, a three-story hotel building of 68,021 square feet, and in -line retail shops of 8,849 square feet are proposed in the southern portion of the site on the vacant building pad south of the "Fresh and Easy" building. The hotel will include 160 rooms, and associated facilities, including a bar, restaurant, and retail shops. A SDP approval is requested for landscaping and architectural design of the hotel and retail components. Specific Plan Amendment The proposed SP Amendment (Attachment 3) is a comprehensive update to the existing SP that addresses the following: 1. Development of a food market, assorted retail and service -oriented shops, and a 160-room hotel; 2. Addition of hotel uses to permitted uses of the SP; 3. Increase allowed number of stories from 2 to 3; 4. Increase in allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.25 to 0.30 for the entire site; 5. Enhanced circulation discussion; and 6. Refinement to design guidelines and development standards. Site Design The existing CVS and shops buildings, parking lots, and two vacant pads and retention basin along Jefferson Street will remain as they are currently located on the site. The "Fresh and Easy" building will be renovated to accommodate the proposed food and beverage market and will serve as back of house facilities for the hotel with laundry facilities and storage areas. The hotel and retail shops will be constructed on the vacant pad to the south and integrate the "Fresh and Easy" building (Attachment 4). The existing parking spaces on the site will be sufficient to serve the hotel and food market uses. The Code requires 1 space per 300 square feet of floor area for general retail uses under 100,000 square feet and 1.1 spaces per hotel room. This results in 176 spaces for the hotel and 182 spaces for the retail uses for a total of 358 spaces required for the entire shopping center with existing and proposed uses. There are 362 existing spaces. The new site plan proposes to remove 19 spaces at the south end of the property and 4 spaces behind the "Fresh and Easy" building; however, an additional 23 spaces will be provided at the existing retention basin area at the rear of the "Fresh and Easy" building. A parking study was prepared for the site which calculated 361 required spaces based on 162 hotel rooms (Attachment 5). Since 362 spaces will be provided, there is sufficient parking for the site. Additionally, the amount of parking on site will be balanced between daytime and nighttime since the hotel use generates nighttime and early morning parking demand and the retail uses generate late morning and evening parking demand. The proposed site circulation preserves the existing circulation pattern. The existing drive aisle around the "Fresh and Easy" building and hotel pad will be modified to accommodate extra parking and delivery areas at the rear of the Fresh and Easy building and a 30-foot fire access lane at the west and south sides of the hotel. A 15-foot landscape area will be maintained along the southern boundary of the site to provide a buffer between the Monticello residences. The existing retention basin at the rear of the "Fresh and Easy" building will be converted to an underground retention system to accommodate additional parking and the City's 100-year storm requirements. Architecture The hotel site design includes 160 rooms and suites organized around the east, south and west of a central courtyard, with a clubhouse on the north end of the hotel. The clubhouse would serve as the hotel entrance and check -in as well as provide hotel amenities such as a spa, gym, conference facilities, and restaurant/bar areas. A roof deck above the clubhouse second floor will be available for weddings or other special event gatherings. The hotel construction consists of prefabricated elements with a mid-century modern exterior fagade to be constructed of white concrete perforated stacked blocks (Attachment 4). The height of the hotel is proposed to be 31 feet with a 7-foot roof parapet for a total height of 38 feet. The existing specific plan allows for 35 feet of structure height with architectural projections such as roof parapets or towers up to 41 feet. The height of the hotel would be consistent with the standard. Outdoor curtains along the hotel room balconies and the perforated concrete blocks provide opportunities for natural cooling and shade. The hotel rooms on the south side near the Monticello community are oriented with balconies facing inward toward the courtyard to preserve privacy. A major component of the hotel is a central courtyard open to hotel guests and nearby residents. The northern portion of the courtyard consists of a large pool with floating dining and lounging spaces. The center of the courtyard consists of a beach zone with loungers, cabanas and a bar that serves as a transition area between the pool and the southern portion of the courtyard. The southern portion incorporates an oasis theme with lush plantings, fire pits, picnic spaces and a family pool (Attachment 6). Twelve retail shops are proposed along the east hotel frontage that range between approximately 670 to 1,000 square feet. The shops are intended for luxury retail boutique uses and will incorporate elements from the existing shopping center architecture while maintaining the proposed iconic architectural appearance (Attachment 4). The food market incorporates the existing "Fresh and Easy" building fagade to provide an architectural transition from the existing center to the hotel and retail shops. The food market will house approximately 40 independent vendors including, food, beverage, floral and bakeries. The interior of the market would be renovated to create internal market streets, or aisles in a food hall configuration (Attachment 7). Landscaping The landscape plan maintains the existing landscape palette of the shopping center, which includes Willow Acacia, Desert Museum and Tipu trees along with various palm tree varieties and desert shrubs. The courtyard area would contain new landscaping and incorporates lush plantings characteristic of an oasis. Plantings include Pindo and Mexican Palms, Lantanas and Verbena. Lighting Parking lot lighting will incorporate the existing lighting of shopping center. Lighting will be downward oriented and shielded to prevent light spillage onto surrounding properties and into the sky. Hotel hallway corridor and retail canopy lighting would incorporate ceiling mounted lights which produce a narrow lighting effect to keep the light within the hallway corridor and canopy areas. Alternative to Proposed Project (SDP2O18-0012) In response to the public hearing comments at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has proposed changes to the project to address residents and Planning Commission's concerns. Changes consist of the following (Attachments 8 and 9): 1. All hotel balconies would face the internal courtyard and not overlook the park or Monticello community. 2. Room count would be reduced from 160 to 141, due to the removal of corner rooms and expansion of rooms. 3. All hotel balconies would have white wood shutters instead of white curtains. 4. The wedding deck would be reoriented to face the courtyard and not overlook the park. 5. The 8,849 square foot retail component would be removed, allowing for a redesigned hotel entrance. 6. The hotel would remain as three stories; however, the overall height of the hotel would be 35 feet, which is compliant with the Specific Plan and underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Under the proposed alternative, the requests originally made for amendments to the Specific Plan would not change; however, revised exhibits based on the proposed alternative would be included (Attachment 10). Additionally, the site design, lighting, and design of the food market and hotel courtyard would not change. AGENCY & PUBLIC REVIEW: Public Hearings The Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 25, 2018 where the Commission requested a continuance to give staff time to prepare findings for denial of the project based on the design of the hotel and to gather more design information for the Commission to consider. SB-18 and AB-52 Native American Tribal Consultation Per SB-18 and AB-52 consultation requirements, information regarding the proposed Specific Plan amendment and associated environmental document was forwarded to those tribes referenced on the Tribal Consultation List provided by the Native American Heritage Commission. Staff consulted with tribes who requested information or consultation, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. Their monitoring recommendations have been incorporated in the Conditions of Approval and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Public Agency Review This request was sent to all applicable City departments and affected public agencies. Given the proximity to the Bermuda Dunes Airport, the project site is located within the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The request was sent to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review of compliance with the ALUCP. On July 12, 2018, the request was heard at a public hearing of the ALUC and was found to be consistent with the Bermuda Dunes ALUCP (Attachment 11). Conditions of approval required by ALUC have been incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval. All written comments from other public agencies have been received and are on file and available for review with the Design and Development Department. All applicable comments have been adequately addressed and/or incorporated in the recommended conditions of approval. Public Notice This project was advertised in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site. Since the September 25 public hearing, two comments were received and are attached (Attachment 12). Any further written comments received will be handed out at the Planning Commission hearing. Public Outreach The applicant conducted a mail campaign in January 2018 that identified the project and gave contact information for the applicant and Staff. One resident had concerns regarding the noise that would be generated during construction. The Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) includes noise mitigation measures requiring noise curtains during construction to reduce noise to the surrounding communities. The applicant also held an open house at the "Fresh and Easy" building site on September 8, 2018. Several residents came by, viewed the plans and left comments with the applicant regarding noise during construction, possible obstruction of views, and most seemed pleased to see the site being further developed. The MND reviewed the project's potential to impact views and the project was found to have a less than significant impact with landscape screening. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The Design and Development Department prepared a MND for the project and determined that although the project had the potential to generate significant environmental effects; mitigation measures imposed on the project would reduce these effects to a less than significant level. The MND is included as Exhibit A of the Resolution (MND appendices: https://www.laquintaca.gov/home/showdocument?id=38691). The MND was circulated for public review to applicable agencies and interested parties for 20 days from August 16 through September 5, 2018. Three comments were received from SunLine Transit Agency, the Imperial Irrigation District and the City of Indio. Responses to these comment letters are provided below. Comment letters are included in Attachment 13. SunLine Transit Agency SunLine confirmed that there is a bus stop located at Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, as stated in the Initial Study. SunLine further recommended transit -friendly pedestrian access on Fred Waring Drive and made suggestions regarding this matter. As shown in the site plan, and discussed in the Initial Study, the project will be required to provide full improvements on the site, including sidewalks where applicable. The site has access to both Fred Waring and Jefferson Street, and future bus passengers will be able to directly access the existing bus stop on paved surfaces. Imperial Irrigation District Imperial Irrigation District provided comments generally pertaining to their conditions of service and technical requirements for service. The proposed project occurs on a partially developed site that is currently served by District facilities which have been sized for full project build out. Additional service is not anticipated, nor do project components necessitate the need for increased service on the site. The project is described and analyzed in its entirety and has not been segmented. The District was provided with all the information available to the City regarding the project. The project proponent will be conditioned to secure approval of all plans from the District prior to the initiation of construction. City of Indio The City of Indio requested the preparation of "Visualization Views" from the east side of the project site, to address potential impacts to residents of Indio. Visual simulations were prepared, and are included as Exhibits 8, 10, and 11 of the Initial Study and discussed in the Initial Study on pages 14 through 16. These visual simulations address views to and from the residential units directly south and east of the project in the City of La Quinta. The development on the east side of Jefferson Street, in the City of Indio, consists of commercial development with single-family homes southeasterly of the project site. Given the angle and distance (approximately 500 feet from the closest residence), residents of these homes would not be impacted by the project, insofar as existing project landscaping and parking areas block their short-range views through the project. These residents currently have obstructed views of the mountains to the west, and the proposed project will not change that condition. The City of Indio also requested analysis regarding the compatibility of the hotel use by comparing it to other projects similarly entitled. The closest similar project would be the southeast corner of Miles Avenue and Washington Street, which includes a hotel, restaurant and medical offices. That location is also governed by a Specific Plan and is located along a major roadway, similar to the proposed project. The project site is in the General Commercial land use designation which allows for a full range of commercial uses, including hotels. The scope of the project is of relatively low intensity, particularly as it relates to traffic generation, when compared to currently approved retail commercial uses, and will result in a reduction of trips on area roadways (see Initial Study pages 81 through 84). Conclusion As described above, the comments received on the Initial Study do not result in the need to add substantial information, or to modify or add mitigation measures. The findings of the Initial Study do not change as a result of the comments provided. A MND remains the appropriate CEQA documentation for the project. Prepared by: Cheri Flores, Senior Planer Approved by: Danny Castro, Design and Development Director Attachments: 1. Project Information Sheet 2. Site Photos 3. Specific Plan Amendment No. 3 4. Site Development Permit Booklet 5. Parking Study 6. Courtyard Renderings 7. Market Renderings 8. Architectural Plan Changes (SDP 2018-0012) 9. Design Booklet (SDP 2018-0012) 10. Specific Plan Amendment Changes 11. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Development Review letter dated July 26, 2018 12. Public Comments Since September 25, 2018 13. Responses to Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 68,021 square -foot hotel, 25,778 square -foot food and beverage market and 8,849 square feet of retail shops, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and concerns of Planning Commission to justify recommending to the City Council denial of said Specific Plan: Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in the development of a hotel, which is not a permitted use within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow a three-story building which is not permitted within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Site Development Permit 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code concerns of Planning Commission to justify denial of said Site Development Permit: 1. Information available on the architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, materials, colors, architectural details, and other architectural elements is not sufficient to determine compatibility with surrounding development and the quality of design prevalent in the City. 2. Building massing appears to be a solid mass and would be incompatible with surrounding development. 3. The positioning of hotel balconies facing west and south is incompatible with surrounding development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council denial of Specific Plan 2018-0001 and Site Development Permit Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23t" day of October 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 68,021 square -foot hotel, 25,778 square -foot food and beverage market and 8,849 square feet of retail shops, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.250.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Environmental Assessment [Exhibit A]: 1. As conditioned, proposed application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2018-0001. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. Impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable can be mitigated to be less than significant. 5. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. Impacts associated with noise and air quality can be mitigated to be less than significant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 231h day of October 20181 by the following vote: Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California EXHIBIT A CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 of Main Phone: (760) 777-7000 ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY Project Title: Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment & Site Development Permit Case No: SP 2018-0001; SDP 2018-0001, EA 2018-0001 Lead Agency City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 777-7000 Applicant: CCD Hotel & Resorts LLC 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Contact Person: Cheri Flores Senior Planner Design & Development Department City of La Quinta (760) 777-7067 Project Location: Southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street La Quinta, CA 92253 Riverside County APN: 604-521-010, 604-521-012, and 604-521-013 General Plan Designation: General Commercial Zoning: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Surrounding Land Uses: North: Jefferson Square Business Building 44025 (Fitness, Palm Nails, Physical Therapy, and Eclipse Dentistry); Fred Waring Drive South: Monticello Residential Community East: CVS pharmacy, parking lots, undeveloped Parcel 4 and 7, and Jefferson Street West: Monticello Park Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study Aueust 2018 Description of the Project: Project Location: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta, California (Exhibit 1, 2, and 3). The subject site is bounded by Fred Waring Drive and an existing Jefferson Square retail building on the north, Monticello Park on the west, the Monticello residential subdivision on the south, and Jefferson Square improvements, including a CVS pharmacy, parking lots, undeveloped Parcel 4 and 7, and Jefferson Street on the east (Exhibit 4). Existing Site Conditions: The project site is located in the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (Specific Plan), which was approved in 2004. Currently, the majority of the Specific Plan area is developed as planned in the approved Specific Plan as a shopping center, including a drug store, freestanding retail shops, a closed Fresh and Easy Store, a retention basin, and associated parking lots. Initially, the whole site of the Specific Plan area was part of Assessor's Parcel No. 604-070-003 which was designated as Neighborhood Commercial (CN) in both the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps. In 2004, Assessor's Parcel number 604-070-003 was subdivided into seven sub parcels (Parcel 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) through Parcel Map No. 36241. Currently, the Specific Plan area is designated as General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) in the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps, respectively. Currently, the Specific Plan sub parcels are developed as follows: Jefferson 1 Square Parcel No. Riverside County Assessor's Parcel number Current Development : a Size (Acres) Parcel 1 604-521-007 1.47 CVS pharmacy; Parking Lot Parcel 2 604-521-009 0.81 Jefferson Square Building 44025 (Fitness, Palm Nails, Physical Therapy, and Eclipse Dentistry); Parking Lot Parcel 3 and 5 604-521-010 and 604-521-012 1.86 and 0.45 Fresh and Easy Store; Retention Basin; Parking Lot Parcel 4 604-521-011 0.58 Unpaved vacant land Parcel 6 604-521-013 4.09 Unpaved ad; Parking Lot Parcel 7 604-521-014 1.01 Unpaved ad; Retention Basin The Specific Plan area currently has four access points: two driveways on Fred Waring Drive (one right -in, right -out and left -in and one right -in and right -out) and two on Jefferson Street (both right - in, right -out only) (Exhibit 4 and 5). Project Site Background: In 2004, the Jefferson Square Specific Plan was approved for mixed -commercial use on 10.7 acres of land. The Specific Plan consisted of seven building areas, and included plans for a 50,000 square foot supermarket, an 18,500 square foot drugstore with drive -through, in -line stores associated with the supermarket, a gasoline service station at the corner of the Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, two 5,000 square foot free-standing buildings, a 7,200 square foot freestanding building, ancillary facilities and associated parking. -2- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 The entire shopping center, including the project site, is currently designated as General Commercial in the City's General Plan Land Use Map, which allows full range of commercial uses, ranging from supermarkets and drugstores in a neighborhood shopping center, to major national retailers in large buildings. General Commercial uses also include professional offices, service businesses, restaurants, hotels or motels, research and development and warehousing or similar low impact quasi -industrial projects. The City's Zoning Map currently designates Parcels 4 and 7 as Neighborhood Commercial (CN) which allows retail stores, food, liquor and convenience stores, plant nurseries and garden supply stores, general services, banks, general and professional offices, medical offices, restaurants and other commercial uses. The Specific Plan identifies these parcels as including a drive -through pad (potentially a restaurant or a bank) and free-standing shops. The Specific Plan was a comprehensive plan with regulations and guidelines that addressed not only the mixed -commercial development plans, but also projected benefits of the mixed -commercial development on the surrounding area. Project Description: The project site consists of three parcels: numbers 3, 5, and 6 in the western half of the Specific Plan, totaling 6.40 acres. The Applicant is proposing a Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment that would result in the rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building (Parcels 3 and 5) to an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities, which would involve new interior and exterior retrofits to the existing building (Exhibit 5 and 6). Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing construction of a three-story hotel building of 68,021 square feet and retail shops totaling 8,849 square feet in the southern portion of the site which is part of Parcel 6 (Exhibit 5). The hotel will include 160 rooms, as well as associated facilities, including a bar, restaurant, and retail shops. A Site Development Permit is also proposed for approval of the landscaping and architectural design of the hotel and retail components of the project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a comprehensive update to the existing Specific Plan that addresses the development of a food market, assorted retail and service -oriented shops, and a 160- room hotel. The Amendment also includes an increase in the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.25 to 0.30 for the entire site including parcels 3, 5, and 6, an enhanced circulation discussion, refinement to the design guidelines and development standards, and new landscape design guidelines. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would guide the use, density, and design of the proposed rehabilitation of the existing building and development of the hotel building within the Specific Plan boundary. The project will be implemented in two phases: Phase I will include the rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building. Phase II will result in the construction of the three-story hotel building in the southern portion of the project site (Exhibit 5 and 13). -3- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Access to the project site will be provided through existing driveways on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Interior circulation improvements include the expansion of one of the inner driveways along the west side of the site for truck deliveries and fire access. Interior driveways also exist among the buildings within the project site. The Project requires the following applications: Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment (SP 2018-0001); Environmental Assessment (EA 2018-0001) and Site Development Permit (SDP 2018-0001). Utilities and Service Providers The following agencies and companies will provide service to the project site: l . Sanitary Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) 2. Water: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) 3. Electricity: Imperial Irrigation District (IID) 4. Gas: The Gas Company 5. Telephone: Frontier 6. Storm Drain: City of La Quinta Environmental Setting and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject property is located in the northern portion of the City of La Quinta, in an area characterized by residential and commercial land uses. The site is relatively flat and partially developed (Exhibit 4). Surrounding land uses include: North: Jefferson Square Building 44025 (Fitness, Palm Nails, Physical Therapy, and Eclipse Dentistry); Fred Waring Drive South: Monticello residential community East: CVS pharmacy, parking lots, undeveloped Parcel 4 and 7, and Jefferson Street West: Monticello Park Other Required Public Agencies Approval: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). -4- J Rivers'€de ` S � S 7emecv€a Q MEXICO Desert Hot Springs Jushua T'w - Neir4rrbl'Aark Palm Springso ' Cathedral City„ Rancho Mirage Palm Desert Indio Indian Wells Coachella La QuintaA 7_l RIVERSIDE COUNTY r 1 8 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit ` J TERRA NOVA Regional Location Map 1 PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. La Quanta, California F, , NW11W1*V11 %7gUC11C •7PWV111V rlQll M11111MIU111C111 L I TERRA NOVAR Project Vicinity Map 2 PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. La Quinta, California zff'� QL�) Yu— Valley 1A A'44-- W. P�:f /7' , ✓�'�cn rry vanes Spa Beaumont N.IhP,I, Ciap A4 mk, Sky Valley M I Al� 4 MIA! dY 0 4�- Thousand i p alms Sr P�Irn Springs (E�) z - 11.u..rd g al City PROJECT V.1levi.,hi Bean.d. Hemet V1111-1 Durp Eg.n r. SITE Palm Wu tin P 0" Desert Indio io Center A 0.11a oclus Coe 01, 4$' r a Quint Thermal Vista ;41— S-1, 1.4 Valerie Me— G1 .... kHill, Desert Camp Mart — Noah Shore -AeBl— TORRES M--, Z RESERVA-- 01 7, 2 Desert Shores Source: Google Maps, 2017 L A TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Area Location Map La Quinta, California Chir Sum f ,lmlf Rancho Dos Palmas Fe,um D.rmid 174) 7 04 Exhibit 3 Vp Randolph,Ct ` PROJECT bassador C AmA.SITE q9 y C # _ n u �j:i CD "Hemmings Way r S1;, 'mow #� +u � � �„! ` , 11 J i �+1�• y � �. _! � - _ - � � � �'�� ..�e. _v� r Source: CCD Hotels &Resorts, 2018 I 1 L j TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Project Location Map La Quinta, California 26 e N CO Cl) Exhibit 4 OMonticello Park I I O O O O Under ground goo I I Retention Area o � n I II . . . . .r ... I -- 17 4 I I I I Hotel I I I I Q 115'' 68,021 SF B o ouse - g II 0 25 SF i ® m r —p 4 li ® Shops 3 I I I . ' � 121 16 6 %,000 SF I I %F�od Mirket m I I f 6,568 SF. . . . 1 a 0 6 �4 1 I I I ° ® 1 awl ---------- I I Iretail a ------------------J ❑ I I I I 8,84 SF _ Si I II ® ® ® YO a ® ® ❑ I I I 4 ® LE al®® all © I ❑ I I I I I I I I CVS I I I Drug Store 13,013 SF - oPIT ° I I fn1 I Pad A 4,500 SF I (Future Development) ❑9 1 9 o �� Landscape II © y �j0// Retention Area ® o I e n u- - - — doll ------------ - -- --------------------- — I 00 - - - - - - - Source: CCD Hotels & Resorts, 2018 Shops 1 5,000 SF 11 o L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. �0 ILLILLI Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Project Site Plan La Quinta, California Exhibit 5 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources El� Biological Resources Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ElElMaterials Greenhouse Gas Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology /Water Quality Emissions ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Mineral Resources Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Systems Significance -10- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there ■ will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been ❑ adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or ❑ NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature -11- August 16, 2018 Date Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. -12- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 I. AESTHETICS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ✓ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic ✓ resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing ✓ visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial ✓ light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Source: 2035 General Plan; La Quinta Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code; California Department of Transportation (California Scenic Highway Mapping System); http://www.dot.ca. ovg /desiwVlap/livability/scenic-hi wad; Accessed March 2018; Project Specific Visualizations and Photographs. Setting The project site is situated in the southwestern region of the Coachella Valley within the City of La Quinta, which is surrounded by the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Santa Rosa Mountain Ranges. The San Bernardino, Santa Rosa, and San Jacinto Mountain Ranges have a significant rise over the valley floor with elevations of 11,489 feet (3,502 meters), 8,716 feet (2,657 m), and 10,834 feet (3,302 m), respectively. The Salton Sea, at an elevation of approximately 200 feet below sea level, is located in the southeast portion of the valley. The foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains extend along the westerly and southerly portion of the City, approximately 2 miles southwest of the subject property. The foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains extend beyond the northern and eastern portions of the City, approximately 3.99 miles from the subject property. The Santa Rosa and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges are of aesthetic value to the City. Therefore, the City enforces ordinances for the new developments to ensure that any new development in the City does not conflict with any scenic resource programs that may be in place to preserve aesthetic resources. Ultimate development of the site will result in the construction of a hotel of up to three stories in height. The Aesthetic impacts of the project are discussed below. -13- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which are considered a scenic vista for much of the City of La Quinta and Coachella Valley (Exhibit 2 and 4). From the subject property, scenic views of the Santa Rosa Mountains are to the west, southwest, and south (Exhibit 7). Views of the San Bernardino Mountains are to the north, northeast, and east. The subject site is located in an urban area and surrounded by local streets and developed lands in all directions. Lands immediately to the north and east are currently developed and occupied by commercial buildings, parking lots, and paved roads, which extend up to one story (Exhibit 6A and 613). These developments block foothill views of mountains to the north and northeast. However, upper elevations of the mountains are visible above (Exhibit 7). Lands immediately to the west are currently developed as Monticello Park (Exhibit 4 and 7). In the south, the site is adjacent to the Monticello community, whose homes block the views of the mountains. However, the mountains are visible to the south and west, at great distance. Lower elevations are blocked by buildings and landscaping. Phase I Effect on Scenic Views: Currently, the subject property is partially developed and is surrounded by residential and commercial buildings to the north, east, and south and by the park in the west. Existing buildings within the Specific Plan are up to one story in height (Exhibit 6A and 613). Structures on these properties are consistent with other urban development in the area in scale and height (Exhibit 7). The existing Fresh and Easy store is a one-story building (Exhibit 6A) and rehabilitation of that building will not impact views on Fred Waring, Jefferson Street, and surrounding development. Building appearances and materials can be expected to be similar to existing structures in the area (Exhibit 6A). Phase II Effect on Scenic Views: The development of the proposed hotel building on the southern portion of the subject site could extend up to 38 feet in height, which would be taller than the surrounding structures and would result in view blockage from viewers to the south (Exhibit 5 and 9). Monticello residences would have a three-story building view to the north (Exhibit 9). However, currently, these residences have limited views to the north due to the presence of the six-foot wall and up to 30 foot tall trees (Exhibit 7). Views to the north do not provide views of the San Bernardino mountains from this location, because of the existence of intervening development and distance. Views from the Monticello homes are to the west, southwest and south, and will not be impacted by the proposed project. The ultimate construction of a hotel building on the site would result in limited obstruction of views for viewers looking to the east from Monticello Park, insofar as three stories would result in short-range view blockage. Views to the east, however, do not include scenic vistas, as mountain ranges do not occur. Further, the Monticello Park is at a lower elevation than the site, so it already has limited views to the east. Views to the north, west and south from Monticello Park would not be impacted by the proposed project. -14- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 The inclusion of the hotel building on the site would result in some view blockage from Jefferson Street westerly. The lower slopes of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains would be obstructed from this location, but the views of the upper slopes and peaks would remain. Overall, although there will be some impact from the proposed project on short-range views to the north and west, impacts to views of scenic vistas from surrounding properties will be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The site is not located along or near an existing or proposed state scenic highway or locally designated scenic highways. The nearest designated scenic highway is State Route 74 (SR 74) which is located approximately 7.10 miles southwest of the project site. Both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street are designated as Image Corridors in the City's 2035 General Plan and provide valuable visual character and resources to the City (General Plan; Exhibit II-4 Image Corridors). The three-story hotel building will be visible from Jefferson Street; however, the hotel building occurs well back from the roadway, and is beyond the minimum setback requirements contained in the City's Municipal Code Section 13.24.090. No scenic resources such as groves of trees or rock outcroppings and historic buildings are located on the project site. Therefore, there will be less than significant impacts to scenic resources. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is currently partially developed. The existing Fresh and Easy store building occupies 8,428 square feet of space. In addition, there are 194 parking spaces and a retention basin on the site currently. Development of the project as a whole has also included a pharmacy and a retail building on the north boundary of the project. The proposed project would rehabilitate the Fresh and Easy store building and incorporate design features to unify the building with the hotel structure. In addition, the ultimate development of the hotel on the southern portion of the site will result in the construction of a three-story building. The proposed development will result in commercial and retail land uses and will convert partially developed land to an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities and a hotel. The proposed development will be consistent with commercial development in the Specific Plan vicinity, insofar as commercial development occurs currently on the east side of Jefferson Street. The visual character of both Fred Waring and Jefferson Street have been affected by the existing improvements within the Specific Plan area, and the proposed project will not change that current visual character. The size and design of the hotel would not result in significant effects since it incorporates desirable architectural features, does not conflict with existing City's standards, and does not substantially depart from the size and scale of the City's Municipal Code Section 9.90.040 (Table of development standards). Setbacks between the hotel and the existing residential area will also provide relief in view corridors to the north. The hotel's architectural style, and the limited view obstruction it will create, will reduce impacts to less than significant levels. -15- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Views from the Hotel's 31 Floor Balcony to the South, Southwest, and West: The residential land use in the south and west have expectations for privacy. Therefore, the Applicant has generated visualization views for the 31 floor of the hotel to demonstrate the residential land uses privacy (Exhibit 10 and 11). According to the visualization view, the guest/visitor or hotel employees would have limited views of the residential development in the south, southwest, and west. Currently, there are screening trees along the property line in the south and west. The Applicant is proposing to provide more screening trees (Exhibit 11 and 12), as part of the landscape plan, along the project boundary in the south and west to secure privacy to neighbors. Overall, although there will be some impact from the proposed project on short-range views to the south, west, north, and east, impacts to views into surrounding properties will be less than significant. In addition, screening trees and landscape will secure the privacy to neighbors in the south and west. The proposed project would not make significant changes to the visual character that currently exists in the northern portion of the site. However, in the southern portion, it will change the vacant land to hotel building which would improve its visual character and be consistent with the commercial development in the existing shopping center. The Amended Specific Plan (2018) is a comprehensive update to the existing Jefferson Square Specific Plan (2007) which incorporates refinement to the design guidelines, development standards and landscape design guidelines. The Design Guidelines for the Amended Specific Plan encourage creativity, imagination and a high level of harmony and consistency within the surrounding community for the project site. These Guidelines will govern and improve the design quality of the proposed project. The Amended Specific Plan (2018) design standards will be incorporated into the project to assure that project's visual character is consistent with surrounding development. Architectural design would be subject to review by the City of La Quinta to ensure that the project is designed to be aesthetically compatible with its surroundings. Any new structures would also meet the site's scale and massing requirements. As such, less than significant impacts to visual character would occur. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a highly urbanized area and is currently illuminated by existing on -site lighting and lighting associated with the commercial buildings in the north and northeast. Additionally, adjacent street lights and light sources associated with Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street also illuminate the project site. The site is currently partially developed and occupied by a Fresh and Easy store building and three public parking lots. The Fresh and Easy store building is currently vacant. All three parking lots are fully paved and includes lighting and landscaping. Currently, all three parking lots are being used by visitors, occasionally creating new sources of light affecting nighttime views in the lot; therefore, there are stationary and mobile light sources onsite. -16- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building to an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities would involve new interior and exterior retrofits to the existing building, as well as a coordinated construction for the proposed hotel and commercial areas. Additionally, the proposed hotel building would involve indoor and outdoor lighting related to the new three-story building. The ultimate development of the proposed project on the site can be expected to generate increased levels of light and glare from interior and exterior building lighting, safety and security lighting, landscape lighting, and vehicles accessing the site. Glare can also be expected from building windows. However, new outdoor lighting would be limited to the minimum levels necessary for safety. The project will be designed according to the City's Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 9.100.150 Outdoor lighting) and will properly shield light fixtures to minimize spillage onto adjacent properties. The City's standards prohibiting reflective surfaces will assure that glare impacts are less than significant. Lighting and glare levels are not expected to exceed typical levels within the surrounding urban environment. Project -related light and glare impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -17- Exhibit r 1 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment L J TERRA NOVA Existing Conditions A fi_A PLANNING &RESEARCH, INC. La Quinta, California r ti EMPSLe- Ir o- f '- �. 1 �' A• �ON NORTH SOUTH T A 14, l� A& � N Google Earth N Google Earth *44% �zm�ec�ie I 6.14ft I 6.02ft J I OU V V MET NL aim Google Earth 6.08ft I 4 .,.�.. - ` 7.93ft 0 0 N 0 0 P a d M 0 i Ali JEFFERSON STREET ENTRANCE a `— - - III+ItIt■■ FPPPP s 7 f l e e l gg�� ,,ei�erF I'%I, I,•r I, 1 I +-�+�1 t It � - ,^!. f � `•.6. � ,,�*�}�.Ii I 'il, I I,f ,l11r ells r t _� ���' ''{t, t"I�tllt L,el e t �,�'t+�■ �,,�,� eel '�'.'� fir. ��'..• I � �' �' ' I lel I,re ee■■ ■ � �y�'�"vie' ..xx j I ' y L• e e _ -04 _ �'.' !�,. . ';•'' Tltl ,,,', It,,i o+,l���e�er�r■■. !��'j�iwf•r�',�i�= � ! ■ r ■ ., - �,r �,,. �'•i �i•�rrt.gt'+Irle:l eke + t t ■ ■ t i * r�•��y��.�� vvi t e t I t I t t' ,I�.rce � e e r ■ r >t t ■ ■ ■ to � f ■ � : w t-- _..-• r ,tn ltrr+I r ev �'�'1'1'�'� !'S'�'#�`f't^'`�'r�'������"��"M ere�l/rtit�;���t't'l •�-■ t■^■er'' '+ _� ees=ee.y 1 t t 1 • t ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ��ssw��� ����� _Zt.,T _ SOUTH RESIDENTIAL N J r 1 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit j TERRA NOVA Visual Simulations PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. La Quinta, California 06 03 21 EXISITNG 01 02 01 38ft 31ft FOOD MARKET HOTEL 01,NDRTH EXTERNAL ELEVATION PROPOSED EXISITNG 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 17 18 20 21 12 03 02 01 06 38ft RETAIL FOOD MARKET 02,EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATION 03 04 06 01 02 06 04 05 03 06 01 03 3Bft HOTEL RETAIL 03.SOUTH EXTERNAL ELEVATION EXISITNG PROPOSED 09 07 10 08 03 01 03 03 04 05 02 01 03 --7T-- - I I F T I Ll i Ali I AI�L- 10 w 70 FOOD MARKET HOTEL 04.WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATION 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 N Source: PARTI Architects, 2018 L j TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Elevations La Quinta, California 38ft 31ft Exhibit OLLOT 23 SECTION -A 02,LOT 23 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 03,LOT 23 VISUALIZATION VIEW 01 04.LOT 23 SECTION-B 05.LOT 23 PLAN-B LEVEL 3 06.LOT 23 VISUALIZATION VIEW 02 WEST PATIO/BALCONY-A I LOT 26 SECTION -A LOT 25 SECTION -A �-� - N 00 - r LOT 24 SECTIDN-A �' �E r LOT 23 SECT ION-1 N LOT 23 SECTION -A -- - Source: CCD Hotels & Resorts, 2018 4 T c 07.LOT 24 SECTION -A OB LOT 24 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 09,LOT 24 VISUALIZATION r L A TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Visualization View from the South (Hotel Parking) La Quinta, California Exhibit 10 01.LOT 23 SECTION -A 02.LOT 23 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 03.LOT 23 VISUALIZATION VIEW 01 04•LOT 26 SECTION -A 05.LOT 26 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 06.LOT 26 VISUALIZATION 07.WEST PATIO/BALCONY SECTION -A 08WEST BALCONY VIEW PLAN -A LEVEL 3 09,WEST BALCONY VISUALIZATION WEST PATIO/BALCONY-A LOT 26 SECTION -A LOT 25 SECTION -A N Cb LOT 24 SECTION -A z-3' �= 1 CV LOT 23 SECT ION-H - CV LOT 23 SECTION -A Source: CCD Hotels & Resorts, 2018 - " 4 7T c r L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Visualization View to the South, Southwest and West (3rd Floor Balcony) La Quinta, California Exhibit 11 PRELIMINARY LAND SCALELEGEND A ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ F.. ■ ■ ■ a 0 =r: Notes: OProposed landscape buffer with adjacent residences with vaariety of tall trees and lower s h rubbs to obsure views into/ from the hotel. ONew fire truck path constructed with permeable materials to facilitate drainage, Fire department to comfirm if pavemnet is suitable. OReconfigured delivery bay creates additional parking la is. OAll proposed landscape work are illustrated in color. Source: PARTI Architects, 2018 I L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Preliminary Landscape Plan La Quinta, California T _z 0 Exhibit 12 L0T 27 E J aao Pao I EXISTWG RETET ENTION G•-_ Ewsi. wALL� eLOT 24 1 ❑A z0' A I I I �x I LO7 23 I I aaa PAn � I RELOCATE IILiS_ L• WST, MA MRE 7 ENCLOSURE caNc APRON 30' 0' 30' 60' YO' LOT €K - CJTY o I::.... ©I II^ g8 51 EL — y€—��-�.�. EXIST. wALL - WSi. WALL r—� - ,(�/ 4T So L EMSI. RAMP 35 1 111 a LU - _ n _ I `TO BE S0. 5xB1EY _ _ _ .� -_-. Ai. ,� I WRFlNAL DESIGNED 4T. EOT NNE wV S`0a6..:. { 1 0 I wv, CT IN PIACE r' I OECN . 5BXX STORM DRAIN I I COIpTY I a POOL. ® PIRom IN PUCE z• AIEREsur nsR L ® O SHOPS 3,,, h I PDa VI N nPARCEL - d °1E I I I 4 .50 F7 48.30 FF 0 I 8. 5 Fa rt'• II 1 � I N I I gym T.-\- A a x - _ - m -- --LSAx JT�[I T ,._ - ------ - ---- -- - ---- i IIf 2 BANCUT I -LOT NNE SIN I I I .a CEL awE PARCEL 6 ,m� ® PARCEL 5 GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES: STOW DRAM CONSTRUCTION NOTES R tR'R-E'�A 001NnNlcAiDR5aOIER65 C.8 / CYB O.W ow—A.4 W &- W - 6' XBPE M. wWN TE AS zo--WtmauEY e' WRB wLY pm Nrc oR U WINM sm. pwl xo. z10 51 INSf IP WE STORY ONYN So--CgISTMItf 6' WRB AW WfIFA PFR YOgfIEO CITY Of U WMA STO. RNI IU. 301 /l IWTNL w XWE smM WN o-CON61RIM16' SLDfIED WRB PM DPNNICE X t P ^ WET ' w� N W� o-INSVll 8' OPE STORY -N /t l:� o-NATN1 41' NWE SmRY OIUN � ��• 8o-W WIRUCI O11W RWP 1T PA P/L -EXrtxD EXIBBNG M D S ALCEA SHNT m NEW C- Y� T o-EpsmwT mew wamuRE pl, pET, I -Is' 30' ,W-I a -WrsIR t WxauE I,wowc p-Iz7 o--IWruL uNOExcRaroD sroRY cNwfim sstEu. uc-wao 6r ros. Ixc. \ WALL MAJOR'B' DINEM'AY Pacc l NOTEL RB AC PVMT S/W IX. BET. 31' HOTEL EK RET. srNt a�--adaauT Wlenwpx axre w[r sT RaarnTE ETmnxc xrgmottuYlc sEPAxnTaR. xmaa-IxrtRruTwxu uxrt y 2A7: WALL PAVERS WALL lao--Cd6Rrtcr ,aklY duTE IxlEr o--RELfA2 Wrnxc sroRY dUM ONO Flfllxls eEluL •A• \ .5 ! -- - - _- ___ RB - - Il Iz' DM A1PoUM CRAZE 5S RE-CONROURATE MONG LOW-R- DNERSgN M—E RA' C PWT _ _ - -- --- .-..� tx m E HLGCATFD Aa wSCRHO pLL RIB EYJST. SURFACE S o- fiD wsI UNDERCRDNND —BER xENER PIPE PROP. U.G GUTTER .\ AC PMIi WRB 13 NE Wxa¢tE caw¢ PAw¢ m IRET R�¢ wrr. cams INFlLRtATION BASIN EMJST. SURFACE ` > EASEIYEHT HOTS EXIST. SURFACE ERSFMBxr Rn worm ua AffF85 PURrosEw wWA1m m TVE Dm a u cuwRl 1. PAVFNEm tNICNNE55' TO BE VERIFlm PFR 5(xLa ENGINEER FlN4L REPORT. f. GUTIEN WIDTX IH 1.w WIDE (. BE W... Bf WY a U WwuJ 00 SECTION�r SECTION © SECTION L. r 0 ,- z � Source: DRC Engineering, Inc., 2018 c � � o L j TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. TRACT No �4797 / - z l' 2 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Preliminary Grading Plan La Quinta, California Exhibit 13 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including Potentially Less Than Less Than No timberland, are significant Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact environmental effects, lead agencies may Impact Mitigation Impact refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland ✓ Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ✓ contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by ✓ Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest ✓ use? -27- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Source: 2035 General Plan; California Department of Conservation, January 2012, and Riverside County Important Farmland Map, 2016; Jefferson Square Amended Specific Plan. Setting The project site is located in an area of the City designated for Neighborhood Commercial (CN) on the Jefferson Square Specific Plan land use map. The site is partially developed and there are no active agricultural lands within the vicinity of the project. Discussion of Impacts a-e) No Impact. Prime Farmland The project site is designated as "Urban and Built -Up Land" on the Important Farmlands Map for Riverside County. No prime or unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance exists within the project site or vicinity. The project site is not located on or near any property zoned or otherwise intended for agricultural uses. Therefore, no impact to state -designated agricultural land would occur. Williamson Act No land on or near the project site is under Williamson Act contract. The proposed Specific Plan Amendments and development will not conflict with zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, no impact would occur. Forest Land The project site is currently zoned as Neighborhood Commercial (CN) and is a part of the Jefferson Square Specific Plan. There are no forest land or timberland areas in the vicinity of the project. The proposed project will result minor amendments to the Specific Plan, however, it would not conflict with the existing zoning or cause rezoning of forest land or timberland resources, and no impact would occur. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -28- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality Potentially Less Than Less Than No management or air pollution control Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact district may be relied upon to make the Impact Mitigation Impact following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ✓ quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ✓ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or ✓ state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ✓ substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ✓ substantial number of people? Source: 2035 General Plan; "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised, July 2008; "2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan," August 1, 2003; CaIEEMod Version 2016.3.1; Project materials.) Setting The Coachella Valley, including the project site, is located in the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). All development within the SSAB is subject to SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMio SIP). The SCAQMD operates and maintains regional air quality monitoring stations at numerous locations throughout its jurisdiction. The project site is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes monitoring stations in Palm Springs and Indio, as well as a newly opened station in the unincorporated community of Thermal. -29- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Criteria air pollutants are contaminants for which state and federal air quality standards have been established. The Salton Sea Air Basin exceeds state and federal standards for fugitive dust (PMIo) and ozone (03) and is in attainment/unclassified for PM2.5. Ambient air quality in the SSAB, including the project site, does not exceed state and federal standards for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, or Vinyl Chloride. Build out of the proposed project will result in site disturbance during construction, and long-term impacts associated with operation of the project, as discussed further below. Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The subject site is located within the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB) and will be subject to SCAQMD's 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (2016 AQMP) and the 2003 Coachella Valley PMIo State Implementation Plan (2003 CV PMIo SIP). The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that establishes control strategies and guidance on regional emission reductions for air pollutants. The AQMP is based, in part, on the land use plans of the jurisdictions in the region. The proposed project will marginally increase the commercial development in the City. However, since the current zone allows the uses proposed, and the property is designated for commercial use in the General Plan, this intensity has been planned for in the AQMP. Improvements in technology and reductions in emissions associated with improved building standards with the 2016 Building Code will further improve project related air quality by imposing stringent standards for the reduction of energy use. The proposed project will be subject to rules and guidelines set forth in the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the intent of the AQMP and will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. No impact is anticipated. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) Version 2016.3.1 was used to project air quality emissions that will be generated by the proposed project (Appendix A). As part of the project, a hotel building with retail shops totaling 76,870 square feet will be constructed. The Fresh and Easy Store existing building (25,778 square feet) will also be renovated as part of the project. The project would also include drive -aisle improvements behind the hotel and removal of retention basin on 25,778 square feet. In CaIEEMod, only 2.42 acres (105,763 square feet) are being analyzed for air quality analysis and not the entire Specific Plan area because the majority of the Specific Plan area is already built or will be built in the future and is not part of this project. An additional 25,778 square feet is also included in the CaIEEMod model to consider the drive -aisle improvements behind hotel and removal of a retention basin. Criteria air pollutants will be released during all the phases (i.e. rehabilitation, construction, and operational) of the proposed project, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 summarizes short-term construction -related emissions, and Table 2 summarizes ongoing emissions generated during operation. -30- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Construction Emissions: The construction period includes both phases of the project: Phase I (rehabilitation of the existing commercial structures) and Phase II (construction of the hotel building). The analysis also included all other aspects of project development, including site preparation, grading, hauling, paving, building construction, and application of architectural coatings. For analysis purposes, and for conservative projections, it is assumed that buildout of both the phases will occur over a 1 year period. The following assumptions were made for construction: • Total acreage: — 3.01 acres; • Total building square footage (hotel, retail shops and the Fresh and Easy Store building): 105,763 SF; • Drive -aisle improvements and removal of a retention basin: 25,778 SF; • Total import of materials: 5,700 CY; • Total export of materials: 11,500 CY; • SCAQMD Rule 403: Fugitive Dust Control standards applied as required; and • SCAQMD Rule 1113: Architectural Coatings standards applied as required. As shown in Table 1, emissions generated by construction activities will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for any criteria pollutant. The data reflect average daily mitigated emissions over the one year construction period, including summer and winter weather conditions. The analysis assumes 17,200 cubic yards of material/soils will be imported/exported to the site during grading. Applicable standard requirements and best management practices include, but are not limited to, the implementation of a dust control and management plan in conformance with SCQQMD Rule 403, proper maintenance and limited idling of heavy equipment, phasing application of architectural coatings and the use of low -polluting architectural paint and coatings. Construction related impacts are considered less than significant. Table 1 Maximum Daily Construction -Related Emissions Summary (pounds per day) Construction Emissions' CO NOX ROG SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Daily Maximum 23.81 45.97 24.94 0.04 7.33 4.66 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds? No No No No No No 1 Average of winter and summer emissions. Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures and architectural coating standards required by SCAQMD under Rule 403 and Rule 1113, respectively. Emission Source: CalEEMod model, version 2016.3.1. Operational Emissions: Operational emissions are ongoing emissions that will occur over the life of the project. They include area source emissions, emissions from energy demand (electricity), and mobile source (vehicle) emissions. Traffic generation trip rates were derived from the project -specific traffic report. A portion of the project site is existing and developed. The Fresh and Easy Store never operated after buildout, so it has never been generating emissions. It was assumed that the addition -31- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 of the hotel and the rehabilitation of the Fresh and Easy story would generate an estimated 3,457 daily trips, while buildout of the entire Jefferson Square site would result in 5,500 daily trips. Table 2 provides a summary of projected emissions during operation of the proposed project. Table 2 Maximum Daily Operational -Related Emissions Summary (hounds Der dav) Operational Emissions' CO NOz ROG S02 PMio PM2.5 Daily Maximum 13.16 13.16 5.38 0.09 0.13 0.13 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.00 100.00 75.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Exceeds? No No No No No No 1 Average of winter and summer emissions. Includes implementation of fugitive dust control measures and architectural coating standards required by SCAQMD under Rule 403 and Rule 1113, respectively. Emission Source: CalEEMod model, version 2016.3.1. As Table 2 shows, operational emissions will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants. Impacts related to operation will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As stated above, the subject area is located in the Coachella Valley portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin, which is classified as a "non -attainment" area for PMIo and ozone. The 2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan was adopted in order to achieve attainment. This Plan established strict standards for dust management for development proposals. The proposed project will contribute to an incremental increase in regional PMIo and ozone emissions, but will be required to implement SIP requirements and SCAQMD rules and regulations for the management of dust, and will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Due to its limited size and scope, and the implementation of standard requirements, including the implementation of dust management plans, overall cumulative impacts are not expected to be significant for PMIo or ozone precursors (NOx and CO). The project will result in less than significant impacts. d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located within 120 feet south of the project site. To determine if the proposed project has the potential to generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts, the mass rate Localized Significance Threshold (LST) Look -Up Table was used. The City of La Quinta and the project property are located within Source Receptor Area 30 (Palm Spring, Indio, and Mecca/Coachella Valley). Based on the project's size and proximity to existing housing, the 2-acre site tables at a distance of 50- meters were used for air quality analysis. Table 3 shows on -site emission concentrations for project construction and the associated LST. The analysis found that during construction, PMIo had a potential to exceed the LST threshold due to the import and export of material/soils to and from the site. To reduce the PMIo emissions, certain mitigation measures will be applicable to the project which are provided at the end of this section. As shown in Table 3, with implementation of these mitigation measures, impacts to sensitive receptors will be less than significant. -32- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Table 3 Mitigated Localized Significance Thresholds Worse -Case Emissions (pounds per day) CO PMlo PM2.5 Construction 23.81 45.97 7.33 4.66 LST Threshold* 1,931.00 225.00 22.00 7.00 Exceed? No No No No Operation' 13.16 13.16 0.13 0.13 LST Threshold* 1,931.00 225.00 6.00 2.00 Exceed? No No No No Emission Source: CalEEMod model, version 2016.3.1 LST Threshold Source: LST Mass Rate Look -up Table, SCAQMD. 1. Operational emissions that effect sensitive receptors are limited to on -site area emissions. Energy and mobile emissions occur off -site. e) Less Than Significant Impact. Typical odor -generating land uses include, but are not limited to, wastewater treatment plants, landfills, and composing facilities. The proposed project would not introduce any such land uses. Diesel fumes from construction equipment and delivery trucks could be found to be objectionable; however, construction is temporary and substantial deliveries would not be associated with the proposed project. Thus, the project would not result in any noticeable objectionable odors associated with construction or delivery truck diesel fumes. Hotels and indoor organic food and beverage markets are not typically associated with the creation of objectionable odors. The proposed project includes an on -site restaurant, which would involve food preparation that could result in cooking exhaust and smoke, and related food waste. As odors are highly subjective, one receptor may consider cooking exhaust and related smoke as a pleasant odor, while another receptor may find such odors objectionable. Nonetheless, the on - site restaurant would include a hood system that consists of particulate filtration for smoke, gas filtration for gases/odors, and a blower to move the air into the hood, through the air cleaning equipment, and then outdoors. Therefore, such odors would be quickly dispersed below detectable levels as distance from the site increases. Furthermore, the SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), and SCAQMD Best Available Control Technology Guidelines would limit potential objectionable odor impacts during the proposed project's long-term operations phase. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: AQ-1 The following measures shall be implemented during project earth moving, grading and construction activities: • Construction equipment, delivery trucks, worker vehicles, and haul trucks will limit idling time to no more than 5 minutes. • The grading contractor shall certify in writing that all construction equipment is properly serviced and maintained in good operating condition. Certification shall be provided to City Engineer for review and approval. -33- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 • Cover all transported loads of soils, wet materials prior to transport, provide freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) to reduce PMIo and deposition of particulate matter during transportation. • Diesel -powered construction equipment shall utilize aqueous diesel fuels, and be equipped with diesel oxidation catalysts. • Water site and equipment morning and evening and during all earth -moving operations. • Wash off trucks as they leave the project site as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. • Construction equipment and materials shall be sited as far away from residential and park uses as practicable. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: AQ-A The City Engineer and Public Works inspector shall regularly monitor the construction site to assure that the measures are implemented throughout earth moving and grading operations. Responsible Party: City Engineer, Public Works Division -34- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local ✓ or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ✓ plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ✓ vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ✓ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, ✓ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or ✓ other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Source: 2035 General Plan; "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan," 2007. -35- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Setting The subject site has been previously disturbed by existing development and is surrounded on all sides by development, including paved roads, parking lots, and commercial buildings. The vacant sites within Jefferson Square were graded when the project was initially developed. Undeveloped parcels in the Specific Plan area typically consist of scattered regrowth of Sonoran creosote bush scrub and ornamental landscaping, and contain very little native vegetation. The City of La Quinta's General Plan (2012) and Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (2007) were referenced to analyze potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed development. Based on the literature review, the proposed project is not located within a MSHCP Conservation or Linkage Area, or a predetermined Survey Area for narrow endemic or criteria area plant species, or a Survey Area for amphibians or mammals. Rehabilitation of the Fresh and Easy store and construction of the hotel will not significantly affect Biological Resources, as discussed below. a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The majority of the site is currently in use as a commercial building and public parking lots and is landscaped with decorative plant species and trees. There are no special status species on the property. The chances for any potential sensitive plant and wildlife species to occur onsite are negligible. Buildings and other structures (e.g. lighting poles, and fences) currently occupying the project site and offer no nesting opportunities for birds covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Surrounding landscaping at residential and commercial buildings, vacant parcels, and retention basins immediately adjacent to the project site could provide suitable habitat for nesting, but will not be impacted by the proposed project. Trees and bushes occurring on the perimeter of the undeveloped pad proposed for the hotel use, existing parking lot and retention basins, however, could provide habitat for nesting birds. When rehabilitating the site, there could be an impact to these species due to site improvements and construction activities. Under the MBTA, nesting birds must be protected until they fledge. Disturbance of any active nests could, therefore, result in a significant impact to nesting birds, if construction activities are initiated during the nesting season. Therefore, a pre -construction survey will be required to avoid impacts to nesting birds covered by the MBTA. The project site is not located in or adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation area. The proposed development will have no impact to species listed in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b, c) No Impact. The project site does not contain any streams, riparian habitat, marshes, protected wetlands, vernal pools or sensitive natural communities protected by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No project -related impacts will occur. -36- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 d) No Impact. The subject property is located in an urban area and surrounded by roadways and residential and commercial developments. Due to surrounding human activity for many decades, the site does not contain features that are suitable for a migratory wildlife corridor. No project - related impacts will occur. e, f) No Impact. As the project site is not located within the CVMSHCP, the proposed development will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, nor will it conflict with the provisions of the CVMSHCP, a Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: BIO-1: Within 14 days of the initiation of any ground disturbing activity on the site during the nesting season (generally from January 15 through July 31 for the Coachella Valley) a qualified biologist shall conduct an MBTA compliant nesting bird survey. If ground disturbance occurs outside the nesting season, this requirement shall be waived. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: BIO-A Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any portion of the site, the applicant shall submit a written report, prepared by a qualified biologist, reporting on the findings of an MBTA compliant bird survey. The findings and recommendations of the survey will be integrated into grading plan conditions. Responsible Party: Project biologist, Public Works Division -37- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as ✓ defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ✓ resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ✓ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ✓ cemeteries? Source: 2035 General Plan; "Archaeological Monitoring Report for Jefferson Square Project," prepared by CRM TECH in 2009. Setting Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines generally defines a historic resource as a resource that is: (1) listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register); (2) included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code); or (3) identified as significant in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code). Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register. The California Register automatically includes all properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and those formally determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register. Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D) of the CEQA Guidelines generally defines archaeological resources as any resource that "has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history." Archaeological resources are features, such as tools, utensils, carvings, fabric, building foundations, etc., that document evidence of past human endeavors and that may be historically or culturally important to a significant earlier community. It is believed that an early settlement of the "Cahuilla" people has occurred in this region around 1000 BC. The descendants of the Pass and Desert Cahuilla are now associated with several local reservations, such as Torres Martinez, Cabazon, and Augustine to the east and south of the City, and the Agua Caliente and Morongo to the west. -38- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 The completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad line in the 1870s began an influx of settlers in the Coachella Valley. Based on certain federal laws, the public land in the valley was opened for private land claims in the 1880s. At the turn of the 201 century, the first land was claimed in the La Quinta area, and by the 1910s a number of ranches were operating in the La Quinta area. The tourism industry began to establish in the area around 1920s and the construction of the first hotel, La Quinta Hotel, begun in 1926 by Walter Morgan. La Quinta Hotel was a first-class hotel which became an attraction for Hollywood stars and industrialists. Known Historic and/or Archaeological Resources within the City of La Quinta: Most of the cultural resources in the City of La Quinta developed in and around ancient Lake Cahuilla. The oldest cultural resources have been identified in the western portion of the City that date to about 2700 years ago. In 1980, the Riverside County Historical Commission of the Riverside Parks Department conducted a survey to log La Quinta's historical resources and identified 90 properties of historic importance. In 2006 an update to the City's historic resources were conducted and identified 183 more buildings. The majority of these buildings are single-family homes older than 80 years. In addition to cultural resources, the City also contains paleontological resources due to the presence of Lake Cahuilla. Freshwater shells from the last stand of the lake in the 171 century have been reported from the City. Results and Summary of Archaeological Fieldwork for Specific Plan: An Isolated Pottery Sherd and the Cremation Remains: As mentioned in the project description, the project site is located within the Jefferson Square Specific Plan which was approved in 2004. At that time, the whole Specific Plan area was undeveloped land. As part of the site investigation, an "Archaeological Monitoring Report" was prepared in 2009 by CRM TECH. According to the results, one cremation remains and an isolated pottery sherd were found within the recorded boundaries of Site 33-001769. After their locations were plotted onto project maps, the cremation remains, and the isolated pottery sherd were appropriately treated and curated at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside. The isolated pottery sherd was discovered outside the boundaries of any previously recorded sites in the vicinity. It was found with no other associated cultural materials and within soils attributed to the last high stand of Lake Cahuilla and more recent dune formations. Also, occurring out of depositional context, an isolate by definition does not constitute an archaeological site, and is not considered a potential "historical resource," as defined by CEQA. The cremation site was identified on the northern portion of the property, and consisted of an oval - shaped burned spot at the depth of one meter below the original ground surface found in August 2008 during subsurface excavation of a retention basin. In September 2008, archaeological excavation confirmed the presence of possible human bone at that area. Deputy Coroner Deborah Gray visited the site and identified the remains as non -diagnostic femur or tibia fragments of human size (Case# 2008- 063-351). The Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento was also contacted regarding that finding. -39- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 On September loth, 2008, Tribal Elder Joe Benitez of the nearby Cabazon Band of Mission Indians visited the site and performed a ceremony for the remains prior to interment. The remains were reburied at a depth of approximately eight feet below surface, in an area designated for landscaping and outside any building area. Subsequent to the rough grading of the site, pads were created, including the pad site proposed for the hotel site, and all infrastructure within the project was installed. The project archaeologist filed a Monitoring Report, and no further archaeological resources have since been identified on the site. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The subject site is partially developed with a parking lot and existing Fresh and Easy store building which were developed in late 2010. That building will be rehabilitated as an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities which would involve new interior and exterior retrofits to the existing building. This Phase of the project will also include the filling of the existing retention basin in the northwest corner of the site, and the construction of additional parking spaces. This area was previously excavated and thoroughly studied during site monitoring, and contained no historic resource. That investigation also identified archaeological resources, in the form of a cremation site, which was removed prior to site grading. No other archaeological resources were identified in this portion of the site, and no deeper excavation will be conducted for the proposed project. Therefore, impacts associated with Phase I of the proposed project are expected to be less than significant. Portions of the site will be precise -graded as part of the project during Phase II, for the construction of the hotel. This area was previously graded when the project was initially developed, and no resources were identified. It is possible, however, that excavation for building foundations could result in deeper cut than those that occurred for that portion of the site when the project was initially developed. Because of the location of resources on the project site in the past, over -excavation for the hotel site has the potential to uncover additional resources. The City contacted four tribes (Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians) in May 2018 regarding potential Native American Cultural resources on -site. Three representatives (Victoria Martin from Augustine Band, Anthony Madrigal of the Twenty -Nine Palms Band, and Pattie Garcia -Plotkin from Aqua Caliente Band) have responded which are summarized below: • Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians stated that the tribe is unware of specific resources that could be affected by the proposed project. However, the Tribe recommended contacting Native American Tribes and individuals within the immediate vicinity of the subject site that may have any information regarding the area. In addition, the tribe has particularly requested that the applicant be required to monitor, using a qualified Native American monitor, during the pre -construction and construction phase of the project. -40- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 • ACBCI stated that the project site is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation. However, it lies within the Tribe's Traditional Use Area. Based on previous survey results, there is a potential for cultural resources to be found at the site, therefore, ACBCI requests the following: o Presence of an approved Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities and a "Mitigation Plan" if buried cultural deposits are encountered. • Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians stated that since the project area was built upon a prehistoric archaeological site, there is an increased chance of exposing sensitive cultural materials for this project. Therefore, the Band requested a detailed grading plan and project design plans to provide any additional recommendations, which were provided to the Tribe in July of 2018. The THPO has also requested a consultation meeting with the City, prior to construction to ensure that known cultural resources would not be impacted. The tribe requested to be notified about all updates and changes within the project moving forward. Summary The project area does not contain any historic resource. However, previous investigations identified archaeological resources at the site, in the form of a cremation site, which was reinterred prior to site grading. The City has conducted SB 18 and AB 52 consultations with the associated tribes to ensure the proper identification of potential "tribal cultural resources." The project site is within the ACBCI traditional land use area. Due to the traditional land use and cultural ties of the project area, the project site is a sensitive area and potentially contains sub -surface archaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures and a monitoring program are included to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, consistent with the findings of the cultural resource investigation, and the concerns of the Augustine, ACBCI, and Twenty -Nine Palms bands. With implementation of these mitigation measures and a monitoring program, impacts associated with archaeological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. c) No Impact. The project site occurs within the boundary of ancient Lake Cahuilla. Prior grading of the site, however, resulted in the disturbance of surface soils. No paleontological resources are expected to remain on the project site. No impact will occur. d) Less Than Significant Impact. No cemeteries are known to occur on -site. However, a known interment has occurred in the southwest corner of the site, in an area that was subsequently landscaped. The construction of the hotel will result in the modification of landscaping in this area of the site. However, landscaping activities are not expected to reach the depth of the previous interment. In addition, the over -excavation of the hotel pad will be monitored, assuring that any identification of previously unknown remains will occur. Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with human remains are anticipated. -41- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Mitigation Measures: CUL-1: A qualified archaeologist and Tribal monitor shall be on site during over -excavation of the hotel pad. The archaeologist and monitor shall be empowered to halt activities and redirect them to other areas, if a cultural resource is identified. Any resource identified during these activities shall be appropriately treated and curated. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: CUL-A Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the hotel pad, the applicant shall furnish the City with a fully executed monitoring agreement. Within 30 days of the completion of over - excavation activities on the project site, a report of findings shall be filed with the City. Responsible Parties: Project applicant, project archaeologist, Tribal monitor, Design and Development Department, Public Works Division. -42- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project: Impact P Mitigation g Impact P a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, ✓ including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area ✓ or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ✓ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, ✓ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ✓ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or ✓ the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ✓ potentially result in on -or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform ✓ Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ✓ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources: 2035 General Plan; "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation," prepared by Krazan and Associates, Inc. in May 2007; "Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980. -43- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Setting The Coachella Valley is located in the northwestern portion of the Salton Trough, a tectonic depression roughly 130 miles long and 70 miles wide that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The valley is bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains on the northwest, San Jacinto Mountains on the west, Santa Rosa Mountains on the south, and Little San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills on the north. The Salton Sea is located to the southeast. The valley's geologic composition is directly related to its proximity to the San Andreas Fault, which passes through the northeasterly portion of the valley, and other active faults. The region is susceptible to a range of geologic hazards, including ground rupture, major ground shaking, slope instability, and collapsible and expansive soils. Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including the Whitewater River, results in the deposition of sand and gravel on the valley floor. Strong sustained winds emanating from the San Gorgonio Pass cause wind erosion and transport and deposit dry, finely granulated, sandy soils on the central valley floor. Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to coarse gravels of mountain canyons and recently laid fine- and medium -grained alluvial (stream deposited) and aeolian (wind deposited) sediments on the central valley floor. The project site is located within the Jefferson Square Specific Plan area for which a "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report," was prepared by Krazan and Associates, Inc. in 2007 to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. The site investigation included literature review, field exploration, sixteen (16) borings to depths of 11 to 51 feet below the ground surface and laboratory testing of the borings. Results of the project site's assessment are as follows: Soil Profile and Subsurface Conditions: Based on the borings' profiles, the subsurface soils at the project site consist of 1 to 3 feet of loose/disturbed silty sands and sands underlain by denser alluvial deposits. Laboratory test of the subsurface soil suggested that the deeper soils were moderately strong and slightly compressive. Physical properties of the subsurface soil are reported below: Penetration Resistance = 7 to 54 blows per foot, Dry Densities = 90.8 to 112.6 pounds per cubic feet, Angles of Internal Friction = 32 to 37 degrees, Consolidation when Saturated = 0.7 to 1.7 percent under a 2-ksf load, R-Values = 52 to 58, Maximum Dry Densities = 110 to 119 pcf, and Expansion Index = 0. Currently, the majority of the site is developed. The entire site was graded when construction of the pharmacy, Fresh and Easy store and retail shops was undertaken. At that time, the site proposed for the hotel was also graded, but not constructed. -44- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Groundwater: Groundwater level is an indicator of groundwater availability, groundwater flow, and physical characteristics of an aquifer, which fluctuates due to aquifer storage changes either due to addition or extraction of water from the aquifer both through natural means (e.g. precipitation and climatic conditions) and human involvement (e.g. irrigation practices, flow in adjacent or nearby canals, pumping from wells). In 2007, groundwater was not encountered in borings ranging from 11 to 51 feet in depth at the site. Soil Corrosivity: Soil corrosion is a geologic hazard that affects buried metals and concrete that are in direct contact with soil or bedrock. Chloride content, electrical resistivity, and pH level are the main indicators of the soil's tendency to corrode ferrous metals. For the project site, the soil corrosivity to the buried structures was also evaluated, and is given below: Parameters Results Test Method I Resistivity 12,500 ohms -cm Caltrans Sulfate > 5 mg/kgmg/kg EPA 9038 Chloride 23.4 mg/kgmg/kg EPA 9253 H 9.02 EPA 9045C Chloride and sulfate were reported low to initiate soil corrosion at the site. However, electrical resistivity of onsite soils was reported to have a mild potential for metal loss from the electrochemical corrosion process. Collapsible Soil: The upper onsite soils are reported to be moisture -sensitive and moderately compressible under saturated conditions. In 2007, a number of structures in the project vicinity was reported to experience excessive post -construction settlement as foundations became saturated. The rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building and construction of a new hotel building on the subject site will not significantly affect Geology and Soils, as discussed below. Discussion of Impacts a) i) No Impact. The subject property is not located within or adjacent to an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest earthquake fault is the San Andreas Fault (Coachella Section), approximately 3.85 miles northeast of the site. This fault is capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude >5.0, however, fault rupture is not expected on the project site. No impact will result from implementation of the proposed project. ii. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in a seismically active region where earthquakes originating on local and regional seismic faults can produce severe ground shaking. Buildings proposed for the site will be required to be constructed in accordance with the most -45- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 recent edition of the California Building Code (CBC) and La Quinta Municipal Code Section 8.16.010 (Adoption of the California Existing Building Code) to provide collapse -resistant design. The City has adopted several modifications to the CBC in accordance to local geology. The La Quinta Municipal Code provides regulations for collapse -resistant design. These requirements are designed to minimize the impact to people and property in the event of an earthquake. Project -related impacts associated with seismic ground shaking will be less than significant. iii. No Impact. The project site is located in an area that has a low susceptibility to liquefaction (General Plan; Exhibit IV-3). Onsite underlying soils consist of Myoma fine sand, (MaB) and Myoma fine sand (MaD) of Wind -Laid Dune Sand (Qs) (Appendix B), which would not be susceptible to liquefaction. In addition, the depth of the groundwater in the area is greater than 50 feet below the ground surface. For liquefaction to occur, groundwater levels must be within 50 feet of the ground surface. Therefore, the sand in this region is not prone to consolidation under building loads and severe ground shaking. No impact is anticipated. iv. No Impact. The proposed project site is on the Coachella Valley floor. It consists of, and is surrounded by relatively flat terrain. The nearest hillsides and mountainous slopes are approximately'/2 mile west of the property. No impacts associated with landslides will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The Coachella Valley floor on which the subject property is located is highly susceptible to wind erosion (General Plan; Exhibit IV-5). The proposed project will include rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building, grading, paving, construction, and other ground disturbance of the vacant pad, and excavation of the retention basin by heavy machinery that could result in the loss of some topsoil and generate particulate matter in the western portion of the site. Grading and construction may require removal of the topsoil; however, project -related impacts are expected to be less than significant because the project will be required to implement measures to control fugitive dust (See Air Quality, Section III), which will minimize potential adverse impacts associated with soil erosion. Water erosion could also occur as a result of site watering and rainfall during the development process and post -construction operations. The project will be required to comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and the Best Management Practices (BMP) set forth in the project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to assure that water erosion is reduced to less than significant levels. Post -construction water runoff will be retained in the retention facilities onsite. These project features will assure that impacts associated with water erosion remain less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. Surface soils of the project site consist of sand, which is not considered an unstable soil or geologic unit. Also, the site is not susceptible to on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse due to the distance from mountainous slopes and foothills and depth of the groundwater. The majority of the site is currently developed as a Fresh and Easy store building, a retention basin, and parking lots. The existing vacant pad will be graded as part of the project to accommodate construction of the proposed hotel building, and grading will be conducted in -46- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 compliance with City standards. For the proposed development, the City may require additional project -specific geotechnical and structural engineering analysis, as necessary, to determine whether additional soil remediation or compaction is required for the proposed hotel building. This standard requirement will be imposed by the City prior to issuance of building permits, and will assure that impacts associated with soils remain less than significant. d) No Impact. Expansive soils typically contain large amounts of clay that expand when water is absorbed and shrink when they dry. As described in Section VI-a.iv, above, the site's underlying soils consist of Myoma fine sand, (MaB) and Myoma fine sand (Mal)), which have a low shrink - swell potential ("Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980). Therefore, no impact associated with expansive soils will occur. e) No Impact. The project will connect to the City's existing sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed. No adverse impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -47- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS Potentially Less Than Less Than EMISSIONS: Significant Significant Significant No Impact w/ Impact Impact p Would the project: Mitigation a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhousegases? Source: 2035 General Plan; California Global Warming Solutions Act; CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1; La Quinta Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (2012). Setting The principal Green House Gases (GHGs) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), Ozone (03), and water vapor (H20). Some GHGs, such as CO2, CH4, and N20, occur naturally and are emitted to the atmosphere through natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results mostly from off -gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Man made GHGs, which have a much greater heat -absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which are associated with certain industrial products and processes. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated by both moving and stationary sources, including vehicles, the production of electricity and natural gas, water pumping and fertilizers. State law mandates that all cities decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. In June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger established California's GHG emissions reduction targets in Executive Order S-3-05. The Executive Order established the following goals: GHG emissions should be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010; GHG emissions should be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020; and GHG emissions should be reduced to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In furtherance of the goals established in Executive Order S-3-05, the legislature enacted AB 32 (Nunez and Pavley), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which Governor Schwarzenegger signed on September 27, 2006. On April 29, 2015, Governor Jerry Brown issued an Executive Order which identified an interim GHG reduction target in support of targets previously identified under S-3-05 and AB 32. Executive Order B-30-15 set an interim target goal of reducing GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to keep California on its trajectory toward meeting or exceeding the long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. La Quinta Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan In 2012, the City of La Quinta prepared a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan with its General Plan to set greenhouse reduction goals. The plan includes a comprehensive inventory of greenhouse gas emissions -48- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 generated City-wide along with future greenhouse emission projections, reduction targets, and policies and programs. To meet AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 goals, the City's reduction target is to achieve 1990 level emissions by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The City will also comply with statewide efforts and act locally to monitor, evaluate, and amend local policies and programs in order to achieve mandated emission reductions. The proposed project will be reviewed for consistency with the City's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and its GHG reduction strategies. GHG Thresholds In November 2009, during SCAQMD GHG working group meetings, SCAQMD staff proposed a variety of thresholds for GHG emissions. However, as of July 2018, the SCAQMD Governing Board has not formally adopted the proposed interim tiered approach for evaluating GHG impacts. Implementation of the proposed rehabilitation of an existing building and development of a new building will have no significant impacts on significant GHG emissions, and is discussed further below. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will generate GHG emissions during both construction and operation for both phases. As mentioned in Section III, Air Quality, above, the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.1 was used to quantify air quality emission projections, including greenhouse gas emissions (Appendix A). Construction related greenhouse gas emissions will be temporary and will end once the project is completed. Operational emissions will occur throughout the life of the project. At buildout, there are five emission source categories that will be contributing either directly or indirectly to operational GHG emissions, including energy/electricity usage, water usage, solid waste disposal, area emissions (pavement and architectural coating off -gassing), and mobile sources. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD formally adopted a greenhouse gas significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/yr that only applies to stationary sources for industrial uses where SCAQMD is the lead agency (SCAQMD Resolution No. 08-35). This threshold was adopted based upon an October 2008 staff report and draft interim guidance document' that also recommended a threshold for all projects using a tiered approach. It was recommended by SCAQMD staff that a project's greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if it could not comply with at least one of the following "tiered" tests: • Tier 1: Is there an applicable exemption? • Tier 2: Is the project compliant with a greenhouse gas reduction plan that is, at a minimum, consistent with the goals of AB 32? • Tier 3: Is the project below an absolute threshold (10,000 MTCO2e/yr for industrial projects; 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for residential and commercial projects)? Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, prepared by SCAQMD, October 2008. -49- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 • Tier 4: Is the project below a (yet to be set) performance threshold? • Tier 5: Would the project achieve a screening level with off -site mitigation? The proposed project is consistent and compliant with Tier 3, in that the project is considered a commercial project with an absolute threshold below 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for commercial projects. Table 4 provides a summary of the projected amortized short-term construction, and annual operational GHG generation associated with the potential buildings on the site. As shown in the table, the proposed project will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for commercial land uses. Table 4 Projected GHG Emissions Summary (Metric Tons) Phase CO2e (MT/YR) Construction 688.50 Operational 2,952.15 SCAQMD Threshold (Commercial) 3,000.00 Emission Source: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1 It is recognized that GHG impacts are intrinsically cumulative. All components of construction, including equipment, fuels, materials, and management practices, would be subject to current and future SCAQMD rules and regulations related to greenhouse gases. Applicable SCAQMD rules include, but are not limited to, source specific standards that reduce the greenhouse gas content in engines and limit equipment idling durations. Project -related GHG emissions will not exceed established GHG thresholds for construction because there are no such thresholds established. In addition, the project will be subject to requirements set forth in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and City's Municipal Code Section 9.100.220 (Operational Standards), which is qualitatively consistent with Statewide goals and policies in place for the reduction of GHG emissions. Operational GHG emissions will be generated by energy/electricity usage, water usage, solid waste disposal, area emissions (pavement and architectural coating off -gassing), and mobile sources. As shown in the table above, operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD recommended threshold for commercial projects. In addition, the proposed project's generation of GHG emissions would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to or conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purposes of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses. Impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -50- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS Potentially Less Than Less Than No MATERIALS: Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ✓ transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ✓ involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ✓ substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ✓ 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ✓ airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a ✓ safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ✓ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ✓ wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Source: 2035 General Plan; California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste; State Water Resources Control Board. -51- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Setting In the City of La Quinta, hazardous materials transport, storage, and use is strictly regulated for large quantity users, such as industrial processing plants and commercial dry cleaners. The City implements the General Plan's Hazardous and Toxic Materials element through regular consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and Riverside County Department of Environmental Health. The City also monitors and regulates industrial plants and commercial areas through the element's goals, policies, and programs. The State Water Resources Control Board's online database (Geo Tracker) indicates that the City of La Quinta contains approximately 22 sites that are either listed or permitted as hazardous material sites under the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). The majority of these sites are located along Washington Street, Madison Street, and Avenue 52. According to GeoTracker, there are no permitted underground storage tank (UST) and two LUST Cleanup Sites within 2 miles of the project site. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will result in the rehabilitation of the Fresh and Easy store building and development of a three-story hotel building. Cleaners, solvents, fertilizers and pesticides may be used on -site for routine cleaning and landscaping. However, none of these will be used in sufficient quantities so as to pose a threat to humans or cause a foreseeable chemical release into the environment. The rehabilitation and construction phase would involve the use of heavy equipment, which uses small amounts of oil and fuels and other potential flammable substances. During rehabilitation and construction, equipment would require refueling and minor maintenance on site that could lead to fuel and oil spills. The contractor will be required to identify a staging area for storing materials, and will be subject to State law relating to the handling, storage and use of hazardous materials during construction. The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances, because the cleaners and household chemicals used are not explosive and will not be stored in large quantities. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction activities and long-term operation of the proposed project would occur in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA) requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. c) No impact. John Glenn Middle and Amelia Earhart Elementary schools are located approximately at 0.4 miles southwest of the project within the Indio City limits. The "First School," a private pre-school, is located approximately 0.92 miles southwest of the project area. None of these schools are located within'/4 miles of the proposed project. No temporary or long- term adverse impacts to schools or students associated with hazardous materials are anticipated because of the distance to the school, and the requirements of law pertaining to the storage and use of hazardous materials on the project site. -52- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 d) No Impact. The proposed project site is not included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. e, f) No Impact. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.10 miles north of the project site. According to the Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (BDALUCP), the subject site is located within Zone E (other airport environs) which comes under the influence of the airport. Since the subject property is within Airport Land Use Compatibility Zone E, the project requires staff -level review and approval by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The applicant completed the ALUC review and was found to be consistent with the BDALUCP in July of 2018. The project site is currently partially developed and surrounded by residential and commercial developments. At buildout, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project and/or airport area. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. g) No Impact. The proposed project will not significantly alter the existing circulation pattern in the project area or adversely impact evacuation plans. The primary transportation access points are on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, which are part of the City's established street grid system. Both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street are major roadways, and will provide access to the site by emergency services, and from the site for evacuation purposed. No impact is anticipated. Proposed parking and circulation plans will be reviewed by the Fire and Police Departments to assure that driveways and roads are adequate for emergency vehicles. The project includes an emergency access driveway around the buildings, to assure that fire trucks can access all portions of the project site. A construction plan will be required by the City to assure that the project does not interfere with emergency access during development. These standard requirements will assure that there will be no impacts associated with emergency response. h) No Impact. The subject property is located in an urban area and surrounded on all sides by development. The nearest wildlands are the foothills of the Santa Rosa Mountains, approximately 2 miles to the southwest. The project site is not located in a wildland fire hazard zone and is not susceptible to wildfires. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with wildfires. No wildfire related impact is expected. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -53- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER Potentially Less Than Less Than QUALITY: Significant Significant w/ Significant No Impact Would the project: Impact Mitigation Impact a) Violate any water quality standards or ✓ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table ✓ level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ✓ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the ✓ rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ✓ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ✓ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ✓ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? -54- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or ✓ redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ✓ involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ✓ mudflow? Source: 2035 General Plan; FEMA Flood Insurance Rate FIRM Panel No. 06065C2232G; "Preliminary Hydrological Report for CCD Hotels and Resorts -La Quinta" prepared by DRC Engineering, Inc. February 2018; "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan" prepared by DRC Engineering, Inc. in March 2018. Setting Domestic Water: The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides domestic water and irrigation water to the City of La Quinta, including the project site. Its primary source of water is groundwater extracted by deep wells from the Whitewater River sub -basin. The water resource consists of a combination of natural runoff, recycled water, imported water, inflows from adjacent basins, and an interlinked system of sub - basins. The Whitewater River sub -basin is also artificially recharged through imported State Water Project Exchange and Colorado River water. There are three recharge facilities in the Valley: one located northwest of Palm Springs, one located southeast of La Quinta in Martinez Canyon and one located in La Quinta, south of Avenue 58 and west of Madison Street. The total storage capacity of the Whitewater River Subbasin is approximately 28.8 million -acre feet and it currently contains approximately 25 million -acre feet. It is capable of meeting the water demands of the Coachella Valley, including the City, for extended normal and drought periods. CVWD's domestic water system includes 50 wells with an average depth of 900 feet to serve the City and its wider customer base. CVWD has a total of 27 reservoirs, with an average capacity of 1.8 million gallons. Wastewater: CVWD also provides wastewater collection and treatment services to the City of La Quinta. CVWD has two wastewater treatment plants serving the City but only one of the plants, which serve the area north of Miles Avenue, currently has the ability to generate tertiary treated water. That plant has a capacity of 2.5 million gallons per day. Reclaimed water can only be used for irrigation. CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment and aeration ponds, and other structures. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. Flood Control: The project site is located in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley. It has an average rainfall of 3 inches per year. Several watersheds drain the adjoining elevated terrain of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains towards the valley floor. The City is subject to short duration rainfall events -55- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 which can generate significant amounts of surface water. To control the surface runoff during storm events, approximately 6% of open space lands are dedicated for purpose of flood control. These areas are connected to a regional conveyance system within the City, which is managed by the CVWD and include the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel (Whitewater River), the La Quinta Evacuation Channel, the All -American Canal, the Upper Bear Creek Drainage System, the Lake Cahuilla Reservoir, and the East La Quinta Channel. Furthermore, the City requires that all development projects within the City contain and control the rainwater that flows through a developed site, generally through the installation of retention basins. The project site and areas surrounding it are subject to City requirements relating to flood control. The City implements standard requirements for the retention of storm flows and participates in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to protect surface waters from pollution. Development projects must retain the 100-year storm flow on site. Surface Water Quality The water quality of regional surface waters is largely dependent upon land uses that affect runoff, such as agriculture, urban development, and industrial land uses. Runoff from storm water and agricultural irrigation can transport pollutants that collect on the ground surface and affect water quality of receiving streams, rivers, and channels. In the City of La Quinta, the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and the La Quinta Evacuation Channel are the major receiving water bodies which drain into the Salton Sea. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in the Whitewater River watershed. All water providers in the watershed are required to comply with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards for the protection of water quality, including the preparation of site -specific Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) for surface waters. The CVWD is required to meet water quality requirements in its production and delivery of domestic water. The CVWD is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and must maintain strict water quality standards in the treatment of effluent. The proposed project will extend an 8-inch sanitary sewer line from the southern portion of the project site to connect to an existing 8-inch line along Jefferson Street. Construction of the extension line will be subject to all CVWD requirements. The proposed project will not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project will also be required to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, which minimize the pollutant load associated with urban runoff. The imposition of conditions of approval, local, state and federal standard requirements and the requirements of law will assure that the project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts are expected to be less than significant. -56- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 b) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water for domestic use and landscape irrigation for the retail market and hotel. CVWD has developed demand factors for broad land use categories (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, schools/institutional, and landscaping irrigation), and does not include specific factors for hotel and retail land uses. Based on a demand factor of 0.11 gallons per square foot per day, provided by American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) for retail uses, the retail component of the project has the potential to generate a demand of 3.56 acre-feet per year. Based on the commonly used water demand factor of 150 gallons per day per hotel room for the hotel development, the project has the potential to generate a demand of 29.57 acre-feet per year. Total water demand for the project would be 33.06 acre-feet per year. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation of the General Plan. CVWD works with the City of La Quinta and all other jurisdictions and regularly updates its Urban Water Management Plan. According to the CVWD's latest Urban Water Management Plan (2015), the City of La Quinta, including the subject site, was considered in its future water demand projections and analysis, which found that the CVWD has sufficient supply to accommodate growth now and in the future, with the implementation of a number of conservation strategies. Approximately 28.8 million acre-feet of water is stored in the Whitewater River sub -basin and the proposed project's water demand will be less than 1 percent of CVWD's groundwater supplies. Therefore, project impacts associated with domestic water demand are expected to be less than significant. The project will connect to existing water lines beneath Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. No new wells or additional water infrastructure are proposed. The project will be required to comply with the City's water -efficiency requirements, including the use of drought -tolerant planting materials and limited landscaping irrigation. Implementation of these and other applicable requirements will assure that water -related impacts remain at less than significant levels. c, e) Less Than Significant Impact. The subject site is generally flat and contains no rivers or streams. Previous Approved Hydrological Design for the Specific Plan: The subject site is located within the partly developed Jefferson Square Specific Plan area, for which a "Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Study," was prepared in 2008. In that report, the site was divided into three distinct drainage areas (i.e. Watershed "A", "B," and "C") that were designed as follows (Exhibit 13): Watershed A: This area was designed to collect runoff from the Jefferson Street parking lot, two out -parcel buildings and Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The runoff was to be collected by drain inlets and the existing catch basins in the streets. Storm drain pipes then discharge into an existing underground retention and infiltration basin (Basin "A") located south of Pad A and west of Jefferson Street. -57- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Watershed B: This area was designed to collect the runoff from the major building roofs and the rear drive aisle along the west boundary of the project. The runoff was to be collected by surface flowlines and drain inlets that would discharge into an open retention basin (Basin `B") located on the west edge of the property behind the Fresh and Easy store. Watershed C: This area was designed to collect the runoff from approximately 1.9 acres along the south boundary of the site and approximately 0.5 acres of street runoff. The runoff was to be collected by surface flowlines and pipe inlets to an existing open retention basin (Basin "C") located at the southeast corner of the site. The table below summarizes the watersheds acreage and capacities during 10-year and 100-year storm events based on the previously approved hydrological design for the Specific Plan area. Watershed Area (AC) Qio (CFS) Qioo (CFS) Retention Basin Volume Required CF Retention Basin Volume Provided CF A 6.9 19.9 34.3 Existing Retention Basin to remain B 3.7 12.2 21.4 27,010 1 28,031 C 2.5 7.8 13.2 Existing Retention Basin to remain Total 13.0 39.9 68.4 -1 - Currently, major portions of the Specific Plan are developed and there are three retention basins as planned. The northern portion of the site is developed and the runoff discharges to an existing retention basin (B). To accommodate the runoff from the southern portion of the site which will be built as a hotel, minor changes are proposed, as discussed below. Proposed Changes for Watershed "A", "B," and "C": For the proposed development, the existing open retention basin (Basin `B") located along the west boundary will be converted to an underground retention facility (Exhibit 13). The proposed facility will be designed to match the capacity of the existing open retention basin requirement at 27,010 CF. The proposed facility will consist of 148 units of 100" x 60" open bottom arch chambers and one existing 30 feet deep Maxwell drywell. The combined volume provided, including gravel layers is 27,184 CF or 101% of the required storage volume. Pretreatment of the runoff before it enters the underground infiltration chamber will be accomplished by an existing hydrodynamic separator manufactured by Hydro International. The 6" gravel layer under the bottom of the underground retention basin will be used for infiltration of runoff into the ground soils. The table below summarizes the watershed's acreage and capacities during 10-year and 100-year storm events of the watersheds based on the proposed development for subject site. [Watershed rea AC Qio (CFS) Qioo (CFS) Retention Basin Volume Required CF Retention Basin Volume Provided CF A 6.9 20.0 34.3 Existing Retention Basin to remain B 3.7 12.5 21.4 27,010 1 28,184 C 2.4 7.5 12.8 Existing Retention Basin to remain Total 13.0 40 68.5 -1 - -58- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 The retention basins and underground facilities will accommodate the 10-year and 100-year storm. Basin "A" and Basin "C," which were constructed as part of the original Jefferson Square retail center will remain in place and undisturbed. Basin `B" will be converted to an underground retention facility. The proposed project will be required to comply with the City's requirements as they relate to storm water retention, including the approval of a final project -specific hydrology study and Water Quality Management Plan. Implementation of these and other applicable requirements will assure that drainage and stormwater will not create or contribute water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. t) No Impact. A project specific Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan was prepared for the subject site in 2018 by DRC Engineering, Inc. The proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable water quality standards, and will implement a Water Quality Management Plan approved by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Adherence to the City's standard requirements related to water quality will ensure there will be no impact to water quality. g, h, i) No Impact. The project site is not located in the 100-year floodplain and will not place housing or other structures in an area that would impede or redirect flows (General Plan; Exhibit IV-6). According to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the site is located in Zone X, which represents "areas outside of 0.2% annual chance flood." (FIRM Panel No. 06065C2232G). No impact is anticipated. j) No Impact. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a water body. No hazard from dam failure, tsunami or seiche is possible. There will be no impacts. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -59- IU11 ! I I I I I II IN 1IF, 11111I ��Jlfd�d- ■1A.100 ; i'0 SHOPS 1 1• 5 ,�1 L1:fa� A RETENTION BASIN 'B' C'� W� pp I V SITE Ol SUBAREA ev.tea CFCP—EU �I .. srt �ee,u O.73 AC ACREAGE TC=9.16 30 _ 1O NODE TIME OF CONCENTRATION IN MINUTES 1 Q —10.20 RUNOFF FOR 10 YEAR STORM EVENT IN CFS ® A %F15.21 ^ RUNOFF FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT IN CPS a � uir■ Ecww .. v 9 849.OF5 ELEVA710N - LINE B FLOW PATH G— — ■ — SUBAREA BOUNDARY "" SHOPS 3 DRAINAGE AREA BOUNDARY DRYWELL ® 6 I C1 INLET /ICI 'FOOD m MARKE� Al ® ® o 00- j 1.5 OVERFLOW DRUG -- -- 0 0 DC = Diu., S5 59 32A .25J 7 Uoon 10 104F8L_: 0qq10 1 0r0=.4.8 100 8.: myy_s .¢ TC=11.11 OVERFLOW TO T AT A 2 245 FL PRO OF INDEPEN as: 7 GRAPHIC SCALE f w Beer ) Source: DRC Engineering, Inc., 2018 o L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Preliminary Hydrology Plan La Quinta, California 00 T 00 N _z Crj 0 Exhibit 14 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project: Impact P Mitigation g Impact P a) Physically divide an established ✓ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general ✓ plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ✓ conservation plan? Sources: 2035 General Plan; Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) 2003; Figure 4- 1-Conservation Areas; Project materials. Setting The project site is governed by the policies and land use designations of the La Quinta General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Currently, the project area is designated as General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) in the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps, respectively. The project site is also governed by the Jefferson Square Specific Plan, which provides site -specific design standards and guidelines to guide development on the site. The project proposes an amendment to the Specific Plan, as described below. The City of La Quinta participates in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), as discussed above under Biological Resources. Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact. The subject property is part of a planned commercial development, and is partially developed with retail and commercial land uses. No residences or neighborhoods occur on within the Specific Plan boundary. The proposed development will not physically divide an established community. No impact will occur. b) Less Than Significant Impact. Currently, the Specific Plan area is designated as General Commercial and Neighborhood Commercial (CN) in the City's General Plan and Zoning Maps, respectively. The Applicant is proposing a Specific Plan Amendment that would result in the rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building to an indoor organic food and beverage -61- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 market with dine -in facilities, and the construction of a three-story hotel building. A Site Development Permit is also proposed for approval of the landscaping and architectural design of the hotel and retail components of the project. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is a comprehensive update to the existing Specific Plan that addresses the development of a food market, assorted retail and service -oriented shops, and a 160-room hotel. The Amendment also includes an updated discussion of landscaping, an increase in the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.25 to 0.30, an enhanced circulation discussion, refinement to the design guidelines and development standards, and new landscape design guidelines. The proposed Amendment will not substantially change or degrade the City's development standards, nor would it result in the construction of substandard structures. The project uses are generally consistent with the land uses allowed in the City's commercial zones. The Amendment will allow a hotel in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, which is otherwise not a permitted use, but the relatively small size of the hotel, and its location in close proximity to major roadways and the Interstate result in a compatibility of the site with the use. Overall, the provisions of the Specific Plan and the development of the project are not expected to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project, and impacts are considered less than significant. c) No Impact. As stated in Section IV, Biological Resources, the project site is located in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) boundaries, but is not located within or adjacent to a conservation area. The proposed project will be required to comply with its requirements relating to the payment of fees at the issuance of building permits, if these fees were not payed at the time that the original project was constructed. No conservation plan - related conflict will occur. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -62- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact P Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation g Less Than Significant Impact p No Impact a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of ✓ value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local ✓ general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources: 2035 General Plan. Setting Mineral resources in the City of La Quinta consist primarily of sand and gravel which has been transported by wind and rain into the Valley from surrounding mountains over millennia. The City is composed of seven soil units: alluvial sand and gravel of the Whitewater River (Qg), windblown sand (Qs), interbedded lacustrine (Ql), alluvial deposits (Qa), alluvial fan sand and gravel deposits (Qf), landslide deposits (Qls), and quartz diorite (Qd) (General Plan; Exhibit IV-4). Sand and gravels are considered an economic resource and commonly used for road base and other building materials. Only one area of the City is identified as having the potential for mineral resources, the Quarry. However, the Quarry has been developed as a country club for several years. No existing sand or gravel operations occur in the vicinity of the project site. Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. Mineral resources in the City consist primarily of sand and gravel. The project site is located in Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-3, "areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resources significance" (General Plan; Exhibit III-1). As discussed in Section VI, Geological Resources, the project site is mainly composed of Myoma fine sand, (MaB) and Myoma fine sand (MaD) of Wind -Laid Dune Sand (Qs). Currently, the majority of the site is developed. The remaining undeveloped pads are not considered a source of valuable mineral resources for the region and the residents of the state. Therefore, there will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -63- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XII. NOISE: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Would the project result in: Impact P Mitigation g Impact P a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ✓ noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ✓ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ✓ vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ✓ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, ✓ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ✓ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Source: 2035 General Plan; "Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on April 4, 2018. Setting According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the main sources of noise include road traffic, aircraft, railroads, construction, industry, noise in buildings, and consumer products (EPA Clean Air Act Title IV - Noise Pollution). In any city, the main sources of traffic noise are the motors and exhaust systems of autos, trucks, buses, and motorcycles (Noise and Its Effects; Administrative Conference of the United States). -64- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Stationary noise sources include pool and spa equipment or heating, ventilating and conditioning (HVAC) units. Non -transportation -related noise can also come from the stationary operations of transport, such as railroad yards and truck depots used for loading and unloading. Temporary noise sources include landscape maintenance activities, home stereo systems, and barking dogs. The City has the authority to set land use noise standards and place restrictions on private activities that generate excessive or intrusive noise. Noise generators are subject to the City's noise ordinance. The City of La Quinta has established goals, policies, and programs to limit and reduce the effects of noise intrusion on sensitive land uses and to set acceptable noise levels for varying types of land uses. The project site is located on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street are designated as "Primary Arterial" and "Major Arterial," respectively, in the City's Circulation Element. Noise levels on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street can be expected to be greater than would be typical of local streets. The Specific Plan area is surrounded by streets on its north and east sides. A park is located to the west, with residential development some distance beyond. Adjacent to the southern portion of the subject site is an existing residential development which is protected by a 6-foot wall at the property boundary line. The residential units within this subdivision, Monticello, are considered sensitive receptors under the City's noise standards. Discussion of Impacts a, d) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The subject property is currently partially developed. The main noise source in the area is vehicular traffic on the developed portions of the Specific Plan and nearby roadways (Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street). Noise -Sensitive Receptors: Noise -sensitive land uses include those uses where noise exposure could result in health -related risks to individuals and places where quiet is an essential element of the intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern; land uses such as parks, historic sites, cemeteries, and some recreation areas are considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Hospitals, schools, places of worship, hotels, libraries, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are noise -sensitive land uses. To estimate the proposed project construction and operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected at 5 locations on and surrounding the project site. The results of the noise monitoring are shown in Table 5 and the locations of each monitoring site are described below. -65- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Table 5 24-hour Ambient Noise Level Measurements Distance Energy Average 1 Location to Project Description Hourly Noise Level Leq)Z CNEL Boundary AL (dBA Daytime Nighttime (Feet) Located west of the Project site and Ll 290' Monticello Park near existing 57.1 56.3 63.0 residential homes. Located southwest of the Project site in L2 46' the Monticello Park adjacent to an 53.0 52.0 58.7 existing 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes. Located within an existing commercial parking lot adjacent to an existing 6- L3 0' foot high noise barrier for residential 51.6 50.6 57.5 homes south of the Project site on Memorial Place. Located adjacent to an existing 6-foot L4 0' high noise barrier for residential homes 60.6 57.4 64.8 south of the Project site, west of Jefferson Street. Located east of the Project site across L5 120' Jefferson Street, adjacent to an existing 68.7 65.3 72.7 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes. 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations in the Noise Study. As shown in the table above, the highest 24-hour ambient noise level would be higher at locations L1, L4, and L5. L1 and L5 are located west and east of the project, respectively. L4 is located adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes south of the project site. At L4, the hourly noise levels measured ranged from 58.4 to 62.2 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and from 50.6 to 62.9 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The energy average daytime noise level was calculated at 60.6 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 57.4 dBA Leq. To reduce the impact at location L4, further analysis was performed to calculate the potential noise levels during construction and operation of the project and are further discussed below. Short -Term (Construction) Noise: Noise generated by project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. Temporary noise generated during the construction phase of the proposed project could exceed acceptable noise levels. -66- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 The City will require that construction activity comply with Section 6.08.050 of the Municipal Code, which limits construction activity to between 7 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on Saturdays between October 1 and April 30. From May 11t to September 301, the construction hours are from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No activity is permitted on Sundays and holidays. Section 9.100.210 of the City's Municipal Code governs noise control in the city. The current noise standards allow noise levels of 65 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 50 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for noise sensitive uses; 75 dBA from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 65 dBA from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. for non-residential uses. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels from construction equipment can be expected to lessen by 6 dBA for each doubling of distance. The noise analysis prepared for the proposed project first considered whether the project noise levels would exceed the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) standards for construction noise standards. Those standards consider a noise level in excess of 85 dBA Leq for a period of eight hours a day. The noise analysis considered all phases of construction, including demolition, grading and excavation and paving of the project improvements, and considered the noise levels that can be anticipated at each of the noise monitoring locations. The results of that analysis are shown in Table 6. Please see Exhibit 15 and 16 for the noise measurement and receiver locations. Table 6 Unmitigated Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary dBA LQ Receiver Location ML Construction Phase Hourly Noise Level (dBA Leq) Demolition Grading/ Excavation Paving Highest Levels R1 44.6 53.4 48.0 53.4 R2 46.7 55.6 50.2 55.6 R3 56.1 64.9 59.5 64.9 R4 58.7 67.5 62.1 67.5 R5 58.7 67.5 62.1 67.5 R6 53.5 62.3 56.9 62.3 R7 43.8 52.6 47.2 52.6 As shown in the table above, construction activities will not exceed the NIOSH standard. However, the noise analysis also considered construction noise when added to the ambient noise environment of the receiver locations, and found, as shown in Table 7, that Caltrans noise standards would be exceeded at three locations on the south boundary of the project — two locations in Monticello, and one location at a residential unit on the east side of Jefferson Street. -67- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Table 7 Unmitigated Construction Temporary Noise Level Increases (dBA Leq) Receiver Location Highest Project Construction Noise Level Measurement Location Reference Ambient Noise Levels Combined Project and Ambient Temporary Worst -Case Project Contribution Threshold Exceeded? R1 53.4 Ll 57.1 58.6 1.5 No R2 55.6 L1 57.1 59.4 2.3 No R3 64.9 L2 53.0 65.2 12.2 Yes R4 67.5 L3 51.6 67.6 16.0 Yes R5 67.5 L3 51.6 67.6 16.0 Yes R6 67.5 L4 60.6 68.3 7.7 No R7 52.6 L5 68.7 68.8 0.1 No Noise levels at these three locations will increase during construction by 12 to 16 dBA, which is considered a potentially significant impact based on Caltrans' substantial noise level increase criteria. To reduce construction noise during the daytime at the site, mitigation measures are added at the end of this section. With implementation of the mitigation measures, the noise level at receivers R3, R4, and R5 will be reduced as shown below (Table 8). Table 8 Mitigated Construction Temporary Noise Level Increases at Receivers R3, R4, and R5 (dBA Leq) Mitigated Reference Combined Temporary Receiver Highest Project Measurement Ambient Project Worst -Case Threshold Locations Location Noise and Project Exceeded?7 Construction Levels4 Ambient5 Contribution6 Noise Leve12 R3 59.8 L2 53.0 60.6 7.6 No R4 62.5 L3 51.6 62.8 11.2 No R5 62.5 L3 51.6 62.8 11.2 No As described above, with the implementation of mitigation measures, noise levels at all receiver locations will be below Caltrans' 12 dBA significant temporary impact, and will therefore be less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Groundborne vibration would produce groundborne noise which is a rumbling sound. During construction of the proposed project, ground -borne vibration and/or ground -borne noise would be generated, which could be felt by adjacent land uses. -68- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground -borne vibration from project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion due to heavy construction equipment and trucks. The City does not have a construction vibration standard, so the County of Riverside's standard was used in the noise impact analysis. Based on the County of Riverside vibration standards, the proposed project construction activities will exceed the vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec Root -Mean -Square (RMS) at two of the nearby sensitive receiver locations (R3 and R4) during project construction, which will be mainly due to loaded trucks, auger drills, and large bulldozer operation at 78 feet from the sensitive receiver locations south of project construction activities. In order to mitigate the impact, mitigation measures are provided below that prohibit the use of loaded trucks, auger drills and large bulldozers within 90 feet of the residences at Monticello. With implementation of mitigation, vibration impacts will be below the maximum impact standard, and will be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. As described above, at build out, the primary permanent noise sources will be vehicles traveling to and from the site, HVAC units, and grounds maintenance equipment. The proposed project is not expected to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Project - related vehicles will be consistent with vehicles already using area roadways. The potential operational noise impacts due to the project's stationary noise sources on off -site sensitive receiver locations were measured at five locations. The maximum measured operational noise could reach up to 56.6 dBA at any time at the source. Results show that noise levels associated with the roof -top air conditioning units, shopping cart corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities are expected to range from 42.8 to 49.2 dBA Lso at the sensitive off -site receiver locations, which are located at the backyards of residential units to the south, behind their 6-foot masonry walls. The City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels not exceed 65 dBA CNEL in outdoor living areas, and interior noise levels not exceed 45 dBA CNEL in all habitable rooms for residential uses. Potential impacts from the project's traffic and operational activities would be less than 65 dBA. Therefore, exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies will be less than significant after build out of the proposed development. e, f) No Impact. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.10 miles north of the subject property and its noise contours are localized, and not located in the vicinity of the proposed project site. No impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: NOI-1: Install a minimum 10-foot high temporary construction noise barrier at the Project's southern site boundary adjacent to sensitive receiver locations R3 to R5 (residential homes), shown on Exhibit ES -A of the noise impact analysis, for the duration of project construction. The noise control barriers must have a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barriers must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows: -69- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 o The temporary noise barriers shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. o The noise barrier must be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired. o The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. N0I-2 The use of auger drills, loaded trucks, and large bulldozers capable of generating vibration levels of 0.01 in/sec RMS at sensitive receiver locations shall be prohibited within 90 feet of nearby occupied sensitive uses to reduce the noise and vibration levels for the entire duration of project construction. If the contractor can demonstrate that specific pieces of large construction equipment will generate vibration levels at adjacent sensitive uses which remain below 0.01 in/sec RMS, then they shall be allowed to operate within the buffer zone shown on Exhibit ES -A of the noise impact analysis. Otherwise, smaller, rubber -tired, or alternative, lower vibration -generating equipment shall be used within the 90-foot buffer. N0I-3 Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise -generating project construction activities shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of October to April, and to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of May to September. All year, construction activities are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays. The Project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the note and the City shall conduct periodic inspection at its discretion. N0I4 All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. N0I-5 All equipment staging shall be placed in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the project site during all project construction (i.e., to the center). N0I-6 Construction haul truck deliveries shall be limited to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of October to April, and to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of May to September. All year, construction activities are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays (4)). The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise. -70- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study Aueust 2018 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: NOI-A A properly designed temporary noise barrier shall be shown on all construction plans, including building and grading plans. The City shall inspect the installation of the temporary barrier prior to the initiation of construction activities. Responsible Party: Project architect, engineer and contractor, Building Division NOI-B All construction plans, including grading and building plan shall include a note clearly stating that heavy equipment will not operate within 90 feet of the southern property line. The City will periodically inspect the construction site to ensure compliance. Responsible Party: Project architect, engineer and contractor, Building Division NOI-C The project contractor will submit a construction staging plan to the City, and receive approval for that plan, prior to the issuance of any permit on the site. The plan shall include the location of all staging areas, access and haul routes, location of fixed equipment, etc. The City shall periodically inspect the construction site to ensure compliance. Responsible Party: Project contractor, Building Division -71- PARKWAY ESP! S a. .y �'4 FRED WARING DR d LEGEND: d Noise Measurement Locations Source: Urban Crossroads, 2018 r 1 L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. SITE am h z 0 w " ti w Q�3 Q � cy r.• Mom. • Source: Brl, DlgitniGfobe, G�Fye Eorthstar •,. • �+ GeograpWrs, CNF.S/Airbus Df USDA, USGS, � AeroGR1D, lGN, and the G15 lier CaVnmunity. Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Noise Measurement Locations La Quinta, California Exhibit 15 1-Oww A 01w 14 RANDOLPH CT - Existing Recoil Use Existing Phormary Use Existing Retail Use � 399' . �3 AMBASSAVO �1R 6' SITE ` h z O h ti fi 311' � Q u d O y HEMMINGS WAY u 13 c8' o u - pZ ooa 6' r o 'Py 61 MEMORIAL PL �I fl SOUrCer Fsrl, D! talGlohe, GePApe, Earthstar i t _ Geogrophics, C /Airbus 05, USDA, USGS, AeroGAID 7GN, d the GIS User Community LEGEND: Receiver Locations R Existing Barrier Height (in feet) Distance from receiver to Project site boundary (in feet? i Existing Barrier v r tit v Source: Urban Crossroads, 2018 0 F- 1 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment L J TERRA NOVA Receiver Locations PLANNING & RESEARCH, INC. La Qu i nta, California Exhibit 16 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) ✓ or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ✓ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ✓ replacement housing elsewhere? Source: 2035 General Plan; California Department of Finance - Report E-1 - Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2016 and 2017. Setting In 2017, the City of La Quinta had a population of 40,677, which was an increase of 1.2% from 2016. The City is composed of three basic types of housing units: single family units, multifamily, and mobile homes, but the majority (90.9%) of housing units are single-family homes (General Plan; Table II-30). The Specific Plan Amendment and Site Development Permit will have no impact on Population and Housing. Ultimate development of the site will result in the rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store building and construction of a hotel building that would not induce permanent population. The impacts of the project are discussed below. Discussion of Impacts a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project is expected to occur over a 1-year period. Construction labor is expected to be derived from the local work force within the Coachella Valley, with the potential for supplemental workers from the greater Riverside County area. Project construction is not expected to induce permanent population growth. At build out, the project will include an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities and a hotel which will consist of temporary visitors and guests and will not result in an increase to the permanent population. In addition, the future employees of the development will likely be derived from the local work force as the city continues to grow, and will not attract a substantial number of new residents to the area. -74- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Since existing streets, utilities and public facilities are located adjacent to the project site along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, the project will not result in the construction or expansion of new infrastructure. Overall, less than significant impacts are anticipated. b, c) No Impact. The subject property is partially developed with commercial uses, and is planned for commercial uses. Therefore, neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would displace housing units or people. There will also not be a need to construct additional housing since, as explained above, the workforce is expected to be largely local. No impacts will occur. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -75- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Potentially Less Than Less Than No XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could ✓ cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ✓ Police protection? ✓ Schools? ✓ Parks? ✓ Other public facilities? ✓ Source: 2035 General Plan; Google Earth Pro 7.3. l .4507; Accessed in April 2018. Setting Fire Protection: The City contracts with Riverside County Fire Department for its local service. The nearest fire station is Riverside County Fire Station 93 at 44555 Adams Street, approximately 0.95 mile southwest of the project site. The City of La Quinta has two more fire stations (station# 52 and 70) located at 78111 Avenue 52 and 54001 Madison Street. Fire services in La Quinta are based on delivering a minimum of 3 personnel in the response time standard of 5 minutes or less 90% of the time. Police Protection: The City of La Quinta contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff s Department for police protection services. The City is served by the police station located in Thermal at 86-625 Airport Blvd. The police department consists of 51 sworn officers and 5 community service officers. The average response time for the highest priority emergency calls is 5 minutes. Schools: The City of La Quinta is located within the boundaries of two school districts: Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) and Coachella Valley Unified School District (CVUSD). Families located west of Jefferson Street and north of Avenue 48 are served by DSUSD. CVUSD serves families located east of Jefferson Street and south of Avenue 48. The project site is located within the boundaries of DSUSD. -76- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 John Glenn Middle and Amelia Earhart Elementary schools are located approximately 0.4 miles southwest of the project within the Indio City limits. The "First School," a private pre-school, is located approximately 0.92 miles southwest of the project area. Parks: In the City of La Quinta, a total of 5,259.2 acres are dedicated for open space/ recreation (General Plan Table II-3), which includes golf courses and 72 acres of parks. The three types of parks serving the La Quinta area are community, neighborhood, and mini/pocket parks. The nearest parks to the project site are Monticello Park and La Quinta Park, approximately 0.01 and 1.00 miles west and southwest. Discussion of Impacts a) Fire Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will increase the demand for fire services in the City as the retail market and hotel will attract additional temporary visitors and guests to the area. The project proponent will be required to pay the City's development impact fees for fire facilities and apparatus. This fee is designed to allow new development to pay its fair share of future facilities. The project will also generate property tax, sales tax and transient occupancy tax that will offset costs associated with fire protection within the project. The Fire Department will review the project site plan to ensure it meets applicable fire standards and regulations. No construction of new or expanded fire services or facilities are required for the proposed project. Project -related fire protection impacts will be less than significant. Police Protection: Less than Significant Impact. The ultimate development of the site will result in a marginal increase in demand for police services. Police personnel will be able to access the site using Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The project will be required to comply with all Police Department regulations and procedures. The project will generate property tax, sales tax and transient occupancy tax that will offset costs associated with police protection within the project. Project related impacts are expected to be less than significant. Schools: Less Than Significant Impact. The retail market and a hotel as part of the proposed project will not generate permanent population and, therefore, will have no impact on schools. However, the proposed project will be required to pay the state -mandated school fees in place at the time that development occurs. These fees are designed to mitigate impacts to schools by providing funds for the construction of new facilities. Developer impact fees will be charged based on the current DSUSD developer impact fee of $0.56 per square foot for commercial development. These fees are designed to mitigate impacts to schools. -77- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Parks: Less Than Significant Impact. The City has designated approximately 5,259.2 acres for open space/ recreation, including golf courses and 72 acres of parks. The nearest parks to the project site are Monticello Park and La Quinta Park, approximately 0.01 and 1.00 miles west and southwest. The visitors and the guests staying at the proposed project may increase the usage of public and regional parks, occasionally; however, the increase is not expected to be substantial or result in the need for new or expanded public parks. The hotel component of the project includes a central recreational area, including a pool, which will provide recreation opportunities for guests. Increase in demand for the city's existing facilities will be less than significant. Other public facilities: Less Than Significant Impact. No additional public facilities are required for the proposed project to accommodate visitors or guests. Occasional increases to the demand for existing city facilities will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -78- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XV. RECREATION: Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ✓ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ✓ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Source: 2035 General Plan. Setting Within the City of La Quinta, there are several mini, neighborhood, community, city and school parks, the Civic Center Campus, nature preserve areas, one community center, a Community Health and Wellness Center, a museum, and golf courses. Discussion of Impacts a, b) No Impact. Residents of La Quinta currently have access to 72 acres of parks, 147 acres of nature preserves containing recreational parkland areas, 845 acres of regional parks, a 525-acre municipal golf course, and numerous other private and public recreational facilities. The City General Plan sets a requirement for providing a minimum of 5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. When this standard is applied to the estimated General Plan buildout population, a total of 403 acres of neighborhood and community parks will be required to adequately serve the City. The proposed project would generate temporary visitors to the retail market and hotel who can be expected to utilize onsite recreational amenities as well as local and regional recreational facilities. However, that usage will be temporary and will not induce substantial population growth that would result in significant impacts to existing parks or recreational facilities. The proposed development will not induce substantial population growth that would result in significant impacts such as physical deterioration or construction of new recreational facilities to existing parks or recreational facilities. No impact is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -79- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and ✓ non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other ✓ standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in ✓ traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ✓ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ✓ access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or ✓ otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Source: 2035 General Plan; "Focused Traffic Impact Study for the Jefferson Square Shopping Center," prepared by Clyde E. Sweet and Associates in May 2008; "Trip Generation Memo," prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., in January 2008; "Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment," prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., in March 2018. -80- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Setting The project site is located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Access to the project site will be provided through four existing driveways on Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street which can also be used for the emergency access. Both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street are three lanes in each direction and are designated Major Arterial roadways in the City's Circulation Element. The traffic is controlled by a traffic signal at Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The City has established a goal for Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street intersection operations of Level of Service (LOS) D or better, and roadway link segment operations of LOS C or better. In 2008, the subject site was analyzed for 16,500 square feet of retail, 13,928 square feet of supermarket uses, a 42,500 square foot hardware store, a 4,500 square foot drive thru bank, and a 13,013 square foot pharmacy/drug store. The project is currently proposing to replace the retail uses (68,021 square feet) previously planned for Parcel 6 with a hotel. To better analyze the impacts, the trip generation of the proposed project was compared against the previous and City's General Plan land uses, as discussed below. Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact. Urban Crossroads, Inc. and Clyde E. Sweet and Associates prepared traffic impact analyses for the Jefferson Square Specific Plan in 2008. Both those analyses found that traffic impacts of the then -proposed project were less than significant, and no mitigation measures were proposed. In order to assess the current project, Urban Crossroads prepared a "Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment" to consider the proposed amendments to the Specific Plan. The updated assessment was based upon a variety of sources, including the General Plan Circulation Element and the Institute of Transportation Engineers' 101 Edition Trip Generation Manual (2017). The Land Use Codes used for the project trip generation analysis are No. 310 (hotel), 820 (shopping center), 850 (supermarket), and 881 (pharmacy/drugstore with drive through), which describe the proposed and existing development within the Specific Plan. Project Site Trip Generation: The project site is located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street where the traffic is both attracted to and produced by development. Therefore, the trip generation was calculated based on the proposed development for the subject site, existing pharmacy/retail and the future retail pads in the Specific Plan area, as shown in Tables 9 and 10. Table 9 provides the ITE trip generation rates for each type of land use. Table 10 assigns these trip generation rates to the proposed project, the existing development in the Specific Plan area, and the future planned development in the Specific Plan area. Table 10 shows that the Jefferson Square project will generate 5,500 daily trips. -81- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Table 9 Project Trip Generation Rates Peak Hour Land Use* ITE LU Units** Daily Morning Evening Code Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Hotel 310 RM 0.28 0.19 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.36 Shopping Center (Average Rate 820 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 Shopping Center (Equation)*** 820 TSF 1.26 0.77 2.03 2.62 2.83 5.45 60.35 Supermarket 850 TSF 2.29 1.53 3.82 4.71 4.53 9.24 106.78 Pharmacy/Drug store with Drive- 881 TSF 2.04 1.80 3.84 5.15 5.14 10.29 109.16 Through * Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 1 Oth Edition (2017). ** TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions *** Rates calculated based on ITE equations for LUC 820 for 98,803 sf Shopping Center Table 10 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use* Quantity Units** Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total Proposed Project Hotel 162 RM 45 31 76 50 48 98 1,354 Retail 8.84 TSF 5 3 8 16 18 34 334 Food Market 16.56 TSF 38 25 63 78 75 153 1,769 Proposed Project Sub- Total 88 59 147 144 141 285 3,457 Existing Buildings Retail 7 TSF 4 3 7 13 14 27 264 Pharmacy/Dru gstore with Drive - Through 13.01 TSF 27 23 50 67 67 134 1,420 Existing Retail Sub- Total 31 26 57 80 81 161 1,684 Future Retail Pads Retail 9.50 TSF 6 3 9 17 19 36 359 Future Retail Pads Sub- Total 6 3 9 17 19 36 359 Total Site Trips 125 88 213 241 241 482 5,500 * Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). ** TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions -82- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 The project site is designated as General Commercial in the City's Land Use Map. Per the General Plan, commercial land uses have a floor -area ratio (FAR) of 0.22. Based on 10.31 acres for the site, the quantity used for analysis was 98,803 square feet. As shown in the Table 11, the development of the proposed project is anticipated to generate 463 fewer trip -ends per day with 13 more AM peak hour trips and 57 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the land use currently adopted in the City of La Quinta General Plan. Table 11 General Plan Trip Generation Comparison Land Use* Quantity Units** Peak Hour Daily Morning Evening Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total General Commercial 98.80 TSF 124 76 200 259 280 539 5,963 Proposed Project*** 125 88 213 241 241 482 5,500 Variance 1 1 12 13 -18 -39 -57 -463 * Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 1 Oth Edition (2017). ** TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions *** Rates calculated based on ITE equations for LUC 820 for 98,803 sf Shopping Center Trip Generation Comparison to Previously Approved Project: Proposed Development Vs 2008 Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo: The project considered by Urban Crossroads in 2008 consisted of a total of 90,441 square feet, including 16,500 square feet of general retail shops, 13,928 square feet of supermarket, 42,500 square feet of hardware store space, a 4,500 square foot drive -through bank and a 13,013 square foot drug store. That project would have generated 7,961 daily trips. As shown in Table 12, the development of the proposed project is anticipated to generate 2,461 fewer trip -ends per day with 22 fewer AM peak hour trips and 376 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the 2008 Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo. Proposed Development Vs 2008 Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study: As shown in Table 12, the development of the proposed project is anticipated to generate 1,616 more trip -ends per day with 66 more AM peak hour trips and 103 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the 2008 Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic study. That analysis considered 90,441 square feet of undefined "shopping center" space on the project site. Table 12 Trip Generation Comparison with Previous Studies Site Occupant Weekday AM PM Daily Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo* 235 858 7,961 Proposed Project 213 482 5,500 Variance 1 -22 -376 -2,461 -83- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Weekday Site Occupant AM PM Daily Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study 147 585 3,884 Proposed Project" 213 482 5,500 Variance 66 -103 1,616 * Jefferson Square Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban crossroads, Inc.) ** Focused Traffic Impact Study For The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, Clyde, Sweet & Associates Additional analysis was conducted to consider specific impacts on the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, as well as project driveways and both Fred Waring and Jefferson. This analysis considered operations during the evening peak hour on weekdays, as well as the mid -day peak hour on Saturdays, in order to analyze the two heaviest traffic periods for the area. As shown in Table 13, all analyzed locations will operate at better than acceptable levels in 2020, the project's anticipated opening year. morTable 13 Intersection Operations, Year 2020 Existing (2018) 1 EAP (2020) :Intersection Traffic Acceptable Delay 1 LOS Delay 1 LOS Control' (secs.) (secs.) LOS PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT Dwy. 1 & Fred Waring CSS 15.9 11.1 C B 18.3 12.0 C B E Dr. Jefferson St. & Fred TS 25.8 21.1 C C 27.8 22.1 C C D Waring Dr. TS 9.0 8.6 A A 9.0 8.6 A A D Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. Overall, the proposed project will generate fewer trips as compared to General Plan Land Use. Therefore, the impact would also be less than what was analyzed in the General Plan. Neither previous analysis in 2008 identified any impact from the proposed project, and the General Plan EIR determined that roadway segments on Fred Waring and Jefferson Street would operate at acceptable levels at General Plan buildout. The EIR further found that the intersection of Fred Waring and Jefferson Street will operate at an acceptable LOS D at General Plan buildout, and that the intersection of Dune Palms and Fred Waring will operate at LOS C. The proposed project will generate fewer trips than was analyzed in the General Plan EIR, which found that LOS on adjacent roadways would be acceptable at buildout. Therefore, the proposed project, and build out of the remaining pads on the site, will result in acceptable LOS, and impacts will be less than significant. c) No Impact. The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.10 miles north of the subject property. The development of the proposed project will have no impact on the facilities or operations of regional airports, and will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels. It will also not create substantial safety risks. No project related impact is anticipated. z Focused Traffic Assessment Letter dated July 24, 2018, prepared by Urban Crossroads (please see Appendix G). -84- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 d) No Impact. The project will be developed in accordance with City design guidelines and will not increase hazards due to a design feature. The project's access points have been designed with adequate sight distances, and no change is proposed to these access points. No impact is anticipated. e) No Impact. The project site is proposed to have access to Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street which are both part of the City's existing street grid system. Regional access to the project site will be provided via major arterials, secondary arterials and a variety of local roads. The proposed project includes an emergency access drive that will allow access to all sides of the buildings for emergency vehicles. Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review the project site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access. The proposed project will not result in inadequate emergency access. No impact is anticipated. f) No Impact. Based on the Active Transportation Plan, prepared by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), bike lanes do exist along both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. Additional facilities (e.g. NEV lanes and multipurpose path) are also proposed along both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in CVAG's Active Transportation Plan. SunLine Transit Agency provides bus transit services to the Coachella Valley, including the City of La Quinta. The project area is currently served by SunLine along Fred Warding Drive. The closest bus stops are #249 (westbound) and #262 (eastbound) on Fred Waring Drive. There is no bus service along Jefferson Street. Therefore, future residents, guest and/or visitors, and employees would have access to SunLine bus service close to the project site. The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. No project related impact is anticipated. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -85- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Potentially Less Than Less Than No Resources Code section 21074 as either a Significant g Significant w/ g Significant g Impact site, feature, place, cultural landscape Impact Mitigation Impact that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of ✓ historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria ✓ set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Source: 2035 General Plan; County of Riverside General Plan (2014); "Archaeological Monitoring Report for Jefferson Square Project," prepared by CRM TECH in 2009. Setting Around 1000 BC, the City of La Quinta was home to the Cahuilla Indian tribe that lived around Lake Cahuilla for centuries. The Cahuilla Indians were hunters and gatherers and one of the few Native American tribes that dug water wells. Most of the cultural resources in the City of La Quinta developed in and around the ancient Lake Cahuilla. The oldest cultural resources have been identified from the western portion of the City and date back about 2700 years. The descendants of the Pass and Desert Cahuilla still exist in the region and are now associated with several local reservations, such as Torres Martinez, Cabazon, and Augustine to the east and south of the City, and the Agua Caliente and Morongo to the west. None of the tribal reservations are in the City's boundaries. -86- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Discussion of Impacts a, b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section V, Cultural Resources, a human cremation site and an isolated pottery sherd were found within the Specific Plan site in 2008 and 2009. On September loth, 2008, the human remains were reburied in the southwest corner of the project area at a depth of approximately eight feet below surface. The isolated pottery sherd was removed prior to site grading and curated at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside. Multiple archaeological resources had been found on the site, which do not demonstrate the potential for important archaeological data for the study of regional prehistory, and do not appear eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. Their presence, however, suggests the possibility that additional artifacts of unknown quantity and quality could be found during grading. Over -excavation for the hotel site has the potential to uncover additional resources. Therefore, the City has conducted SB 18 and AB 52 consultations with the associated tribes to ensure the proper identification of potential "tribal cultural resources." See Section V, Cultural Resources, for more detail. Based on the tribes' responses, the project site is within the ACBCI traditional land use area, therefore, it is a sensitive area and potentially contains sub -surface archaeological resources. Therefore, mitigation measures and a monitoring program are included in Section V to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, consistent with the findings of the cultural resource investigation, and the concerns of the Augustine, ACBCI, and Twenty -Nine Palms bands. With implementation of these mitigation measures and a monitoring program, impacts associated with archaeological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. Mitigation measures: See Section V, Cultural Resources. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: See Section V, Cultural Resources. -87- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ✓ Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing ✓ facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ✓ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or ✓ are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has ✓ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ✓ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid ✓ waste? Source: 2035 General Plan; http://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/511, accessed in April 2018; CVWD's 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. -88- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Setting Wastewater Treatment Currently, the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) has two wastewater treatment plants serving the City of La Quinta and surrounding areas. One wastewater treatment plant is the WRP-7 located at Madison Street and Avenue 38, and the other one is the Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant located northwest of the City. The plant capacity of WRP-7 and Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant are 5 and 9.5 million gallons per day, respectively. CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. Domestic Water The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides domestic water to the project area. Its primary source of water is groundwater extracted by deep wells from the Whitewater River sub -basin. CVWD's service area lies in the Whitewater River Watershed. CVWD, as an urban water supplier, is required to prepare an "Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP)" every five years in response to the requirements of the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act), California Water Code Sections 10610 through 10656. CVWD's UWMP is a planning tool that documents actions in support of long-term water resources planning and ensures adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future urban water demands. In addition to its UWMP, CVWD prepares an annual report each year to document and analyze the region's water needs and long-term demand for domestic water. This analysis includes conservation measures and replenishment programs to make it possible for CVWD to meet increasing demand of the services area. The proposed project will be required to implement all water conservation measures imposed by CVWD under both normal and drought conditions over the life of the project. The proposed project will tie into existing domestic water lines in Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. No new wells or additional water infrastructure or entitlements will be required. Storm Water Management Storm water drainage infrastructure within the City of La Quinta consists of a network of regional and local drainage systems which are ultimately interrelated. The regional and local drainage system includes natural and improved streams, storm drains, storm channels, and catch basins intended to manage stormwater that flows into the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. The Coachella Valley Water District and the City of La Quinta control this drainage system. In 2009, the "La Quinta Master Drainage Plan" was prepared to better manage the storm water runoff in the City. The City of La Quinta utilizes detention and retention basins to temporarily contain runoff from sources such as stormwater and landscape irrigation allowing them to either evaporate or percolate into the subsurface. The City requires new developments to have sufficient sized basins to manage surface water flows. New developments are required to utilize an infiltration rate of 0.6 ft/day. -89- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 A "Preliminary Hydrology Report" was originally prepared for the Specific Plan in 2008, which has been modified to address the requirements of the proposed project. To accommodate the on -site runoff of a 100-year storm, three on -site retention facilities are proposed which are located near the eastern, northwestern, and southern portions of the Specific Plan area. Solid Waste Solid waste disposal is provided in the City by Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC under a franchise agreement with the City. Burrtec collects solid waste and transports it to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, located in the City of Cathedral City. From the transfer station, waste will be further transferred to one of the three regional landfills: Lamb Canyon, Badlands, or El Sobrante. The County of Riverside operates all these landfills. Discussion of Impacts a, e) Less Than Significant Impact. The CVWD treats and recycles wastewater at two wastewater treatment plants (WRP-7 and Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant) for the City of La Quinta and surrounding areas. These two plants have a total capacity of 14.5 million gallons per day. CVWD continually increases the capacity of its wastewater reclamation facilities by constructing new treatment ponds, aeration, and other structures throughout the Coachella Valley. CVWD implements all requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board pertaining to water quality and wastewater discharge. CVWD is responsible for removing contaminants from wastewater. These contaminants include physical, chemical and biological materials. Sewage generated north of Miles Avenue, in the northern part of the City, is conveyed to WRP-7 located at Madison Street and Avenue 38, northeast of the City. For all land in the City and areas located south of Miles Avenue, sewage is treated at the Mid -Valley Water Reclamation Plant, located northwest of the City, which has a capacity of 9.5 million gallons per day. CVWD also owns and operates the sewer conveyance systems anchored by a system of pipe lines ranging in size from 4 to 24 inches, including 18-inch force main in Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Madison Street, Avenue 50, Avenue 58, and Avenue 60. The project will require construction of onsite sewer infrastructure that will be connected to existing sewer lines along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, and wastewater will be transported to WRP-7. Currently, WRP-7 has a capacity of 5 million gallons per day and CVWD works to expand the plant's capacity where needed. Buildout of the site will include a hotel building and retail shops of 76,870 square feet hotel building and the rehabilitation of the existing Fresh and Easy store, which is currently vacant and will result in increased wastewater flows. The proposed project has the potential to generate 43,889 gallons per day of wastewater, which is less than 1% of WRP-7's capacity. The project site will be connected to the CVWD's wastewater treatment facilities and is subject to wastewater treatment standards established by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. All components of the proposed project will be required to design facilities consistent with CVWD and Regional Board standards. These standards and requirements will assure that impacts associated with wastewater standards will be less than significant. M Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 b, d) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will require water for domestic use and landscape irrigation for the food market and a hotel. As discussed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the total water demand for the project would be 33.06 acre-feet per year. According to CVWD's latest Urban Water Management Plan (2015), approximately 28.8 million acre-feet of water is stored in the Whitewater River sub -basin and the proposed project's water demand will be less than 1 percent of CVWD's groundwater supplies. Therefore, project impacts associated with domestic water demand are expected to be less than significant. The proposed project will be required to implement all water conservation measures imposed by CVWD under both normal and drought conditions over the life of the project. The proposed project will tie into existing domestic water lines in Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. No new wells or additional water infrastructure or entitlements will be required. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will be required to contain the 100-year storm on -site, as required by City standards. The site is divided into three watershed areas. The drainage system will be designed to drain to three on -site retention facilities which have sufficient capacity to accommodate the on -site runoff. Please also see Section IX., Hydrology and Water Resources for a comprehensive description of the flood control proposal for the site. The drainage system will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer to assure that it meets City standards. These standards and requirements will assure that impacts associated with storm water management will be less than significant. f, g) Less Than Significant Impact. The City has an exclusive franchise agreement with Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services, LLC. for its collection and disposal of solid waste from the project site. All waste generated on the project site will be collected and transported to the Edom Hill Transfer Station, located in the City of Cathedral City. From the transfer station, waste will be further transferred to one of the three regional landfills: Lamb Canyon or Badlands. These landfills are owned and operated by Riverside County. The Lamb Canyon Landfill and Badlands have a permitted capacity of 33,041,000 and 33,560,993 cubic yards, respectively, with a maximum disposal capacity of 5,000 and 4,000 tons per day, respectively. The project will generate solid waste and both of the landfills have the capacity to accommodate waste generated by future development on the project site. Burrtec is also required to comply with local, regional and state requirements associated with solid waste disposal. Impacts will be less than significant. Mitigation Measures: None. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: None. -91- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 XVIV. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF Potentially Less Than Less Than No SIGNIFICANCE Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ✓ plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when ✓ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ✓ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Biological Resources The project site is not located within the boundaries of a CVMSHCP-designated conservation area, and does not contain any wildlife corridors or biological linkage areas. However, onsite trees and bushes at the southern and southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area could provide habitat for nesting birds, therefore, a pre -construction survey will be required to avoid impacts to nesting birds covered by the MBTA. The proposed project will not significantly reduce fish or wildlife habitat or otherwise adversely impact a fish or wildlife species. The construction of the project has the potential to impact nesting birds, but the mitigation measures included in this document will reduce those impacts to less than significant levels. -92- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Cultural Resources: Multiple archaeological resources (i.e. a human cremation site and an isolated pottery sherd) were found on the Specific Plan area. Their presence suggests the possibility that additional artifacts of unknown quantity and quality could be found during grading. Over -excavation for the hotel site has the potential to uncover additional resources. The ground disturbing activities associated with the proposed project's Phase II may unearth additional sensitive resources, which would represent a potentially significant impact. Therefore, mitigation measures have been included in this Initial Study to assure that impacts associated with historical/archaeological resources remain less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. A significant impact could occur if the proposed project, in conjunction with related projects, would result in impacts that would be less than significant when viewed separately, but would be significant when viewed together. The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not cumulatively considerable. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant, and when viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not be significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. This Initial Study identifies potential impacts associated with noise and vibration as a result of construction activities of the proposed project. Once completed, the noise levels on the project site will be similar to noise levels in the area currently, and will be within acceptable levels as defined by the General Plan. Mitigation measures have been included in this Initial Study to assure that impacts associated with construction activities are reduced to less than significant levels. -93- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 References: I. AESTHETICS: 2035 General Plan; La Quinta Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code; California Department of Transportation (California Scenic Highway Mapping System); http://www.dot.ca. ovg /design/lap/livability/scenic-highway; Accessed March 2018; Project Specific Visualizations and Photographs. II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: California Department of Conservation, January 2012, and Riverside County Important Farmland Map, 2010; Jefferson Square Amended Specific Plan. III. AIR QUALITY: "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology," prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Revised, July 2008; "2003 Coachella Valley PMio State Implementation Plan," August 1, 2003; CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1; Project materials.) IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: "Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan," 2007. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: "Archaeological Monitoring Report for Jefferson Square Project," prepared by CRM TECH in 2009. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation," prepared by Krazan and Associates, Inc. in May 2007; "Soil Survey of Riverside County, California, Coachella Valley Area," U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, 1980. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: California Global Warming Solutions Act; CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1; La Quinta Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (2012). VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste; State Water Resources Control Board. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: FEMA Flood Insurance Rate FIRM Panel No. 06065C2232G; "Preliminary Hydrological Report for CCD Hotels and Resorts -La Quinta" prepared by DRC Engineering, Inc. February 2018; "Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan" prepared by DRC Engineering, Inc. in March 2018. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) 2003; Figure 4-1-Conservation Areas; Project materials. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: 2035 General Plan. XII. NOISE: "Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on April 4, 2018. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: California Department of Finance - Report E-1 - Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State January 1, 2016 and 2017. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: -94- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Google Earth Pro 7.3.1.4507; Accessed in April 2018. XV. RECREATION: 2035 General Plan. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: "Focused Traffic Impact Study for the Jefferson Square Shopping Center," prepared by Clyde E. Sweet and Associates in May 2008; "Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo," prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., in January 2008; "Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment," prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., in March 2018. XVII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: "Archaeological Monitoring Report for Jefferson Square Project," prepared by CRM TECH in 2009. XVIII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: http://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/511, accessed in April 2018. -95- Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix A Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Air Quality - CalEEMod 2016.3.1 Outputs -96- CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 164.00 + Room ; 2.42 105,763.00 i 0 ------------------------------ _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E-------------- Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 1000sgft 0.59 25,778.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 Climate Zone 15 Operational Year 2020 Utility Company Imperial Irrigation District CO2Intensity 1270.9 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Only a hotel with retails shops will be a new building on an existing Specific Plan of 10.7 acres. Hotel and Fresh and Easy SF is used here. Construction Phase - Construction of one year is assumed. Grading - Total 5,700 CY will be imported. And, 11,500 CY will be exported. Vehicle Trips - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Assumes low VOC. CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value tblAreaMitigation•UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorVi 100 i 110 alue i ----------------g------------+------------------------------ f----------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- tblAreaMiti ation • UseLowVOCPai ntNon residential I nteriorV f 100 i 110 alue -----------------------------f------------------------------ F------------------------- ------------------------------ tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck } False True -----------------------------Y------------------------------ ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingValue } 100 110 -----------------------------Y--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblConstDustMitigation WaterU n paved RoadVehicleSpeed } 40 0 -----------------------------Y----------g-p------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblLandUse Build in S acesquareFeet } 238,128.00 96,914.00 -----------------------------Y----------------------------- ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 238,128.00 105,763.00 -----------------------------Y----------------------------- ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 0.00 25,778.00 -----------------------------Y-----------------------------}-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.47 2.42 -----------------------------Y-----------------------------}-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.59 -----------------------------Y------------------------------ ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear } 2018 2020 ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT Haul ingTripNumber 0.00 1,438.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2018 •i 0.0517 i 0.8653 � 0.2984 i 1.5100e- 0.1407 � 0.0231 i 0.1638 0.0716 i 0.0214 0.0929 0.0000 i 145.3515 145.3515 i 0.0178 0.0000 145.7967 003 2019 •i 1.7415 i 2.0214 1.7579 i 3.3200e- 0.0619 0.1121 i 0.1740 0.0167 i 0.1054 0.1221 0.0000 i 295.7412 295.7412 i 0.0553 0.0000 297.1233 003 Maximum 1.7415 2.0214 1.7579 3.3200e- 0.1407 0.1121 0.1740 0.0716 0.1054 0.1221 0.0000 295.7412 295.7412 0.0553 0.0000 297.1233 003 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Year tons/yr MT/yr 2018 0.0517 i 0.8653 i 0.2984 i 1.5100e- 0.0453 i 0.0231 i 0.0684 i 0.0201 i 0.0214 0.0414 0.0000 145.3514 i 145.3514 i 0.0178 0.0000 1 145.7967 003 i ---- ---- •r-------I------- ------- ------- ------- -------------- ------- ---------------_------- ------- i------- j------- j--------------- 2019 1.7415 i 2.0214 i 1.7579 i 3.3200e- i 0.0619 i 0.1121 i 0.1740 i 0.0167 i 0.1054 0.1221 0.0000 295.7409 i 295.7409 i 0.0553 i 0.0000 i 297.1230 003 i Maximum 1.7415 2.0214 1.7579 3.3200e- 0.0619 0.1121 0.1740 0.0201 0.1054 0.1221 0.0000 295.7409 295.7409 0.0553 0.0000 297.1230 11 003 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.09 0.00 28.24 58.38 0.00 23.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 12-1-2018 2-28-2019 1.4853 1.4853 2 3-1-2019 5-31-2019 0.8712 0.8712 3 6-1-2019 8-31-2019 0.7136 0.7136 4 9-1-2019 9-30-2019 0.5197 0.5197 Highest 1.4853 1.4853 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Area 40.4334 12.000Oe- 12.1100e- 1 0.0000 1 1 1.000Oe- I 1.000Oe- I 1 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- � 0.0000 I 4.0700e- 14.0700e- 1 1.000Oe- 1 0.0000 i 4.3400e- '1 I 005 I 003 I 1 I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 . I 003 I 003 I 005 1 I 003 ... �I� JI -JI -JI J-JI -J1 . j ------- ...................- - - - - ........Energy I. ,,0.01161,478.56.4 003 I I I I I 9 I 9 I I 3 •I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Mobile •I 0.3836 I 2.0352 I 4.5795 I 0.0150 1 1.1681 I 0.0154 1 1.1835 I 0.3130 1 0.0145 0.3275 0.0000 11,386.645 11,386.645 I 0.0749 1 0.0000 1,388.517 8 I 8 I I I 9 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Waste •I I I I 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 18.2266 I 0.0000 I 18.2266 I 1.0772 1 0.0000 45.1555 •I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Water •I 1 I 1 1 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 1.3198 I 34.1875 I 35.5073 I 0.1363 1 3.3600e- 39.9177 003 I Total 0.8514 2.3477 4.8442 0.0169 1.1681 0.0392 1.2073 0.3130 0.0382 0.7 19.5464 2,895.137 2,914.683 1.3208 0.0150 2,952.159 11 2 6 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Area •i 0.4384 i 2.000Oe- 2.1100e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- ; 1.000Oe- � 0.0000 i 4.0700e- � 4.0700e- i 1.000Oe- � 0.0000 � 4.3400e- '� 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 %---------------------------------------------------------------- --- _------5---------------------------* Energy •i 0.0344 i 0.3126 � 0.2626 i 1.8800e- � � 0.0238 i 0.0238 � i 0.0238 ; 0.0238 � 0.0000 i 1,474.299 1,474.299 i 0.0324 0.0116 1,478.564 003 i i i i i 9 i 9 3 Mobile •1 0.3836 i 2.0352 4.5795 i 0.0150 1.1681 0.0154 i 1.1835 0.3130 i 0.0145 ; 0.3275 0.0000 i 1,386.645 1,386.645 i 0.0749 0.0000 1,388.517 8 i 8 i i i 9 Waste •i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 18.2266 T 0.0000 18.2266 i 1.0772 0.0000 45.1555 •---------------------------------------------------------------- --- _---------------------------*------- Water •1 i � i � � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 ; 0.0000 1.3198 i 34.1875 35.5073 i 0.1363 3.3600e- 39.9177 003 i Total 0.8563 2.3477 4.8442 0.0169 1.1681 0.0392 1.2073 0.3130 0.0382 2,895.137 1.3208 0.0150 2,952.159 11 F7775464 2 1'2,914.683 6 1 8 1 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent -0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 1 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 6 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 ;Site Preparation +Site Preparation 112/1/2018 :12/14/2018 5: 5: + i 2 :Grading +Grading 112/15/2018 :12/28/2018 5: 8: + i 3 •Building Construction +Building Construction 112/29/2018 :7/26/2019 5: 230: + i 4 •Paving +Paving I7/27/2019 :9/6/2019 5: 18: + i 5 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating 9/7/2019 11/22/2019 5. 18, Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 0.59 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 158,645; Non -Residential Outdoor: 52,882; Striped Parking Area: 1,547 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.1 Page 7 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading 'Excavators ; 1; 8.001 158, 0.38 --------------------------- Site Preparation -------------------------- 'Rubber Tired Dozers ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 3; 4-------------t-------------- 8.001 247, 0.40 --------------------------- Site Preparation -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------!-------------t-------------- ; 4; 8.001 97: 0.37 --------------------------- Grading --------------------------I---------------------------------- 'Graders +-------------------------t ; 1 ; 8.001 187, 0.41 ---------------------------- Grading ------------------------- 'Rubber Tired Dozers +-------------------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 8.001 247: 0.40 --------------------------- Grading -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------!-------------t-------------- ; 3; 8.001 97, 0.37 --------------------------- Building Construction ------------------------- 'Cranes +-------------------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Forklifts ----------------------------------+------------ ; 3; I-------------t-------------- 8.001 89, 0.20 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Generator Sets ---------------------------------- ; 1 ; ----------------------------------------- 8.001 84: 0.74 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 3; I-------------t-------------- 7.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Welders ---------------------------------- ; 1 ; ----------------------------------------- 8.001 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ----------------------------------+------------ ; 2; I-------------t-------------- 6.001 9: 0.56 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- +Pavers ; 1 ; 8.001 130: 0.42 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- 'Paving Equipment ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 2; I-------------t-------------- 6.001 132: 0.36 ---------------------------- Paving --------------------------I---------------------------------- 'Rollers +------------ ; 2; -------------t 6.001 80: 0.38 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 1 ; I-------------t-------------- 8.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- Architectural Coating --------------------------+-----------------F------------ :Air Compressors 1 ------------- 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count I Number I Number I Number Length Length Length I Class I Vehicle Class I Vehicle Class Site Preparation A 7; 18.00 0.001 1,438.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix HDT_Mix IHHDT Grading - 6; - i------------ 15.00: 0.00: ,----------I- 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix -- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT ---------------- ° Building Construction -------------;----------------- 9; -- 55.00- --------i 22.00, 0.00� --------- 14.70; --------------- 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------'-------- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------- - - - - -- ° Paving -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: -------- 0.00: i 0.00: - ---------'--- � 14.70; ------- --- 6.90; --------------- - - - - -- 20.00;LD_Mix ----- -- - - -'-- - - - - -- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT Architectural Coating ; 1 11.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I Fugitive Dust •1 1 I I I 0.0903 1 0.0000 I 0.0903 I 0.0497 I 0.0000 0.0497 � 0.0000 I 0.0000 1 0.0000 I 0.0000 I 0.0000 i 0.0000 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 I Off -Road •1 0.0228 1 0.2410 I 0.1124 11.9000e- I I 0.0129 I 0.0129 I I 0.0119 0.0119 � 0.0000 I 17.3800 1 17.3800 15.4100e- I 0.0000 i 17.5152 004 I I I I 1 . 1 1 1 003 I I Total 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0903 0.0129 0.1032 0.0497 0.0119 0.0615 0.0000 17.3800 17.3800 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.5152 004 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0126 i 0.4571 i 0.0850 1.1300e- i 0.0154 � 1.7200e- 0.0171 i 4.5000e- 1.6400e- 6.1500e- 0.0000 i 110.9284 � 110.9284 � 7.8000e- i 0.0000 i 111.1234 003 003 003 003 003 003 i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.8000e- 3.9000e- 4.2000e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.9473 0.9473 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.9481 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 0.0131 0.4575 0.0892 1.1400e- 0.0164 1.7300e- 0.0181 4.7600e- 1.6500e- 6.4200e- 0.0000 111.8757 111.8757 7.8300e- 0.0000 112.0715 11 003 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0203 0.0000 0.0203 i 0.0112 0.0000 0.0112 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0129 0.0129 0.0119 0.0119 0.0000 i 17.3799 17.3799 5.4100e- 0.0000 i 17.5152 i i i i i 004 003 Total 0.0228 0.2410 0.1124 1.9000e- 0.0203 0.0129 0.0332 0.0112 0.0119 0.0230 0.0000 17.3799 17.3799 5.4100e- 0.0000 17.5152 004 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0126 i 0.4571 i 0.0850 1.1300e- i 0.0154 � 1.7200e- 0.0171 i 4.5000e- 1.6400e- 6.1500e- 0.0000 i 110.9284 � 110.9284 � 7.8000e- i 0.0000 i 111.1234 003 003 003 003 003 003 i %------------------------------------------'------------------------ --+ ------------- '-------------- �------- Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.8000e- 3.9000e- 4.2000e- 1.000Oe- 9.9000e- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 2.6000e- 1.000Oe- 2.7000e- 0.0000 i 0.9473 0.9473 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.9481 i i i i i 004 004 003 005 004 005 003 004 005 004 005 Total 0.0131 0.4575 0.0892 1.1400e- 0.0164 1.7300e- 0.0181 4.7600e- 1.6500e- 6.4200e- 0.0000 111.8757 111.8757 7.8300e- 0.0000 003 003 003 003 003 003 F2.0715 3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 0.0328 0.0000 0.0328 i 0.0168 0.0000 0.0168 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.0139 0.1534 0.0829 1.5000e- 7.7600e- 7.7600e- 7.1400e- 7.1400e- 0.0000 i 13.5534 13.5534 4.2200e- 0.0000 i 13.6589 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0139 0.1534 0.0829 1.5000e- 0.0328 7.7600e- 0.0405 0.0168 7.1400e- 0.0240 0.0000 13.5534 13.5534 4.2200e- 0.0000 13.6589 1 004 1 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.000Oe- i 3.3000e- i 3.5000e- 1.000Oe- i 8.2000e- 1.000Oe- 8.3000e- i 2.2000e- 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.7894 0.7894 3.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.7901 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 4.000Oe- 3.3000e- 3.5000e- 1.000Oe- 8.2000e- 1.000Oe- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7894 0.7894 3.0007 0.0000 0.7901 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total I PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust •i 7.3700e- 0.0000 7.3700e- i 3.7900e- 0.0000 3.7900e- 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 003 003 003 Off -Road •i 0.0139 0.1534 0.0829 1.5000e- 7.7600e- 7.7600e- 7.1400e- 7.1400e- 0.0000 i 13.5534 13.5534 4.2200e- 0.0000 i 13.6589 i i i 004 003 003 003 003 . 003 i Total 0.0139 0.1534 0.0829 1.S000e- 7.3700e- 7.7600e- 0.0151 3.7900e- 7.1400e- 0.0109 0.0000 13.5534 13.5534 4.2200e- 0.0000 13.6589 004 003 003 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.3 Grading - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 4.000Oe- i 3.3000e- i 3.5000e- 1.000Oe- i 8.2000e- 1.000Oe- 8.3000e- i 2.2000e- 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 0.0000 i 0.7894 0.7894 3.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.7901 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Total 4.000Oe- 3.3000e- 3.5000e- 1.000Oe- 8.2000e- 1.000Oe- 8.3000e- 2.2000e- 1.000Oe- 2.2000e- 0.0000 0.7894 0.7894 3.0007 0.0000 0.7901 004 004 003 005 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 1.3400e- i 0.0117 i 8.7900e- 1.000Oe- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 7.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.1888 1.1888 2.9000e- i 0.0000 i 1.1961 •� 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 1.3400e- 0.0117 8.7900e- 1.000Oe- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 7.0000e- 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.1888 1.1888 2.9000e- 0.0000 1.1961 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 5.000Oe- 1.3600e- 3.5000e- 0.0000 7.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2748 0.2748 2.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.2753 i i i i i 005 003 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 i Worker •i 1.5000e- i 1.2000e- i 1.2800e- 0.0000 i 3.000Oe- 0.0000 3.000Oe- i 8.000Oe- 0.0000 8.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2894 0.2894 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.2897 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 Total 2.000Oe- 1.4800e- 1.6300e- 0.0000 3.7000e- 1.000Oe- 3.8000e- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.5642 0.5642 3.000Oe- 0.0000 0.5649 11 004 003 003 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 1.3400e- i 0.0117 i 8.7900e- 1.000Oe- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 7.000Oe- 7.000Oe- 0.0000 i 1.1888 1.1888 2.9000e- i 0.0000 i 1.1961 •� 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 i Total 1.3400e- 0.0117 8.7900e- 1.000Oe- 7.5000e- 7.5000e- 7.0000e- 7.000Oe- 0.0000 1.1888 1.1888 2.9000e- 0.0000 1.1961 003 003 005 004 004 004 004 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 5.000Oe- 1.3600e- 3.5000e- 0.0000 7.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 8.000Oe- 2.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 3.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2748 0.2748 2.0000e- 0.0000 i 0.2753 i i i i i 005 003 004 005 005 005 005 005 005 005 Worker •i 1.5000e- i 1.2000e- i 1.2800e- 0.0000 i 3.000Oe- 0.0000 3.000Oe- i 8.000Oe- 0.0000 8.000Oe- 0.0000 i 0.2894 0.2894 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 0.2897 004 004 003 004 004 005 005 005 Total 2.000Oe- 1.4800e- 1.6300e- 0.0000 3.7000e- 1.000Oe- 3.8000e- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.1000e- 0.0000 0.5642 0.5642 3.000Oe- 0.0000 0.5649 11 004 003 003 004 005 004 004 005 004 005 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.1759 i 1.5704 i 1.2787 2.000Oe- 0.0961 0.0961 0.0904 0.0904 0.0000 i 175.1526 175.1526 0.0427 i 0.0000 176.2194 003 Total 0.1759 1.2787 2.000Oe- 0.0961 0.0961 0.0904 0.0904 0.0000 175.1526 175.1526 0.0427 0.0000 176.2194 11 r04 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 6.4400e- i 0.1911 i 0.0479 4.2000e- i 0.0103 1.2500e- 0.0116 i 2.9800e- 1.2000e- 4.1800e- 0.0000 i 40.5769 40.5769 2.8100e- i 0.0000 i 40.6471 003 004 003 003 003 003003 ------------- •------------------------------------------'----------------------------- ------------- ------- '--------I -------- Worker •i 0.0198 i 0.0157 i 0.1708 4.6000e- i 0.0450 3.6000e- 0.0453 i 0.0119 3.3000e- 0.0123 0.0000 i 41.7655 41.7655 1.3100e- i 0.0000 i 41.7981 004 004 004 003 i Total 0.0262 0.2068 0.2188 8.8000e- 0.0553 1.6100e- 0.0569 0.0149 1.5300e- 82.3424 82.3424 4.1207 0.0000 82.4452 004 003 003 [777000 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.1759 i 1.5704 i 1.2787 2.000Oe- 0.0961 0.0961 0.0904 0.0904 0.0000 i 175.1524 175.1524 0.0427 i 0.0000 176.2191 003 Total 0.1759 1.2787 2.000Oe- 0.0961 0.0961 0.0904 0.0904 0.0000 175.1524 175.1524 0.0427 0.0000 176.2191 r04 1 003 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •i 6.4400e- i 0.1911 i 0.0479 4.2000e- i 0.0103 1.2500e- 0.0116 i 2.9800e- 1.2000e- 4.1800e- 0.0000 i 40.5769 40.5769 2.8100e- i 0.0000 i 40.6471 003 004 003 003 003 003003 ------------- •------------------------------------------'----------------------------- ------------- ------- '--------I -------- Worker •i 0.0198 i 0.0157 i 0.1708 4.6000e- i 0.0450 3.6000e- 0.0453 i 0.0119 3.3000e- 0.0123 0.0000 i 41.7655 41.7655 1.3100e- i 0.0000 i 41.7981 004 004 004 003 i Total 0.0262 0.2068 0.2188 8.8000e- 0.0553 1.6100e- 0.0569 0.0149 1.5300e- 82.3424 82.3424 4.1207 0.0000 82.4452 004 003 003 [777000 003 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0190 i 0.1914 i 0.1847 2.8000e- 0.0108 0.0108 9.9600e- 9.9600e- 0.0000 i 25.0835 25.0835 7.7200e- i 0.0000 i 25.2764 •� 004 003 003 . 003 i Paving :,1 1.2900e- i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 Total 0.0203 0.1914 0.1847 2.8000e- 0.0108 0.01T 9.9600e- 9.9600e- 0.0000 25.0835 25.0835 7.7200e- 0.0000 25.2764 11 004 1 1 003 I 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.4500e- i 1.1500e- i 0.0125 3.000Oe- i 3.2900e- 3.000Oe- 3.3200e- i 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.0579 3.0579 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 3.0603 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 i Total 1.4500e- 1.1500e- 0.0125 3.000Oe- 3.2900e- 3.000Oe- 3.3200e- 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 3.0579 3.0579 1.0007 0.0000 3.0603 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I I Category tons/yr MT/yr Off -Road •i 0.0190 i 0.1914 i 0.1847 2.8000e- 0.0108 0.0108 9.9600e- 9.9600e- 0.0000 i 25.0834 25.0834 7.7200e- i 0.0000 i 25.2764 •� 004 003 003 . 003 i Paving :,1 1.2900e- i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 003 Total 0.0203 0.1914 0.1847 2.8000e- 0.0108 0.01T 9.9600e- 9.9600e- 0.0000 25.0834 25.0834 7.7200e- 0.0000 25.2764 004 1 1 003 I 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.5 Paving - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker •i 1.4500e- i 1.1500e- i 0.0125 3.000Oe- i 3.2900e- 3.000Oe- 3.3200e- i 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 i 3.0579 3.0579 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 3.0603 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 i Total 1.4500e- 1.1500e- 0.0125 3.000Oe- 3.2900e- 3.000Oe- 3.3200e- 8.7000e- 2.000Oe- 9.000Oe- 0.0000 3.0579 3.0579 1.0007 0.0000 3.0603 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •i 1.5088 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 7.3300e- 0.0505 0.0506 8.000Oe- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 0.0000 i 7.0215 7.0215 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 7.0363 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 1.5162 0.0505 0.0506 8.000Oe- 3.54001 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 0.0000 7.0215 7.0215 5.9000e- 0.0000 7.0363 005 1 I 0113 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker -1 1.4600e- i 1.1600e- i 0.0126 3.000Oe- i 3.3200e- 3.000Oe- 3.3500e- i 8.8000e- 2.000Oe- 9.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.0834 3.0834 1.000Oe- i 0.0000 i 3.0858 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 i Total 1.4600e- 1.1600e- 0.0126 3.000Oe- 3.3200e- 3.000Oe- 3.3500e- 8.8000e- 2.000Oe- 9.1000e- 0.0000 3.0834 3.0834 1.0007 0.0000 3.0858 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating •i 1.5088 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Off -Road •i 7.3300e- 0.0505 0.0506 8.000Oe- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 0.0000 i 7.0214 7.0214 5.9000e- 0.0000 i 7.0363 i i i 003 005 003 003 003 003 . 004 i Total 1.5162 0.0505 0.0506 8.000Oe- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 3.5400e- 0.0000 7.0214 7.0214 5.9000e- 0.0000 7.0363 005 003 003 003 003 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 � 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Worker -1 1.4600e- i 1.1600e- i 0.0126 3.00OOe- i 3.3200e- 3.00OOe- 3.3500e- i 8.80OOe- 2.00OOe- 9.1000e- 0.0000 i 3.0834 3.0834 1.00OOe- i 0.0000 i 3.0858 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 i Total 1.4600e- 1.1600e- 0.0126 3.00OOe- 3.3200e- 3.00OOe- 3.3500e- 8.8000e- 2.00OOe- 9.1000e- 0.0000 3.0834 3.0834 1.00O7 0.0000 3.0858 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 004 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.3836 i 2.0352 4.5795 i 0.0150 i 1.1681 i 0.0154 i 1.1835 0.3130 i 0.0145 0.3275 0.0000 i 1,386.645 i 1,386.645 i 0.0749 i 0.0000 i 1,388.517 8 i 8 i i i 9 Unmitigated 0.3836 2.0352 4.5795 0.0150 1.1681 0.0154 1.1835 0.3130 0.0145 0.3275 0.0000 1,386.645 • 1,386.645 • 0.0749 0.0000 1,388.517 8 8 9 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel + 1,339.88 ......................................----------- Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 1,343.16 975.80 - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -- 0.00 0.00 3,074,193 --------------- - - - - -- 3,074,193 ------------------- - - - - - - Total 1,339.88 1,343.16 975.80 3,074,193 3,074,193 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Hotel ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.547828 i 0.043645 ; 0.199892 ; 0.122290 ; 0.016774 ; 0.005862 ; 0.020637 ; 0.032653 ; 0.002037 ; 0.001944 ; 0.004777 ; 0.0007051 0.000956 i i i i i i i i Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.547828. 0.043645, 0.199892, 0.122290, 0.016774, 0.005862, 0.020637, 0.032653, 0.002037, 0.001944, 0.004777, 0.000705, 0.000956 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 I I i 1,134.028 1 1,134.028 I 0.0259 1 5.3500e- 1,136.270 Mitigated 1 1 1 1 1 003 1 5 ,I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 Electricity I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 0.0000 I I I 0.0000 1 I 1 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 1 I I i 1,134.028 1 1,134.028 I 0.0259 1 5.3500e- 1,136.270 Unmitigated .1 I I 1 I I 1 I 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 003 1 5 ,I I I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 I I 1 NaturalGas •I I I I 0.0344 I 0.3126 I 0.2626 1 1.8800e- I 1 1 1 0.0238 I I I 0.0238 1 I 1 0.0238 0.0238 � 0.0000 1 I I I 340.2717 1 340.2717 16.5200e- 1 6.2400e- 342.2938 Mitigated 003 1 1 I 1 1 , i 1 I 003 1 003 1 1 NaturalGas 0.0344 0.3126 0.2626 1.8800e- - 0.0238 0.0238 - 0.0238 0.0238 0.0000 340.2717 340.2717 6.5200e- - 6.2400e- 342.2938 Unmitigated 003 003 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel � 6.37645e •i 0.0344 i 0.3126 � 0.2626 � 1.8800e- i � 0.0238 i 0.0238 � � 0.0238 0.0238 � 0.0000 i 340.2717 � 340.2717 i 6.5200e- i 6.2400e- 342.2938 i +006 003 003 003 i - ------ ------ - Other Asphalt 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Surfaces Total 0.0344 0.3126 0.2626 1.8800e- 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.0000 340.2717 340.2717 6.5200e- 6.2400e- 342.2938 003 003 003 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Hotel 6.37645e �i 0.0344 i 0.3126 i 0.2626 i 1.8800e- 0.0238 i 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.0000 i 340.2717 i 340.2717 i 6.5200e- 6.2400e- 342.2938 +006 003 . i 003 003 i ------ ------ --ter *------- �- Other Asphalt 0 i i i i i i i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 �i Surfaces Total 0.0344 0.3126 0.2626 1.8800e- 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.0238 0.0000 340.2717 340.2717 6.5200e- 6.2400e- 342.2938 003 003 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Unmitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 1.96719e •i 1,134.028 i 0.0259 5.3500e- 1,136.270 i +006 1 003 i 5 i i i ■i i Other Asphalt 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces Total 1,134.028 0.0259 5.3500e- 1:136.270 1 003 j 5 Mitigated Electricity Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Use Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Hotel 1.96719e •1 1,134.028 i 0.0259 i 5.3500e- 1 1,136.270 +006 1 i 003 i 5 -------------------------j-------I-------*------- Other Asphalt 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces Total 1,134.028 0.0259 5.3500e- 1 003 1 17,136.270 5 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non -Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non -Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ROG NOx I CO S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated •i 0.4384 i 2.000Oe- 2.1100e- i 0.0000 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 4.0700e- 4.0700e- i 1.000Oe- 0.0000 4.3400e- •� 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 Unmitigated 0.4334 2.000Oe- 2.1100e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 4.0700e- 4.0700e- - 1.000Oe- 0.0000 4.3400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 26 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0494 i � i i � 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating ------------- Consumer •i 0.3838 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 2.000Oe- i 2.000Oe- 2.1100e- i 0.0000 i 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 4.0700e- 4.0700e- i 1.000Oe- 0.0000 4.3400e- '� 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 i 003 Total -] 0.4334 2.000Oe- 2.1100e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.0700e- 4.0700e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.3400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Subcategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural •i 0.0543 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Coating ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------*----- - Consumer •i 0.3838 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 2.000Oe- i 2.000Oe- � 2.1100e- i 0.0000 i � 1.000Oe- i 1.000Oe- 1.0000e- 1.000Oe- 0.0000 i 4.0700e- 4.0700e- i 1.000Oe- 0.0000 4.3400e- '� 004 005 003 005 005 005 005 . 003 003 005 i 003 Total 0.4384 2.000Oe- 2.1100e- 0.0000 1.000Oe- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.0700e- 4.0700e- 1.0000e- 0.0000 4.3400e- 005 003 005 005 005 005 003 003 005 003 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 27 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated •1 35.5073 i 0.1363 3.3600e- i 39.9177 •� 003 i +-------------- -------- Unmitigated 35.5073 0.1363 3.3600e- 39.9177 003 7.2 Water by Land Use Unmitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 4.16015 / ■1 35.5073 0.1363 3.3600e- 39.9177 0.462239 ;i 003 -----------r______i------- -------------- ------- Other Asphalt 0/0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces Total 35.5073 0.1363 3.3600e- 39.9177 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 28 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 7.2 Water by Land Use Mitigated Indoor/Out Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e door Use Land Use Mgal MT/yr Hotel 4.16015 / •1 35.5073 0.1363 3.3600e- i 39.9177 0.462239 ;i i 003 41-------------- Other Asphalt 6/6 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces •� i Total 35.5073 0.1363 3.3600e- 39.9177 003 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste CategoryNear Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e MT/yr Mitigated •1 18.2266 i 1.0772 i 0.0000 i 45.1555 - - - - - - - - %� ---- - +-----------------------------* - - - - - - - Unmitigated 18.2266 1.0772 0.0000 45.1555 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 29 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Unmitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel i 89.79 •1 18.2266 1.0772 0.0000 i 45.1555 • - -------'------- Other Asphalt i 0 •i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 Surfaces •� i Total 18.2266 j 1.0772 j 0.0000 45.1555 Mitigated Waste Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Disposed Land Use tons MT/yr Hotel 89.79 -1 18.2266 1.0772 i 0.0000 i 45.1555 ........... f--------------J-------J--------... .... Other Asphalt 0 •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 Surfaces Total 18.2266 1.0772 0.0000 45.1555 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 30 of 30 Date: 7/9/2018 3:07 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Annual 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumas and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 164.00 + Room ; 2.42 105,763.00 i 0 ----------------------------- _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E-------------- Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 1000sgft 0.59 25,778.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 Climate Zone 15 Operational Year 2020 Utility Company Imperial Irrigation District CO2Intensity 1270.9 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Only a hotel with retails shops will be a new building on an existing Specific Plan of 10.7 acres. Hotel and Fresh and Easy SF is used here. Construction Phase - Construction of one year is assumed. Grading - Total 5,700 CY will be imported. And, 11,500 CY will be exported. Vehicle Trips - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Assumes low VOC. CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value tblAreaMitigation•UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorVi 100 i 110 alue i ----------------g------------+------------------------------ f----------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- tblAreaMiti ation • UseLowVOCPai ntNon residential I nteriorV f 100 i 110 alue -----------------------------f------------------------------ F------------------------- ------------------------------ tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck } False True -----------------------------Y------------------------------ ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingValue } 100 110 -----------------------------Y--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpaved RoadVehicleSpeed } 40 0 -----------------------------Y----------g-p------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblLandUse Build in S acesquareFeet } 238,128.00 96,914.00 -----------------------------Y----------------------------- ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 238,128.00 105,763.00 -----------------------------Y----------------------------- ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 0.00 25,778.00 -----------------------------Y-----------------------------}-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.47 2.42 -----------------------------Y-----------------------------}-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.59 -----------------------------Y------------------------------ ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear } 2018 2020 ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT Haul ingTripNumber 0.00 1,438.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day 2018 •i 7.1532 136.8203 39.7774 0.2688 21.3921 2.9190 24.3110 10.8947 2.6980 13.5927 0.0000 i 28,692.27 28,692.27 2.8856 0.0000 28,764.41 i i i i � i 81 81 87 i i i i ----------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------*------- 2019 •i 55.1869 i 23.7836 20.2437 i 0.0391 0.7556 1.3113 i 2.0669 0.2036 i 1.2331 1.4367 0.0000 i 3,848.807 3,848.807 i 0.6919 0.0000 3,866.103 '� i i i i i i i i • 5 i 5 i i i 9 Maximum 55.1869 136.8203 39.7774 0.2688 21.3921 2.9190 24.3110 10.8947 2.6980 13.5927 0.0000 28,692.27 28,692.27 2.8856 0.0000 28,764.41 81 81 87 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day 2018 •1 7.1532 i 136.8203 i 39.7774 i 0.2688 7.3907 i 2.9190 i 10.3097 i 3.1985 i 2.6980 5.8964 0.0000 i 28,692.27 i 28,692.27 i 2.8856 0.0000 i 28,764.41 81 81 87 ---- ----•r------- j------------------------------------------ i-------j---------------_------r------i-------�-------i-------*---- - 2019 �� 55.1869 i 23.7836 i 20.2437 i 0.0391 i 0.7556 i 1.3113 i 2.0669 i 0.2036 i 1.2331 1.4367 0.0000 3,848.807 i 3,848.807 i 0.6919 i 0.0000 i 3,866.103 i i i i i i i i i ■ 5 5 i 9 Maximum 55.1869 136.8203 39.7774 0.2688 7.3907 2.9190 10.3097 3.1985 2.6980 28,692.27 28,692.27 2.8856 .0000 28,764.41 11 f-77.0000 81 81 1 87 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.22 0.00 53.08 69.35 0.00 51.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 Area •I 2.3754 1 1.6000e- I 0.0169 1 0.0000 I 1 6.000Oe- 1 6.000Oe- I 1 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 I 0.0359 1 1.000Oe- I i 0.0383 •I I 004 I I 1 I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 . 1 I 1 004 1 1 ;� I I I 1 I I I I ■ I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Energy •I 0.1884 I 1.7127 I 1.4387 1 0.0103 1 I 0.1302 1 0.1302 I 1 0.1302 � 0.1302 � 12,055.262 12,055.262 1 0.0394 1 0.0377 i 2,067.475 'I I I I I I I I I I ■ 3 I 3 I I 1 7 ;� I I I 1 I I I I ■ I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I 1 Mobile •I 2.3711 1 11.2688 I 27.2286 1 0.0897 1 6.8148 I 0.0880 1 6.9029 I 1.8235 1 0.0826 1.9061 � 19,115.95301I 9,115.9531 0.4743 1 19,127.8110 'I I I I I I I I I ■ 1 I 0 I 1 1 '1 I I I 1 I I I I ■ 1 I I 1 1 Total 4.9349 12.9817 28.6842 0.0999 6.8148 0.2182 7.0331 1.8235 0.2128 2.0364 11,171.25 11,171.25 0.5138 0.0377 11,195.32 12 12 1 1 50 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Area •I 2.9129 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- ■ I 0.0359 0.0359 1.000Oe- 1 0.0383 I I I I 16.000Oe- 16.000Oe- I 16.000Oe- I I I �I I 004 I I I I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 I I I 004 I 1 ---- - - ------I------- -------j--------j--------j-------j--------j---------------j---------------_-------I-------j--------i--------i-------*------- 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Energy •I 0.1884 I 1.7127 I 1.4387 I 0.0103 I I 0.1302 I 0.1302 I I 0.1302 0.1302 ■ 12,055.262 12,055.262 I 0.0394 I 0.0377 i 2,067.475 3 I 3 I I I 7 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 Mobile •I 2.3711 I 11.2688 I 27.2286 I 0.0897 I 6.8148 I 0.0880 I 6.9029 I 1.8235 I 0.0826 1.9061 ■ 19,115.95301I 9,115.9531 0.4743 I 19,127.8110 0 I 1 Total 5.4724 12.9817 28.6842 0.0999 6.8148 0.2182 7.0331 1.8235 0.2128 2.0364 11,171.25 11,171.25 0.5138 0.0377 11,195.32 j j j j j j 12 12 j 50 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent -10.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 112/1/2018 :12/14/2018 5: 5: + ------------------------ ------------,------------,--------4--------T '11 1 i 2 :Grading +Grading :12/15/2018 :12/28/2018 5: 8: i '-------------------------------------,------------,--------,--------- i 3 :Building Construction +Building Construction 112/29/2018 :7/26/2019 5: 230: + '-1 -r----------------------------------,------------,-------- 4 i --------T 4 :Paving +Paving I7/27/2019 :9/6/2019 5: 18: i -------•------------------------------------------------ ------------------------Y------------------------'- I —— -- — — — —— I i -------�------------------------- 5 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -9/7/2019 -11/22/2019 5, 18- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 0.59 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 158,645; Non -Residential Outdoor: 52,882; Striped Parking Area: 1,547 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.1 Page 6 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading 'Excavators ; 1; 8.001 158, 0.38 --------------------------- Site Preparation -------------------------- 'Rubber Tired Dozers ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 3; 4-------------t-------------- 8.001 247, 0.40 --------------------------- Site Preparation -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------!-------------t-------------- ; 4; 8.001 97: 0.37 --------------------------- Grading --------------------------I---------------------------------- 'Graders +-------------------------t ; 1 ; 8.001 187, 0.41 ---------------------------- Grading ------------------------- 'Rubber Tired Dozers +-------------------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 8.001 247: 0.40 --------------------------- Grading -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------!-------------t-------------- ; 3; 8.001 97, 0.37 --------------------------- Building Construction ------------------------- 'Cranes +-------------------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Forklifts ----------------------------------+------------ ; 3; I-------------t-------------- 8.001 89, 0.20 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Generator Sets ---------------------------------- ; 1 ; ----------------------------------------- 8.001 84: 0.74 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 3; I-------------t-------------- 7.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Welders ---------------------------------- ; 1 ; ----------------------------------------- 8.001 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ----------------------------------+------------ ; 2; I-------------t-------------- 6.001 9: 0.56 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- +Pavers ; 1 ; 8.001 130: 0.42 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- 'Paving Equipment ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 2; I-------------t-------------- 6.001 132: 0.36 ---------------------------- Paving --------------------------I---------------------------------- 'Rollers +------------ ; 2; -------------t 6.001 80: 0.38 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 1 ; I-------------t-------------- 8.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- Architectural Coating --------------------------+-----------------F------------ :Air Compressors 1 ------------- 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count I Number I Number I Number Length Length Length I Class I Vehicle Class I Vehicle Class Site Preparation A 7; 18.00 0.001 1,438.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix IHHDT Grading - 6; - i------------ 15.00: 0.00: ,----------I- 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix -- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT ---------------- ° Building Construction -------------;----------------- 9; -- 55.00- --------i 22.00, 0.00� --------- 14.70; --------------- 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------'-------- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------- - - - - -- ° Paving -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: -------- 0.00: i 0.00: - ---------'--- � 14.70; ------- --- 6.90; --------------- - - - - -- 20.00;LD_Mix ----- -- - - -'-- - - - - -- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT Architectural Coating ; 1 11.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I Off -Road •1 4.5627 1 48.1988 I 22.4763 1 0.0380 I 1 2.5769 I 2.5769 I I 2.3708 2.3708 � 13,831.623 1 3,831.623 I 1.1928 1 i 3,861.444 1 I I g g 1 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 18.0663 2.5769 2.3708 12.3014 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 I-m�9.9307 9 9 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 2.4935 i 88.5520 i 16.3980 0.2285 i 3.1246 0.3405 3.4651 i 0.9107 0.3257 1.2364 i 24,641.17 24,641.17 1.6853 i i 24,683.30 09 09 35 � i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 •------------------------------------------'------------------------ -- -------'-------------- Worker •1 0.0970 i 0.0695 i 0.9032 2.2100e- i 0.2012 1.6000e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.4800e- 0.0548 i 219.4833 219.4833 7.4800e- i i 219.6704 003 003 003 003 i Total 2.5905 88.6216 17.3011 0.2308 3.3258 0.3421 3.6679 0.9641 0.3272 1.2913 24,860.65 24,860.65 1.6928 24,902.97 11 42 42 39 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1 4.0649 0.0000 4.0649 i 2.2344 0.0000 2.2344 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.5627 i 48.1988 i 22.4763 0.0380 2.5769 2.5769 2.3708 2.3708 0.0000 i 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 i i 3,861.444 9 9 i 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 4.0649 2.5769 6.6418 2.2344 2.3708 4.6052 0.0000 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 2.4935 i 88.5520 i 16.3980 0.2285 i 3.1246 0.3405 3.4651 i 0.9107 0.3257 1.2364 i 24,641.17 24,641.17 1.6853 i i 24,683.30 09 09 35 � i i Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 •------------------------------------------'------------------------ -- -------'-------------- Worker •1 0.0970 i 0.0695 i 0.9032 2.2100e- i 0.2012 1.6000e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.4800e- 0.0548 i 219.4833 219.4833 7.4800e- i i 219.6704 003 003 003 003 i Total 2.5905 88.6216 17.3011 0.2308 3.3258 0.3421 3.6679 0.9641 0.3272 1.2913 24,860.65 24,860.65 1.6928 24,902.97 11 42 42 39 3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 � � � 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.7733 i 30.6725 i 16.5770 � 0.0297 i � 1.5513 � 1.5513 i � 1.4272 1.4272 � i 2,988.021 � 2,988.021 � 0.9302 i i 3,011.2769 6 i 6 Total 2.7733 30.6725 16.5770 0.0297 6.5523 1.5513 8.1631 3.3675 1.4272 4.7947 2,988.021 2,988.021 0.9302 3:011.276 1 1 6 6 9 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ----------•------------------------------------------'--------------------- -------- ------ ---'------- ------- Worker •i 0.0808 i 0.0580 i 0.7526 1.8400e- i 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2300e- 0.0457 i 182.9028 182.9028 6.2400e- i i 183.0587 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0808 0.0580 0.7526 1.8400e- 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 0.0445 1.2300e-F777 182.9028 182.9028 6.2400e- 183.0587 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1 1.4743 0.0000 1.4743 i 0.7577 0.0000 0.7577 � � � 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.7733 i 30.6725 i 16.5770 0.0297 1.5513 1.5513 1.4272 1.4272 0.0000 i 2,988.021 2,988.021 0.9302 i i 3,011.2769 6 i 6 Total 2.7733 30.6725 16.5770 0.0297 1.4743 1.5513 3.0256 0.7577 1.4272 2.1849 0.0000 2,988.021 2,988.021 0.9302 3:011.276 6 6 9 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.3 Grading - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0808 i 0.0580 i 0.7526 1.8400e- i 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2300e- 0.0457 i 182.9028 182.9028 6.2400e- i i 183.0587 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0808 0.0580 0.7526 1.8400e- 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 0.0445 1.2300e- 0.0457 182.9028 182.9028 6.2400e- 183.0587 11 003 003 003 j 003 1 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.6795 i 23.3900 i 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 i i 2,636.988 1 1 i 3 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0936 i 2.6661 i 0.6640 5.7600e- i 0.1408 0.0195 0.1603 i 0.0405 0.0186 0.0592 i 613.0477 613.0477 0.0417 i i 614.0908 003 Worker •i 0.2964 i 0.2125 i 2.7597 6.7400e- i 0.6148 4.9000e- 0.6197 i 0.1630 4.5200e- 0.1676 i 670.6434 670.6434 0.0229 i i 671.2151 003 003 003 i Total 0.3900 2.8785 3.4236 0.0125 0.7556 0.0244 0.7800 0.2036 0.0232 1,283.691 0.0646 11285.305 [7771,283.691 1 1 9 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.6795 i 23.3900 i 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 i 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 i i 2,636.988 1 1 i 3 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0936 i 2.6661 i 0.6640 5.7600e- i 0.1408 0.0195 0.1603 i 0.0405 0.0186 0.0592 i 613.0477 613.0477 0.0417 i i 614.0908 003 Worker •i 0.2964 i 0.2125 i 2.7597 6.7400e- i 0.6148 4.9000e- 0.6197 i 0.1630 4.5200e- 0.1676 i 670.6434 670.6434 0.0229 i i 671.2151 003 003 003 i Total 0.3900 2.8785 3.4236 0.0125 0.7556 0.0244 0.7800 0.2036 0.0232 1,283.691 0.0646 11285.305 [7771,283.691 1 1 9 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.3612 i 21.0788 i 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 i i 2,607.363 2 2 i 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 j j j j j 2 2 j 5 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0848 i 2.5173 i 0.6085 5.7000e- i 0.1408 0.0167 0.1575 i 0.0405 0.0160 0.0565 607.6834 607.6834 0.0402 i i 608.6886 003 -------•------------------------------------------'------------------------ ---------'---------------------- '� i i i i i i i i +- r------i i i•i 0.2694 i 0.1874 i 2.4714 6.5200e- i 0.6148 4.7800e- 0.6196 i 0.1630 4.4100e- 0.1675 i 649.5440 649.5440 0.0203 i i 650.0518 Worker 003 003 003 i Total 0.3542 2.7048 3.0799 0.0122 0.7556 0.0215 0.7770 0.2036 0.0204 0.0605 1,258.740 [77T1,257.227 3 1'1,257.227 3 1 4 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.3612 i 21.0788 i 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 i 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 i i 2,607.363 2 2 i 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 11 j j j j j 1 1 2 2 j 5 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0848 i 2.5173 i 0.6085 5.7000e- i 0.1408 0.0167 0.1575 i 0.0405 0.0160 0.0565 607.6834 607.6834 0.0402 i i 608.6886 003 ------ ----- •I - - - - - - - -- - - - ---- - - - ---- - - - ---- - - - ---------'- - - - - ---- - - - --------- --- - ---- --- ---'--------j------- Worker •i 0.2694 i 0.1874 i 2.4714 6.5200e- i 0.6148 4.7800e- 0.6196 i 0.1630 4.4100e- 0.1675 i 649.5440 649.5440 0.0203 i i 650.0518 003 003 003 i Total 0.3542 2.7048 3.0799 0.0122 0.7556 0.0215 0.7770 0.2036 0.0204 0.0605 1,258.740 [77T1,257.227 3 1'1,257.227 3 1 4 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2679 i 12.7604 i 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 i i 1,857.496 1 1 i 6 Paving •1 0.0859 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 F 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3538 12.7604 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 1,857.496 11 1 1 6 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0980 i 0.0682 i 0.8987 2.3700e- i 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 236.1978 236.1978 7.3900e- i i 236.3825 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0980 0.0682 0.8987 2.3700e- 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 236.1978 236.1978 7.3900e- 236.3825 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2679 i 12.7604 i 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 0.0000 i 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 i i 1,857.496 1 1 i 6 Paving •1 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.3538 12.7604 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 0.0000 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 1,857.496 11 1 1 6 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.5 Paving - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0980 i 0.0682 i 0.8987 2.3700e- i 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 i 236.1978 236.1978 7.3900e- i i 236.3825 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0980 0.0682 0.8987 2.3700e- 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 236.1978 236.1978 7.3900e- 236.3825 003 003 003 003 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.8666 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2664 i 1.8354 i 1.8413 2.9700e- i 0.1288 0.1288 i 0.1288 0.1288 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 i i 282.0423 003 Total 55.1330 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 ----------•------------------------------------------'--------------------- -------- ------ ------- ------- Worker •i 0.0539 i 0.0375 i 0.4943 1.3000e- i 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 i 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 i 129.9088 129.9088 4.0600e- i i 130.0104 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0539 0.0375 0.4943 1.3000e- 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 129.9088 129.9088 4.0600e- 130.0104 003 004 004FF 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.8666 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2664 i 1.8354 i 1.8413 2.9700e- i 0.1288 0.1288 i 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 i i 282.0423 003 Total 55.1330 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.0539 i 0.0375 i 0.4943 1.3000e- i 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 i 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 i 129.9088 129.9088 4.0600e- i i 130.0104 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0539 0.0375 0.4943 1.3000e- 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 129.9088 129.9088 4.0600e- 130.0104 003 004 004 j 003 1 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.3711 i 11.2688 27.2286 i 0.0897 i 6.8148 i 0.0880 6.9029 1.8235 i 0.0826 1.9061 i9,115.9530i9,115.95301 0.4743 i 119,127.8110 Unmitigated 2.3711 11.2688 27.2286 0.0897 6.8148 0.0880 6.9029 1.8235 0.0826 1.9061 -9,115.9530. 9,115.953 • 0.4743 9,127.8110 0 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel + 1,339.88 ......................................----------- Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 1,343.16 975.80 - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -- 0.00 0.00 3,074,193 --------------- - - - - -- 3,074,193 ------------------- - - - - - - Total 1,339.88 1,343.16 975.80 3,074,193 3,074,193 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Hotel ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.547828 i 0.043645 ; 0.199892 ; 0.122290 ; 0.016774 ; 0.005862 ; 0.020637 ; 0.032653 ; 0.002037 ; 0.001944 ; 0.004777 ; 0.0007051 0.000956 i i i i i i i i Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.547828. 0.043645, 0.199892, 0.122290, 0.016774, 0.005862, 0.020637, 0.032653, 0.002037, 0.001944, 0.004777, 0.000705, 0.000956 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.1884 i 1.7127 i 1.4387 i 0.0103 i i 0.1302 0.1302 i i 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 i 0.0377 2,067.475 Mitigated 3 3 i 7 NaturalGas 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 • 2,055.262 • 0.0394 - 0.0377 • 2,067.475 Unmitigated 3 3 7 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 17469.7 •i 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 : i 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 0.0377 2,067.475 i � i � i i 3 3 i 7 Other Asphalt 0 •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Surfaces Total 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 0.0377 2,067.475 3 3 7 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 17.4697 �i 0.1884 i 1.7127 i 1.4387 i 0.0103 i i 0.1302 i 0.1302 i i 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 i 2,055.262 i 0.0394 0.0377 i 2,067.475 ---------- •' j-------j-------j-------j-------'-------j-------j-------�---------------+-------� --------- --------- ---*------- ------ ------ --ter �- Other Asphalt 0 i i i i i i i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 �i Surfaces Total 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 0.0377 2,067.475 3 3 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non -Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non -Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 177TotaICO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.9129 i 1.6000e- 0.0169 i 0.0000 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 i 1.000Oe- 0.0383 •� 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Unmitigated 2.3754 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 - 1.000Oe- 0.0383 004 005 005 005 005 004 CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2706 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 2.1032 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products r i i i i i i i i i i i Landscaping •i 1.5900e- i 1.6000e- 0.0169 i 0.0000 i 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- i 0.0359 0.0359 i 1.000Oe- 0.0383 003 004 005 005 005 005 004 i Total 2.3754 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 1.0000e- 0.0383 11 004 005 005 005 005 004 Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2976 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •1 2.6136 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 1.5900e- i 1.6000e- 0.0169 i 0.0000 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 i 1.000Oe- 0.0383 003 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Total 2.9129 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 1.000Oe- 0.0383 004 005 005 005 005 004 7.0 Water Detail CaIEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:08 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Summer 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumas and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 1.0 Project Characteristics 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Hotel 164.00 + Room ; 2.42 105,763.00 i 0 •---------------------------- _------------------------------ _----------------------------- --------------}------------------E-------------- Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.00 1000sgft 0.59 25,778.00 0 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Urban Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31 Climate Zone 15 Operational Year 2020 Utility Company Imperial Irrigation District CO2Intensity 1270.9 CH4Intensity 0.029 N20Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non -Default Data Project Characteristics - Land Use - Only a hotel with retails shops will be a new building on an existing Specific Plan of 10.7 acres. Hotel and Fresh and Easy SF is used here. Construction Phase - Construction of one year is assumed. Grading - Total 5,700 CY will be imported. And, 11,500 CY will be exported. Vehicle Trips - Construction Off -road Equipment Mitigation - Area Mitigation - Assumes low VOC. CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 2 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Table Name I Column Name I Default Value I New Value tblAreaMitigation•UseLowVOCPaintNonresidentialExteriorVi 100 i 110 alue i ----------------g------------+------------------------------ f----------------------- - - - - -- -------------------------- tblAreaMiti ation • UseLowVOCPai ntNon residential I nteriorV f 100 i 110 alue -----------------------------f------------------------------ F------------------------- ------------------------------ tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingCheck } False True -----------------------------Y------------------------------ ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblAreaMitigation UseLowVOCPaintParkingValue } 100 110 -----------------------------Y--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblConstDustMitigation WaterUnpaved RoadVehicleSpeed } 40 0 -----------------------------Y----------g-p------------------------------------------------------------------------- tblLandUse Build in S acesquareFeet } 238,128.00 96,914.00 -----------------------------Y----------------------------- ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 238,128.00 105,763.00 -----------------------------Y----------------------------- ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse Land UseSquareFeet } 0.00 25,778.00 -----------------------------Y-----------------------------}-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse LotAcreage 5.47 2.42 -----------------------------Y-----------------------------}-----------------------------t-------------------------- tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 0.59 -----------------------------Y------------------------------ ------------------------------t-------------------------- tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear } 2018 2020 ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- tblTripsAndVMT Haul ingTripNumber 0.00 1,438.00 2.0 Emissions Summary CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 3 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day 2018 •i 7.2356 138.0633 41.0770 0.2645 21.3921 2.9256 24.3177 10.8947 2.7043 13.5991 0.0000 i 28,236.10 28,236.10 2.9630 0.0000 28,310.18 i � i i i i � 72 72 08 i i i ----------•------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------*------- 2019 •i 55.1917 i 23.8032 20.0711 i 0.0386 0.7556 1.3116 i 2.0672 0.2036 i 1.2333 1.4369 0.0000 i 3,789.436 3,789.436 i 0.6935 0.0000 3,806.774 6 i 6 i i i 7 Maximum 55.1917 138.0633 41.0770 0.2645 21.3921 2.9256 24.3177 10.8947 2.7043 13.5991 0.0000 28,236.10 28,236.10 2.9630 0.0000 28,310.18 72 72 08 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Year lb/day lb/day 2018 •1 7.2356 i 138.0633 i 41.0770 i 0.2645 i 7.3907 i 2.9256 i 10.3163 i 3.1985 i 2.7043 5.9028 0.0000 i 28,236.10 i 28,236.10 i 2.9630 i 0.0000 i 28,310.18 �� ■ 72 72 i 08 ---- ----•r------- j------------------------------------------ i-------j---------------_------r------i-------�-------i-------*---- - 2019 �� 55.1917 i 23.8032 i 20.0711 i 0.0386 i 0.7556 i 1.3116 i 2.0672 i 0.2036 i 1.2333 1.4369 0.0000 3,789.436 i 3,789.436 i 0.6935 i 0.0000 i 3,806.774 i i i i i i i i i ■ 6 6 i 7 Maximum 55.1917 138.0633 41.0770 0.2645 7.3907 2.9256 10.3163 3.1985 2.7043 28,236.10 28,236.10 2.9630 0.0000 28,310.18 11 f-77.0000 72 72 1 08 1 ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio-0O2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.22 0.00 53.07 69.35 0.00 51.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 4 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 2.2 Overall Operational Unmitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 Area 42.3754 1 1.6000e- I 0.0169 1 0.0000 I 1 6.000Oe- 1 6.000Oe- I 1 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 I 0.0359 1 1.000Oe- I i 0.0383 •1 I 004 I I 1 I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 . I I 1 004 1 1 ;� I I I 1 I I I I ■ I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Energy •I 0.1884 I 1.7127 I 1.4387 1 0.0103 1 I 0.1302 1 0.1302 I 1 0.1302 � 0.1302 � 12,055.262 12,055.262 1 0.0394 1 0.0377 i 2,067.475 '1 I I I I I I I I ■ I 3 I 3 I I 1 7 ;� I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 ■ 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Mobile •I 2.2543 1 11.4514 I 25.9254 1 0.0848 1 6.8148 I 0.0887 1 6.9035 I 1.8235 1 0.0832 � 1.9068 � 18,620.960 18,620.960 1 0.4773 1 � 8,632.893 '1 I I I I I I I I ■ I 2 I 2 I 1 1 1 '1 I I I 1 I I I I ■ 1 I I 1 1 Total 4.8181 13.1643 27.3809 0.0950 6.8148 0.2189 7.0337 1.8235 0.2135 2.0370 10,676.25 10,676.25 0.5168 0.0377 10,700.40 11 84 84 71 Mitigated Operational ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 I PM2.5 I Category lb/day lb/day I I I 1 I I I I I I 1 Area •I 2.9129 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- ■ I 0.0359 0.0359 1.000Oe- 1 0.0383 I I I I 16.000Oe- 16.000Oe- I 16.000Oe- I I I �I I 004 I I I I 005 I 005 I I 005 005 I I I 004 I 1 ---- - - ------I------- -------j--------j--------j-------j--------j---------------j---------------_-------I-------j--------i--------i-------*------- 1 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I I I 1 Energy •I 0.1884 I 1.7127 I 1.4387 I 0.0103 I I 0.1302 I 0.1302 I I 0.1302 0.1302 ■ 12,055.262 12,055.262 I 0.0394 I 0.0377 i 2,067.475 3 I 3 I I I 7 I I I 1 I I I I 1- I I 1 Mobile •I 2.2543 I 11.4514 I 25.9254 I 0.0848 I 6.8148 I 0.0887 I 6.9035 I 1.8235 I 0.0832 1.9068 ■ 18,620.960 18,620.960 I 0.4773 I i 8,632.893 2 I 2 I I I 1 Total 5.3556 13.1643 27.3809 0.0950 6.8148 0.2189 7.0337 1.8235 0.2135 2.0370 10,676.25 10,676.25 0.5168 0.0377 10,700.40 j j j j j j 84 84 j 71 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 5 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-0O2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Percent -11.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 :Site Preparation +Site Preparation 112/1/2018 :12/14/2018 5: 5: + ------------------------ ------------,------------,--------4--------T '11 1 i 2 :Grading +Grading :12/15/2018 :12/28/2018 5: 8: i '-------------------------------------,------------,--------,--------- i 3 :Building Construction +Building Construction 112/29/2018 :7/26/2019 5: 230: + '-1 -r----------------------------------,------------,-------- 4 i --------T 4 :Paving +Paving I7/27/2019 :9/6/2019 5: 18: i -------•------------------------------------------------ ------------------------Y------------------------'- I —— -- — — — —— I i -------�------------------------- 5 •Architectural Coating :Architectural Coating -9/7/2019 -11/22/2019 5, 18- Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 4 Acres of Paving: 0.59 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non -Residential Indoor: 158,645; Non -Residential Outdoor: 52,882; Striped Parking Area: 1,547 (Architectural Coating — sgft) OffRoad Equipment CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2O16.3.1 Page 6 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Phase Name I Offroad Equipment Type I Amount I Usage Hours I Horse Power I Load Factor Grading 'Excavators ; 1; 8.001 158, 0.38 --------------------------- Site Preparation -------------------------- 'Rubber Tired Dozers ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 3; 4-------------t-------------- 8.001 247, 0.40 --------------------------- Site Preparation -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------!-------------t-------------- ; 4; 8.001 97: 0.37 --------------------------- Grading --------------------------I---------------------------------- 'Graders +-------------------------t ; 1 ; 8.001 187, 0.41 ---------------------------- Grading ------------------------- 'Rubber Tired Dozers +-------------------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 8.001 247: 0.40 --------------------------- Grading -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------!-------------t-------------- ; 3; 8.001 97, 0.37 --------------------------- Building Construction ------------------------- 'Cranes +-------------------------t-------------- ; 1 ; 7.001 231, 0.29 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Forklifts ----------------------------------+------------ ; 3; I-------------t-------------- 8.001 89, 0.20 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Generator Sets ---------------------------------- ; 1 ; ----------------------------------------- 8.001 84: 0.74 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 3; I-------------t-------------- 7.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- Building Construction -------------------------- 'Welders ---------------------------------- ; 1 ; ----------------------------------------- 8.001 46, 0.45 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- 'Cement and Mortar Mixers ----------------------------------+------------ ; 2; I-------------t-------------- 6.001 9: 0.56 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- +Pavers ; 1 ; 8.001 130: 0.42 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- 'Paving Equipment ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 2; I-------------t-------------- 6.001 132: 0.36 ---------------------------- Paving --------------------------I---------------------------------- 'Rollers +------------ ; 2; -------------t 6.001 80: 0.38 ---------------------------- Paving -------------------------- +Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes ---------------------------------- +------------ ; 1 ; I-------------t-------------- 8.001 97, 0.37 ---------------------------- Architectural Coating --------------------------+-----------------F------------ :Air Compressors 1 ------------- 6.00: 78: 0.48 Trips and VMT Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip I Worker Trip I Vendor Trip I Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count I Number I Number I Number Length Length Length I Class I Vehicle Class I Vehicle Class Site Preparation A 7; 18.00 0.001 1,438.00; 14.70: 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix IHDT_Mix (HHDT Grading - 6; - i------------ 15.00: 0.00: ,----------I- 0.00: 14.70; 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix -- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT ---------------- ° Building Construction -------------;----------------- 9; -- 55.00- --------i 22.00, 0.00� --------- 14.70; --------------- 6.90; 20.00;LD_Mix ----------'-------- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT �- --------- - - - - -- ° Paving -------------; 8; i------------ 20.00: -------- 0.00: i 0.00: - ---------'--- � 14.70; ------- --- 6.90; --------------- - - - - -- 20.00;LD_Mix ----- -- - - -'-- - - - - -- iHDT_Mix ;HHDT Architectural Coating ; 1 11.00, 0.00, 0.00, 14.70, 6.90, 20.00,LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 7 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Soil Stabilizer Replace Ground Cover Water Exposed Area 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust •1 18.0663 0.0000 18.0663 9.9307 0.0000 9.9307 0.0000 0.0000 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 1 I I Off -Road •1 4.5627 1 48.1988 I 22.4763 1 0.0380 I 1 2.5769 I 2.5769 I I 2.3708 2.3708 � 13,831.623 1 3,831.623 I 1.1928 1 i 3,861.444 1 I I g g 1 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 18.0663 2.5769 2.3708 12.3014 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 I-m�9.9307 9 9 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 8 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 2.5675 i 89.7883 i 17.7834 0.2244 i 3.1246 0.3471 � 3.4717 i 0.9107 � 0.3321 1.2428 i24,199.161 124,199.161 : 1.7631 i i 24,243.23 1 i 1 i i i 86 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.1055 i 0.0762 i 0.8174 � 2.0600e- i 0.2012 � 1.6000e- � 0.2028 i 0.0534 � 1.4800e- 0.0548 � i 205.3223 � 205.3223 � 7.0100e- 205.4974 003 003 003 003 i Total 2.6729 89.8645 18.6007 0.2265 3.3258 0.3487 3.6745 0.9641 0.3336 1.2976 24,404.48 24,404.48 1.7701 33 33 F,448.73 61 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1 4.0649 0.0000 4.0649 i 2.2344 0.0000 2.2344 � i � 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 4.5627 i 48.1988 i 22.4763 0.0380 2.5769 2.5769 2.3708 2.3708 0.0000 i 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 i i 3,861.444 9 9 i 8 Total 4.5627 48.1988 22.4763 0.0380 4.0649 2.5769 6.6418 2.2344 2.3708 4.6052 0.0000 3,831.623 3,831.623 1.1928 3,861.444 9 9 8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 9 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.2 Site Preparation - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 2.5675 i 89.7883 i 17.7834 0.2244 i 3.1246 0.3471 � 3.4717 i 0.9107 � 0.3321 1.2428 i24,199.161 124,199.161 : 1.7631 i i 24,243.23 1 i 1 i i i 86 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.1055 i 0.0762 i 0.8174 2.0600e- i 0.2012 1.6000e- 0.2028 i 0.0534 1.4800e- 0.0548 205.3223 205.3223 7.0100e- i i 205.4974 003 003 003 003 i Total 2.6729 89.8645 18.6007 0.2265 3.3258 0.3487 3.6745 0.9641 0.3336 1.2976 24,404.48 24,404.48 1.7701 11 33 33 171 3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1 6.5523 0.0000 6.5523 i 3.3675 0.0000 3.3675 � � � 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.7733 i 30.6725 i 16.5770 � 0.0297 i � 1.5513 � 1.5513 i � 1.4272 1.4272 � i 2,988.021 � 2,988.021 � 0.9302 i i 3,011.2769 6 i 6 Total 2.7733 30.6725 16.5770 0.0297 6.5523 1.5513 8.1631 3.3675 1.4272 4.7947 2,988.021 2,988.021 0.9302 3,011.276 1 1 6 6 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 10 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 -----------•I------------------------------------------'----------------------------- --------------------'-------------- Worker •i 0.0879 i 0.0635 i 0.6811 1.7200e- i 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2300e- 0.0457 i 171.1019 171.1019 5.8400e- i i 171.2479 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0879 0.0635 0.6811 1.7200e- 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 0.0445 1.2300e- 0.0457 171.1019 171.1019 5.8400e- 171.2479 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 1 1.4743 0.0000 1.4743 i 0.7577 0.0000 0.7577 � � � 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 2.7733 i 30.6725 i 16.5770 0.0297 1.5513 1.5513 1.4272 1.4272 0.0000 i 2,988.021 2,988.021 0.9302 i i 3,011.2769 6 i 6 Total 2.7733 30.6725 16.5770 0.0297 1.4743 1.5513 3.0256 0.7577 1.4272 2.1849 0.0000 2,988.021 2,988.021 0.9302 3,011.276 6 6 9 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 11 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.3 Grading - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 I ----------------- ------- ----------------'--------j------- '� i i �------- Worker •i 0.0879 i 0.0635 i 0.6811 1.7200e- i 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 i 0.0445 1.2300e- 0.0457 i 171.1019 171.1019 5.8400e- i i 171.2479 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.0879 0.0635 0.6811 1.7200e- 0.1677 1.3400e- 0.1690 0.0445 1.2300e- 171.1019 171.1019 5.8400e- 171.2479 003 003 003 F777 003 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.6795 i 23.3900 i 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 i i 2,636.988 1 1 i 3 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 12 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0977 i 2.6705 i 0.7370 5.6000e- i 0.1408 0.0198 0.1606 i 0.0405 0.0189 0.0595 i 595.6642 595.6642 0.0448 596.7848 003 Worker •i 0.3222 i 0.2328 i 2.4975 6.3000e- i 0.6148 4.9000e- 0.6197 i 0.1630 4.5200e- 0.1676 i 627.3736 627.3736 0.0214 i i 627.9088 003 003 003 i Total 0.4199 2.9033 3.2346 0.0119 0.7556 0.0247 0.7803 0.2036 0.0234 1,223.037 0.0662 1,224.693 [7771,223.037 7 7 5 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.6795 i 23.3900 i 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 i 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 i i 2,636.988 1 1 i 3 Total 2.6795 23.3900 17.5804 0.0269 1.4999 1.4999 1.4099 1.4099 0.0000 2,620.935 2,620.935 0.6421 2,636.988 1 1 3 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 13 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2018 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0977 i 2.6705 i 0.7370 5.6000e- i 0.1408 0.0198 0.1606 i 0.0405 0.0189 0.0595 i 595.6642 595.6642 0.0448 i i 596.7848 003 Worker •i 0.3222 i 0.2328 i 2.4975 6.3000e- i 0.6148 4.9000e- 0.6197 i 0.1630 4.5200e- 0.1676 i 627.3736 627.3736 0.0214 i i 627.9088 003 003 003 i Total 0.4199 2.9033 3.2346 0.0119 0.7556 0.0247 0.7803 0.2036 0.0234 0.2270 1,223.037 1,223.037 0.0662 1,224.693 7 7 5 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.3612 i 21.0788 i 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 i i 2,607.363 2 2 i 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 j j j j j 2 2 j 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 14 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0886 i 2.5191 i 0.6777 5.5400e- i 0.1408 0.0169 0.1577 i 0.0405 0.0162 0.0567 i 590.2958 590.2958 0.0432 i i 591.3760 003 Worker •i 0.2933 i 0.2053 i 2.2296 6.1000e- i 0.6148 4.7800e- 0.6196 i 0.1630 4.4100e- 0.1675 607.5607 607.5607 0.0190 i i 608.0352 003 003 003 i Total 0.3819 2.7244 2.9073 0.0116 0.7556 0.0217 0.7773 0.2036 0.0206 1,197.856 0.0622 1 [7771,197.856 5 5 171 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 2.3612 i 21.0788 i 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 i 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 i i 2,607.363 2 2 i 5 Total 2.3612 21.0788 17.1638 0.0269 1.2899 1.2899 1.2127 1.2127 0.0000 2,591.580 2,591.580 0.6313 2,607.363 2 2 5 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 15 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.4 Building Construction - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0886 i 2.5191 i 0.6777 5.5400e- i 0.1408 0.0169 0.1577 i 0.0405 0.0162 0.0567 i 590.2958 590.2958 0.0432 i i 591.3760 003 Worker •i 0.2933 i 0.2053 i 2.2296 6.1000e- i 0.6148 4.7800e- 0.6196 i 0.1630 4.4100e- 0.1675 607.5607 607.5607 0.0190 i i 608.0352 003 003 003 i Total 0.3819 2.7244 2.9073 0.0116 0.7556 0.0217 0.7773 0.2036 0.0206 1,197.856 0.0622 1 [7771,197.856 5 5 171 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2679 i 12.7604 i 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 i i 1,857.496 1 1 i 6 Paving •1 0.0859 i i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 F 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.3538 12.7604 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 1,857.496 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 16 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.1067 i 0.0747 i 0.8108 2.2200e- i 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 i 220.9312 220.9312 6.9000e- i i 221.1037 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.1067 0.0747 0.8108 2.2200e- 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 220.9312 220.9312 6.9000e- 221.1037 003 003 003 j 003 1 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Off -Road •i 1.2679 i 12.7604 i 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 0.0000 i 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 i i 1,857.496 1 1 i 6 Paving •1 0.0859 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Total 1.3538 12.7604 12.3130 0.0189 0.7196 0.7196 0.6637 0.6637 0.0000 1,843.319 1,843.319 0.5671 1,857.496 11 1 1 6 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 17 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.5 Paving - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Worker •i 0.1067 i 0.0747 i 0.8108 2.2200e- i 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 i 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 i 220.9312 220.9312 6.9000e- i i 221.1037 003 003 003 003 i Total 0.1067 0.0747 0.8108 2.2200e- 0.2236 1.7400e- 0.2253 0.0593 1.6000e- 0.0609 220.9312 220.9312 6.9000e- 221.1037 11 003 003 003 j 003 1 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.8666 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2664 i 1.8354 i 1.8413 2.9700e- i 0.1288 0.1288 i 0.1288 0.1288 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 i i 282.0423 003 Total 55.1330 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 18 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Unmitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 -----------•I------------------------------------------'----------------------------- --------------------'-------------- Worker •i 0.0587 i 0.0411 i 0.4459 1.2200e- i 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 i 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 0 i 121.5121 121.5121 3.8000e- i i 121.6070 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0587 0.0411 0.4459 1.2200e- 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 121.5121 121.5121 3.8000e- 121.6070 003 004 004 003 Mitigated Construction On -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Archit. Coating •i 54.8666 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off -Road •i 0.2664 i 1.8354 i 1.8413 2.9700e- i 0.1288 0.1288 i 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 i 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 i i 282.0423 003 Total 55.1330 1.8354 1.8413 2.9700e- 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.1288 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0238 282.0423 003 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 19 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 3.6 Architectural Coating - 2019 Mitigated Construction Off -Site ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e I I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Category lb/day lb/day Hauling •i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 Vendor •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i i 0.0000 -----------•I------------------------------------------'----------------------------- --------------------'-------------- Worker •i 0.0587 i 0.0411 i 0.4459 1.2200e- i 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 i 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 0 i 121.5121 1 121.5121 3.8000e- i i 121.6070 003 004 004 003 i Total 0.0587 0.0411 0.4459 1.2200e- 0.1230 9.6000e- 0.1239 0.0326 8.8000e- 0.0335 121.5121 121.5121 3.8000e- 121.6070 003 004 004 003 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 20 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter ROG I NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.2543 i 11.4514 25.9254 i 0.0848 i 6.8148 i 0.0887 6.9035 1.8235 i 0.0832 1.9068 8,620.960 i 8,620.960 i 0.4773 i i 8,632.893 2 i 2 i i i 1 Unmitigated 2.2543 11.4514 25.9254 0.0848 6.8148 0.0887 6.9035 1.8235 0.0832 1.9068 8,620.960 • 8,620.960 • 0.4773 8,632.893 2 2 1 4.2 Trip Summary Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Hotel + 1,339.88 ......................................----------- Other Asphalt Surfaces ; 0.00 1,343.16 975.80 - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - -- 0.00 0.00 3,074,193 --------------- - - - - -- 3,074,193 ------------------- - - - - - - Total 1,339.88 1,343.16 975.80 3,074,193 3,074,193 4.3 Trip Type Information Miles Trip % Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass -by Hotel ; 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4 Other Asphalt Surfaces 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Hotel 0.547828 i 0.043645 ; 0.199892 ; 0.122290 ; 0.016774 ; 0.005862 ; 0.020637 ; 0.032653 ; 0.002037 ; 0.001944 ; 0.004777 ; 0.0007051 0.000956 i i i i i i i i Other Asphalt Surfaces 0.547828. 0.043645, 0.199892, 0.122290, 0.016774, 0.005862, 0.020637, 0.032653, 0.002037, 0.001944, 0.004777, 0.000705, 0.000956 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 21 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 5.0 Energy Detail Historical Energy Use: N 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy ROG NOx I CO I S02 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 I N20 CO2e Category Ib/day lb/day NaturalGas •i 0.1884 i 1.7127 i 1.4387 i 0.0103 i i 0.1302 0.1302 i i 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 i 0.0377 2,067.475 Mitigated 3 3 i 7 NaturalGas 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 • 2,055.262 • 0.0394 - 0.0377 • 2,067.475 Unmitigated 3 3 7 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 22 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas Unmitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 17469.7 •i 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 : i 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 0.0377 2,067.475 i � i � i i 3 3 i 7 Other Asphalt 0 •1 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 � 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 Surfaces Total 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 0.0377 2,067.475 3 3 7 Mitigated NaturalGa ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e s Use I I PM10 I PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total I Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day Hotel 17.4697 �i 0.1884 i 1.7127 i 1.4387 i 0.0103 i i 0.1302 i 0.1302 i i 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 i 2,055.262 i 0.0394 0.0377 i 2,067.475 ---------- •' j-------j-------j-------j-------'-------j-------j-------�---------------+-------� --------- --------- ---*------- ------ ------ --ter �- Other Asphalt 0 i i i i i i i i i i i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i i 0.0000 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 i 0.0000 �i Surfaces Total 0.1884 1.7127 1.4387 0.0103 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 0.1302 2,055.262 2,055.262 0.0394 0.0377 2,067.475 3 3 7 6.0 Area Detail 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 23 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Paint - Non -Residential Interior Use Low VOC Paint - Non -Residential Exterior Use Low VOC Cleaning Supplies ROG NOx CO I S02 I Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 177TotaICO2 CH4 I N20 I CO2e Category lb/day lb/day Mitigated •i 2.9129 i 1.6000e- 0.0169 i 0.0000 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 i 1.000Oe- 0.0383 •� 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Unmitigated 2.3754 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 - 1.000Oe- 0.0383 004 005 005 005 005 004 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 24 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 6.2 Area by SubCategory Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2706 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •i 2.1032 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products r i i i i i i i i i i i Landscaping •i 1.5900e- i 1.6000e- 0.0169 i 0.0000 i 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- i 0.0359 0.0359 i 1.000Oe- 0.0383 003 004 005 005 005 005 004 i Total 2.3754 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 1.0000e- 0.0383 11 004 005 005 005 005 004 Mitigated ROG NOx CO S02 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Subcategory lb/day lb/day Architectural •i 0.2976 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Coating Consumer •1 2.6136 0.0000 i 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Products Landscaping •i 1.5900e- i 1.6000e- 0.0169 i 0.0000 6.000Oe- i 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 i 1.000Oe- 0.0383 003 004 005 005 005 005 . 004 i Total 2.9129 1.6000e- 0.0169 0.0000 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 6.000Oe- 0.0359 0.0359 1.000Oe- 0.0383 004 005 005 005 005 004 7.0 Water Detail CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 25 of 25 Date: 7/9/2018 3:09 PM Jefferson Square Specific Plan 2018 Amendments - South Coast AQMD Air District, Winter 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 8.0 Waste Detail 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumas and Emeraencv Generators IEquipment Type I Number I Hours/Day I Hours/Year I Horse Power I Load Factor I Fuel Type I Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number 11.0 Vegetation Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix B Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Customized Soil Map -97- USDA United States Department of Agriculture I V RCS Natural Resources Conservation Service A product of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local participants Custom Soil Resource Report for Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment 2018 March 21, 2018 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ portal/nres/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center (https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/? cid=nres142p2_053951). Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or underground installations. The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 2 alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 3 Contents Preface.................................................................................................................... 2 How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 SoilMap.................................................................................................................. 8 SoilMap................................................................................................................9 Legend................................................................................................................10 MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 12 MapUnit Descriptions........................................................................................ 12 Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California.......................................14 MaB—Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes...........................................14 MaD—Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes ........................................ 15 References............................................................................................................17 4 How Soil Surveys Are Made Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity. Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the landscape. Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by an understanding of the soil -vegetation -landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil 5 Custom Soil Resource Report scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and research. The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map. The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil -landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific locations. Once the soil -landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other properties. While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field -observed characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil. Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and 0 Custom Soil Resource Report identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately. 7 Soil Map The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. 0 567480 330 434T' N 567530 567 Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map 580 567630 567680 M it Map M. no -, uali t thi s I 33o 43 33" N 567480 567530 567580 567630 567680 3 Map Scale: 1:2,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet N Meters 0 30 60 120 180 Feet 0 100 200 400 60D Map projection: Web Mercator Gomercoordinatas: WGS84 Edge bcs: UTM Zone 11N WGS84 9 567730 3 5UM 33° 43' 4T' N lit R It33° 43 33" N 557780 3 rn MAP LEGEND Area of Interest (AOI) 0 Area of Interest (AOI) Soils 0 Soil Map Unit Polygons im 0 Soil Map Unit Lines ■ Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit .4 Gravelly Spot 0 Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp + Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Custom Soil Resource Report A Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other +� Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation �}} Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background 0 Aerial Photography MAP INFORMATION The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California Survey Area Data: Version 9, Sep 11, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 22, 2015—Feb 10, 2015 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background 10 MAP LEGEND Custom Soil Resource Report MAP INFORMATION imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shiftina of mao unit boundaries may be evident. 11 Custom Soil Resource Report Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI MaB MaD Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 3.8 18.0 17.4% Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes 82.6% Totals for Area of Interest 21.8 100.0% Map Unit Descriptions The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 12 Custom Soil Resource Report onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas. An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties and qualities. Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement. Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series. Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example. Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. 13 Custom Soil Resource Report Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California MaB—Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hkw3 Elevation: -200 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F Frost -free period: 270 to 320 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Myoma and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Myoma Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind blown sandy alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 18 inches: fine sand H2 - 18 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 5 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Negligible Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Coachella Percent of map unit: 4 percent 14 Custom Soil Resource Report Hydric soil rating: No Carsitas Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed, noncalcareous soils Percent of map unit: 4 percent Hydric soil rating: No Riverwash Percent of map unit: 3 percent Landform: Channels Hydric soil rating: Yes Mal)—Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: hkw4 Elevation: -200 to 1,800 feet Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F Frost -free period: 270 to 320 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Myoma and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 15 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Myoma Setting Landform: Alluvial fans Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread Down -slope shape: Linear Across -slope shape: Linear Parent material: Wind blown sandy alluvium Typical profile H1 - 0 to 18 inches: fine sand H2 - 18 to 60 inches: sand Properties and qualities Slope: 5 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Runoff class: Very low Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95 to 19.98 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches 15 Custom Soil Resource Report Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Coachella Percent of map unit. 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Unnamed, calcareous soils Percent of map unit. 5 percent Hydric soil rating: No Riverwash Percent of map unit. 3 percent Landform: Channels Hydric soil rating: Yes Carsitas Percent of map unit. 2 percent Hydric soil rating: No 16 References American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and testing. 24th edition. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-79/31. Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262 Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577 Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580 Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands Section. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report Y-87-1. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/ detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084 17 Custom Soil Resource Report United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242 United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? cid=nres142p2_053624 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// www.nrcs.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE—DOCUMENTS/nrcsl 42p2_052290.pdf 18 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix C Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Geotechnical Engineering Investigation -98- GEOTECUMCAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE JEFFERSON STREET AND FILED WARING DRWE LA QUINTA, CALE'ORNLA PROJECT No.112-07036 MAY 25, 2007 PREPARED FOR: REGENCY CENTERS, INC. 35 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 100 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92514 ATTENTION: MIL. THOMAS MIDDLETON PREPARED BY: Kp-AzAN & A&SQCUITES, INC. 4221 BRICKELL STREET ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 (909)974-4400 Offices Serving the Western United States �Krazan & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECFINICAL ENGINEERING ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 25, 2007 KA Project No. 112-07036 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers, Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite IGO Irvine, CA 92614 RE, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase 1) -Iefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: In accordance with your request and authorization, we have completed our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the above -referenced site. TMs. report surnmarixes the results of our field investigation, laboratory testing and engineering analyses. Based on the data obtained, our understanding of the proposed project and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that it is feasible to develop the site as planned. As noted in our report, Krazarl & Associates should be retained to review project plans and specifications prior to the start of construction, and to observe and test earthwork and foundation construction. Observation and testing services should also be performed by our Geld staff during construction activities which will allow us to compare conditions exposed during construction with those encountered during our investigation and to present supplemental recommendations if warranted by different site conditions. If you have any questions regarding the information or recommendations presented in our report, or if we nmy be of furtlier assistance, please contact our Ontario, California office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, R R.A7AN & ASSOCIATES, INC. James M, Kellogg, PE Regional lvlanager cc, Addressee (4) Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Bdrkell Street ■ Ontario, Catlfbml 91761 - (909) 974- 400 • Fax: (909) 974A022 11207036.dac GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INIVESTIGATION PROPOSED .IEFFERSON SQUARE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS INZRbDvcTTON.............».�...............»...»............�....»........�...».......».....»..,.............»............»..........1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES..»....»»......»........ ..... .... ...... ......... ......»......».......»»...».....»».1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .. ..... ................ ...... ».......... .......»_.........».......................,.............»........� SM LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION ........ »......... »......».�.............»..............,.......................� SITEINVESTIGATION ... .................... ».... .»....... ..»................... ..,.... ............. ... ................................ 3 GEOLOGICSETTfNG..................................................................................................................................3 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS.............................................................................................3 SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................4 GROUNDWATER......._................................................................................................................................4 SEISMICITY, LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL AND SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT ......................................5 SOILCORROSIVFrY............................. ........................................... .............................................. I—, ........ 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................,...„....................................................6 ADM INISZRATIV F. SUMMARY...................................................................................................................6 GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES1CONSTRUCTION..............................................................7 WEAKAND DIST[Inm SOILS.................................................................................................................7 COLLAPEIBLESOILS........................................................................-..,.....................................................7 F.ARTiiw[]m...................................................................................................................................... Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping.......................................................................................... 7 Overexcavatianand Recompaction .,...................................................................................... .............. 8 FillPlacement..................................................................................................................................... $ ENGINEEREDFILL ...........................—.....................................................................................................5 TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY....................................................................................................9 UTILITYTRENCH BACAFILL...................... .................................................................................__............9 COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE....................................................................................................9 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING.................................................................................._...........14 FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK...............,.........,.................................................................. to FOUNDATIONS..................................................... _......... ............................................._............._.._._........I I RETArNINGWALLS................................................................................._......................_........................I I PAVEMENT D ESIGN....................... ............. ........................... ....... ........................................ .._...............12 SrrECOEFFICIENT---- . .............................................. ................... ......................................... ........ 13 SOILCORROSIVI"i'Y.................................................................................................................................13 TESTINGAND INSPECTION......................................................................................................................13 LIMITATIONS. . ..................... ............... ....................... ................................................... .......,.»......»...14 VICINITYMAP............................................................................................................................ Figure I SITEPLAN ............. ....... ....... .............. ...... ................... ...................................... ......._.................. Figure Z FIELD AND LABORATORY INMTIGATIONS........................................................... Appendix A GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS .... .... ......... ................. ............ »........... Appendix B GENERAL PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS........ ................... ............. »............... ......... Appendix C Off'mes Serving The Western United States 4221 Srickeli Street ■ Ontario, Wifomia 91761 •OCR) 9744400 ■ Fax: (9D9) 9144D22 11207436.doc —KraZa1 & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION May 25, 2007 INTRODUCTION KA Project No. 112-07036 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATfON PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the proposed Jefferson Square shopping center (Phase 1) in La Quinta, California. Discussions regarding site conditions are presented herein, together with conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site preparation, grading, utility trench backfill, drainage and landscaping, foundations, concrete floor slabs and exterior concrete flatwork, retaining walls, soil corrosivity, and pavement design. A Vicinity Map showing the location of the site is presented on Figure 1. A Site Plan showing the approximate boring locations is presented on Figure 2. Descriptions of the field and laboratory investigations, boring log legend and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. Appendices B and C contain guides for general earthwork and flexible pavement specifications. If conflicts in the text of the report occur with the general specifications in the appendices, the recommendations in the text of the report have precedence. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES This geotechnical investigation was conducted to evaluate subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the project site. Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data was performed for the purpose of developing and providing geotechnical recommendations for use in the preliminary design and construction of the eartltwork, foundation and pavement aspects of the project. Our scope of services was outlined in our proposal dated May 1, 2007 (KA Proposal No. P112049-07) and included the following: A site reconnaissance by a member of our engineering staff to evaluate the surface conditions at the project site. • Review of selected published geologic maps, reports and literature pertinent to the site and surrounding area. Offices Serving ne Western United States 4221 Brickell Street • Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 • Fax: (909) 974-4022 i 1207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 2 • A field investigation consisting of drilling sixteen (16) borings to depths of 11 to 51 feet below the existing ground surface for evaluation of the subsurface conditions at the project site. • Performing laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings to evaluate the physical and index properties of the subsurface soils. • Evaluation of the data obtained from the investigation and engineering analyses of the data with respect to the geotechnical aspects of structural design, and site grading and paving. Preparation of this report summarizing the results, conclusions, recorranendations, and findings of our investigation. Environmental services, such as chendcal analyses of soil and g mindwater far possible emvironntental contaminates, and geologic study were not in our scope of services. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand that design of the proposed development is currently underway; structural load information and other final details pertaining to the structures are therefore unavailable. On a preliminary basis, it is understood that the project will include construction of a retail shopping center named Jefferson Square (Phase I). The shopping center will consist of a market, a drug store, two shops and two pads ranging in footprints from 4,500 to 13,900 square feet. The buildings are planned to be of one story wood framelstucco or masonry construction with concrete slab -on -grade floors. Building loads are anticipated to be relatively light. Onsite parking and landscaping are also planned for the development. Mass grading of the majority of the site is expected to entail minor to moderate cuts and fills from existing grades to establish building pads and to provide for surface drainage of the site. In the event these structural or grading details are inconsistent with the final design criteria, we should be notified so that we can evaluate the potential impacts of the changes on the recommendations presented in this report and provide an updated report as necessary. SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The site is rectangular in shape and encompasses approximately 8.44 acres. The site is located on the southwest comer of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The site is predominately surrounded by residential developments and park/golf course Iands. Presently, the site is vacant with sparse weeds and shrubs. A scoured wash is located at the northeast comer of the site with a relief of approximately 4 to 6 feet. The remaining site is relatively flat with no major changes in grade. The average elevation of the site is approximately 60 feet above mean sea level. Krazan & AssndHtes, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036_doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 3 SITE INVESTIGATION GEOLOGIC SETTING Regionally the proposed site is situated at the base of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains within the northwest portion of the Coachella Valley of Southern California. Near -surface inaterial consists of alluvial fan deposits of sand, silt, gravel, and cobbles derived from erosion of the Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks of the adjacent San Jacinto Mountains. A significant feature within this geomorphic province is the Salton Trough. The Salton Trough is a large northwest -trending structural depression that extends from the San Gorgonio Pass to the Gulf of California. A large portion of this depression in the vicinity of the Salton Sea is below sea level. The Coachella Valley forms the northerly portion of the Salton Trough and contains a thick sequence of sedimentary deposits that. are Miocene to Recent in age. Mountains surrounding the Coachella Valley include the Little San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast, foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains to the northwest, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains to the southwest. These mountains expose primarily Precambrian metamorphic and Mesozoic granitic rocks. Tectonism of the region is dominated by the interaction of the East Pacific Plate and the North American Plate along a transform boundary. The Coachella Valley has been filled with a variable thickness of relatively young, heterogeneous alluvial deposits. The Coachella Valley in the vicinity of the project site is drained by minor tributaries toward the Whitewater River, which is located approximately three miles southwest of the subject site. This drainage system trends towards the southeast in the vicinity of the subject site. Depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the subject site is reported to be approximately 100 feet below ground surface with a general direction of flow towards the southeast. Numerous moderate to Iarge earthquakes have affected the area of the subject site within historic time. Based on the proximity of several dominant active faults and seismogenic structures, as well as the historic seismic record, the area of the subject site is considered subject to relatively high seismicity. The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is groundshaking due to a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. The San Andreas — Southern fault is the nearest active fault to the site and located approximately 6.3 kilometers northeast of the project site. The Burnt Mountain, Eureka Peak and San Jacinto — Aim faults are located approximately 26, 27.3, and 36.8 kilometers from the site, respectively. The subject site is located in Seismic Zone 4 as defined by the California Building Code. FIEL➢ AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Subsurface soil conditions were explored by drilling sixteen (16) borings, using a truck -mounted drill rig, to depths ranging from approximately 11 to 51 feet below existing site grade. The approximate boring Iocations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate boring locations were estimated in the field based on pacing and measuring from the limits of existing site features. During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain infonnation regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Soil samples were retained for laboratory testing. The soils encountered were continuously examined and visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. A more detailed description of the field investigation is presented in Appendix A. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States I i 207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No, 4 Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their physical characteristics and engineering properties. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of in -situ moisture and dry density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation, R-value, maximum dry density, resistivity, sulfate and chloride of the materials encountered. Details of the laboratory -testing program are discussed in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory tests are presented on the boring logs or on the test reports, which are also included in Appendix A. This information, along with the field observations, was used to prepare the final boring logs in Appendix A. SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on our findings, the subsurface conditions encountered appear typical of those found in the geologic region of the site. In general, the subsurface soils consisted of 1 to 3 feet of loose/disturbed silty sands and sands underlain by denser alluvial deposits. The upper soils are disturbed, have low strength characteristics, and are highly compressible when saturated. Below the looseldisturbed upper soils, denser silty sands, sands and silts were encountered. Field and laboratory tests suggest that the deeper native soils are moderately strong and slightly compressible. Penetration resistance, measured by the number of blows required to drive a Modified California sampler or a Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler, ranged from 7 to 54 blows per foot. Dry densities ranged from 90.8 to 112.6 pounds per cubic feet (pcf). Representative soil samples had angles of internal friction of 32 to 37 degrees. Representative soil samples consolidated approximately 0.7 to 1.7 percent under a 2-ksf load when saturated. Reprehensive soil samples had R-values of 52.to 58, maximum dry densities of 110 to 119 pcf and an Expansion Index of 0. One boring, Boring B-1, was advanced to a depth of 50 feet to obtain additional information for use in liquefaction potential evaluation. The profile is consistent with the majority of the borings drilled during this study. The above is a general description of soil conditions encountered at the site in the borings drilled for this investigation, For a more detailed description of the soil conditions encountered, please refer to the boring logs in Appendix A. GROUNDWATER Test boring locations were checked for the presence of groundwater during and after the drilling operations. Groundwater was not encountered at the time of this investigation. It should be recognized that water table elevation might fluctuate with time. The depth to groundwater can be expected to fluctuate both seasonally and from year to year. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in precipitation, irrigation practices at the site and in the surrounding areas, climatic conditions, flow in adjacent or nearby canals, pumping from wells and possibly as the result of other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation. Therefore, water level observations at the time of our field investigation may vary from those encountered during the construction phase of the project. The evaluation of such factors is beyond the scope of this report. Long-term monitoring in observation wells, sealed from the influence of surface water, is often required to more accurately define the potential range of groundwater conditions on a site. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Off ices Serving The Westem United States t t207036.doe KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 5 SEISMICITY, LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL, AND SEISMIC INDUCED SETTLEMENT Seismicity is a general term relating to the abrupt release of accumulated strain energy in the rock materials of the earth's crust in a given geographical area. The recurrence of accumulation and subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and fault systems. Fault patterns and density reflect relative degrees of regional stress through time, but do not necessarily indicate recent seismic activity; therefore, the degree of seismic risk must be determined or estimated by the seismic record in any given region. Soil Iiquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a complete loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in soils other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site, the following items were evaluated: 1) Soil type 2) Groundwater depth 3) Relative density 4) Initial confining pressure 5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking The soils beneath the site consist predominately of dense and stiff materials. Groundwater is expected to be a depth of greater than 50 feet. The potential for liquefaction is considered to be low based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the relatively dense and stiff materials underlying the site. One of the most common phenomena during seismic shaking accompanying any earthquake is the induced settlement of loose unconsolidated soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate to high seismicity of the region, any Ioose granular materials at the site could be vulnerable to this potential hazard. Our analysis of dynamic densification of "dry" soil above the water table in the. upper 50 feet of existing soil profile was performed. The seismic densification of dry to damp alluvial sandy soils due to onsite seismic activity is calculated to have total settlements of approximately 2 to 3 inches. To reduce the effects and magnitude of the seismic induced settlements, remedial grading is recommended, as discussed Iater in this report. Following completion of the recommended remedial grading and foundation design, we estimate that differential settlements of approximately % inch in 20 feet laterally may result from seismic densification. SOIL CORROSIVITY Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The results of the tests are included as follows: Parameter Resifts Test.Mettiod Resistivity 12,500 ohms -cm Caltrans Sulfate Less than 5 mg/kg EPA 9038 Cl-doride 23.4 mglkg EPA 9253 pH 9.02 EPA 9045C Kraaan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United Slates 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECONIMENDATIONS Based on the findings of our field and laboratory investigations, along with previous geotechnical experience in the project area, the following is a summary of our evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations. ADMINISTRATIVE SUMMARY Based on the data collected during this investigation, and from a geotechnieal engineering standpoint, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible as presently anticipated provided that the recommendations presented in this report are considered in the design and construction of the project. In brief, the subject site and soil conditions, with the exception of the upper loose/collapsible soils and seismic induced settlement, appear to be conducive to the development of the project. Undocumented fill materials may be present onsite between our exploratory borehole locations. In general, these fill soils should be assumed uncompacted and unsuitable for support of foundations and pavements. These fill soils if encountered during grading should also be overexcavated and recompacted. The upper loose soils within the project site are moderately compressible under saturated conditions. Accordingly, mitigation measures are reconunended to reduce potential excessive soil settlement. Recommendations pertaining to the removal and recompaction of these moisture -sensitive soils are presented herein. After completion of the recommended site preparation, the site should be suitable for shallow footing support. Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalis may be required within these loose cohesionless soils. Due to the lack of fines for the onsite cohesionless soils, it is recommended that the subgrade and fill soils be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. The shrinkage on recompacted soil and fill placement is estimated at 15 to 20 percent. This value is an estimate and may vary significantly depending on several items including soil conditions, compaction effort, weather, etc. Subsidence within building areas will be less than 0.02 foot, due to the recommended over -excavation. Subsidence within parking areas, below the 12-inch recompaction depth, is estimated at 0.05 foot. All grading and. earthwork should be performed in accordance with the Grading Ordinances of the City of La Quinta and the applicable portions of the General Earthwork Specifications in Appendix B, except as modified herein. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United Slates 11207036.doc ICA No. 112-07036 Page No. 7 GROUNDWATER INFLUENCE ON STRUCTURES/CONSTRUCTION Based on our findings and historical records, it is not anticipated that groundwater will rise within the zone of structural influence or affect the constriction of foundations and pavements for the project. However, if earthwork is performed during or soon after periods of precipitation, the subgrade soils may become saturated, "pump," or not respond to densification techniques. Typical remedial measures include discing and aerating the soil during dry weather; mixing the soil with dryer materials; removing and replacing the soil with an approved fill material; or mixing the soil with an approved time or cement product. Our firm should be consulted prior to implementing remedial measures to observe the unstable subgrade conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. WEAK AND DISTURBED SOILS Of primary importance in the development of this site is the removal/recompaction of potentially compressible soils from the areas of the proposed structures. This is discussed in detail in the Earthwork section of this report. COLLAQSIBLC SOILS The upper onsite native soils are moisture -sensitive and are moderately compressible under saturated conditions. Structures within the project vicinity have experienced excessive post -construction settlement, when the foundation soils become near saturated. As recommended in the site preparation section of tlus report, the collapsible soils should be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. EARTHWORK Site Preparation — Clearing and Stripping General site clearing should include removal of vegetation and existing utilities, structures, trees and associated root systems rubble, rubbish, and any loose andlor saturated materials. Site stripping should extend to a minimum depth of 2 to 4 inches, or until all organics in excess of 3 percent by volume are removed. Deeper stripping may be required in localized areas. These materials will not be suitable for reuse as Engineered Fill. However, stripped topsoil may be stockpiled and reused in landscape or non- structural areas with the approval of the owner and landscaper. Any excavations that result from clearing operations should be backflled with engineered fill. Krazan & Associates' field staff should be present during site clearing operations to enable us to locate areas where depressions or disturbed soils are present and to allow our staff to observe and test the backfll as it is placed. If site clearing and backfilling operations occur without appropriate observation and testing by a qualified geotechnical consultant, there may be .the need to over -excavate the building area to identify uncontrolled fills prior to mass grading of the building pad. As with site clearing operations, any buried structures encountered during construction should be properly removed and backftlled. The resulting excavations should be back -filled with engineered fill. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036_doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 8 Overexcavation and Recompaction Building Pad Areas To minimize post -construction soil movement and provide uniform support for the proposed .buildings, overexcavation and recompaction within the proposed building footprints should be performed to a minimum depth of five (5) feet below existing grade or four (4) feet below bottom of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of overexcavation should be determined by our field representative during grading. The overexcavation and recompaction should also extend laterally 5 feet beyond the edges of the proposed footings. Any undocumented fill encountered during grading should be removed and replaced with engineered fill. Pavement Areas Within the pavement areas, it is recommended that overexcavation and recompaction should be performed to at least 12 inches below existing grade or finish grade, whichever is deeper. This compaction effort should stabilize the surface soils and locate any unsuitable or pliant areas not found during our field investigation. The actual depth of the overexcavation and recompaction should be determined by our field representative during construction. Fill Placement Prior to placement of fill soils, the upper 9 inches of native subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture - conditioned to no less than the optinrurn moisture content, and recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Fill soils should be placed in loose lifts approximately 6 to S inches thick, moisture -conditioned to near optimum moisture content (t2%), and compacted to achieve at Ieast 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Additional lifts should not be placed if the previous lift did not meet the required dry density or if soil conditions are not stable. The upper soils, during wet winter months, may become very moist due to the absorptive characteristics of the soil. Earthwork operations performed during winter months may encounter very moist unstable soils, which may require removal to grade a stable building foundation. Project site winterization consisting of placement of aggregate base and protecting exposed soils during the construction phase should be performed. ENGINEERED FILL The upper organic -free, on -site, native soils are predominately silty sands and sands. These soils will be suitable for reuse as non -expansive Engineered Fill, provided they are cleansed of excessive organics and debris. The preferred materials specified for Engineered Fill are suitable for most applications with the exception of exposure to erosion. Project site winterization and protection of exposed soils during the KrRzan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving me Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 9 construction phase should be the sole responsibility of the contractor, since he has complete control of the project site at that time. Imported Fill material should be predominately non -expansive granular materials with a plasticity index less than 10, an Expansion Index less than 20 and 10 to 40 percent passing No. 200 sieve. Imported Fill should be free from rocks and clods greater than 4 inches in diameter. All Imported Fill material should be submitted to the Soils Engineer for approval at least 48 hours prior to delivery at the site. TEMPORARY EXCAVATION STABILITY All excavations should comply with the current OSHA requirements. All cuts greater than 2 feet in depth should be sloped or shored. Temporary excavations should be sloped at 1 h:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter up to a maximum depth of 8 feet below surrounding grade. Heavy constniction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular traffic should not be allowed within five (5) feet of the top (edge) of the excavation. Where sloped excavations are not feasible due to site constraints, the excavations may require shoring. The design of the shoring system is normally the responsibility of the contractor or shoring designer, and therefore, is outside the scope of this report. The design of the temporary shoring should take into account lateral pressures exerted by the adjacent soil, and, where anticipated, surcharge loads due to adjacent buildings and any construction equipment or traffic expected to operate alongside the excavation. The excavation/shoring recommendations provided herein are based on soil characteristics derived from our test borings within the area. Variations in soil conditions will likely be encountered during the excavations. Kiazan & Associates, Inc. should be afforded the opportunity to provide held review to evaluate the actual conditions and account for field condition variations, not otherwise anticipated in the preparation of this recommendation. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL Sandy soil conditions were encountered at the site. These cohesionless soils have a tendency to cave in trench wall excavations. Shoring or sloping back trench sidewalls may be required within these sandy soils. Utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. Pipe bedding should be placed in accordance with pipe manufacturer recommendations. Depending upon the location and depth of some utility trenches, water flows into open excavations could be experienced, especially during or following periods of precipitation. The contractor is responsible for removing all water -sensitive soils from the trench regardless of the backfill location and compaction requirements. The contractor should use appropriate equipment and methods to avoid damage to the utilities and/or structures during /-ill placement and compaction. COMPACTED MATERIAL ACCEPTANCE Compaction specifications are not the only criteria for acceptance of the site grading or other such activities. However, the compaction test is the most universally recognized test method for assessing the performance of the Grading Contractor. The numerical test results from the compaction test cannot be Kraxan & Associates, Inc. 0rfiees 5eMng The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 10 solely used to predict the engineering performance of the compacted material. Therefore, the acceptance of compacted materials will also be dependent on the moisture content and the stability of that material. The Geotechnical Engineer has the option of rejecting any compacted material regardless of the degree of compaction if that material is considered to be too dry or excessively wet, usistable or if future instability is suspected. A specific example of rejection of fill material passing the rewired percent compaction is a fill which has been compacted with in -situ moisture content significantly less than optimum moisture. Where expansive soils are present, heaving of the soils may occur with the introduction of water. Where the material is a lean clay or silt, this type of dry fill (brittle fill) is susceptible to fixture settlement if it becomes saturated or flooded. SURFACE DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING The ground surface should slope away from building and pavement areas toward appropriate drop inlets or other surface drainage devices. We recommended that adjacent paved exterior grades be sloped a minimum of 2 percent for a minimum distance of 5 feet away from structures. Ideally, asphalt concrete pavement areas should be sloped at a minimum of 2 percent, with Portland cement concrete sloped at a minimum of one percent toward drainage structures. These grades should be maintained for the life of the project. Roof drains should be designect.to avoid discharging into landscape areas adjacent to the building. Downspouts should be directed to discharge directly onto paved surfaces to allow for surface drainage into the storm systems or should be connected directly to the on -site storm drain. FLOOR SLABS AND EXTERIOR FLATWORK Concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a water vapor retarder. The water vapor retarder should be installed in accordance with ASTM Specification E 1643-98. According to ASTM Guidelines, the water vapor retarder should consist of a vapor retarder sheeting underlain by a minimum of 3 inches of compacted, clean, gravel of 3/-inch maximum size. To aide in concrete curing 2 to 4 inches of granular fill may be placed on top of the vapor retarder. The granular fill should consist of damp clean sand with at least 10 to 30 percent of the sand passing the No. 100 sieve. The sand should be free of clay, silt or organic material. Rock dust which is manufactured sand from rock crushing operations is typically suitable for the granular fill. This granular -fill material should be compacted. The exterior floors should be poured separately in order to act independently of the walls and foundation system. All fills required to bring the building pads to grade should be Engineered Fills. Moisture within the structure may be derived from water vapors, which were transformed from the moisture within the soils. This moisture vapor can travel through the vapor membrane and penetrate the slab -on -grade. This moisture vapor penetration can affect floor coverings and produce mold and mildew in the structure. To minimize moisture vapor intrusion, it is recommended that a vapor retarder be installed in accordance with ASTM guidelines. It is recorrunended that the utility trenches within the structure be compacted, as specified in our report, to minimize the transmission of moisture through the utility trench backfill. Special attention to the immediate drainage and irrigation around the building is recommended. Positive drainage should be established away from the structure and should be Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 1 12-07036 Page No. 1 i maintained throughout the life of the structure_ Ponding of water should not be allowed adjacent to the structure. Over --irrigation within landscaped areas adjacent to the structure should not be performed. In addition, ventilation of the structure (i.e. ventilation fans) is recommended to reduce the accumulation of interior moisture. FOUNDATIONS Provided that the site is prepared as recommended, the proposed structures may be supported on a shallow foundation system bearing on at least 4 feet of Engineered Fill. Spread and continuous footings can be designed for the following maximum allowable soil bearing pressures: Dead Load Only 2,500 psf Dead -Plus -Live Load 3,000 psf Total Load, including wind or seismic loads 4,000 psf The footings should have a minimum depth of 1$ inches below pad subgrade (soil Bade) or adjacent exterior grade, whichever is deeper. Footings should have minimum widths of 15 inches for continuous footings and 24 inches for isolated pad footings. The footing excavations should not be allowed to dry out any time prior to pouring concrete. It is recommended that footings be reinforced with at least one No. 5 reinforcing rebar in both top and bottom. Provided the site is prepared as recommended and that the foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with our recommendations, the total settlement due to static foundation loads is not expected to exceed 1 inch. The differential settlements are anticipated to be less than %: inch in 40 feet due to static loading. Most of the settlement is expected to occur during construction as the loads are applied. However, additional post -construction settlement may occur if the foundation soils are flooded or saturated. The seismic induced differential settlements are anticipated to be less than 'h inch in 20 feet due to a strong earthquake event. Resistance to lateral footing displacement can be computed using an allowable friction factor of 0.45 acting between the base of foundations and the supporting subgrade. Lateral resistance for footings can alternatively be developed using an allowable equivalent fluid passive pressure of 400 pounds per cubic foot acting against the appropriate vertical footing faces. The frictional and passive resistance of the soil may be combined without reduction in determining the total lateral resistance. A one-third increase in the above value may be used for short duration, wind, or seismic Ioads. RETAINING WALLS Walls retaining horizontal backfill and capable of deflecting a minimum of 0.1 percent of its height at the top may be designed using an equivalent fluid active pressure of 32 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. Walls that are incapable of this deflection or walls that are fully constrained against deflection may be designed for an equivalent fluid at -rest pressure of 52 pounds per square foot per foot per depth. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Westem United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 12 Expansive soils should not be used for backfill against walls. The wedge of non -expansive backfiIl material should extend from the bottom of each retaining wall outward and upward at a slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The wall backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method. The active and at -rest earth pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures. To reduce the build-up of hydrostatic pressures, drainage should be provided behind the retaining walls. Wall drain should consist of a minimum 12-inch wide zone of drainage material, such as 3/4-inch by 1/2-inch drain rock wrapped in a non -woven polypropylene geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Alternatively, drainage may be provided by the placement of a commercially produced composite drainage blanket, such as Miradrain, extending continuously up from the base of the wall. The drainage material should extend from the base of the wall to finished subgrade in paved areas and to within about 12 inches below the top of the wall in landscape areas. In landscape areas the top 12 inches should be backfilled with compacted native soil. A 4-inch minimum diameter, perforated, Schedule 40 PVC drain pipe should be placed with holes facing down in the lower portion of the wall drainage material, surrounded with drain rock wrapped in filter fabric. A solid drainpipe leading to a suitable discharge point should provide drainage outlet. As an alternative, weep holes may be used to provide drainage. If weep holes are used the weep holes should be 3 inches in diameter and spaced about 8 feet on centers. The backside of the weep holes should be covered with a corrosion -resistant mesh to prevent loss of backfill and/or drainage material. PAVEMENT DESIGN Based on our laboratory test results, an R-valuc of 52 is used for the pavement design. If site grading exposes soil other than that assumed, we should perform additional tests to confirm or revise the recommended pavement sections for actual field conditions. The following table shows the recommended pavement sections for various traffic indices. Traffic°inileit As hhitic.Concrete ;Class 2:A a a#e`Base* .. Corn acted Sub .ade* .' 5.0 2.5" 4.0" 12.0" 6.0 3.0" 4.0" 12.0" 7.0 4.0" 4.0" 12.0" " 95% eompactiox bared on ASTM A1557 Test hfethod or CAL 216 If traffic indices are not available, an estimated (typical value) index of 5.0 may be used for automobile parking and an index of 7.0 may be used for light truck traffic. We recommend that the subgrade soil be prepared as discussed in this report. The compacted subgrade should be non yielding when proof -rolled with a loaded ten-wbeel truck, such as a water truck or dump truck, .prior to pavement construction. Suhgrade preparation should extend a nunimum of 2 feet laterally behind the edge of pavement or back of curbs. Pavement areas should be sloped and drainage gradients maintained to carry all surface water off the site. A cross slope of 2 percent is recommended in asphalt concrete pavement areas to provide good surface drainage and to reduce the potential for water to penetrate into the pavement structure. Unless otherwise required by local jurisdictions, paving materials should comply with the materials specifications presented in the Caltrans Standard Specifications Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving'nie Western United States 11207036.doc KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 13 Section. Class 2 aggregate should comply with the materials requirements for Class 2 base found in Section 26. SITE COEFFICIENT The site coefficient, per Table 16-J, California Building Code, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a site coefficient of soil type So is appropriate for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the California Building Code, we recommend the following parameters: S.eism><c Item Value Reference 5 Zone Factor 0.4 Table 16-I Source Type A Table 16-U Coefficient N. 1.1 Table I 6-S Coefficient N, 1.5 Table 16-T Coefficient Ca M l Table 16-Q Coefficient C„ 0.96 Table 16-R SOIL CORROSIVITY Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil 'or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. The soil samples from the subject site were tested to have a low sulfate and chloride concentrations. Therefore, no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate or chloride reactivity with the cement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil indicates that the onsite soils may have a mild potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion process. A qualified corrosion engineer should be consulted regarding the corrosion effects of the onsite soils on underground metal utilities. Additional cheinical testing should be performed for each building pad after grading to verify the soil corrosivity condition and revised recommendations will be provided according. TESTING AND INSPECTION A representative of Krazan & Associates, Inc. should be present at the site during the earthwork activities to confirm that actual subsurface conditions are consistent with the exploratory fieldwork. This activity is an integral part of our service, as acceptance of earthwork construction is dependent upon compaction testing and stability of the material. This representative can also verify that the intent of these recommendations is incorporated into the project design and construction. Krazan & Associates, Inc. will not be responsible for grades or staking, since this is the responsibility of the Prime Contractor. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Westcm United States 11207036.da: KA No. 112-07036 Page No. 14 LIMITATIONS Geotechnical Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although your site was analyzed using appropriate and current techniques and methods, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements in the field of Geotechnical Engineering, physical changes in the site due to site clearing or grading activities, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure or development after issuance of this report will result in the need for professional review of this report. Updating or revisions to the recommendations report, and possibly additional study of the site may be required at that time. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that two years be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. Foundation and earthwork construction is characterized by the presence of a calculated risk that soil and groundwater conditions have been fully revealed by the original foundation investigation. This risk is derived from the practical necessity of basing interpretations and design conclusions on limited sampling of the earth. The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not vary significantly from those disclosed during our field investigation. The logs of the exploratory borings do not provide a warranty as to the conditions that may exist beneath the entire site. The extent and nature of subsurface soil and groundwater variations may not become evident until construction begins. It is possible that variations in soil conditions and depth to groundwater could exist beyond the points of exploration that may require additional studies, consultation, and possible design revisions. if conditions are encountered in the field during construction, which differ from those described in this report, our firm should be contacted inunediately to provide any necessary revisions to these recommendations. This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which was conducted for the purpose of evaluating the soil conditions in terms of foundation and retaining wall design, and grading and paving of the site. This report does not include reporting of any services related to envirom-nental studies conducted to assessment the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere, or the presence of wetlands. Any statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey professional judgment regarding the presence of potential hazardous or toxics substances. Conversely, the absence of statements in this report or on any boring log regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, does not constitute our rendering professional judgment regarding the absence of potentially hazardous or toxics substances. The conclusions of this report are based on the information provided regarding the proposed construction. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project as described in the text of this report and it should not be used for any other sites or projects. The geotechnical engineering information presented herein is based upon our understanding of the proposed project and professional interpretation of the data obtained in our studies of the site. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. The Geotechnical Engineer Kra7an & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doc KA No, 112-07036 Page No,15 should be notified of any changes to the proposed project so the recommendations may be reviewed and re-evaluated. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, has been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice, which existed in geographic area of the project at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. This report is issued with the understanduig that the owner chooses the risk they wish to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives and scheduling that are chosen. If you have any questions, or if we may be- of farther assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, KRkZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Clarence Tiang, GE Project Manager R.G.E. No. 2477 CJIJMK:rm r � YA James M. Kellogg, PE Regional Manager P-C.E. No. 65092 K{razati & Associates, Inc. Dffices Serving The Western United States 112(17936.doc 1__ 1 s --j 7S t . d 9ILE $iphbli�.ff c 11 42q n- �i: r ~txRIvDA r1)uNf r. '� t' 33 r •. i •. -fir +• *e • . • "_ ..� ..9p E _ .4iYs16.a V i4Yadi Y •',yp "�' a AG.r ': _ 1 '' Fri_ ' e - If n. -Si ♦ 1 � 6"• �� C { i � AA jib. � • 1 •yf :tv -ZL_- {ra am $a�hhyc?.L., - 01 Trailer 3 y _r.� . .: �~ .. � .rye � ,':t 1+"t1�} •.S }... � , '. •, , S � ijf �.� i - � ^j .;iu,,'-v .. : _ - Ysrij' .... .. _ _ o. :•N _ eu ■•, - ■ �s . _ .A' W- . 4E ztVFJJ 2 ` •_ �, _ '.�i.� ='��J^.-a�fi'�� �t r'� w � _ _ . ' _ . _ �lt:Y -:�� �Y�'` tl . l`�� � _ ss � cis!3. .fit..• 29:1' :.. � ++77pp. _ r '7j; dt[?: 1'arjj@r �� • Rev- �• i_V. �{ f- =—r:,e�_.r' � a� C81lEC '�lfk •;��:' •.r u....... O PROPOSED JEFFERSON SQUARE Scales 1:24,000 pike■ MAY 2nn7 Kr"an m rove r LA QUMA, CA RM CJ ME DEVBLOPNMW ENGINEERS Offices Serving the Western United States VICINITY MAP ;G. 112-07036 r—lo—W 1 1 E UIJ 3 I a ei . --------------------- ..._....,.._JI I n v c o �d a W D v a f� APPENDIX A FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Field Investigation Our field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration }grogram consisted of excavating, drilling, logging and sampling a total of 16 borings_ Drilling was performed using a Simco 2800 drill rig. The depths of exploration ranged from about 11 feet to 51 feet below the existing site surface. A member of our staff visually classified the soils in the field as the excavating and drilling progressed and recorded a c ontinuous I og o f e ach b oring. V isuaI c lassification o f the s oils a ncountered i n o ur exploratory borings was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). During drilling operations, penetration tests were performed at regular intervals to evaluate the soil consistency and to obtain information regarding the engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Samples were obtained from the borings by driving either a 2.5-inch inside diameter Modified California tube sampler fitted with brass sleeves or a 2-inch outside diameter, 1-3/8-inch inside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler without sleeves. Soil samples were retained for possible laboratory testing. The samplers were driven up to a depth of 18 inches into the underlying soil using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded for each 5-inch penetration interval and the number of blows required driving the sampler the last 12 inches are shown as blows per foot on the boring logs. The approximate locations of our borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. These approximate locations were estimated by our staff in the field based on pacing and the limits of existing site features. Laboratory Investigation The laboratory investigation was programmed to determine the physical and mechanical properties of the soil underlying the site. The laboratory -testing program was formulated with emphasis on the evaluation of in -situ moisture, density, gradation, shear strength, consolidation and expansion potential, and R-value of the materials encountered. In addition, chemical tests were performed to evaluate the soil/cement reactivity and corrosivity. Test results were used in our engineering analysis with respect to site and building pad preparation through mass grading activities, foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, pavement section design, evaluation of the materials as possible fill materials and for possible exclusion of some soils from use at the structures as fill or backfill. Kraxan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The western United States 1120703G_doe -�KraZan & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART COARSE -GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sleve size.) Clean Gravels LLess than 5% tines GIN Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand a'r mixtures, little or no fines GRAVELS More than 50% Cy GP Poorly -graded gravels, gravel -sand of coarse mixtures, little or no fines fracUon larger Gravels with fines More than 12% fines thorn No. slevia size, GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand•sllt mixtures GC Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -day mbdures Clean Sands Less than 5%11`1e9 SW Wall -graded sends, gravelly sands, SANDS little or no fires SP fly graded sands, gravelly sands, 50% or more of coarse little or no fines iractlon smaller Sands with fines JlVara than 1 ga fi es Man No. 4 slave size SMt Silty sends, sand -silt mixtures SC Clayey sands, sand clay mixtures FINE-GRAINED SOILS (513% or more of material is smeller then No. 200 sieve size.) Inorganic silts and very tine sends, rock SILTS MIL flour, silty of clayey'line sands or clayey AND sills with slight piasildly 90 Inorganic clays of low to medium GLAYB Liquid limit. CL plastZly, gravally clays. sandy clays, less than silty clays, lean clays 50% ell. Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or MH diatomaceous fine sandy or slaty soils. SILTS elastic silts AND CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat CLAYS Liquid limit clays 50% OH Organpc clays of medium to high or greater plasticlty, organk: silts HIGHLY " ORWIC PT Peat and other highly organic soils SOILS CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION Descri taion Blows per Foot Granular Sails Very Loose < S Loose 5 —15 Medium ❑ ense 1 b — 40 Dense 41 — G5 Very Dense I > 65 Cohesive Sails Very Soft < 3 Soft 3-5 Firm 6-10 Stiff 11— 20 Very Stiff 2 1— 41) Hard 3 40 GRAIN SUE CL,ASSMCATIQN . Ga-xirt 3]pe Standard Sieve Size Grain &-e in 11�i!lfineters Boulders Above 12 inches Above 305 Cobbles 12 to 13 inches 305 to 76.2 Gravel 3 inches to No. 4 76,2 to 4.76 Coarse -grained 3 to -N inches 76.2 to 19.1 Fine --grained. 3G inches to No_ 4 19.1 to 4.76 Sand No. 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.074 Coarse -grained No. 4 to No. 10 4.76to 2.00 Medium -grained No, 10 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.042 Fine-grained No_ 40 to No. 200 0.042 to 0.074 Silt and Clay Below No. 200 Below 0.074 PLASTICITY CHART M Fri, SEEN! MENEM a to 20 30 40 50 s0 70 ao gu too LIQUID LIMIT (ILL) 1%) Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Lag of Drill Hale B4 Project No, 112-0703B Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-1 Location: La Quinta, CA Lagged By: SK Depth to Watep Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE 19 L=1 4 o E 1n Description °ems -. Water Content {i6j 0. 3 a in 100 sa 40 Ground Surface $iL rY SANDIsARD (SMfSP), fine to medium grained, light brawn, slightly moist, 2 medium dense ss 17 1043 2.2 4 13 a 10 105.5 3.0 8 10 Same as above, loose to medium dense 11 3.3 12 14 1 f3 Same as above, medium dense a 14 2.6 i8 20 e 18 4.1 22 24 26 16 3.9 2B 30 Drill Method: Hallow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simca 2800 Kraaan and Associates Drill Date: 5114107 Hole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 2 Project; Proposed Jefferson Square Lag of Grill Hole B-'i Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-1 Location: LaQuinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Water? Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE L Water Content [%} Y Description � w w ❑ a p m om r Q F 10 20 30 4c SILTY SANDISAND (SAVSP) 2.7 17 fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 32 medium dense 34 SILTY SAND (SU), fine grained, light brown, moist, medium dense 5.8 15 36 38 SANDY SILT WICLAY (ML), 46 fine grained, brawn, very moist, verystiff n 31.4 22 42 SILTYSAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, medium 44 dense 4$ d.9 22 4B CLAYEYSIL.T(ML), One grained, brmm, very moist, stiff 5D a 3111 16 Fnd of Borehole 52 Total Depth = 51' 54 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backiilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5M4107 56 513 60 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2804 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5114M7 Hole Size: an Driller: Wiliiams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 2 of 2 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drill Hole B-2 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A 2 Location: La Quinla, CA Logged By: 5K Depth to Waterb Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE RWater Content (96J Y Description c a v y CD a U) 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SANDrSAND (SWSA), fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, medium 2 dense 94.7 1.6 17 d Same as shove, Bose to medium dense 101.3 1.2 10 B S 1a ,... 2.7 1 D 12 14 Same as above, medium dense 18 2fl Same as above, slightly moist e 17 20 End of 8vrehole 22 Total Depth = 21 ` 24 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hale bacHillsd with soil cuttings and tamped 5114107 26 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Sirnca 2800 Krazan and Associates Drill Date, 5J14107 Hole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project; Proposed Jefferson Square Lag of Drill Hale gaProject No: 112-07Q36 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A 3 Location: La Cluinta, CA logged By: SK Depth to Watery Initial: At Completion: p SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description rn a SAMPLE 0 Water Content (%) 3 in 1 D 20 30 40 Ground Surface S[LTY SANDISAND (5A'rlSP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 dense e 107.1 ZO 35 4 Same as above, dense 1 D8.0 2,2 18 ti 8 10 Same as above, loose 2 8 12 14t Same as above, [case to medium dense 1S Z.fl 11 I 9 I 1B 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole berAfilled with suit cuttings and tamped 2 5114107 2fi 213 31] Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: 5114107 Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Hale size: 8° Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Client: Regency Centers Location: La Quinta, CA Depth to Water> Log of Drill Hole B4 Initial: Project No: 112-07035 Figure No.: A-4 Logged By: SK At Completion: SUBSURFACE FROFILI- SAMPLE Water Content (%) Description w o rn —m° 10 20 3Q 40 Ground Surface S(LTYSANDISAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 dense •• 108.2 19 40 4 _ 111.2 3A a 37 10 Same as above, loose to medium dense a 2.1 12 12 t4 1s 2.6 11 18 24 Same as above, medium dense _ 2,1 15 End of Uorahole 22 Total depth = 21' 24 No groundwater was encountered during driving Hale backtilled y4th aaJi cuttings anti tamped 5114107 25 28 30 Drill Method: hollow Stern Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5114107 Kole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole B-5 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square project No: 1i2-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-5 Location: Le Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Waterer Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PRDFiLE SAMPLE w •• Water Content �96j V DeSOPUDn E o CO 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND {Sr ), fine grained, light brown, damp 2 a SILTY SANDISAND(SUFSM, 111.5 2.8 45 me to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, dense fi a 108.0 2.1 34 10 Same as above, loose 2.7 End of Borehole 12 7atal Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during ddiling Hole backAlled vAth soil cuttings and tamped 5114107 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 I J0 � Drill Method: Hallow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5114107 Hole Size: 8" Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet. 1 of i Log of drill Hale B-B Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-B Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Waterer Initial: At Completion; SUBSURFACE PRCFtLE SAMPLE c - Water Content (%) i Description V a F- [) � o � Q �, � ; o m 10 zn 30 40 Ground Surface . - • - - - SILTY SAND (Shp, 1ne grained, light brawn, damp 2-SILTY SRNDISAND (SAYSP), 111.1 1.6 54 fine to medium grained, light brown, sllghtly rnaist, 4 very dense Same as above, medium dense ' 110.51 2.2 26 a - 10 1.3 15 12 14 Same as above, 2.4 16 1 B 1 !3 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth F 29 No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 hole backfllled with soil cuttings and tamped) 5114107 26 28 3i1 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2B00 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5114107 Hole Size: B" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drift Hole 6-7 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-7 Location; La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to WatoT3 Initial, At Completion, SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water Content (%) ❑escrip0on a 21, 10 20 30 40 t- Ground Surface SILTY SAND (S", IF fine. grained, light brown, damp 2 SILTY SANDISAND (SMISP), 10ti.7 i.9 33 e fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 4 dense a g fiILTYSAND ne grained, 9ghbrown, slightly moist, loose to io4,o 2.5 13 medium dense B SILTYSANDISAND (SAVSPj, fine to medium g rained, light brawn, slightly moist, medium dense 10 re 2.2 15 12 end of Borehole Total Depth -- 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole badcrilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5114107 16 18 20 ......_ 22 24 2ts 28 { I 10 Drill Method: Hallow Stem Auger Drill Date: 5114107 Drill Rig: Siman 2800 Krazarl and Associates Hole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 cf 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Lag of Drill Hole B-$ Project No., 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-8 Location: La Ouinta, CA Logged ay: SK Depth to Water} Initial: At Cornpletlon: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE c Water Content (°10) Descriptiorn E 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND {SMJ, fine grained, lightbravm, slightly moist, medium 2 dense 102.21 2A V 4- 90.8 2.6 IN. ..... ... . t 1 $ B SILTY SANMAND (SMISP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense 10 10 12 End of Borehol® Total Depth 1, 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soli cuttings and tamped 5114101 16 18 20 22 24 2B 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: W14107 Drill Rigs: Simco 2800 Krazarl and Associates Hale Size: 8" Driller Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet. 1 of t Project: Proposed JofForson Square Log 4f Drill Hole B-9 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-9 Location: La Quinla, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Watery Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE Description E3 L SAMPLE y Water Content;%} 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SANDISA ND (SWSP), line to medium grained, ilght brown, damp 2 SILTY SAND (S", 105.61 1.3 24 fine to medium grained, light brown, damp, medium dense 97.3 3.0 17 13 B SILTY SAND7SAND (SMISA), Inc to medium grained, light brown, damp, loose to 10 medium dense 1.7 i1 12 id Same as above, medium dense 21 17 _ iB 18 211 End of Borehole .............•--=-- - - -- 22 Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hale backiilled with sail cuttings and tamped 2d 5115107 26 28 30 Drill Method; Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date. W15/07 Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazdrl and Associates Hale Sits: U" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet. 1 of 1 Project., Proposed Jefferson Square Client: Regency Centers Location: La Quinta, CA Depth to Water? Log of Drill Hole B4 0 Project No: 112-07036 Figure No.: A-10 Logged By: SK Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE L Water Content (%) Description H CL In aJ G 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface S1 TY SANDISANO (SMISP), fine tv medium grained, light brown, stighlly moist, medium dense e 107.7 4.8 20 4 5 106.41 2.0 16 t3 10 Same as above, loose 2.4 9 12 14 Same as ahnve, medium dense 2.9 16 t6 18 20 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 2& No groundwater was encountered during dr0ling 24 Hole hackf[lled with sail cuttings and tamped 5115M7 2fi 28 3Q Drill Method: Hollow Stern Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 505107 Hole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drill Hole B-11 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-11 Location. La Quinta, CA Logged By: Si{ Depth to Waterer Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE CL Water Content (%) ., Description n W rn Ground Surface SILTY SAND {SM), fine to medium grained, tight brown, slightly moist, 2 medium dense +� 105.7 3.5 24 4 WL7YSAN=AAia (SMOSP), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 106.7 2.7 e 18 s medium dense 8 10 is 1.9 15 12 End of Borehole Total Depth =11' 14 No groundwaterwas encuuntared during drilling Hale backflled with soil cuttings and tamped 5115107 1la 18 20 22 24 26 28 C 30 Dri€l Method: Hallow Stem Auger Drill Date: 5115107 Drill Rig: Simvo 2800 Krazan and Associates Hole Size: B" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drill Hole 6-12 Project Into: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No,: A-12 Locatlort: La Quinta, CA Logged By: Sot Depth to Watery Initial: At Completion: SUOSt1RFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water ConWt [9b) Description G c .0 ❑ o m w 3 10 2. 31.0 40 o sn M Ground Surface SILTY UND (SM), firte to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 2 dense 112.E 2.4 44 4 Same as above, medium dense $ 108.6 2,9 22 SILTY SANDMAND (SMISP), One to medium grained, light brawn; slightly moist, 8 medium dense Sim SAmD (sM), ^ 10 fine #a medium grained, light brown, alightty molsi, 5.4 7 Igose 12 End of gorehulB Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundv ater ► as encountered during drilling Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5115107 t6 �a 20 22 24 2s 2s 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: 5115/07 Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Hale Size: 8" Driller: Williams drilling l-levatiart: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of D ri i { Hole B-'[ 3 Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers figure No.: A-13 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: SK Depth to Watery . initial: At Cornpietion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE s Water Content (%) Description o rn p 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND ISM), fine grained, light brown, damp 2 S&T'YSANVD/SAND (SMISP), 107.7 2.7 21 e fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 4 medium dense B 107.0 2.0 17 10 Same as above, loose to medium dense = 41 12 12 End of Borehole Total Depth = 11' 14 No groundwater was encountered during drilling Hale baekfllled with soil cuttings and tamped T1T07 1 l"a 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Cate: 5115107 Drill Rig; Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Hole Size: 8" Drfller: Williams Drilling Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drill Hale B44 Project No: 112-OT036 Client: Regency Centers Figure Ko.: A-14 Location: La Quints, CA Lagged 8y. SIC Depth to Water> Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE 16 Water Content M Dascriptlon C m o 3 vs n cc 20 34 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to medium grained, Ilght Grown, damp -- - - - - 2- 16 SILTY SAND (SM), 102.6 1.9 fine grained. Eight brown, slightly moist, medium 4 dense SILTY SANDISAND (S Mt/SP), � tine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 105.9 2.5 17 Ei medium dense 8 - S1LTY SAND (SM), fine to medium grained, tight brown, slightly moist, 1 d WDse '� 3.8 9 12 siLrysAND&Ami) (sll ap), fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist, 14 medium dense 16 33 e 19 - 18 25 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 21Y No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5115107 2B 26 3ll Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Simco 2800 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5115107 Hole Size: 8" Driller: Williams Drilling Elevation. See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole B-15 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-15 Location: La Ouinta, CA Logged By. SK Depth to Waters Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE GL Water Content (96? Deacription w _ C @ W b7 p r j GL iff1 Q 29 30 40 J . 1 1 1 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (ShQ, fine grained, light brown, slightly moist, loose to 2 medium dense - 95.6 25 13 4 fi a 90.8 3.5 10 $ S IL TY SA NDISA ND (SMISP} fine to medium grained, fight brown, slightly moist, loose to medium dense 4.9 11 12 14 Same as above, medium dense 8.7 19 16 18 End of Borehole 22 Total Depth = 2Q' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole hackfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5115107 2lr 28 3a Dril I Method: Holiow Stem Auger Drill Rig: Slmco 2800 Driller: Williams Drilling Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 5115107 Hale Size: S" Elevation: See Site plan Sheet: 1 of i Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Log of Drill Hole B4 fi Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-16 Location: La Quint@, CA hogged By: SK Depth to Watery Initial: At Cornpletion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE Water Carnent (96J � pe5criptian 'w � N ID}� in il] �' C7 P F [n � Q �0 I 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (S", fine grained, light brawn, slightly moist, lapse to 2 medium dense 94.6 4.1 11 4 6 98.2 4.2 13 i SILTY SANDISAND (SWSP), $ fine to medium grained, light Brown, slightly moist, dense 10 3.1 s 21 12 14 Same as above, damp 18 1.2 23 19 .. 20 End of Borehole 22 - Total Depth = 20' No groundwater was encountered during drilling 24 Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 5115107 26 2s 30 Drill Method. Hollow Stem Auger Drill Date: 511507 Drill Rig: Simco 2800 KFazan and Associates Hole Size: s" Driller: VVilllams Drilling elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Shear Stren th Diagram Direct Shear ASTM D - 30801 AASHTQ T - 236 rrn ect Mumper Boring No. & Depth Soil Type Date 112-07036 8-1 @ 5' (SM-SF), Silty Sand - Sand 5118/07 Krazan Testing Laboratory Shear StrengM Diagram Direct Shear ASTM D - 30801 AASHTO T - 236 Prolact Number Baring No. & Depth Sail hm I Date 112-07036 B-Z 2' (SM-SP), Silty Sand -Sand 1 511W07 �_ l-1;;;;;;;;;;;;♦-l_-1;;- ANWA Krazan Testing Laboratory Shear Stren th Diagram Direct Shear ASTM D - 30801 AASHTD T - 236 Mint NumOor I B2jA No. & Depth Soil T e Date 112-07036 B--9 5' (SM), S{Ity Sand 5/18107 ��■� ���■ter i Kst � fit_ ��� `■■����■w� �■■���w��� ��>tttttt• �� � �� �� � �ttt•���1•t• MEN 1tt• ��tttttttttttt♦ttttt�� � MAP � � f• tt��i -�.::,� � � � �■�f��■■1■■f•■[���E�rr��■■If�r■�■�I�r� Krazan Testing Laboratory Shear Strength Diagram Direct Shear ASTM D - 30801 AASHTO T - 236 Ig No. & ue h , 1 5ail Type date B-15 Q2' (SM). SiRY Sand 511810 Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test proles No Boring Na. & De h Date I Soil Classification 11 M7036 B-1 2' 5/18/47 I SMSP , Si "and - Sand Load in Kips perSquwe Feat IOU 0.00 i % Consolidation @ 2Ksf: 4.9 96 1.00 z_on _ 3.40 —_._..-- -• — - �._ _ _ _.___. 4.00-- r !s a TOO - 9.04 — -- -- -- - 14.0D Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test Pp*ct No BOfI22 No. $ D - Date 112-07036 - B-31&5' 1 511&07 Sail Sand - Load in Kips per Square Foot 0.1 1 10 100 0.00 % ConsolidaEian ZKsf: 0.7 % 1.aa + + w +Y� 2.00 4.04 I� ' o d 5.00 — -- — - — - — _ a 6.00 7.00 MOO Kraaan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test Project No Barin No. & Depth ❑afe Soil Classification 12-07036 - 8-15@ 5'1 511aM7 (SM)_ Siltv sand toad in Kips per Square Foot 0,! 1 10 Ion 0.00 16. %96 Consolidation @ MO. 1.7 91 71 1.00 j 2_00 I i I 3.00 - - — -- — _ - s 5.00 _..__ C i 16.00 I 7.00 - -- - - -- -- - s.00 - - --- - - - 9.00 10,00 Krazan Testing Laboratory Consolidation Test PEJeLNo Boring No. & Depfh Date Soil Classification 11 1.00 2_W 4.00 7.00 s,au 9.0 10.00 Load in Kips per Square Foot 1 14 Krazan Testing Laboratory �rrr■rN _i�R■�����rnr ■ s G GG G G�ii .�i ■■►�.� GG WEE ���� � __■r�r�r� �� irrr�irir� ME '�GGCe�.�, ru 4 a `n ONISSWC1 11 omcl 11 ?1: LL E 0 � LJ" 8 .14 r as + � G U) w C W nro a. Cj N cb C � d � 13 E F z I z � m to to U a CL 0. � ■ c o � z 2 m d E a a m a- CL d] (a ��4 d `m E a S o c 114 rn � % C �0 a � �J L m i C r a �Niss�rd Lrr��a�� 0 0 c o � o „a >% L% NJEli IM c r 4 a Li V 12 a ■ MENEM m M 1 o C3 6 to Cp 6 cm 6 fl aw E 4M CD EL rn 0 A" Lo 0 M tm r_ ra (A co C w R - VALUE TEST ASTM a - 28" / CAL 301 Project {Number 112-07035 Project Mama Prop. Jefferson Square Date 5 M 8/07 Sample Locationicurve Number RV# 1 (B-1 Q NZ) Soli Classification (SM-SP), Silty Sand -Sand —TEST A B C Percent Moisturefl Com action, % 12_16 13.5 14.4 Dry Dwgtx ibmlcu.ft iQ7.8 108.1 109.0 Exudation Pressure 1 Expansion Pressure Dial Reading) 740 0 330 0 160 0 Ex,wnMon Pressure pef 0 4 0 Resistance Value R B3 59 53 4.0 8.6 3.2 * 2.8 2A U) N m 2-0 D-s 0.4 a-o Cover Thick. Esp. Prossers, ft so 7 5o 4C 3C 20 to a Cxudatlon Pressure, Ps! Krazan Testing Laboratory R - VALUE TEST AST-M D 28441 DAL 301 Project Number 112-07036 Project Name Prop. Jefferson Square Date 5l18M7 Sample LoeationlCurve Number RV# 2 (B-12 @ 0-2) Sots Classification (S M), Silty Sand TEST A B C Percent Moisture 0 Card action, % 11.3 12.2 10.3 Dry Dens! , Ibm/cOL 116.3 116.9 115.7 Exudation Pressure psi 350 140 700 1= ansion Pressure Dial Read 0 0 0 ExPansion Pressure, Psf 0 0 0 ReSistsncs Value R 54 43 59 R Value at 300 PSI Exudation Pressure 52 R Value bX Ex ansion Pressure TI ! , 5 A Expansion Pressure nil . .'� nui i�Miii�i i°uii .' un11uuHIn1111n „ 11uMn11u�uu , CuiCi°n°uiiiiniin ., su��nm�u�ci�i 11HaM111n0in1u unennuu11uu on�i�iiunnue 1O����u�i►�.Mn oi�ie�uuo�iunu � Iii gill �lC,�ilCC e iiii i111C0111111in�1milli ill 1 n1111111111111 I �ui i°nimiil IN Krazan Testing Laboratory Expansion Index Test ASTM 0 - 48291 UBC Std. 18-2 Project Number Project Nave Date Sample location/ Depth Sample Number Soil Classification Time lnital 313 min Dial Readino Expansion index measured Expansion Index 51D Expansion Index : 112-07036 : Prop. Jefferson Square : 5/18107 : B-1 @ 0-2' :1 (SM-SP), Silty Sand - Sand 1 hr fihrs 12 hrs 24 hrs 0 Expansion Potential Table Exp. Index Potential Exp. 0 - 20 Very Low 21 - 50 Low 51 - 90 Medium 91 -130 High > 130 Ym High Krazan Testing Laboratory Expansion Index ASTM D - 43291 UBC Std. Project Number Project Name Date Sample location/ Depth Sample Number Soil Classification : 112-07035 Test 18-2 : Prop. Jefferson Square 5118l07 : B-12 @ 4-Z :2 (SM), Silty Sand Trial # 2 3 Weight of Soil & Maid, gms 592.3 Weight of Mold, gms Weight of Soil, gms. 185A 407.3 Wet Density, Lbslcuft Weight of Moisture Sample et ms 122.8 300-0 We.i ht of Moisture Sample D ms 275.6 Moisture Content, % Dry Density,Lbslcu.ft. Specific Gravity of Soil 8.9 112.8 2.7 Degree of Saturation, % 48.5 Time Inital 30 miry 1 hr fhrs 12 hrs 24 hrs Dial Readin - I -- -- -- -- 1 0 Expansion index ,ea,,,,.d Expansion Index 50 Expansion Index = 0 = 0.0 0 Expansion PoteMal Table Exp. index Potential Exp. 0 - 20 Very Law 21 - 50 Low 51 - 90 Medium 91 -130 High >130 1 Very Hi h Krazan Testing Laboratory MY-21 2007 10:12 EhNIFM-CVEM, INC 9055905905 P.132/03 Fnvfry — Chem, hic. 1214 E Wington Avenue, Pomona, CA 9f766 Tel (9o9j 590-5.Wa Fax PW) 590-5907 LA80RA,TORY REPORT CUSTWER: Kxaaau A AaaoCintee, I.aa. 4221 Bricke11 St. Ontario, CA 91761 Tel(9o9)974-4400 Fax(909)074-4022 PRWECT: La. Quinta MATRlX:5qJ_L DATE RECEIVES:25/1$La7 SAMPLING DATE;Q5114ID7 DATE ANALYZEU:,Q5f 8-19/07 REPORT TO:MR. CIJM=B JIANG DATE REPORTED:05/21107 :SAMPLE I.D.: 112-0703618-140-3' LAB I.D.. 070518-62 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RESISm mar a0 ❑ -Cm 100000* C THIN$ ��''A'A` - I+D} _ a'i1ICG .. 10 5 R03A 3. d AIG 10 1 EPA 92 53 8 .02 it PA 9045C CATS DF DILUTION FACTOR pQL = PRACTICAL QUANTITATION LIMIT ACTUAL DETECTION LIMIT = DF X PQL " = ACTUAL. DETECTION LIMP[' RAISED DUE TO XATRIX IMERPEPiMCE MG/XG - MILLIGRM PER K7LOGRAIM = PPK OHM -Ca - OHMS -CENTIMETER FMSISTTVITx = 11CONDDCTIVITY * = KICK LIMIT DATA REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: CAL-DHS ELAP CERTIFICATE No.: 1555 APPENDIX B GENERAL EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL Appendix B Page B. I When the text of the report conflicts with the general specifications in this appendix, the recommendations in the report have precedence. SCOPE OF WORK: These specifications and applicable plans pertain to and include all earthwork associated with the site rough grading, including, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools and equipment necessary for site clearing and grubbing, stripping, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, a xcavation, p rocessing, p lacernent and c ompaction o f f ill a ad b ack ill materials to t he lines and grades shown on the project grading plans and disposal of excess materials. PERFORMANCE: The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthworks in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be inspected and tested by a representative of Krazan and Associates, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as the Soils Engineer and/or Testing Agency_ Attainment of design grades, when achieved shall be certified by the project Civil Engineer. Both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary adjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by both the Soils Engineer and the Civil Engineer. No deviation from these specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soils Engineer, Civil Engineer, or project Architect. No earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer at least 2 working days prior to the commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Contractor agrees that he shall assume sole and complete responsibility for job site conditions during the course of construction of this project, including safety of all persons and property; that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited to normal working hours; and that the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the Owner and the Engineers harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this project, except for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner or the Engineers. TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS: All compacted materials shall be dansified to no less that 95 percent of relative compaction based on ASTM D1557-00 Test Method, UBC or CAL-216, as specified in the technical portion of the Soil Engineer's report. The location and frequency of field density tests shall be as determined b y t he S oils E ngineer. T he r esults o f t hese t ests a nd c ompliance w ith t hese specifications shall be the basis upon which satisfactory completion of work will be judged by the Soils Engineer. SOILS AND FOUNDATION CONDITIONS: The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the contents of the data presented in the Geotechnical Engineering Report. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doe Appendix B Page B. 2 The Contractor shall make his own interpretation of the data contained in the Geotechnical Engineering Report and the Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the Contractor for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from said report and the actual conditions encountered during the progress of the work. DUST CONTROL: The work includes dust control as required for the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or the borrow area, or off -site if caused by the Contractor's operation either during the performance of the earthwork or resulting from the conditions in which the Contractor leaves the site. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of codefendants, for all claims related to dust or wind-blown materials attributable to his work SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall consist of site clearing and grubbing and preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: The Contractor shall accept the site in this present condition and shall demolish and/or remove from the area of designated project earthwork all structures, both surface and subsurface, trees, brush, roots, debris, organic matter and all other matter determined by the Soils Engineer to be deleterious. Such materials shall become the property of the Contractor and shall be removed from the site. Tree root systems in proposed building areas should be removed to a minimum depth of 3 feet and to such an extent, which would permit removal of all roots greater than 1 inch in diameter. Tree roots removed in parldng areas may be limited to the. upper 11/z feet of the ground surface. Backf ll or tree root excavation should not be permitted until all exposed surfaces have been inspected and the Soils Engineer is present for the proper control of backfill placement and compaction. Burning in areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall not be permitted. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: Surfaces to receive Engineered Fill, shall be prepared as outlined above, excavated/scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture -conditioned as necessary, and recompacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Loose soil areas and/or areas of disturbed soil shall be moisture -conditioned as necessary and recompacted to 95 percent relative compaction. All ruts, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas, which are to receive fill materials, shall be approved by the Soils Engineer prior to the placement of any of the fill material. EXCAVATION; All excavation shall be accomplished to the tolerance normally defined by the Civil Engineer as shown on the project grading plans. All over -excavation below the grades specified shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accordance with the applicable technical requirements. FILL AND BACKFILL MATERIAL: No material shall be moved or compacted without the presence of the Soils Engineer. Material from the required site excavation may be utilized for construction site fills, provided prior approval is given by the Soils Engineer. All materials utilized for constructing site fills shall be free from vegetation or other deleterious matter as determined by the Soils Engineer. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.doe Appendix B Page B. 3 PLACEMENT, SPREADING AND COMPACTION: The placement and spreading of approved fill materials and the processing and compaction of approved fill and native materials shall be the responsibility of the Contractor. However, compaction of fill materials by flooding, ponding, or jetting shall not be permitted unless specifically approved by local code, as well as the Soils Engineer. Both cut and fill shall be surface -compacted to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer prior to final acceptance. SEASONAL LIMITS: No fill material shall be placed, spread, or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or during unfavorable wet weather conditions. When the work is interrupted by heavy rains, fill operations shall not be resumed until the Soils Engineer indicates that the moisture content and density of previously placed fill is as specified. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States 11207076.doc Appendix C Page C. 1 APPENDIX C GENERAL, PAVEMENT SPECIFICATIONS 1. DEFINITIONS -The term "pavement" shall include asphalt concrete surfacing, untreated aggregate base, and aggregate subbase. The term "subgrade" is that portion of the area on which surfacing, base, or subbase is to be placed. The term "Standard Specifications": hereinafter referred to is the January 1999 Standard Specifications of the State of California, Department of Transportation, and the "Materials Manual' is the Materials Manual of Testing and Control Procedures, State of California, Department of Public Works, Division of Highways. The term "relative compaction" refers to the field density expressed as a percentage of the maximum laboratory density as defined in the ASTM D1557-00. 2. SCOPE OF WORK - This portion of the work shall include all labor, materials, tools, and equipment necessary for, and reasonably incidental to the completion of the pavement shown on the plans and as herein specified, except work specifically notes as "Work Not Included." 3. PREPARATION OF THE SUBGRADE - The Contractor shall prepare the surface of the various subgrades receiving subsequent pavement courses to the lines, grades, and dimensions given an the plans. The upper 12 inches of the soil subgrade beneath the pavement section shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The finished subgrades shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of additional pavement courses. 4. UNTREATED AGGREGATE BASE - The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate base material shall conform to the requirements of Section 26 of the Standard Specifications for Class 2 material, 3/4-inches maximum size. The aggregate base material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. The aggregate base material shall be spread and compacted in accordance with Section 26 of the Standard Specifications. The aggregate base material shall be spread in layers not exceeding 6 inches and each layer of aggregate material course shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. 5. AGGREGATE SUBBASE - The aggregate subbase shall be spread and compacted on the prepared subgrade in conformity with the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the plans. The aggregate subbase material shall c onformi t o the r equirements o f S ection 2 5 o f the S tandard Specifications for Class 11 material. The aggregate subbase material shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent, and it shall be spread and c ompacted i n a ccordance w ith S ection 2 5 o f t he S tandard Specifications. Each layer of aggregate subbase shall be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to the placement of successive layers. Krazan & Associates, Inc. Offices Serving The Western United States IL207036-doc Appendix C Page C. 2 6. ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACING - Asphalt concrete surfacing shall consist of a mixture of mineral aggregate and paving grade asphalt, mixed at a central mixing plant and spread and compacted on a prepared base in conformity with the lines, grades; and dimensions shown on the plans. The viscosity grade of the asphalt shall be AR-8000. The mineral aggregate shall be Type B, 'h-inch or /4 inch maximum, medium grading, for the wearing set forth in S Section 39 of the Stinch maximum, andard ium Specifications. ding for the base course, and shall conform to the The drying, proportioning, and mixing of the materials shall conform to Section 39. The prime coat, spreading and compacting equipment, and spreading and compacting the mixture shall conform to the applicable chapters of Section 39, with the exception that no surface course shall be placed when the atmospheric temperature is below 50 degrees F. The surfacing shall be rolled with a combination steel -wheel and pneumatic rollers, as described in Section 39-6. The surface course shall be placed with an approved self-propelled mechanical spreading and finishing machine. 7. FOG SEAL COAT - The fog seal (mixing type asphalt emulsion) shall conform to and be applied in accordance with the requirements of Section 37. Krnzan & A55O02feS, Inc. offices Serving The Western United States 11207036.d0c =--...-Krazan& ASSOC IATE5 INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION July 8, 2008 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE; Percolation Rate Study Proposed Shopping Center Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: KA Project No. 112-07036 In accordance with your request, we have performed percolation testing at the subject site. This report documents the services and provides the results of our field and laboratory study. PURPOSE AND SCOPE This study was conducted to measure the approximate percolation rates within the near -surface strata of the site. It is our understanding that the data will be used by the project design team in their development of the on site storm water disposal system. The percolation testing conducted at the subject site was performed in general accordance with the City of La Quinta, Public Works Department, Engineering Bulletin #06-16. Hydrology and Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems, USBR Percolation Test Standard. Our scope of services was outlined in our change order dated June 11, 2008 (KA Project No. 112-07036) and included the following: Conducting three (3) percolation tests within the area of the proposed detention basins at the subject site. Two of the percolation tests were performed at depths of approximately 10 to 13 feet below existing grade. The percolation test for the underground basin was performed at a depth of approximately 20 to 23 feet below the existing grade. A total of three exploratory borings were performed adjacent to the percolation tests. These exploratory borings were extended to a depth of at least 15 feet below the bottom of each test. • Preparation of this report summarizing the results of our investigation. Offices Serving The Western United Stfltes 4221 Hrickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 • Fax: (909) 974-4022 KA No. 1 i2-07036 Page 2 of 4 SITE LOCATION AND SITE DESCRIPTION The proposed site is located at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in La Quinta, California. The site is roughly rectangular in shape and roughly sloping to the north acid east. At the time of our field investigation and testing program, the site was undeveloped and covered with sparse bushes and exposed soil. SOIL PROFILE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface profile generally consisted of loose to dense fine sand and fine silty sands extending to the maximum depth explored. During the excavation of the borings, continuous visual and physical examination was conducted on the soil cuttings. Significant silt or clay layers/lenses were not identified as being encountered in any of the borings at the site. Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried structures. The results of the tests are included as follows: Parameter Results Test Method Resistivity 2,460 ohms-en-1 Caltrans Sulfate 268 mg/kg EPA 9038 Chloride 117 mg/kg EPA 9253 pH 7.52 EPA 9045C Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction between the cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with soil and/or water. The soil samples from the subject site were tested to have a low sulfate and chloride concentrations. Therefore, no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate or chloride reactivity with the cement. Electrical resistivity testing of the soil indicates that the onsite soils may have a mild potential for metal loss from electrochemical corrosion process. PERCOLATION TESTING Two methods for percolation testing are given in the City of La Quinta, Public Works Department, Engineering Bulletin #06-16. Hydrology and Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems, USBR Percolation Test Standard. Either ASTM Double Ring Infiltrometer Test or U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Test were recommended by the City of La Quinta as approved test methods. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation method was determined to be the most prudent for the subject site. The test locations are presented on the attached site plan, Figure 1. Detail results of the percolation tests are attached. The data is presented in tabular format. The soil percolation rates are based on tests conducted with clean water. The infiltration rates may vary with time as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. A factor of safety should be incorporated into the design of the basins to compensate Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Srickell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 • Fax: (909) 974-4022 1 12-07036 La Quinta Perc 42 Ir. ICA No, 112-07036 Page 3 of 4 for these factors. In addition, periodic maintenance consisting of clearing the bottom of the basins should be expected. The highest percolation rate ranges from 4.25 inches to 6.5 inches per Hour. A minimum factor of safety of 2.0 should be assigned to this value. The recommended design percolation rate should be a maximum of 2.0 inches per hour. LEWTATIONS Geotechnical Engineering is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering. This branch of Civil Engineering is constantly improving as new technologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although our services were conducted in accordance with current engineering practice, undoubtedly there will be substantial future improvements in this branch of engineering. In addition to advancements in the field of Soils Engineering, physical changes in the site, either due to excavation or fill placement, new agency regulations, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the soils report is completed may require the soils report to be professionally reviewed. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without critical review. Although the time limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that 1 year be considered a reasonable time for the usefulness of this report. The scope of our services did not include a groundwater study and was limited to the performance of percolation testing and the submitted of the data only. Our services did not include those associated with an Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the presence of wetlands. Any statements, or absence of statements, in this report regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and are not intended to convey engineering judgment regarding potential hazardous and/or toxic assessment. The geoteclnnical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional interpretation utilizing standard engineering practices. The work conducted through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, have been performed in accordance with the generally accepted standards of geotechmical engineering practice, which existed in the geographic area at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made. It is not warranted that such information and interpretation cannot be superseded by future geotechnical engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites. Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Mckell Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 • Fax: (909) 974-4022 112-07036 Ln Quinu Pere 42 KA No. 1 I2-a7036 Page 4 of 4 If you have any questions regardnig the services performed or the data reported herein, cr if we maybe of further assistai2ce, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, KR.AZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. RAC stofs rRo -I'R n Project Geolo sc- R{i5L'ti11131L'itil y PG No. 8420 k" No. 3421) iP, t�xpf � q CR13MK:rni Ci.0\� Attaclunents: Figure 1, Site Plan Results of Percolation Tests Boring Logs 1=ESSlp�, 7adle�; IUI. Kell 9� Project Eu-& AME5 M KELL0GG RCE No. 654 Na 610 2 m rxpirc: SeI ;�G, 49l}9 �q Civil t� OF C At N Offices Serving The Western United States 422I HrickeIl SErcet, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 974-4400 ■ Fax: (909) 974-4022 112-07036 La Quints Pcra #2 3r1IdC JNIaVA Q36A z o n o0 0 CIO � Q a 4 LL U LL m R CL I~ l 1lIlllllllllllll�f - Log of Drill Hole B-17 Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 . Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-17 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: WP Depth to Watery Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U a Water Content (%) � Description •�, -- m CL o ECL � U) w 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), fine grained, grained, light brown, slightly moist - - - _-- 2-- SILTY SA NDISA ND (SMISP), - .._ __,. _. __ fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist I-• _ 4- 6- SILTY SA ND/SAND (SM/SP), o. . fine grained, brown, slightly moist, medium dense - 8 10 : SAND (SP),..., ....�.,.._..... '._. very fine grained, yellow -tan, slightly moist, medium _ 12 dense :,. SILTY SAND (SM), 14 medium to coarse grained, tan, medium dense 16 SILTY SAND/SAND(SM/SP),- fine to medium grained, light brown, slightly moist -- - - 18 :.. _. _ SILTY SAND/SAND(SMISP), I 1 _ 20 fine grained, tan -brown I 22 SAND (SP), i I F medium to coarse rained, light brown, dense g 9 ._....... v. .. .. . 24 .: SAND (SP),- medium to coarse grained, fight brown, dense �-! � ~ 26 End of Borehole _ f 28 Total Depth = 25' I i No groundwater was encountered during drilling — Hole backfilled with soil cuttings and tamped 30 06/26/08 ' Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: CME 55 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 06/26/08 Hole Size: 6" Driller: JG Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 1 Log of Drill Hole Bp'NS Project: Proposed Jefferson Square Project No: 112-07036 Client: Regency Centers Figure No.: A-18 Location: La Quinta, CA Logged By: WP Depth to Watery Initial: At Completion: SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE U � Description •N Water Content (%) Q E cn 212 ° a 10 20 30 40 Ground Surface SIL 7Y SAND (SM), fine grained, light brown, slightly moist ': • SILTY SAND/SAND {SM/SP), 1 _-� �............. : , _ --- - _-........... fine grained, light brown, slightly moist 4- 6- �.. 5!L TY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), - .. :. fine grained, brown, slightly moist . I 8 _ r 10 12 ... SAND (SP), I ......._ - I fine grained, yellow -tan, slightly moist _ I i 14 r I E i i 16 SILTY SAND/SAND (SM/SP), fine to coarse grained, light brown, slightly moist SILTY SAND (SM), - _ -I___ :. •• :- :'. fine grained, tan -brown _. _..__.....:.:,.._ ._.......... 20 22 SAND (SP), _...... l I :'. medium grained, llght brown - - 24 . - f _ : 26 •:. , - 1 -....-._ I ,,,� • . .. medium to coarse grained, fight yellow, dense : .... ----•���---• i. .. . , 28 30 Drill Method: Hollow Stem Auger Drill Rig: CME 55 Krazan and Associates Drill Date: 06/26/08 Hole Size: 6" Driller: JG Elevation: See Site Plan Sheet: 1 of 2 Project: Proposed Jefferson Squarc Client: Regency Centers Log of Drill Hole B-18 Project Flo: 1 f 2-07036 Figure No.: A-1& Location: La Quints. CA Logged By: WP IDepth to Waterer Initial: At Cornplafion; Drill Method: Hallow Stem Augef Drill Rig-, CMJR 55 Krazan and Associates DOI bate: 06126f08 Hnie Size: S' Driller; JG EIovation: See site Flan Sheet: 2 of 2 Project: Proposed Je#Ferson Square Log of Drill dole S-1$ Project No: 1 ; 2-07Q36 Client: Ragertcy Centers Rgure No.: A-1 J Location: La Qu€nta, CA Logged ay: *' Depth to Water> initial: At Completion; SUBSURFACE PRGFfLE , SAMPI-.- Description .. W."Itor Coin Ent �ol _ E .lFl 3P o rn FD 20 30 4{} Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SM), Fine Ira]ned, Iight brown, slightly Mist �i SILTY3AND}SAND (SMISP), -- - Fine to medlum grained, tight brown, siightly moisi — 4 S,IL TY SAND (ShV, fine gained, brown, slfghdy moist in I SAND (SP), - r - - 12 fine grained, yeliow-tan, slightly Tnoist, dense � — SILTY SAI DIsAiND (S=P), 14 medlum to Mg Me gralned, tan, dense -- i T6 SILTYSAM=AM0 (sAYSP), tine to --- medium grained, light brawn, slightly moist — — 18 S1L TY SANDISAND (SIWSP), J. fine grained, Drown -tan SAND (SP), � - medium grained, light Drown. dense � 24 25- End of Borehole T),groundwalter tal depth = 25' 2w was encountered durirfg drlllingaa bacUlled with soft cuttings and tamped - - - ao Drill Method; F-lollew Stem AU9er OrM Rag: CME 55 Driller, JG Krazan and Associates drill Date: 0612&08 Hale Size: 6" Elevation: See Me Plan Sheet, 1 of 1 Project# 112-07036 Pr o ect Name Jefferson Square Project Address Jefferson Street and Frets Waring Drive T tN es o. 1 P-6 Depth To Water 110feet Reading Start 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ^ 1 9.8 99 -- 8 � 7 - C 5 ,w ca 4 0 3 - 2 -- 0 1 EL 0 0.00 Elasped Time(rnin.) 0 10.00 20.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 150.00 180.00 240.00 300.00 360.00 Total Depth 13 feet Soil Classification ISM Incremental Time Gallons to (min.) keep Constant Head 0.00 0.0 10.00 Q•2 10.00 0.4 10.00 Q.5 30.00 0.7 30.00 1.1 30.00M 30.00 30.00 60.00 60.0060.00 P-1 n Inches Date (July 3, 2008 Recharges 124 hr gyre-sai Test Size 16 inches Gallons ! hours 13.10 Gals 16 hrs Incremental Percolation Rate (inlhr) 9.8 9.8 8.2 5.7 6.0 5.7 5.2 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.2 60.00 120.00 180.00 240.00 300.00 360.00 420.00 Time (minutes) project # 112-07036 pro""ect Larne jJeffatson square project Address I Jefferson Street and Fred Wai-In Drive Test Nn� P-6 ITOtal Depth 13 feet Depth To Water 10 feet Isoll Classification Ism Reading 5tirt _ 2 a e 7 s s 10 11 12 is 14 15 �5 14 C 13 12 C 10 E � 7 I� ° 4 3 a 2 OLOO EIasped Time(min.) Q 10.00 20,00 30.00 54.00 20M 120.00 15000 180.00 240.00 0 300.00 30.00 Incremental Time Gallons to (mina creep Constant Head 0.00 0.0 10.00 0.3 1000 0.5 A.00 M 30.00 1.3 30.00 1.8 30.00 2_0 30.00 2.3 M-00 - 2.8 $0.40 3.0 60-00 3.3 60.00 3.8 lation date fn Inches per hour P-2 Date JJuiy 3, 2008 Recharges 124 hr pre -saturated Test Size 10 inches Gallons I hours 13.75 Gals 16 hrs Incremental Percolation Rate {Ir�ltirj 12.3 13.5 13.1 10.2 9.6 60,00 120M 180-00 240.00 300.00 36jo,00 420,00 Time (minutes) 7.6 6.1 5.3 s-1 1 rProject # t l2-#]1036 I�ro'ect Name Jefferson t Project Adcfre;s JefWsan c lost Na: P-6 Depth To Water 10 feel Reading Start 2 4 5 6 7 S 1n 11., 12 13 14 13 15 14 13 12 11 7 W O 4 a� o 2 V �4.. 4� IL 0.00 Elaslsed TJme(min.j a 10.00 20.00 30.00 60.00 DUO 120.00 1 SOM 180,00 2-40.0 D 300.40 asaM OF acid Fred Warinq Drive IV TESTS bate July 3, 2008 fReahames 124 hr orca-qnf fatal Depth "3 feet 18011 CJessifr'cafian ISM Incremental T1rne Gallons to [min. keep Constant Head 0.0 10.01) 11.3 10.0C d.8 10.00 0.9 30,00 1.8 30.00 1.6 30.00 2A 34.00 2.6 30.00 3.1 60.00 3.5 60_00 4.1 so.o0 4.7 9rcolation Rate in Jnchm per Hour P-3 est Size 16 inches allons 1 hours 14,75 Gals { G hrs Z: Iricrernental Percolation Rate (infh r) 12'a 14.7 14.7 10.6 8,7 8.6 J3.5 BA 7.1 E,7 6.5 60.00 120.00 1 S0.00 240.00 300.00 360.00 420.[)Q Time (minutes) 6Z JFlW94--2MB 13134 FJk[JlRC1-CHQlp dfC S095905935 P. Errviro - Chem, Inc. 1214 E. Lexington Aventae, Pomona, CA 91766 TO (009) 690-5906 FOX (909) 590-5907 LABORATORY' REPORT CUsTORTE'Rr F.razam � �sscci�t��� Irjv 4221 arickell St. Ontario, CA 91761 'E'e3{80 � 74444174 &' (SU&)5U--4a22 PRO r CT : Lm� (Quit& MATR-TX -M �L DATE RECEIVED i Q / D2108 SAMPLING DATE:1 2407 DATE ANALYZED. 0.1/02-03lf#9 REPORT To=ig , Scan RE16LOM -r-�--a---���_ �-�rrtrr---��-:i-..-��r---�14--------��------a--�--ate- DATE REPORTEt}; {}� f 0� 10 B SP"LE I.D.: 112-0703f I $W1LI0-3r tt LAB 2.D.: 080102-1 EPA PARAMETER SAMPLE RESCPLT UlUT POL Dr itL=on RE U-Tvilry 2&60 O 55-CM 100000* -- CLTRANg S�f,FATE 258 _ N[GIG z0 1 EPA 9038 MLORTDE 117 iMlc; 3 0 1 �FA 92s3 EPA 90�sc C01*S DE t DILUTION FACTOR Phi, = PPACTFCAL QUANTITATION LrIiIIT ACTDAL DST-8�10N LIMIT Dr x PQL XGIICG = MILLIGRAM PER KZL,DGrRAM = FFM OHMS -CM = Cfrt+ 5-CFNrUMTER RESISTMTY = 1 jCONDGCTI TY " _ 111LIMIT DA3A ?tEVIEWDD AND ApPRO'VEn By. CALL-27F3S $LAP CERTIFICATE NCI - : 1355 CONS T-RUCT}L-1N TF.;7'}N6 4 Ir PECrfON KA Prvjeed No. 1 12-0706 Mr. Themas hiiddlewn Regency Ccntcas Inc. 36 Exexmutive Parr, Suits. 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: ReportUpdate Propn,ied 5hnpping Center Jefferstin Street and Fred Waring Drive Lu Quin (a, Californin Dviu Mr. Middletiau: Based can nur review ni' the abnvc rcfereuLxd Geottc niical mginetring Inveon iga lion port an6 rrccn( site v1so, Cite above mentioned report is considered. from a geotechnical standpoint, to remain valid for the pmpawed development_ The rmommendaliuns and lirdaatilnn� prnvided in tine geoi.echaicsl engineenrig inuedigation report and all silsequfmr iettei•s apply to this pro} t If -you have any queslio s. or if we can be of further asaistanoe. please do not hesitale to contact ottr otTict; at (909) 9744401l . Respectfully subnutted, KKAZ74I► & ASSOCIATE L '• C Maws � stupl�� f G caw", l Projrcl G logi. PG No. R 4 26Er E-is P tZ-7M. 'Kellm�g . € reject Lngneer RC.k No. 65N2 0MCC F Senintr The M"LC U Ufiled States 4221 f3rirkall Strrei . Cinb no. CA 41715I ■ {MR) r}74440+ Fm (909) 9 74-40Z2 IAMB &, ASSOCIATES, INC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION August 4, 2008 Mr. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Report Update Proposed Shopping Center Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: KA Project No. 112-07036 Based on our review of our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report dated May 25, 2007, all subsequent letters, and recent site visit, the above mentioned report is considered, from a geotechnical standpoint, to remain valid for the proposed development. The recommendations and limitations provided in the geotechnical engineering investigation report and all subsequent letters apply to this project. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (909) 974-4400. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Christopher Robinson, PG Project Geologist PG No. 8420 CR/JMK:rm James M. Kellogg, Project Engineer RCE No. 65092 Offices Serving The Western United States 4221 Brickell Street 9 Ontario, CA 91761 9 (909) 974-4400 9 Fax (909) 974-4022 Krazaa& ASSOCIATES, INC, GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING • ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CUNSTKUCTTON TE5TINO & INSPECTION May 30, 2008 Mr. Tbolru$ Middleton Regency Centers, Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Addendum Letter Proposed Jefferson Square (Phase ) Jeff coon Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton: KA Project No. 112.-07036 In accordance with Development Resource Consultants, Inc, request, we are supplying this letter to clarify recommendations and requirements as they pertain to the geatechmical aspects of the project_ Comment 1 "Fill Placement: to sage g, fill material is called out to be placed at 95% relative co"pactiom This is often difficult to achieve in the fwJd and cweeds the more common requirement of 9(1'1 relative rampacrion for general fill. Please confirm your recomnxwdadons. " Response to Comment 1 The on -site soils consist of samdy material, and such, it is our experience that these soils can be placed at a relative oompaction of 95% with reasonable compaction effimt, Comment Z "Floor Slabs: On page 10 of the soils mart, the recommendations is for floor slags with 3 iraehes of compacted gravel, % inch maximum sire, below a vapor retarder sheeting and 2 " to 4 " of sand on top, apical installations use sand, in lieu ofgravel, to amid punctrenng the vapor barrier (Z" sand - v4w barrier -.2 " sand, is a common section). Please Clarify the recommended section. " R aponse to Comment 2 It is our recommendation that a capillary break be used, 4 inches of sand with a vapor barrier placed below the slabs-m-grade. The plaoemmt is at the discretion of the project owner. It is our understauding that the project owner does not intend to use a vapor barrier beneath the slabs -on -grade. The placement of the vapor barrier is our reconnnendation and not a requirement. If the vapor barrier system is eliminated, Kxaxan has no liability with regazds to issues associated with moist= vapor transmission tm Serving ne Western United Spares 4221 BrickeR Street, Ontario, California 91761 • (909) 9744400 & I = (909) 9744022 1CA No. l 12-07016 Page Nn, 2 Comment 3 Floor Slaps: The sails m7ort does not make a recommendation for the nfmimum thieknem of the concrete floor slab. Please add this to your repot#.. Response to Comment 3 The thickness of the slabs must he determined by the structural engineer and the criteria he determines impacts the slab, It is our recommendation that a minimum slab thickness of five inches (5) with number three bars (#3) reinforcement, eighteen inches (18"') on center, each way be placed. Comment 4 Pavement Design: The Developer would like to use Crushed Miscellaoearts Base (CM33) in lieu of Class 2 Agg egate Base. I would recommend using Greenbook Standard Specification Section 200-2.4, 2006 edition, for CMD, unless an alternative Caltrans Specification is Available. Please Con&m this subst union changes the recommended pavement sections shown in Table on Page 12 of the Sails Report. Response to Comment 4 It is our rewmmxmdation that Class 2 Base be used. The placement and type of base used is at the discretion of the project owner. it is the project Civil Engineer's design that determines the actual needed thickmess based on the proposed design loads for the pavement sections. It is recanded that if CMB is used in lieu of Class 2 Aggregate Base, then aeen )ook Standard Specification Section 200- 2.4, 2006 edition be followed. Comment 5 Pavement Design: What is the life span of the current recoma aided pavement sectiow shown in the Table on page 12 of Soils Report? Response to Comment 5 The life span of the pavement section shown on Page 12 of the Wtial Geotechnical investigation is 20 years. 'This considers regular and routine vuintenance of the pavement areas. Comment 6 Pavement Dmign; The project will widen Fred Waring Drive as part of the Required Official Site Improvements. The City has Assigned a Traffic Index of 9 for this Major Arterial Street with a wininwm section 5.5"AC over 6.5"CAB, based on an R-value of 54. I would like Kx=an to confirm that the City's Minimum pavement section is appropriate for design purposes. Attached is a copy of the City's Structural section for AC paving" Handout. Response to Comment G The recommended minimum thickness of the AC and CAB was outlined in the initial geotechnical investigation based on ac R-value of 50. The City's minimum thickness for a traffic index of 9 is Beater than our roxmi nendation. The mini muum tbklmess of the AC and AB should be dual to or greater than Qtficee Serving The Western United States 4211 Bd&ell Smz, Odario, California 91761 . (909} 974.4400 • Fax: (909) 974-4022 RrAewr letter KA No, 112-07036 Pie No. 3 the City's minimum requiiam=ts. Dur report listed a rwommendatim only, and it is the discretion of ffiv prcjmt owner to meet or exceed our rocommen&tions. The city that has- judsdicUDn over the project W the right to spedfy any requft=tw equal or gmater than our rmommendatim and (bose requirements should The followed as to ccafb= to the local jurisdictions requirwnants and intm?xWion of the IBC or CIBC or any addendum of said judsdictlon. Connaeut 7 City Review Comments: The precise Grading Plan First chwk submittal to the City of Ls Quinta was roftwnod to us wilh Comments to the Kmzan Soils Report. Attached with this letter are the Original comments provide to ups by the City. Flcaam Addroz them commmts and provide us with a kaff that we can submit to tho City fear 2"" Plan Check. include with this IWcr should be city plan check conuaents. Response to Comment 7 Attached is the addendum letter to the City of La Quium Plan Rvvicw Comments. The zeGornmendations and iimiiationa provided in the Geotwlnical Engineetjng Imvcstiption report apply to this letter. if you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ooi"ct our offloe al (909) 974-44CO. Respectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIAM, INC. Project GWA4 PG No. 9420 CWjM9-rM CQ'I Addressee (4) 4AL rlt IrWilc-o U3, EXPI, OF C tcLL6 M. Kdol pw*tNinagn RCE Ne. 65092 OMes Serft The Weetwa United States 4221 BrkkWI 9b*M0nUnioCaIjrornjo 91761 - (Wg) 974-4400 -F= (9N)974-4022 RzdEw bwa DRC May 16, 2006 Mr. James Kellogg Krazan & Associates, Inc. 4221 Brickell Street Ontario, CA 91761 Tel. 909-974-4400 Development Resource Consultants, Inc. Civil Engineering - Land Surveying - Land Planning RE: Jefferson Square, La Quint&, SWC Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. Geotechnical Engineering investigation - Request for Information Dear Jim: Job No. C07-304 DRC is requesting clarification of the following items in your Geotechnical Engineering Investigation (Soils Report) dated May 25, 2007 (Krazan Project No. 112-07036): 1. Fill Placement. On Page 6, fill material is called out to be placed at 95% relative compaction. This is often difficult to achieve in the field and exceeds the more common requirement of 90% relative compaction for general fill. Please confirm your recommendation. 2. Floor Slabs. On Page 10 of the Soils Report, the recommendation is for a floor slabs with 3 inches of compacted gravel, %-inch maximum size, below a vapor retarder sheeting and 2" to 4" of sand on top. Typical installations use sand, in lieu of the gravel, to avoid puncturing the vapor barrier (2" sand — vapor barrier — 2" sand, is a common section). Please clarify the recommended section. 3. Floor Slabs. The Soils Report does not make a recommendation for the minimum thickness of the concrete floor slab. Please add this to your report. 4. Pavement Design. The Developer would like to use Crushed Miscellaneous Base (CMB) in lieu of Class 2 Aggregate Base. I would recommend using Greenbook Standard Specification Section 200-2.4, 2006 Edition, for CMB, unless an alternative Caltrans Specification is available. Please confirm if this substitution changes the recommended pavement sections shown in the Table on Page 12 of the Soils Report. 5. Pavement Design. What is the life span of the current recommended pavement sections shown in the Table on Page 12 of Soils Report? 6. Pavement Design. The Project will widen Fred Waring Drive as part of the required off -site improvements. The City has assigned a Traffic Index of 9 for this Major Arterial Street with a minimum section 5.5" AC over 6.5" CAB, based on an R-Value of 50. 1 would like Krazan to confirm that the City's minimum pavement section is appropriate for design purposes. Attached is a copy of the City's "Structural Section for AC Paving" handout. 800 S. ROCHESTER AVENUE - SUITE 4C - ONTARIO, CA 91761 - PHONE: 909-230-5241 - FAX: 909-230-5246 ANAHEIM HILLS ONTARIO LAS VEGAS VALENCIA CORONA Mr. James Kellogg May 15, 2008 Page 2 7. City Review Comments. The Precise Grading Plan first check submittal to the City of La Quinta was returned to us with comments to the Krazan Soils Report. Attached with this letter are the original comments provided to us by the City. Please address these comments and provide us with a letter that we can submit to the City for 2nd plan check. Included with this letter should be city plan check comments. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Development Resource Consultants, Inc. Ronald W. Sklepko, P.E. Vice President RWSlrws Kellogg Jim Knazan W .051608.doc c: Tom Middleton, Regency Centers Rob Grant, Regency Centers Mike Flynn, KTGY Architects & ASSOCIATES, INC. GEGrECHNjtr At FLNG�NLER+N(, ■ 04GINLEPHiC, KA Pr❑jecI inn. 1 12-07036 r. ThQnms N5ddklon Regency Center; Inc. 36 Eucudve Varb:, Suhe 100 Irvine. CA Q614 RE: Addendum Letter # 2 Propurscd Shopping Center Jefl'ersan Street rtnd Fred Waring Drivo La Ouinta, California Dear Mr. NUddleton: In acvnrdanie with wur revue -a and authmization_ this 1etrEr ha-, bc{sn przpared in order to respond tv comlmenis pruvided by the city of Ln Quinta followkg review of the Geatedini,:al Ertginccring Invosttgai can Kepnrt prcpar i for the subject site. 'Me rerereneed rni nv she -et provided to our ttitface is date May 30, 0D& These comments were provided To our office by a rcTesenta6vc! of DRC Enginzzrins. Following are our respunse tct those contents considered applicable ro our firm. CmImmenI Na. bi Krazun Ceutech Repuri and rurren( letter rfnled March 11, 2 DG8 a, "Ligiiefaction hisfork gTaLurdiviaer 6levatio e is tint prrviderl [ 2`0 regatest). Ger? states iritt {apt i f itrsiork is higher- rhan prohabi.f sil-nif ewn. Plea.,,e address iv)j trite hhktor:c xvie7- eabfe is_ Eldher get it fi von 0-1PD 060-d9d-s 6G! li'utev C'o. (70- 3 5- 694). 1 any i►irr vre which orle hca uerdjvr(ry herr_'' Acc-ordt`ng to ice , the historic groundwater elevatioa for the 3 cIod�est welt-- 1c, the rile is Usiod hdnw- Aycrnge i)rptb 13istorical Year of to Crakind Ground Water Reading for 1'fMMNhip Range Section Quad n*Lr (20[1'T} Histurical irlttGround Depth CiostRt in Groundi�lrrl#er Ground Surface 1, 5S R7E 20 Al177.9 Feet BUS 140.7 Feet 13GS 211104 T 5S R-7E 20 G 2UI.X Feet BGS 1 -",4.) Feet BGS 2fKA ;S LI R 71: 20 H 1 �ti.0 I -eel BGS 169.2 Feet BGS 1006 6 Of icts 4ers3ng The 11'esrern United States 43179 allsinetis Park Crone. Swir Ii i1M r Ttj�itila CA 91-59j1 s (451) f.44. 16b] ■ Fax (951 fiN-D701 KA Project Nu. 1 I2-C7Q3b Page No..' b. " iAvidonce Jbr volume cares see: pert- Ion (�.02 f ), Haas th s been correlated wide df? elnrnrep?&s around Me virinlo-? Note, Prujowe across Fred Waring had import vu un es Aar irirrr.,-axed- (Dpa'anade back' in 200 il). It is req uewled t tart AL, w1k unginvoi- du iftr• "roebsidtrice" M:hkh should rrfleu 1n31'erirrg li•ulrz flee rrisfirrg. " 5ub,5ideFice doe-,; nor apple to the Volume calculation of the i- mpwicd rill, The CiW engineer should t3 rmine the} impart volume calculations. Subsidence N defined os groLmd Surface or soil malarial 5hifti.ng downward relative to the exis"g clattam, W other wards, this sttrte's hot much the exisling soils 9U consalid att when thy* impva' d tail nmwriul is uOmp.icted on top 0 f Ilt+'se i11-situ materCnls- e. '959 o 4ornrpazlirm re-p inerneyv is Awe the 4piral 90%for lens a-rea. It Lr iggie�sa�d ry iredicarc on rJi'-proms rho? 95t!,r+ rorrrpa an 45 within the Primer ng areas ". It is krazan &, Associates recon mendatio❑ that any fill hr campscred to at minimum of 95uo rviaijve rdetisity. The s=n Iy soils presenL al thesiw can lie typically wmpaoLud to 95% Telalive density. d. "in the Alzrdr 21 leper Rain }trazarr. floe gearech addrensedPasi carmen? 14 but dos riot addrou t_'rr_4fri-0 timIl..x.paald—.ew as requested- Please addmv this ti►tie &�.specialIv near M rele-?trine avews like the park arid section C urea wheur- the exifring msidendai area exist. Also. n r-tlreosf xidewalks-- rc. '' The proposed de.,velopment sbouhl not impam any existing Structures or imprnvemont if the i-eerr,ametideflom of the initial gentech-nical investipatinn report (N-lev 25. 2(X)7) and all subsequent adderiduuns and letter are ronsidered in the design and consirucrion of ncc pro Jeot. e. '-77re wtv reparr indivares rhur rani�ate can wining soils t+ereJuund ft; be roil, im ehe sire No rru}u+rf rs rEqu red- T7�esoil[rr`x-rre�rsfrr rrfr}Jrrr+siliair3jirrrttirfir�ri ere lulu+{�cr irrapurl s ['tif'rc lirarts. li is reenminended ihnt any snits Impnd fnr us a-, engineered fill shall be lsied Far Sulfate content. I Lx mvTmmended that the toils IIial are to he u�l for c n9mcoW till wvaain ncgligible sulfate rUri leal according to AC131 S BLOding CcJc, IF )'vu ha-'e an}' questions. or if We Cali bC of furthCI a5siN=I;9. 1)Jc4i5r Lice ncL beg-Wtc liLk contact 011F OfECV 0 195 11 b 94.OU L Respreifuli} wbrnitterl_ PMA -kN ASSOCIATES, FIgC. L�,� �, G. , AL CJIiT f{}I1pCr�2o ' V, _ a } Nrtrject Geolop ' PC Nu. 8480 { 1€#I 'fi'i St=rt r,; R�lila;',•t �t C�+!!�litiriz; a Quo. lYR�.3 • CL!' Adclr�sate (4) LI �t A4alta�rr RC1= No. 656Q) Ir'raaan & Assaciates.Iar. Offices. Seriwingl-hr Wcstem Uriitud Siatc, 5a1 Repor<Rewpoho¢ LOltir t' KXUZall & S S 0 C I A I E S, I N C CEOFECHMCAL jFAf191NF4ERJ1VG . EW)RONMFNTAL ENC;11lFFA1NG CONITRUCTYON T STfiVG & li415P C iOlV September 19, 2003 IAA No.: 126.09033 Regency Centers Mr. Tam Middleton 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Respunse !o City of U Quints Rey nest For information Proposed Jefferson Square (Plisse Q llrred Waring & Jefferson )La Quanta, CA Reference: Geotecbnicai Engineering investigation, Proposed Jefferson Square (Phi 1), Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, La Quints, California, dated May 25, 2007. Mr. Middleton: In accordance with your amborizatitm, we have prepared this letter to response to a request for informatior by the City of La Quinta, Based on infemiat ors providsd by the project Civil Engia r, DRC Engineering, it is our understand that the City of La Quints has requested confirmation that the recommended renudia] grading is suitable far tlae proposed shop buildirigs to bE cuns"eted at the project site. Based on a review of Sheet STl, Ocneral Votes and Details, prepared by KTGY Structural Engineers, a maximum bearing capacity value of 3000 pounds per squaw foot has been used to design the }proposed building foundation. This value is consistent with the recommendations presented in the mki-crtced G,eatec!]nical Engineering Investigation report for the subject site. As a result, the recamrne'nded remedial gn$ding provided forthe subjects development is considered suitable. Wa appmoeiate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions regarding the reported test results or require additional information, pirase contact our officc at (951) 694-060I for assistance. R spectfully submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. "Tr- J es M, I Ugg, PE Project Engineer Distribution: (2) NOUN r� �pt=ESS! 0 w 5392 1—V 1I Offrcxa Serving The westeru United States 43379 Business Park Dr;ve, Suite 344 • Temmida, Cal 1fomia 92590 + (951) 694-0601 f F&K- (" 1) 694-0701 AKraZan & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~' GEGTFGHNICAL ENGINEERENG s ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION TESTING a INSPECTION September 23, NOS hit. Thomas Middleton Regency Centers Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE; Reparl Update Letter Proposed Shopping Cooter Jefferson Street anti Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, California Dear Mr. Middleton = KA Project No. 112-07036 In accordance with your request, we are prov{ding this Addendum to our Geotechnical Engineering investigation report (IAA Project No. 112-07C36) dated May 25, 2007 for the above -referenced project site, This addendum provides additional information to conform With seismic design requirements of the 2007 California Building Codc (2kD7 CBC), The site class, per Table 1613.5.2. 2007 CBC, is based upon the site soil conditions. It is our opinion that a Site Class D is approprialc for building design at this site. For seismic design of the structures, in accordance with the seismic provisions of the 2007 CBC. we recommend the following paramatcrs: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE Seismic Item Value C13C Reference She Class D Table 1613.5.2 Fa 1.00 Table 1613.5.1(1) Ss 1.51 Figure 1613.3 (3) S1+.+1S L.51 Section 1613.5.3 SDS I,00 Section 1613.5.4 Fv 1.50 Table 1613.5.3 (1) 51 0.60 Figure 1613.5 (4) SMI 0.90 Section 1613.3.3 SDI 0.60 Section 1613.5.4 The rccdmme dations and limitations providod in our Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report (KA Project No. 112-D7036) dated May 25, 2007 apply to this letter. With Offices Servill9The Western United States 4221 BrickelI S[re% ■ Ontario, California 91761 + i909j 974-440D o Fsx- {909} 974-4023 Rev[�ed 1e C6C36GT ]�uv.d ,: KA Pripjtct NO. [ 42=a7036 Pri��: Nu. ? 11' you have and. questions, or if Nve may bi� of further assistance. please do not hesitate to coiitact our vfrx < at (909) 974- 4 k 00. iRcq=tfuIIv submitted, KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC_ frE55�p�,�� oZON aPHER G� 7'F.at I}.1( LlQ�ft C u o L NeCH sly' Im k: 65092 i Projac � a 4 ko. 2_5b3 r tct r � � uv� 99R.30:201►N C.E.G. No. 25D ' EN����E� N� RCE No. � GEOLcootsT ' i ll+� I 0 c _ aPC ttrar91k & A SID6C2keS, Ine. With CIices &rving The Wcmrrn Uailr.l 5tatcs jr+,jdM to IMCNIM idEY do- re I"rXaZ;an& A S S 0 C ? A TES, INC GEOTE17HWCAL ENGrNEFRJNG ■ ENV1F0.N )z-N7At ENENEERNG CONSTROCNON rf51fN6 & fNSPECrtON SW mber25,2008 lie ,micy corners Mr. Tom Middkwn 36 Ex=utiYe Park, Suim 1411 In -inert CA 92614 PX! Response to City of La Quintu Request For information Je[I'enon Square Retail Center Proposed Shop Buildings Fred Waring & Jefferson La Qniala, CA KA No._ 1i6-03033 Reference: Geotechnie:aI IEagi:nm ing Iavet~tigafton, Proposed Jefferson Sgnare (Phase 1, Jeirerson Stmrf and Fred Worimg l)rive, La QLdrita, California. dated my 25. 2OD7. Mr- Middhslon_ In acc.ordancc with your request and aut11oH22TIOn, we have prepared this leper to respond to a request for utlarmavon by the Cky of La Quintet. Based ae rrifonnation prov-1dod by the projcat Civil En"aer, DRC Engineering, it is our undarsimitiing dig 1hr, Cite of L.a Quinta has requesWd amrirm ition that the recommended rmedinl gmdi!ttg is 5Irhhle for ilie proposed shop huIdir}rs to Lea com ructed at the proieel site. In addition, it is our undems=ding Thal Ilse cW, has roquested confu madon that the anticipate-d 103C #erns settlement ofthyc proposed structures w131 bet Vithin the anticipated 1010rable lirniu. Based nn et: review of Shed ST1. Generul Noics acid Dew i1%, pwpt3 d by KTCY Struchind Fngmeers, a enflyl um bearing eapnoiity value of 3{l O pounds per square fwt has been used to de.sip the prolooso-d buildiog foundation. This value is comistesnt with the recommendalions presronttd in the refernnwd Gcotcchnical Eagincedug InvMigmica report forthe subject site. As a result, the rccommcnded mmcdial tiding pt-ovidc-d for the subjects developmepL i-s considered suimblc. The long t-erni settlement of the proposed tilwp 10)dingN is anlicipatr;e! to IV'A'AlIM [III', limits prusoilud in Lbe` referenced Cievzechrical EnginccTing Irwe!Aigadon report as NA- ol1, We apprfCiate the opportunity [b assist ytSn On this grojecL if you have any qunsi-ions regmdiap !hr rcparte d test results or require: addition a] information, please contact nur afnce at (9511 694-06C 1 far assismace- Respectfully submitted, !i__.)EtAZAN & ASSO r � � KEt>~�t3 4ti .Wucs M. kellogg, Ch SLOP v WE soH Engineer '1 roJ'cer En 6 2 Project Iceln a No, �§!13 i-4 � {senras �@,�,�i, � li CIE 65092 CRG 2503 • CIE~RTiF3i b er E HGI HEM NO }k - t.IVIi AI s I&T (3)DRCUnRl � �P / iMK!dmw Offices Serving The Western United States 43 3,79 DmiarS5 Puk Dnve. Suhr-300 * T6:mm n- CnIIFornifL 9V . (951) 6q4-n6v1 • Pm:� MI) 694-0701 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix D Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Archaeological Monitoring Report APR 15 2009 CITY OF LA ()t)I fTA ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT JEFFERSON SQUARE PROJECT Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California For Submittal to: Planning Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared for: Tom Middleton Regency Realty Group, Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite too Irvine, CA 92614 Prepared by: CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite AJS Colton, CA 92324 Sai "Torn" Tang, Principal Investigator Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator April 8,. 2009 CRM TECH Contract No. 2263 NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE INFORIVMATION Author{s�: Josh Smallwood, Archaeologist/keport Writer Consulting Firm: CRM TECH 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B Colton, CA 92324 (909) 824-6 ]ate: April S, 2009 Title: ATchaeologic+al Monibining Report: Jefferson Square Project, Jefferson Street and Fred Warin Drive, City of La Quints, Riverside County, California For Submittal to: Planning Department City of La Quinta 78-495 Cane Tampico Ira QUinta, CA 9225 (7 ) 777-7123 Prep aired for: Torn Middleton Regency Realty croup, Inc. 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 (951) 695-3671 US SQuadrangle: La Quints, Calif., 7.5' quadrangle (Section 20, T55 R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian) Froject Size: Approximately 11 acres Keywords: Cilaeological of La Quints, County of Riverside; Coachella, Valley region! morutor'ir of grading activities; Assessor's Parcel No. 604-521-005; Site 33-001769/CA-RIY 1769 (prehistoric habitation debris); possible human cremation remains; no substantial adverse effect on a "histcuical resource" MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Since August 2008, at the request of Regency Realty Group, Inc., CRM TECH has completed an archaeological monitoring program during earth -moving operations for the Jefferson Square project, a commercial development in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The project area, Assessor's. Parcel No. 604-521-005, is located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, in the northeast quarter of Section 20, T5S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian. It encompasses a portion of Site 33-001769, a prehistoric archaeological site that was first recorded in the 1970s and subsequently studied through a"series of Phase I and Phase 11 investigations. The monitoring program was required by the City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency for the project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The purpose of the monitoring program is to assist the City and Regency Realty Group, Inc., in identifying, evaluating and, if necessary, protecting any subsurface archaeological resources encountered during grading, trenching, and other earth -moving operations, as mandated by CEQA and the City ordinance. In order to accomplish these objectives, CRM TECH conducted a field inspection of the site area prior to earth -moving activities, provided on -site monitoring throughout the grading and excavation process, and completed salvage excavations where prehistoric archaeological remains were encountered. The monitoring program resulted in the discovery of a possible human cremation and an isolated pottery sherd, which were encountered at different locations within the project area. The sherd was found near the eastern boundary of the project area, well outside of the boundaries of any previously recorded sites in the vicinity. The cremation remains were found within the recorded boundaries of Site 33-001769. While Site 33-001769 may have once contained an abundance of prehistoric archaeological remains, the portion of the site that is present within the project area has yielded very little information that would be considered important to the study of the prehistory of the area. With its complete removal, the portion of Site 33-001769 in the project area has no further archaeological data potential. Therefore, the portion of Site 33-001769 in the project area, in general, does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and does not qualify as a "historical resource," as defined by CEQA. However, the possible human cremation remains found at the site are of great cultural importance to the local Native American community and do- appear to qualify as a historical resource" under CEQA guidelines. With the repatriation and reinterment of the remains during this study, however, the project has not caused a substantial adverse change in the traditional cultural value of the cremation remains. Therefore, the cremation remains, as well as the portion of Site 33-001769 located within the project boundaries, require no further treatment under CEQA or the City ordinance. The isolated pottery sherd, found with no other cultural materials and with no potential to yield important scientific information, is not considered a potential "historical resource," and requires no further consideration. In light of the results and findings of the monitoring program, CRM TECH ,presents the following recommendations to the City of La Quinta: • The earth -moving operations monitored during this study have not had a substantial adverse effect on any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA. • The project was carried out in compliance with CEQA provisions on cultural resources and with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, and no further archaeological investigations will be necessary within the project area. TABLE OF CON71ENTS MANAGEMENT LIST OF FIGURES Figum I. --- ^^^.-,,.,,~~^^^.^~~.,~^,.^.^^^.----,. � �L .~^~~. --``'~`'~~~~~^^^^^^^' - --- ------' ,~~.~..~~.~,.-'^.^.^^^'-.'.,~^^^^~~.,.,..~--'^^^-_',~.^.^.. 2 ��g`�na3L of the area and ~~~-`^~~~^ ii INTRODUCTLON Since August 2008, at the request of Regency Realty Group, Inc., CRM TECH has completed an archaeological XnOr itoring program d earth -moving operations for the Jefferson c�uare project, a ca=ercial de�velopmentMi City of La Quints Riverside County, California (Fig. 1). The project area, Assessor's .parcel No. 604-521.005 is loco on the 80uthwest-corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, in the northeast quarter of Section 20, TS.S R7E, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Figs, Z A It encompasses a portion Of Site 3-001769, a prehistoric archaeological site that was first recorded in the 1976s and subsequently studied through a series Of Phase I and Phase 11 investigations, The rnonitozing program was required by the City of La Quinta, as Lead Agency for the pralect, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( QA; PRC 521000, et seq.) and the Citys Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quints Municipal Code). The purpose of the monitoring program is to assist the City and Regency Realty Group, Inc., in identifying, evaluating and, if necessary, protecting any subsurface archaeological resources encountered during gradin& trLmcMng, and other earth_MD'V ing operations, as mandated by CEQA and the dty ordinance. In order to accomplish these objec ves, CIW TECH=I conducted afield insppection of the site area prior to earth -moving activities, provided on -site rnaWLorlri throughout. the grading and excavation process, and completed salvage excavations where prehistoric ar'chaeologicaliemains cr+e encountered. The following report is a. complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of this stady. Figure 1. Pro]ectvidnity. (Based on USC S Santa Ana, Calif., 1:2 U00 quadrangle) a Op JJ Burr -Ulm Uwv-5 JTi� 1 t 14 VGd +'k rz Y �"' •{+ \ �dawTRe CLUB � i I �•�. *-, T.3 :uet '�3-�r.xv Sipllor!' X16 I- } -w�*vrtk-: � JO !'�+ , rYi •• .Y - r.. Y`l •fir % r ��+.+yrroje�+1 �� •i u 1 1 iJ�.�{ L ♦ r}_a 1 ` r � xya+ }ry /q '+ �� ■ Y. S WR i• `` l area 4`'j �•'ti i F O 'I 4 ,, k* ¢ 4 r h�y •* � � r�1� �''~J it ®1`■� *•+'.` r1x Trailer P.Tr i 6 I N 1 a r R ■ „4F '124 j•� .'ate" L,�yr �., ,• F N r4 -- — SCALE 1.24,OQ0 0 1l� 1 milt �s = g i pp loco .. loco 0 low 2000 3000 4000 feetrM r- -' n+" •. L ri F+ , b Figure 2. rrojeCt area. (Based on USGS La Quinka, Calif.,1.24,000 quadJrIitJgle) 2 figure 3. Aerial image of the pzvject area and vicinity. (Based on Riverside County GLS) PROJECT BACKGROLND. s stated above, a portion of a prehistoric—i.e, Native American —archaeological site, 3X 001769 (CA-PJV-1769), was previously recorded as lying partially within the current project area. The site was first identified in 1971, evaluated in 1979f and determined at that time to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of a -stork Places (Brown 1979:7, 40). However, archaeological studies since that time have been urnable to relocate much of the cultural materials and feaEums that were initially reported on the property, and thus could not substantiate its eligibility for the National Register on the basis of what little data had been obtained from the. site (Apple 198014;.Br3ck and Smith 2000). Subsequent development within the established site boundaries has occued to the north of Fred Waring -Drive and to the west of the current project area, possibly removing or burying archaeological remains associated with -Ml76 , and itis mpoxtaci d-Lat local relic -hi znters or concerned individuals may have removed artifacts from the site as well (Apple 1980:11-13, Desautels 1982). None of these, however, has been properly documented (ibid). 3 The most recent archaeological study involving the subject property was conducted by the Archaeological Advisory Group (AAG) in 2000, which encompassed a total of roughly 75 acres, including the entire project area and adjoining land on the west and the south (Brock and Smith 2000). That study concentrated on identifying subsurface deposits at or near the recorded location of Site 33-001769 and other sites present within AAG's study area. Extensive test excavations were carried out by trenching with a backhoe in an effort to identify deeply buried archaeological remains and to investigate areas that appeared to have the potential for buried remains, such as mesquite -covered dunes (ibid.:1). AAG's testing program identified a scant amount of cultural materials, suggesting that no potentially significant cultural deposits were present in buries deposits on the subject property. Given the highly sensitive nature of the project area and the probability of encountering cultural materials during future earth -moving activities, however, AAG recommended that archaeological monitoring be conducted during any grading or trenching associated with proposed construction (Brock and Smith 2000:1). The recommendation was adopted by the City of La Quinta, and the present study was undertaken as a result. CULTURAL SETTING PREHISTORY In the history of the Americas, the term "prehistoric period" refers to the time prior to the arrival of non -Indians, when native lifeways and traditions remained intact and viable. In the vicinity of present-day La Quinta, foreign influences began to bring about profound changes to native lifeways around the late 1700s, which ushered in the "historic period." The prehistoric period in the Coachella Valley is generally divided into the Late Prehistoric and the Archaic Periods. The transition between these two. periods is generally considered to be around AD 1000, marked by the introduction of pottery into the region from the Colorado River cultures. For this reason, the Archaic Period is sometimes also referred to as the "pre -ceramic" period. Other important cultural changes in prehistoric times include the introduction of the bow and arrow, probably around AD 500, and the change from burial practices to cremations, perhaps around 500 BC. Students of historical linguistics propose a migration of Takic speakers sometime between 1000 BC and AD 500 from the Great Basin region of Nevada, Utah, and eastern California into southern California. - For purposes of this study, the introduction of pottery is used as the margin separating the Archaic Period from Late Prehistoric, although it would also be acceptable to use the other significant events in prehistory. As further archaeological work progresses, in part under the mandate of federal, state, and local historic preservation regulations, the important nodes marking cultural change over past centuries and millennia will become more clearly defined. ETHNOHISTORY The Coachella Valley is a historical center of Native American settlement, where U.S. surveyors noted large numbers of Indian villages and rancherias, occupied by the Cahuilla people, in the mid-19th century. The Cahuilla, a Taki.c-speaking people of hunters and gatherers, are generally divided by anthropologists into three groups, according to their geographic setting: the Pass Cahuilla of the San Gorgonio Pass -Palm Springs area, the Mountain Cahuilla of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and the Cahuilla Valley, and the Desert Cahuilla of the eastern Coachella Valley. The Cahuilla did not have a single name that referred to an all-inclusive tribal affiliation. Instead, membership was in terms of lineages or clans. Each lineage or clan belonged to one of two main divisions of the people, known as moieties. Members of clans in one moiety had to marry into clans from the other moiety. Individual clans had villages, or central places, and territories they called their own, for purposes of hunting game, gathering food, or utilizing other necessary resources. They interacted with other clans through trade, intermarriage, and ceremonies. Population data prior to European contact are almost impossible to obtain, but estimates range from 3,600 to as high as 10,000 persons. During the 19th century, however, the Cahuilla population was decimated as a result of European diseases, most notably smallpox, for which the Native peoples had no immunity. Today, Native Americans of Pass or Desert Cahuilla heritage are mostly affiliated with one or more of the Indian reservations in and near the Coachella Valley, including Torres Martinez, Augustine, Cabazon, Agua Caliente, and Morongo. HISTORY In 1823-1825, Jose Romero, Jose Maria Estudillo, and Romualdo Pacheco, leading a series of expeditions in search of a route to Yuma, became the first noted European explorers to travel through the Coachella Valley. However, due to its harsh environment, few non - Indians ventured into the desert valley during the Mexican and early American periods, except those who traveled across it along the established trails. The most important among these trails was the Cocomaricopa Trail, an ancient Indian trading route that was "discovered" in 1862 by William David Bradshaw and became known thereafter as the Bradshaw Trail. In much of the Coachella Valley, this historic wagon road traversed a similar course to that of present-day Highway 111. During the 1860s-1870s, the Bradshaw Trail served as the main thoroughfare between coastal southern California and the Colorado River, until the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad in 1876-1877 brought an end to its heyday. Non -Indian settlement in the Coachella Valley began in the 1870s, with the establishment of railroad stations along the Southern Pacific Railroad, and spread further in the 1880s, after public land was opened for claims under the Homestead Act, the Desert Land Act, and other federal land laws. Farming became the dominant economic activity in the valley, thanks to the development of underground water sources, often in the form of artesian wells. However, it was not until the completion of the Coachella Canal in 1948-1949 that farmers in the and region obtained an adequate and reliable water supply. The main agricultural staple in the Coachella Valley, the date palm, was first introduced around the turn of the century. By the late 1910s, the date palm industry had firmly established itself, giving the region its celebrated image of "the Arabia of America." 61 Starting in the 1920s, a new industry, featuring equestrian camps, resort hotels, and eventually country clubs, gradually spread throughout the Coachella Valley, and since then transformed it into southern California's leading winter retreat. In today's City of La Quinta, the earliest settlement and land development activities did not occur until the turn of the century. In 1926, with the construction of the La Quinta Hotel, the development of La Quinta took on the character of a winter resort, typical of the desert communities along Highway 111. Beginning in the early 1930s, the subdivision of the cove area of La Quinta and the marketing of "weekend homes" further emphasized this new direction of development. On May 1, 1982, La Quinta was incorporated as the 19th city in Riverside County. METHODS AND PROCEDURES ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK A preliminary field inspection of the project area was performed prior to the commencement of grading activities. The original site maps on file at the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside, were used to pinpoint the location of Site 33-001769. A reconnaissance -level re -survey was then carried out in and around the site area. On -site monitoring of earth -moving operations was carried out between August and December, 2008, by CRM TECH field director Daniel Ballester and field technician Andrea Stella (see App. 1 for qualifications). The basic field monitoring procedure entailed close observation of grading and trenching activities while inspecting the ground surface as soils were removed and fresh layers were exposed. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS The only artifact collected and removed from the project area during the archaeological field procedures, an isolated pottery sherd found at a depth of approximately six feet below the surface, was transported to the CRM TECH laboratory for detailed analysis. It was examined by archaeologist Josh Smallwood (see App. 1 for qualifications) to determine clay type—e.g., brownware vs. buffware—and, if possible, functional classification—e.g., water jar, storage vessel, cooking pot, or bowl. RESULTS AND FINDINGS ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELDWORK During on -site monitoring of earth -moving operations, a possible cremation and an isolated pottery sherd were encountered at different locations within the project boundaries. The sherd was found near the eastern boundary of the project area, well outside the boundaries of any previously recorded sites in the vicinity. The cremation remains were found within the recorded boundaries of Site 33-001769. After their locations 0 were plotted onto project maps, the cremation remains and the sherd were collected, bagged, and labeled with the appropriate information. The cremation remains were reintered at a nearby location, as discussed below, while the pottery sherd was collected for analysis. Following the completion of all field procedures, the resulting location map and a description of the finds was compiled into a standard site record update form and submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside, for inclusion in the California Historical Resources Inventory. Subsurface Excavation On August 29, 2008, while scrapers were excavating a retention basin in the northwestern portion of the project area, Andrea Stella encountered an oval -shaped burned spot on the ground at the depth of one meter below the original ground surface. She commenced an archaeological excavation to investigate the feature as a possible cremation under the supervision of field director Daniel Ballester. On September 2, 2008, the excavation confirmed the presence of possible human bone, and the Riverside County Sheriff - Coroner's Office was contacted immediately, as required by standard procedures. Deputy Coroner Deborah Gray visited the site on that same day and identified the remains as non - diagnostic femur or tibia fragments of human size (Case #2008-063-351). She then contacted the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento regarding the find. Reinterment of Cremation Remains On September 10, 2008, Tribal Elder Joe Benitez of the nearby Cabazon Band of Mission Indians visited the site to help formulate the proper treatment of the possible human cremation remains. He requested reinterment of the remains on site at a depth below any future project -related disturbance. Mr. Benitez performed a small ceremony for the remains prior to the interment. Using an excavator, the cremation was reburied in the southwest corner of the project area at a depth of approximately eight feet below the surface, in an area designated for landscaping. The location was plotted onto project maps for inclusion in the site record update form. ARTIFACT ANALYSIS Ceramic analysis revealed that the isolated pottery sherd is of the buffware variety, pinkish in color, with very fine paste, and very fine-grain temper with almost no sand. It is a slightly curved rim sherd that appears to be from a bowl nearly six inches (approx. 15 cm) in diameter, with a recurved rim and rounded, overlapping lip. The lip was constructed using a pinch method. The sherd exhibits striations from shaping and finishing, and is smooth on the exterior but somewhat bumpy and crude on the interior, suggesting it was purely functional and not necessarily decorative. Based on its morphology and descriptions of pottery vessels in ethnographic literature, the sherd may be from a cooking or food serving bowl (Campbell 1999:120-121). The cultural material found during this study, including both the cremation remains and the isolated pottery sherd, was recovered from dune -sand deposits lying above the lakebed clay sediments of ancient Lake Cahuilla, and thus likely post-date the last high stand of the lake (ca. AD 1680). VA SUMMARY The possible human cremation was found within the recorded boundaries of Site 33- 001769, at a depth of one meter below the original ground surface. The isolated pottery sherd was found near the eastern boundary of the project area, well outside the established boundaries of any previously recorded sites in the vicinity. The sherd and the cremation have added no new information to existing knowledge of Site 33-001769 or of prehistoric lifeways in this part of the Coachella Valley. However, the possible human cremation remains are undoubtedly of great cultural importance to the local Native American community. The remains were properly treated and repatriated to the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. Reinterment of the remains at a new location insures that they will be kept safe and undisturbed during any future construction activities associated with the project. DISCUSSION Based on the results of the monitoring program discussed above, the following sections present CRM TECH's conclusion oil. whether any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA, were impacted by the monitored earth -moving operations. DEFINITION According to PRC §5020.1(j), "'historical resource' includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California." More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term "historical resources" applies to any such resources listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the Lead Agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). Regarding the proper criteria of historical significance, CEQA guidelines mandate that "a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources" (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(3)). A resource may be listed in the California Register if it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC §5024.1(c)) A local register of historical resources, as defined by PRC §5020.1(k), "means a list of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution." For properties within the City of La Quinta, the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance (Title 7, La Quinta Municipal Code) provides for the establishment of a historic resources inventory as the official local register. A property may be considered for inclusion in the historic resources inventory based on one or more of the following: A. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the city's cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history; or B. It is identified with persons or events significant in local, state or national history; or C. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of • construction, is a valuable example of the use of the indigenous materials or craftsmanship or is representative of a notable work of an acclaimed builder, designer or architect; or D. It is an archaeological, paleontological, botanical, geological; topographical, ecological or geographical site which has the potential of yielding information of scientific value; or E. It is a geographically definable area possessing concentration of sites, buildings, structures, improvements or objects linked historically through location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and/or association, in which the collective value of the improvements may be greater than the value of each individual improvement. (LQMC §7.06.020) Pursuant to these statutory and regulatory guidelines, the isolated pottery sherd and the cremation remains encountered during this study are evaluated under both the criteria. for the California Register and those for the City of La Quinta's historic resources inventory. The results of the evaluation are discussed below. EVALUATION Cremation Remains As discussed above, the possible human cremation was found within the boundaries of Site 33-001769, which was previously determined to be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (Brown 1979:7, 40). However, subsequent studies have been unable to substantiate the determination of eligibility on what little data had been obtained from the site (Apple 1980:14; Brock and Smith 2000), and a recent study suggests that no potentially significant buried cultural deposits were present within the current project area (Brock and Smith 2000). While Site 33-001769 may have once contained an abundance of prehistoric archaeological remains, the portion of the site that is present within the project area today has yielded very little information that would be considered important to the study of the prehistory of the area. With its complete removal, the portion. of Site 33-001769 in the project area has no further archaeological data potential. Therefore, the portion of Site 33-001769 in the project area, in general, does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; and does not qualify as a "historical resource," as defined above. However, the possible human cremation remains found at the site are -of great cultural importance to the local Native American community, as demonstrated by the participation I by the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians in the treatment of the remains during this study. Based on its traditional cultural value, the cremation feature found during this study, individually, qualifies as a "historical resource" under CEQA guidelines. Isolated Pottery Sherd As mentioned above, the isolated pottery sherd was discovered outside the boundaries of any previously recorded sites in the vicinity. It was found with no other associated cultural materials and within soils attributed to the last high stand of Lake Cahuilla and more recent dune formations. Occurring out of depositional context, an isolate by definition does not constitute an archaeological site, and is thus not considered a potential "historical resource," as defined by CEQA. PROJECT EFFECT ASSESSMENT Since the possible human cremation feature found within the boundaries of Site 33-001769 meets the statutory and regulatory definition of a "historical resource," CEQA mandates that. any "demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration" that would impair its significance or integrity be considered a "significant effect on the environment" (PRC §5020.1(q); §21084.1). During this study, the cremation remains were removed from their original location. However, the remains were repatriated to the appropriate Native American group, namely the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, and subsequently reinterred at a location that will be safe from future disturbances. Since the traditional cultural value of the cremation remains has thus been preserved, CRM TECH concludes that the project has had no substantial adverse effect on this "historical resource." CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS In conclusion, the earth -moving operations monitored during this study encountered a possible human cremation within the established boundaries of Site 33-001769. While the portion of the site within the project area, in general, does not constitute a "historical resource," the cremation feature does, individually, because of its traditional cultural value to the local Native American community. The current project, however, did not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the cremation remains. An isolate that was also discovered during this study, by definition, does not require formal evaluation as a potential "historical resource," and requires no further consideration. In light of the results and findings of the monitoring program, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of La Quinta: The earth -moving operations monitored during this study have not had a substantial adverse effect on any "historical resources," as defined by CEQA. The project was carried out in compliance with CEQA provisions on cultural resources and with the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, and no further archaeological investigations will be necessary within the project area. 10 REFERENCES Apple, Steven A. 1980 An Archaeological Assessment of the Bermuda Dunes Property, Tract 13986, Indio, Riverside County, California. Can file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Brock, James, and Brenda D. smith 2000 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological assessments for the Proposed Monticello Project, 'West Side of Jefferson Street bchveen Fred Waring Drive and Miles. Avenue, La Quin ta, California. On file, Eastern Inforria a tion Center, University of California, Riverside. Brown, M.A. 1979 Cultural Resource Assessment fn-f t17e Desert Palace Project, Tentative Tract 1.3986, near (n io, Riverside County, California, On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Campbell, Paul D. 1999 Sui-vival Shiis of Dative CaliFbrnia. Gibbs Smith Publisher, Salt Lake City. Desautels, ? 182 California HisLori cal Resources Inventory site record update, 33-001769/ CA-RIV- 1769. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, -Riverside. 11 APPENDIX 1 P SONNEL QUALIFJCATIONS 12 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA* Education 1991 PED., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anduopology, Llhiversity of California, riverside; with honors. 1980-1961 Education, Abroad. Program, Lima, Perri_ 2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level. UCLA Extension Course #888. 2002 "Recognizing Historic Artifacts," workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist. 2002 "Wending Your Way through the RegOatory Maze," .symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals. 1992 "Southern California Ceramics Workshop," presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 "Historic Artifact Workshop," presented by Anne Duffield -Stoll. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM'1"LCI-I, Riverside I Colton, California. 1999-20€72 Project Arclhae(-)Iugi,stf Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside, 1.993-1.994 Adjunct professor, Riverside CommiLmity College, Mt. San Jacinto College, LT.C. Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardi no galley College. 199-I.-.1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U, C. riverside. 1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern California cultural resources management firms. Research Interests Cultural Resource Management, Sou the i Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native Anicrican Culture, Cultural Diversitv. Cultural Resources Manageinent Reports AL(thor and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous culturaI resources management study reports since 1.986. Memberships * Register of Professionz-d !Archaeologists. Society for American Archaeology. Society for California Archaeology, Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. .I 3 PRINCIPAL ZN'4 ESTIOATOR/1-USTORIAN Bai "Tom" Tang, M.A. Education 1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside_ 1.87 Iv1.A., American History:, pale University, New Havcn, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, NL)Ah extern University, i'an� China. 2000 "Introduction to Section 1.06 Keviciv," presented by the Ad�dsory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Rene, 1994 "Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,' presented by the Historic Preservation Program, Urdversity of Nevada, Reno. Professional Experience 2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colturn, California. 1993-2002 Project Hi s torian I Architectural Hi.5toriar� CRM TECH, Riverside, California, 1993-1997 Fraject Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, Califoriva. 1991-1993 Project I Iistorian, Archaeological Research Uiut, LTC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, 1990-1992 Teaching AssisLmt, History of Modern World, LTC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social T-T.istory, UC Riverside. 198 -1,988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University, 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, iMadern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Van Foreign Languages Institute, Xi'an, China, IIonors and Awards 1988-1990 University of California Graduate Fellowship, UC Riverside. 1.985-1987 Yale University Fellowship, Yale University Graduate School. 1980, 1 81 President's Iionor List, Northwestern University, Van, China. Cultural Resources Management Deports Preliminary Analyses and recommendations Regarding California's Cultural Resources Inventor System (With Special Reference to Condition 14 of IMPS 1990 Program Review Report). Cali fomia State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, Scptembe-r 1990. Nurnerou.s culluraI resources management reports with the Archaeological research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. Membership California Preservation Foundation. 14 HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGIST/DEPORT WRITER gosh SmaIlwood, M.A. Education 2008 M.A., Historic Preservation, Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah, Georgia. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, HumboldtState University, Arcata, California. 1997 Archaeological Field School, Fort Ross State Historic Park, Fort Ross, California. Archaeological Field School, Coastal 'Pest and Mitigation Projects, Arcata, California. 1996 Archaeological Field School, Mad River Watershed Surveys, Blue Lake, California. 1994 A.A., Anthropology, Palomar College, San Nfarcos, California. 1993 Archaeological Field School, San Pasclual Battlefield, San Pasclual, California. Archaeological Field School, Las Flores Asist�-ncia, Camp Pendleton, CA. 1992 Archaeological Field School, Pal Dinar College Campus Late Prehistoric Sites, San Marcos, California. 2002 "Historical Archaeology Workshop," presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base. 2001 "OSHA Safety Training for Construction Monitors," presented by OSHA and City of San Diego. 2000 "HAES / HAER Recordi nI; Methods for Historic Structures, " presented by Robert Case, Historic Archaeologist, Mooney & Associates, San Diego. 1998 "Unexploded 0-rdinance Training," presented by EOD officers, Fort Irwin National 'Training Center, Barstow. 1997 "Obsidian Sourcing through Charactei!:,,ation," presented by `Thomas Origer, Sonoma State University_ 1994- Extensive study of lithic resource procurement stratel;ies, reduction technology, tool manufacture, and reproduction. Professional Experience 2002- Project Archaeologist/Deport Wiiter, CR TECI I, Riverside/ Colton, California. Writer/ co-author of cultural resource reportb for Section 06 and CEQA compliance. • FieId director in archaeological fieldwork, historic -period building surveys and recordation, historic -period arti fact and lithic analysis. I EstoricaI research using published literature, historic maps, oral interviews, archival records of public agendes, inteniet sources, and consultation with local historical societies. 1997-2002 Arch aeologiA for several cultural resource managemcnt/ environmental consultants, Department of Defense subcontractors, and Ilumboldt State University. Cultural Resources Management Rep oAs Co-author of and contributor to ,numerous cultural resources studies since 1997. 15 PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGISTIFIELD DIRECTOR Daniel Ballester, B.A. Education 199S B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, Uriiversity of Las Vogas and University of California, Riverside, 1994 University of Puerto Rica, Rio Hedras, Puerto Rico. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State Unive"ity, San Bernardino. 2002 "Historic Archaeology Workshop," presented by Richard Norwood, Rase Archaeologist, Edwards lair Force Ease; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California, Professional Experience 2002- field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. • Report writing, site record preparation, and supervisory responsibilities over all aspects of fieldwork and .field crew. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, Cn4 TECH, Riverside, California. Survey, testing, data recovery, monitoring, and snapping. 1998-1999 field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, Califomia. Two and a haIf months of excavations on Topornai village site, Marine Corp Air Station, Camp Pendleton. 1998 Field Crew, A,S.M. Affiliates, Encirtas, California. * Two weeks of excavations on a site on Red Beach, Camp Pendleton, and two weeks of survey in Camp Pendleton, Otay Mesa, and Encinitas. 1998 field Crew, Archaeological Pesearch Uiut, University of California, Riverside. • Two weeks of survey in Anna Borrego Desert State Park and. Eurcka Valley, Death Valley National Park. PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST Andrea Stella, B.S. Education 2003 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, Professional Experience 2002- Project Archaeologist, CRNI TECI1, Riverside/Colton, California. 16 AP ENDA 2 Sin RiEcoRD UPDATE, 33-001769 17 State of CaSiornla-The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND REOReATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary #. HRl # 33-001769 Trinomial CA-RIV--1769 Page 1 of 3 Resource name or # (Assigned by reco Recorded by_ Daniel Ballester Date seDtember 28 f 2008 _... Continuation )l .Update Affiliation, CRM TECHt._ Colt;on,_CA 92.324 _ PrajeCINO, CRM TECH 2263 Between August 2000 and April 2009, CRM TECH performed an archaeological monitoring program during earth -moving operations for a commercial development project ]mown as Jefferson Square. The project area encompassed a portion of Site 33-001769, a prehistoric archaeological site that was first recorded in the 1970s and subsequently studied through a series of Phase I and Phase II investigations (Brown 1979; Apple 1980; Desautels 1902; Brock and Smith 2000). The monitoring program resulted in the discovery of a possible human cremation within the established boundaries of Site 33-001769, along with an isolated pottery sherd to the east of the site, well outside the boundaries of any previously recorded sites in the vicinity. while Site 33-001769 may have once contained an abundance of prehistoric archaeological remains, the portion of the site that is present within the project area has yielded very little information that would be considered important to the study of the prehistory of the area. With its complete removal, the portion of Site 33-001769 in the project area has no further archaeological data potential. Thexefore, the portion of Site 33-001769 in the project area, in general, does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places = the California Register of Historical Resources (Smallwood 2009:9). in contrast, the possible human cremation remains found at the site are cf great cultural importance to the local Native American community and do appear to qualify as a "historical resource" under CE¢A guidelines. With the repatriation and reinterpment of the remains daring this study, however, the project has not caused a substantial adverse change in the traditional cultural value of the cremation remains. Therefore, the cremation remains, as well as the portion of site 33- 001769 located within the project boundaries, require no further treatment {smallwood 2009.9-10j. The isolated pot-hery sherd, found with no other cultural materials and with no potential to yield important scientific information, does not qualify as an archaeological site, and requires no further consideration References: Apple, Steven A. IMD An Archaeological Assessment of the Bermuda Dunes Property, Tract 13986, Indio, Riverside County, California. on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Brock, James, and Brenda D. Smith 2000 Phase I and Phase II Archaeological Assessments for the proposed Monticello Project, West Side of Jefferson Street Between Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue, La Quinta, California. on file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. Brown, M.A. 1979 Cultural. Resource Assessment for the Desert Palace Project, Tentative Tract 13986, near Indio, Riverside County, California. on file, Ea,starn Information Center, University of California, Riverside. DPR523L(1i95) • "Required Information S M*ofCallfamia—The Resouroee Agemy Primary& 33-001760 — DEPAMWENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Y`"nomIMI Page. 2 of 3 Roaaurve narno or# (Assigned by won"e Rofarenaes (continued): Desautals. ? 19B2 California Historical Resources Inventory site record update, 33-001769/ CA-RIV-1769. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of Californim, Riverside. Smallwood, Josh 2 D D 9 Archaeological Monitoring Report: Ja2feera on Square Project, 41effereon Street and bred Waring Drive, City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. Can file, Eastern Information Center, university of California, Riverside. DP 523L (IM) 4RegL11M l into rmalIon 5tatevfCalftmlm-The Resourcas Agency Plamry# 33-001769 DEPAA'TMENT OF PARK$,AND RECREATION MRIP� ^! LOCATION TIP Trinomial CALItrV-1769 Page 3 of 3 "Rasoumo name or$1RsMa eo ray recoruer) *Map Name:, La Quinta, eelif ;Scale: 1:24,000 *Mte of Map;. _198D eerrnurla Dunn � F `- r tj �rjeqRv, Y . s r r t�' a..l ,-�. . TF...,',•FJs. ♦'-P'La�l .a...-,��.aw..wl. _,.� rt'1_r„ Sd`� - �I �'• �+•.,I,."" 7 �E! .`e'a"Fw!`•,�Ri• — �M1A e�y _ /� �' . f � !� .�JI � .. 'a.... 1r= ,�k..._ ■ fly �J'rI. y,� *�'i+�= ' �- s tea �i■Ph�i�l Alb 10 �■� i • � l 9```��{nnn�Ill ,lL 2 5 ' T � � y k ■ + 4 i Studer area :*■... :: .51 �Crematiao rec❑vered l''-..�,. Avz Isdats pottery sherd any Cramabw re -interred Tro-■ier I e, 1TRfr xr. An .. v.- ._ ,. 1 � ' '...... n r 4 y� . _ err: a' w.■�Iwa+��au� --�=h= 4 .$�dP%q.�_�:: .:=' �w�;� � • Yam°' A.. �4�r y4t�- `1 �G,'/r�/1 P err= = ��-�u� 'i. � ..' .: .y,. -'+1A ,� I r ;'ar ' ■� • .� � { {' I� `lam`} 3 1 ■ . SCALE 1,24,000LU e ion 1 mile I ` 3.. Iwo 0 1= WW 0000 4MUOt •' yam' `- �1■� �. f" r 4 .al DPR 3231- (1M) *Required Information Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix E Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Preliminary Hydrological Report and Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan -100- PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT FOR CCD Hotel & Resorts - La Quinta LOCATED AT SWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, CA Prepared for CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 (760) 610-1196, Mr. Caleb Ro Prepared BY., DRC ENGINEERING, INC. 6840 Indiana Ave, Suite 215 Riverside, CA 92506 (714) 685-6860, Ronald Sklepko, P.E. eR pFESS� C m DRC Project No. 18-619 C No. C46216� 70 * Exp. 12-31-2018 February 28, 2018 9TF°F CA��F°� IL5 3-21-18 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta SECTION I Introduction This preliminary hydrology report has been prepared for the addition / renovation to the existing 10.5-acre Jefferson Square retail center located west of Jefferson Street and south of Fred Waring Drive in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside. The project location is shown on the attached Vicinity Map. SECTION II Methodology For both the existing and proposed conditions, the peak storm discharge for the drainage areas were calculated using the Riverside County Hydrology Manual. The Rational Method Equation (1978 April), using AES Software (Ratscx), was used to calculate the 10-year and 100-year storm events. The rational method analysis was completed to preliminarily size the on -site storm drain system to convey the 100-year storm event runoff. The site is situated within hydrologic soils type "A" as identified in the Hydrology Manual. The Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Short -Cut Method was used to determine the required storage volume of the fully -developed site for the 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour and 24-hour duration events for the 100-year return frequency in the original hydrology report. Retention basins are design for the 100-year storm event as required by the City and are capable of percolating the entire 100-year storm retention volume in less than 72 hours. SECTION III Project Discussion The project site will disturb approximately 3.5 acres of the existing 10.5 acres Jefferson Square retail center. The proposed addition / renovation consists of the construction of a new 168-room hotel with retail shops at the east side and a remodel of the former Fresh & Easy store and 'Shops 2' building to a food market. Construction activities include of construction of new buildings, parking lot pavement, ribbon gutter, driveways, walkways, landscaping planters and related utilities. Existing Conditions: The site is currently in use as a retail center with a CVS/Pharmacy store and various other smaller shops. A vacant building that was the former Fresh and Easy store is also located on the site. The remainder of the site is improved with parking lots and three graded commercial pads. The Esplanade community is located to the north. To the south of the site is the Monticello community and Monticello Park is located directly to the west. East of the site is a shopping center, which is within the City of Indio. In reference to the previous approved Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Study prepared for the Jefferson Square retail center dated August 29, 2008 by Development Resource Consultants, Inc., the site can be broken down into three distinct drainage watersheds, each with individual subareas. Watershed "A" 18-619 Hydrology Report RWS .doc 3 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta collects runoff from the front parking lot, two out -parcel buildings and Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. The runoff will be picked up by drain inlets and the existing catch basins in the streets. Storm drain pipes will then discharge into an existing underground retention and infiltration basin (Basin "A") located south of Pad A and west of Jefferson Street. Watershed "B" collects the runoff from the major building roofs and the rear drive aisle along the west edge. The runoff will be picked up by surface flowlines and drain inlets that will discharge into an existing open retention basin (Basin "B") located on the west edge of the property behind the former Fresh & Easy store. Watershed "C" collects runoff from approx. 1.9 acres along the south boundary of the Site and approx. 0.5 acres of street runoff. The runoff will be picked up by surface flowline and pipe inlet to an existing open retention basin (Basin "C") located at the southeast corner of the site. Watershed Area Q10 Q100 Retention Basin Retention Basin (AC.) (CFS) (CFS) Volume Volume Required CF Provided CF A 6.8 19.9 34.2 Existing Retention Basin to remain B 3.7 12.2 21.0 27,010 28,031 C 2.5 7.8 13.2 Existing Retention Basin to remain Total: 13.0 39.9 68.4 - - The above table summarizes the data and results for the 10-year and 100-year storm events based on the previous approved hydrology study for the Jefferson Square retail center. Selected pages of previously approved Final Hydrology and Hydraulic Report can be found in Appendix B of this report. Proposed Conditions: The proposed development will be consistent with the previously approved hydrology report prepared for the Jefferson Square retail center. The total disturbed area is approximately 3.5 acres of the site. Tributary areas to each watershed will be design in such a way that substantially match existing condition. Due to the proposed development, the existing open retention basin (Basin "B") located along the west boundary will converted to an underground retention basin. To be conservative, the proposed underground retention basin will be designed to match the capacity of the existing open retention basin requirement at 27,010 CF. The proposed underground retention basin will consist of 148 units of 100" x 60" open bottom arch chambers and one existing 30 ft deep Maxwell drywell. The combined volume provided, including gravel layers is 27,184 CF or 101% of the required storage volume. Pretreatment of the runoff before it enters the underground infiltration chamber will be done by an existing hydrodynamic separator manufactured by Hydro International. 18-619 Hydrology Report RWS .doc 4 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Watershed Area Q10 Q100 Retention Basin Retention Basin (AC.) (CFS) (CFS) Volume Volume Required CF Provided CF A 6.9 20.0 34.3 Existing Retention Basin to remain B 3.7 12.5 21.4 27,010 27,184 C 2.4 7.5 12.8 Existing Retention Basin to remain Total: 13.0 40.0 68.5 - - The above table summarizes the data and results for the 10-year and 100-year storm event due to the proposed development. Runoff flow rates from the proposed additional / innovation to the previously approved Jefferson Square retail development are essentially the same. Supporting calculations can be found in Appendix C of this report. The 6" gravel layer under the bottom of the underground retention basin will be used for infiltration of runoff into the ground soils. Based on the previous approved hydrology report, a percolation test was performed on the project site. The worst -cast percolation rate is 5.1 inch/hour. A conservative percolation rate of 2 inches per hour is being used to determine the draw -down time. One drywell is also used to percolate deep storage runoff to subsurface soils. The calculations show that Basin "B" would infiltrate the stored volume in 19.5 hours (<- 72 hours, therefore O.K.). Refer to Appendix D for the supporting calculations and percolation test results. On -Site Retention Basin Emergency Outlet Basin "A" and Basin "C" which were constructed as part of Jefferson Square retail center will remain in place and undisturbed. Basin "B" will be conveyed to the underground retention basin and once the storage capacity is exceeding (27,010 CF) additional storm water discharge will begin spill out at the same drain inlet (low point) in front of Shops "A" as occurs in the current drainage design. The runoff will then sheet flow to Fred Waring Drive. Therefore, all the building structures on -site will be protected. See Appendix B for a diagram illustrating the emergency overflow route as part of Jefferson Square retail center drainage design. Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed development will conform with current City of La Quinta drainage design requirements and to the previously approved hydrology report for the Jefferson Square retail center and will provide adequate protection for the proposed on - site improvements and structures. 18-619 Hydrology Report RWS .doc 5 PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Technica/Appendix A Vicinity Map 18-619 Hydrology Report .doc T� RERMUDA DUNES COUNTRY MIJ8 FREq WARING DRIVE ups AE . 01. w N X.. wD ria E)R VICINITY MAE- NOT TO SCALE PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Technical Appendix B Selected Reference Pages Final Hydrology & Hydraulic Report For Jefferson Square Retail Center 18-619 Hydrology Report RWS .doc FINIAL HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULIC STUDY FOR JEFFERS N SQUARE SWC JEFFERSON ST. & FRED WARING DR. LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared For: REGENCY CENTERS 36 Executive Park, Suite 100 Irving, California, 92614 Mr. Tom Middleton Prepared By: DEVELOPMENT RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC. 900 S. Rochester Avenue, Suite C Ontario, CA 9061 Tel. (909) 230-5246 August 29, 2008 Job No. C07-304 Ronald W. Sklepko, P.E. R.C.E, No. 46216, Exp. 12/31108 HYDROLOGY REPORT SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS JEFFERSON SQUARE LA QUINTA, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction/Summary II. Vicinity Map III. Drainage Criteria IV. Existing Rational Method Calculations V. Proposed Rational Method Calculations VI. Small Area Unit Hydrograph Criteria VII. Small Area Unit Hydrograph Calculations -Proposed Condition VIII. Retention Basin Design Buoyancy Force Calculations CMP Life Expectancy Calculations Percolation Test Result Reference IX. Inlet/Catch Basin Calculations X. Pipe Hydraulic Calculations Emergency Overflow Route Diagram Street Capacity Calcuations Back Pocket — Existing Hydrology Map Back Pocket — Proposed Hydrology Map Back Pocket — Hydraulic Map DRC A HYMOLOGY REPORT HEYERSM SQUARE Sffl'E GN1L DRAWMS LA QU INTA, CA I. INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY HYDROLOGY REPORT JEFFERSON SQUARE SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS LA QUINTA, CA JEFFERSON SQUARE SWC JEFFERSON ST. & FRED WARING DR. LA QUINTA, CA Project Description This report contains the hydrology and hydraulic calculations for a proposed 10.5 acre Commercial Project located west of Jefferson Street and south of Fred Waring Drive in the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside. The project location is shown on the attached Vicinity Map. Existing Drainage Condition The site is currently vacant and barren with little vegetative cover. Presently, stormwater runoff sheet flows easterly to Jefferson Street. Approx. 4.5 acres of the Site continues in a southerly direction to a 28 ft catch basin located at approx. 500 ft south of Independent Way (Drainage Area "E1"). The runoff is then conveyed to an open-air retention basin near Independent Way thru a 36" RCP. Approx. 6.0 acres of the Site and approx. 0.3 acres of the street drain to the SWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive (Drainage Area "E2"). According to recorded plans, runoff from Fred Waring Dr. half street drains southerly to Monticello Ave. via curb & gutter. There is no existing cross gutter at the intersection of Fred Waring Dr. & Monticello Ave. If the curb & gutter is overloaded, a high point at the southeast corner of the intersection which allow the runoff to continue draining southerly on the other side of Monticello Ave. Runoff east of the intersection which consist of approx. 1.0 acre of the Fred Waring Drive half street drains easterly towards Jefferson Street (Drainage Area 11E3"). Runoff from both Drainage Areas E2 & E3 are conveyed to an temporary open retention basin through two parkway drains. Refer to the "Existing Hydrology Map" for a map of the existing drainage pattern (back sleeve). The results of the Existing Drainage Condition for the 10-Year and 100-Year Storm Events are summarized as follows: Drainage Area Area (AC.) 010 (CFS) Q,00 (CFS) El 5.3 5.0 10.8 E2 6.7 6.2 13.5 E3 1.0 3.0 5.2 Total: 13.0 14.2 29.5 Proposed Drainage Condition The Proposed Commercial Development will consist of the construction of paved parking areas and drive aisles, landscaped areas and buildings. The site will be approx. 90% impervious due to building roofs, asphalt paving and sidewalks. In the proposed condition, the site can be broken down into three distinct drainage watersheds, each with individual subareas. Watershed "A" collects runoff from the front parking lot, two out -parcel buildings, and Jefferson Street & Fred Waring Drive. The runoff will be picked up by drain inlets and the existing catch basins in the streets. The storm drain pipes will then discharge into a proposed underground retention and infiltration basin (Basin "A") at the southeast corner of the Site. Watershed "B" DRCIL HYDROLOGY REPORT JEFFERSON SQUARE SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS LA QUINTA, CA collects all the runoff from the major building roofs and the rear drive aisle to the west. The runoff will be picked up by drain inlets and storm drain pipe that will discharge into a proposed below -grade open retention basin (Basin "B") located along the west boundary. Watershed "C" collects runoff from approx. 1.9 acres along the south boundary of the Site and approx. 0.5 acres of Street Runoff. The runoff will sheet flow to a proposed below -grade open retention basin (Basin "C") located along the south boundary. Refer to the "Proposed Hydrology Map" for a map of the proposed drainage areas and basins (back sleeve). The results of the Proposed Drainage Condition for the 10-Year and 100-Year Storm Events are summarized as follows: Watershed Area (AC.) Q10 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) A 6.8 19.9 34.2 B 3.7 12.2 21.0 C 2.5 7.8 13.2 Total: 13.0 39.9 68.4 Hydrologic Criteria This study will be the basis for the design of the drainage systems within the proposed Commercial Development. The Hydrology Study for this project was performed in accordance with the current Riverside County Hydrology Manual, published in 1978. Peak storm flows were determined using the computer engineering software program developed by Advanced Engineering Software (AES), 2003 version, based on the Rational Method of Hydrology and Synthetic Unit Hydrograph. The program uses a nodal system to define stream routing (in street, pipe or natural stream) and subarea characteristics, (i.e. acres, land use and soil type). Peak flow rates for 10-year and 100-year storm events are included in this report. Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Short -Cut Method will be used to determine the required storage volume of the fully -developed site for the 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour duration events for the 100- year return frequency. Retention basins are design for the 100-year storm event and capable of percolating the entire 100-year storm retention capacity in less than 72 hours. Results As a result of the Rational Method calculations, the existing undeveloped condition for the site and adjacent streets produces 29.5 CFS of runoff during the 100-year event. In the proposed developed condition, the site produces 68.4 CFS of runoff during the 100-year storm event (A difference of 38.9 CFS from the Existing Drainage Condition). The entire 100-year storm runoff volume will be captured on -site and percolated to the subsurface soils, as discussed earlier. On -Site Retention Basin Basin "A" DRC dL HYDROLOGY REPORT JEFFERSON SQUARE SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS LA QUINTA, CA For the purpose of sizing the basin, we determined the total storage volume required by calculating the storm volume of the Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph for 100-year storm event, 3-hour frequency (the worst -case scenario). The total amount of runoff that needs to be stored is 52,933 CF or 1.2 acre-feet. For this Report, we are assuming the use of a combination underground storage system consisting of five barrels of 96" CMP, 79 feet long, 2 — 52 feet long headers for storage only , one 41' deep Maxwell drywell, and 5'-0" deep single storm trap units for infiltration and storage chamber. The chamber will be accessible by two manholes and has sufficient height for a person to enter and perform maintenance procedures. The total storage volume for the combination underground system is 53,000 CF or 101 % of the required storage volume. The bottom of the 5'-0" deep storm trap units will of native granular material and will be used for infiltration of runoff into the ground soils. The subsurface soils are silty sands and no significant clayey soils were observed based on the borings taken at the job site. A percolation test performed on the project site. The worst -cast percolation rate is 4.2 inch/hour. A conservative percolation rate of 2 inches per hour is being used to determine the draw down time. One drywell is also used to percolate deep storage runoff to subsurface. The calculations show that the basin would infiltrate the stored volume in 46 hours (s 72 hours, therefore OX). Refer to Section X111 for the supporting calculations and percolation test results. Basin `B„ For the purpose of sizing the basin, we determined the total storage volume required by calculating the storm volume of the Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph for 100-year storm event, 3-hour frequency (worst -case scenario). The total amount of runoff that needs to be stored is 27,010 CF or 0.6 acre-feet. For this report, we are assuming the use of below -grade open basin, 3:1 side slopes, 4.2 feet deep and 189 ft x 20 ft bottom. The total storage volume for the open basin is 28,031 CF or 104% of the required storage volume. The subsurface soils are silty sands and no significant clayey soils were observed based on the borings taken at the job site. A percolation test performed on the project site. The worst -cast percolation rate is 5.1 inch/hour. A conservative percolation rate of 2 inches per hour is being used to determine the draw down time. One drywell is also used to percolate deep storage runoff to subsurface. The calculations show that the basin would infiltrate the stored volume in 19 hours (s 72 hours, therefore OX). Refer to Section XI11 for the supporting calculations and percolation test results. Basin "C" For the purpose of sizing the basin, we determined the total storage volume required by calculating the storm volume of the Proposed Condition Unit Hydrograph for 100-year storm event, 3-hour frequency (worst -case scenario). The total amount of runoff that needs to be stored is 17,834 CF or 0.41 acre-feet. For this report, we are assuming the use of below -grade open basin, 3:1 side slopes, 4.1 feet deep and 76 feet x 34 feet bottom. The total storage volume for the open basin is 18,937 CF or 106% of the required storage volume. The subsurface soils are silty sands and no significant clayey soils were observed based on the borings taken at the job site. A percolation test performed on the project site. The worst -cast percolation rate is 6.5 inch/hour. A conservative percolation rate of 2 inches per hour is being used to determine the draw down time. One drywell is also used to percolate deep storage DR HYDROLOGY REPORT JEFFERSON SQUARE SITE CIVIL DRAWINGS LA QUINTA, CA runoff to subsurface. The calculations show that the basin would infiltrate the stored volume in 17 hours (s 72 hours, therefore O.K.). Refer to Section XIII for the supporting calculations and percolation test results. Stone Drain Imwovements The proposed storm drain system is composed of Storm Drain Line 'A', `13% `C', 'D' & 'E' along with numerous on -site catch basins, grate inlets and laterals. Refer to the "Hydraulic Map" for a map storm drain layout and inlet locations. Hydraulics calculations were performed using Los Angeles County Water Surface Profile Gradient (WSPG). As shown on the pipe hydraulic calculation, line `A', `B', `C', `D' & 'E' has the capacity to meet or exceed the runoff generated from the 100-year storm event. Catch basins and grate inlets are sized to collect the runoff generated from 100-year storm event. Catch Basin sizing and depth of flow calculations were using L.A. County, Design manual, 1972, Plate 2.6-0651. Grate inlet calculations were performed using the Caltrans Highway Drainage Design Equation 4-6. On -Site Retention Emengencv Outlet Basin "A": At a storage volume exceeding 52,993 CF, discharge will begin to outlet to the proposed 14' catch basin at the SWC of Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. The runoff then will spill over to the other side of Fred Waring Dr. Therefore, all the building structures on -site will be protected. See Section X for a diagram illustrate the emergency overflow route. Basin "B": At a storage volume exceeding 27,010 CF, discharge will begin spill out at the drain inlet (low point) in front of Shop A. The runoff will then sheet flow to Fred Waring Drive. Therefore, all the building structures on -site will be protected. See Section X for a diagram illustrate the emergency overflow route. Basin "C": At a storage volume exceeding 17,834 CF, discharge will begin to outlet at the catch basin by the south driveway along Jefferson Street. The runoff then will continue south to an existing 28' catch basin near Independent Way. Therefore, all the building structures on -site will be protected. See Section XIII for supporting calculations and diagram. Conclusion In conclusion, the proposed development will not adversely affect the existing drainage pattern in the area and will provide adequate protection for the proposed on -site improvements and structures. DR SHE ET N Q. I 1 RIVERSTDE COUNTY, CALIF0 RNIA, COACHELLAVALFLEY AREA . (LA G; UI NTA QUADRANOLS fit.7E. IT-30" fYla Mafia YW s FA tiCs!]A {e x Mad x fuLaB .08 h5aa ' r* 12 _.-. a �. Mel � _ - �— - —:�. !; •. TWIF R� 1711T 4iJB C k N<. *S 1 ,Yy h1d6 Krug j CPA fF.S il� NalFy. , .MaD ��� �'• �•. � ; .i.t i may- +� � � � -! .■ MAIM w Mao T. 1�1 arS I �r VF € � • 44� : 1;nA ti r r ip f� I�i,t�s _ :a�r�riue _ �_ _ Mlt_r -- -�3•I - 2 : -- --- �ta3 L 1 rMaO 115 :i I Ci ap ! . - s ff a PA - —1�g *a#• _ CPA =`•7-. _' - MPC7 IMai ~ 1. ti C A f I I s 2' " ;. 30 Con IN MOD no A •I {�, , 4 C .y CbA 7 r Q I rJ 7 e4A y. a ,well- � 1 i N PO ,t I� w MaD [y�D M73B h6ap :r i r ma maw 6 32 4L - MOD •'_ r _ MAID 413 i J• 41a6 r+ C1F T i i \ - ' - J " 4 � sia r . Gbr1 i 1{e it C3.4 �ti�l,vA Mao :N•' �. �+a❑ . I MmE! Fw 6 CmA A` F SL ` 1 L ?♦ F I. L II � q MaB i I is • I _ li+ � j.? fir. w GbA _ _LFk,c. *} to 'I ' '''�i •,:�' •I• '• 'ri 1.1111W Ar 40 .12 PROPOSED SED HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS NS POR JEFFER CN SOUARL LA OUIWA, CALIFORNIA HYDROLOGY SUMMARY DRAWAGE AREA AREA (AC.) 010 (CF'S) Q1a0 (GFS) Al 1,58 4.87 8.31 A2 2.57 7.60 13.02 A3 2.69 7.44 12.64 TOTAL- & 84 19.90 34.16 81 1.38 C 83 8.23 62 2.32 7,40 12.76 TOTAL' 3.70 12.23 20,98 C 245 7,76 13.23 TOTAL SITE.: 12.99 39.89 68-37 3.07 CFS/AC. 5.26 CFS/AC, ++axax+araaar*axa++arrka+aaaaxaaxarx+a+aa+arrx+aa+arxar++a*aaa+axxaaa++a+rxx RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (C) Copyright 1982-2006 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 6.0D) Release Date: 06/01/200S License ID 1510 Analysis prepared by: Development Resource Consultants 8175 E. Kaiser Blvd Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 (714) 685-6860 ara+xxaaa+aaxaaaraaaaaaaa• DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **+r++arax+a+a+aaraxaaaa++ra * C07-304 JEFFERSON SQUARE, LA QUINTA, CA * PROPOSED CONDIDTION * 10-YEAR STORM EVENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 7304PRO.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:58 02/20/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 2-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 0.630 100-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 2.100 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1,247 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.6000 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) -------------------------------- ------ --- - - 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0,020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0,0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ I PROPOSED SUBAREA Al I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ a aaa►raaaaa+raxaxaraaaaxaaxaaaraxaar+agar+aaa+rraxaaaaraxaaa++rraaaaa+aaxaaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >y»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ASSUMEDINITIALSUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 907.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 16.20 TC = 0.303*[( 907.00**3)/( 16.20)]**.2 = 10.333 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.583 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8603 P,POPasZO co�v SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.87 i*Yfiiaiifia**aYYa*aa*Yr#•rxY*iaaaa+aYxx*#i*+a+Yx+i*aaat+Y**aai+*#xr*aa*a*Yxx# FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE {NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE -=-0.0050 -- -- -- w _ FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 205.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.68 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.87 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.73 Tc(MIN.) = 11.06 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1112.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA A2 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **#f*4*Y#*a*i*#*YR*#*iRaar#Y**i#fiaY#*a*#fiaaYfi*akai#xt****##a*iY***aYr*#ai**a FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOWc<cs< 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.439 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8593 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) w 2.57 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.60 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.47 TC(MIN.) = 11.06 x*aiaaYYx***i*aY+***i#a*k#fi*aafiia*+*i*#*rY*#at#**Y***#aaxkY#**aaYY*+*#*fifiY** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >> >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 445.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 15.3 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.88 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.47 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.26 Tc(MIN.) = 12.32 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1557.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ C PROPOSED SUBAREA A3 i +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ r xaaa+xx++ti*aaaxfiaaraaaaaxa++xaxxaiarrrt*aaaaaxr*iaar+x*aai*##x**afiat#ar*aa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- » »>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<K « < 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.224 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8579 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.59 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.44 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 19.90 TC(MIN.) = 12.32 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B1 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ a+a+xaarfi#aa#aaaaa*xr#xx#a+#aaaaaixaaaaaa#aaaaiaaxaaaaiaaaxaa+*xxa+a*iarYxaa FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >7»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< -- -- --- - --- -- ---- ---------- --- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 49.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 44.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.50 TC = 0.303*[( 420.00**3)/( 4.50)]**.2 = 8.412 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.054 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8630 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.83 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.38 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) 4.83 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >> >>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 - FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 380.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.67 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.83 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN_) = 1.36 TO MIN.) = 9.77 LONGEST FLOWPAT14 FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 600.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA S2 ti +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<< <<< 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.706 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8610 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) 7.40 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.23 TC (MIN. ) = 9.77 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA C +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< -ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 706.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) w 48.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 9.50 TC = 0.303*[( 706.00**3)/( 9.50)]+*.2 = 9.893 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.678 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = _8608 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.76 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS +aa+++++++xxrx++++++a++++xx+++a+++*+ra+x+a+++a+*+ar++xr*+a*+*++rx++xx++++xa+ RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2006 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 6.OD) Release Date: 06/01/2005 License ID 1510 Analysis prepared by: Development Resource Consultants 8175 E. Kaiser Blvd Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 (714) 685-6860 •xr*++a+a++rx+arxxrr+x+a++ DESCRIPTION OF STUDY +rr++++ra+++arrxr++a++arr+xx * C07-304 JEFFERSON SQUARE, LA QUINTA, CA * PROPOSED CONDIDTION * 100-YEAR STORM EVENT ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- FILE NAME: 7304PRO.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:58 02/20/2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIE❑ MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 2-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 0.630 100-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 2.100 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.100 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.6000 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0313 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* +--------------------------------------------------------------------------* PROPOSED SUBAREA Al +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +aa+aa++*+aaxa++a+xa+xaaa+x+++++x+xr+x++x+rr+xxa+r+•++++a++aa+r+++++a+++xr+a FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 >a»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« <<c - - ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 907.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 16.20 TC = 0.303*[( 907.00**3)/( 16.20)]**.2 = 10.333 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.033 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8712 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" fieOPSiW TAW /R - T' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.31 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<< <<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<< <<< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0054 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 205.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.0 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.32 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.31 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.64 Tc(MIN.) = 10.98 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1112,00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA A2 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.819 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9705 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.02 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.32 TC(MIN.) = 10.98 FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<c< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 445.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 20.5 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.60 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 21.32 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.12 TC(MIN.) = 12.10 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1557.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA A3 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.489 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8694 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.69 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.84 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.8 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.16 TC(MIN.) = 12.10 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B1 i +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **********r****++*r*****i**#*r*****#r***+*********}*****#*+*r**r************ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*((LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]•*.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 420.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 49.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 44.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.50 TC = 0.303*[( 420.00**3)/( 4.50)]**.2 = 8.412 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.826 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT � .8736 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.38 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.23 r+xw++rxrrrrwrr+xx+r+axrrrr+x*a+rxrr*,rxx++r*wxx+rrr*r+rrxrr++xrrwrrrx+r*+rr+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA«<<c >>>>>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<< ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 380.00 MANNING'S N = 0.012 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.9 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.31 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.23 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.19 TC(MIN.) = 9.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 800.00 FEET. +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B2 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +rxr+x++++w+rxrr+++x+xxw+r++awx+xrrx+++wxxrrr++xx++rxxr++rx+rrrx++kr++rwr+x+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.304 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = _8721 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.32 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.76 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) 3.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 20.98 TC(MIN.) = 9.60 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED DRAINAGE AREA C I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ *rw+xrxx+x+wxrwrwx+++xxr+rxxxrx+wwwr,r+r+rtrr+++w*wxxrx++rrwwrxw*w**wxr*+++r+ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS« <cc ----- ----- - --- - ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 706.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 9.50 TC = 0.303*[( 706.00**3)/( 9.50)]**.2 = 9.893 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENS I TY (INCH/ HOUR) = 6.193 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8717 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 13.23 -END OF RATIONALMETHODANALYSIS 4NKJr'aZan & ASSOCIATES, INC, GEOTECFINICAL ENGINEERING; ;,'ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & iNSPECTION July 8, 2009 r. Thomas Middleton Regency CcvcrS Inc. 36 Exemdve Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Percolat eon ]Bute Study "wed Shopping Center Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quima, California Dear Mr. Middleton: KA Noject No. l 12-01036 In accordance with your request, we have performcd percolation testing at the subject site, This report docun=ts. the services aud'providcs the results of our field and laboratory study. This study was conducted to measure the approximate percolation rates within the naar-surfka strata of the site. It is our understanding that the data will be used by the project design team in their development of the uo site norm water disposal system. The percolation testing conducted .at. the subject site was perfiarmed in general aeoardame with the City of La Quints, Public Works Departmeat, Engineering Bulletin 406-1 b- Hydrology and Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain 'Systems, USER Percolation Test Standard. Our scope of services was outlined in our change order dated ,Tuna 11, 2008 (KA Project No. 112-07036) and in uded the following. ■ Conducting three (3) percolation tests within the -am of the proposed detention basins at the subject site. Two of the percolation tests were perfo med at depths of approximately 10 to 13 feet below existing grade. The pemoiation test fnr the underground basin was pafonned at a depth of approximately 20 to 23 feet below the existing grade. A. total of three exploratory borings were performed adjacent to the percolation tests, These exploratory bohW were extended to a depth of at least 15 feet below the bottom of each test. • Prepamtion of this report sunuumizing the results of our investigation. t?ffkzs Serving The Western United States 4221$rrdcdl Sweet, Onia.dc, Cali%mia 91761 + f909] 974-440.0 • Fax: (90919744022 JCA No. 11247036 Page 7 of 4 The proposed site is located at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in Le Quinta, California. T"he site is roughly rectangular in scrape and roughly sloping to the north and east. At the time of onr field investigation and testing program, the site was undeveloped and oovered with sparse bushes and exposed soil. The subsurface profile generally c=isted of.loose to dense fwe sand and fine silty sands extending to the maximum depth explored. During the excavation of the borinA continuous visual and physical examination was conducted as the soil cuttings. Significant silt or clay layers/tomes were not identified as being enoaountcred in any of the borings at the site. Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil oomosivitp to the buried strvcturm. The results Of the tests are included as follows. �"l4S jljy's `�:. ��! r:�,.4..�. �_��y: •'.r�� �•,.:�l: ' I •,. V..i. :.'� •i.'I����.:JLa�er,,;ls�^`:iAslr; 11�.:... I n./W'�..-�'�3:: In; �lii r.Cl l, '. '"..1hY''.L::.t [�"q! �I '.ef YL �'? �ri��. �. 1'.:.' .. f�M1n� r �� � i' �f-:;. �..r.�:�l?b�t+al pnHawa:a.:I.L-`!�:I :IqS 4ti�C�' ryl�;!1111 �.14`".i s'�'."jij. I�':i:i,�x�l�I.�� :� y,5 �'e :'+t, �. �I'rl;:'i.•�[9.... ��F:k-:�A'"�.y"r� liy'�.;a� I::-:'i ` � I��i Ir.J: � i� � ��.�� . ML.I :.-7i� r�:�i���': f W���i'I': ';k������ .a.. �x wNtt.'3'J�' .: 7r�: :ilY :��� Resistivity 2,460 ohms -cm Caltretus sulfate 268 mg/kg FPA 9039 Chloride 117 mg/kg EPA 9253 PH 7.52 EPA 9045C Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction. between tho cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with sail and/or water. The sail samples fits the subject site were tested to have & low mdfate-and chloride cuneeutrations. Therefore; no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate or chloride reactivity with the cemem Electrical resistivity testing of the sail indicates that the onsite soils may have a mild potential for metal loss ftm electrochemical corrosion process. r 11. s 41k ti Two methods for perwlation testing are given in the City of La Quinta, Public Works Depadmeru, Engineering Bulletin 006-16. Hydrology and Hyftulic Report CiReria for Storm Drain Systems, USBR Percolation Test Standard. Either ASTM .Double using b fsltrometer Tact or U.S, Bureau of Reclamation Test were recomtt aded by the City of La Quint& as approved test methods, The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation method was detennmW to be the most prudent for the subject site. The test locations are presented on the attached site Platt,, Figure 1. Detail results of the percolation tests are attached. The data is presented in tabular format, The soil .percolation rates are based on Nests conducted with clean water. The infilvation rates may vary with elute as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. A factor of safety should be incorporated into the design of the basins to cornpe=te Offices Scotian The Western UsUmd Mates 4221 Brickell Su=4 Ontario, Calirasn#a 91761 r (909) 974-4400 * Fan: (9m) 9744022 l t2-07e136 in Ou1 m Pero 02 ILA No. t I2.0036 Page 3 of 4 s for these factors. In addition, periodic maintenance: consisting of clearing the bottom of the basins should be expected, Tl-4 highest percolation rate ranges from 4-25 inches to 6.5 inches per hour. A minimum factor of safety of2.0 should.be assigned to this value. The =ommended design percolation rate should be a mwdmum of 2.0 inches per hour. t UMTAnom Ceotechnical Engi,neaing is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering: This branch of Civil Engineering is contamtly improving as bony tedmologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although our services were conducted in accordance with current engineering practice, undoubtedly there will be substamtial future improvements in this branch of engineering. in addition to advancements in the field of Soils Engineering, phytical changes in the site, either due to excavatioa or 0 placement, new agency regulatioals, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the soils Mort is completed may require the soils report to be-professionaffy reviewed. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without cot;cal review. Although the came limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that 1 year be considered a reawnable tune for the usefulness of this report. The scope of our ses ices did not include a groundwater study and was lien ted to the performance of percolation testing and the submitted of the data only. Orin services did.not include those associated with an Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in .the soi 1, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the prcsence o f wedamda. Any statements, or absence of statements, is this report regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and an riot intended to convey engineering judgment regardiug potential hazardous and/or toxic assesarncnt. The geoteclmical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional intapremtion utilizing standard engineering practices_ She work conducted -through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, have been.perfonned in accordance with thegenerally accepted standaMs of geoteahnical engineering practice, which existed in the geographic area at the time the report was written. No other warnoty, express or implied, is rwde. It is nut warrantod that such information and interpretation canwt be superseded by future gemechnicai engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites. Offices Sa-Asg The Wextwr Uulted Slates 4222 9rickell Su=( flrttario, California 91761 a (909) 9744400 . Frx: (9M 9744U22 )12N036 La Ovinu Pate #2 KA No. 1 12-07036 Pap 4 Of 4 14 If you bave any garosdw regard ing the services perfariacd or tho data regortad heroin, or if we may be of further assistanm please do not besitatt to cmteat our office at (909) 97"400. AeapaetfbUy wlamnttod, KRAZAN ac ASSOCIATES,.W. 4 project o lie noSM-0O4! PC No_ 941 ■ add, E4Z � C1�}]MIC{tm � p44�r� Aaachme dta: Figwe 1, Site Plan Results ofPamolatWn Teas Boring Togs �� JF,M6ESh4,Itftl.gGG RCE No, M Nt UM2 P� Evom a"ep v.'2c09 ;�, Cs1 L OM ma Sssvbg The Weiter11 UhkW SUtai 4221 Brjadl Strad, Ontario, Cal rvu�a 917 51 - (W.) 9744400 • Fey; (949) 974.4U2 112-MG6 La Quidt■ Fem *2 1 i F t.1 - u W S � S ■ Sc 4 a .. .. n z W 4_ �-2 Ulf �.. LILT I ® 1 f LE JEFFERSON ST B-16 AMMOMMAlM BMM4GLUCATIM P-rAFMO TE FMCE)L.ALTMN WCATEON stwv PROPOSU) MITERSON SQUARE NTS JMY2006 i QU !'A, CA on br Apprwmd l y 4Q.Krazan SITE DEVEWP ENT ENG 3 9rrR PLAN Qff1OW SW&B the Western United Statz I ! �MEFRCEFNC Y (D VfFRr-=L 0 W EWA O M S, 7K V I M� L _J YIL , !ri --- - ' •"` l ' `� �` ---.. { 4 A 30M 37 A: 1:i WAIM A i el 'i j I F :i j 1 Vi s .4'i Y *M 2 1 4 QL jr 7 ­J e f N'r m ­4� ...... yL ow -lu AL 4 _Jl .. ............ j ,.._yam: 1 JUAS L L PAD A r L4 LN A _CB_ ' 01 {jam APPROX—, W�_.SWTH- . . . ......... va%-- OW --= A 2 Z OF INOEPEN m i ricT 1-0 J�CALEi SELF BOTTOM R/CvFrr MATCH L-INO PROPC) SLEHYEDIROL(DOY MAP MARK I BY I DATE REVISIONS APPR. DATE CITY DESIGNED BY: )H DATE- 08-12-07 DRAWN RY- YH DATE: 08-12-D7 CHECKED BY. Rws DATER: . 08-12-07 D UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF- RONALD W. SKLEPKO DATE 46216 R.C.E. NO. EXPIRATION DATE . . . . .•. . . . hx j {ems . . . . . Q B. 0 FLOW TO. THE 310 F� F R E D 04R G\- R. IF :.FFERSON ST- SFA-E"EER lkvdopment Resource an I n ht Civil Engineexing p Land Surveying Land Planning Q� No. s216 ¢ DRC dL 800 S. ROCHESTER, SUITE C lk ONTARIO, CA 91761 (909) 230-5246 Civil - OFF" C ON, F;DR JEF=jFERSON SOUARE LA OUINTA, CALIFORNIA DI 73 AC (D SUBAREA ACREAGE NODE Tid=8.88 TIME OF CONCENTRATION IN MINUTES 1 RUNOFF FOR 10 YEAR STORM EVENT IN CFS qog=15.21 J RUNOFF FOR 100 YEAR STORM EVENT IN WS 849-OFS ELEVA-nQN .......... FLOW PATH . m SUBAREA BOUNDARY DRAINAGE AREA B(XJNDARY DRYWELL INLET #C1 HYDROLOGY SUMMARY DRAINAGE: AREA AREA (AG.) 010 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) Al 1.58 4.87 8.31 A2 Z57 7.60 13.02 A3 2.69 7.44 12.84 TOTAL: 6.84 19.90 34.15. 4.53'j 8.23' 62 1 2,32 7.40 1276 TOTAL- 3.70 12.23 20.98 C 2.45 7.76 13.23 TOTAL. SITE; 12.99 39.89 68.37 107 CFS/AC. 5.26 CFS/AC, EXIST. 1.5, C.B. DRDI CL MCNTECE H.p WIL 9TE [e-EXIST. RAISED MEDIAN ni )/Z/ 155.7 FLU-, MATCHLINE� 80E TOP LEFI=T SCALE; 1"-80' CITY OF LA QUINTA PROPOSED HYDROLOGY MAP FOR JEFFERSON SGUARS SWC J84-IMSON ST. & FRED WAIN G DRIVE LA QUMTX CA SHEET NO. OFL.- I $KrS I DESIGNED BY: YH DATt": 08- 12-D7 DRAWN BY: YH PATE: 08--12-07 CHECKED BY: RWS MARK BY DATE AI�pR, DATE ENGINEER REVISIONS CITY DATE: 08-12-07 PREPARED UADER THE SUPERVISION OF: RONALD W. SKLEPKO DATE 46216 R.O.E. NO. EXPIRATION DATE McL 46216 t Elp12--31 -06 OF c J,Lwl Melopmeat Boone confmltaotInc. Civil Engineering - Lord Surveying - Land Planning 800 S. ROCHES7ER, SUITE C .DRc--.dL, ONTARIO, GA 91761 (909) 230-5246 HYDRAULIC MA [ +-jz i JjEFF 1 ?SON SO ARE LA OUINTA, CAL11=0RNIA D1 SUBAREA 73 AC ACREAGE 849.OFS ELEVATION �.._._.._.� FLOW PATH m SUBAREA BOUNDARY DRAfNAGE AREA BOUNDARY D R YWELL Ci INLET #CI M PROPOSED STORM DRAIN INLET SUMMARY INLET NO. INLET TYPE Q10 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) CONDITION 01 COMBINATION, W=2.95' 1.3 2.0 FL0W9Y C2 18"X18" GRATE 0.8 1.2 SUMP C3 4' CURB OPENING 2.3 3.5 SUMP C4 COMBINATION. W=2.95' 1.0 1.5 SUMP C5 7' CURB OPENING 5.0 7.5 SUMP OB 4' CURB OPENING 2.5 4.0 SUMP C7A 18NX18" GRAT 0,15 0.2 SUMP C713 18" XI 6" GRATE 0.15 0.2 SUMP O70 6" ATRIUM GRATE 0.07 0.1 SUMP C8 18"X18" GRATE 0.8 1.2 SUMP 09 24"X24!' GRATE 1.2 1.8 SUMP C10 COMBINATION, W-2,95' 2.3 3.2 SUMP Ci 1 I' C tgLL t)�Tmj-06 1.2 1.8 FILOWeY 012 COMBINATIOIN, W=2.95' 1.2 1.6 FLOWBY C13 18"X18" GRATE 0.8 1.2 SUMP NOTE: 1. ALL INLETS SIZE FOR 100-NEAR STORM EVENT INLET BATCH BASIN CALCULATIONS REFER TO SECTION IX FOR SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS PIPE HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS. REFER TO SECTION X FOR SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS GRAPHIC SCALE 0 40 ao No (IN') 1 inch = 40 fE CITY OF LA QUINTA HYDRAS MAP FOR JEFFERSON SCARE SWC JSqMSON ST. & FRED WARM DRIVE LA QU WrA, CA SHEET "0. 1 1 SHT PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Technical Appendix C Rational Method Analysis Proposed Condition 18-619 Hydrology Report .doc PROPOSEE) HYLDROL OOY MAP FOR JEFFERSON SQUARE - CCD HOTEL & RESORTS LA OU/NTA, CAL/PORN/A HYDROLOGY SUMMARY DRAINAGE AREA AREA (AC.) Q10 (CFS) Q100 (CFS) Al 1.58 4.87 8.31 A2 2.57 7.58 12.99 A3 2.74 7.53 12.99 TOTAL: 6.90 19.97 34.28 Bl 1.55 5.39 9.19 B2 2.15 7.14 12.33 TOTAL: 3.70 12.53 21.42 C 2.40 7.51 12.80 TOTAL SITE: 12.99 40.01 68.50 3.08 CFS/AC. 5.27 CFS/AC. **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2015 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 22.0) Release Date: 07/01/2015 License ID 1510 Analysis prepared by: DRC Engineering, Inc. 160 South Old Springs Road, Suite 210 Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 714-685-6860 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 18-619 JEFFERSON SQUARE CDD HOTEL AND RESORTS * PROPOSED CONDITION * 10-YEAR STORM EVENT ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 8619P10.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:38 03/16/2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 10.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 2-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 0.630 100-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 2.100 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 10.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 1.247 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.6000 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) --- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.50 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA Al I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSES««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 907.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 16.20 **************************************************************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM BASED ON RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (RCFC&WCD) 1978 HYDROLOGY MANUAL (c) Copyright 1982-2015 Advanced Engineering Software (aes) (Rational Tabling Version 22.0) Release Date: 07/01/2015 License ID 1510 Analysis prepared by: DRC Engineering, Inc. 160 South Old Springs Road, Suite 210 Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 714-685-6860 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 18-619 JEFFERSON SQUARE - CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS * PROPOSED CONDITION * 100-YEAR STORM EVENT ************************************************************************** FILE NAME: 8619P100.DAT TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 15:32 03/16/2018 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 6.00 SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = 0.95 2-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 0.630 100-YEAR, 1-HOUR PRECIPITATION(INCH) = 2.100 COMPUTED RAINFALL INTENSITY DATA: STORM EVENT = 100.00 1-HOUR INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 2.100 SLOPE OF INTENSITY DURATION CURVE = 0.6000 RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD NOTE: COMPUTE CONFLUENCE VALUES ACCORDING TO RCFC&WCD HYDROLOGY MANUAL AND IGNORE OTHER CONFLUENCE COMBINATIONS FOR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES *USER -DEFINED STREET -SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER -GEOMETRIES: MANNING WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT -/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP HIKE FACTOR NO. (FT) (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) --- ------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------------ 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150 GLOBAL STREET FLOW -DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: 1. Relative Flow -Depth = 0.50 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (Top -of -Curb) 2. (Depth)*(Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA Al I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 2.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSES««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 907.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 55.70 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 16.20 TC = 0.303*[( 907.00**3)/( 16.20)]**.2 = 10.333 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.033 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8712 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.31 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.31 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA A2 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 205.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.7 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.00 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 8.31 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.68 Tc(MIN.) = 11.02 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1112.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ----------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.806 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8705 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.29 TC(MIN.) = 11.02 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA A3 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 445.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 22.1 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.12 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 21.29 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.21 Tc(MIN.) = 12.23 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1557.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.453 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8692 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.74 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.99 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.28 TC(MIN.) = 12.23 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B1 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 430.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 44.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.60 TC = 0.303*[( 430.00**3)/( 4.60)]**.2 = 8.494 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.786 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8735 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.19 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.19 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B2 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.09 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 9.19 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.59 Tc(MIN.) = 9.08 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 610.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.519 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8727 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.23 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 21.42 TC(MIN.) = 9.08 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA C I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 9.90 TC = 0.303*[( 740.00**3)/( 9.90)]**.2 = 10.092 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.119 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8715 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.80 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.40 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.80 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS TC = 0.303*[( 907.00**3)/( 16.20)]**.2 = 10.333 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.583 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8603 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.87 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.58 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.87 + + PROPOSED SUBAREA A2 I I I I + + **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 2.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 205.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.8 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.39 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 4.87 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.78 Tc(MIN.) = 11.11 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 3.00 = 1112.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 3.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.430 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8593 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.57 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.58 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 4.2 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.45 TC(MIN.) = 11.11 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA A3 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 3.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 31 »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 445.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 16.2 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.51 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 12.45 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.35 Tc(MIN.) = 12.46 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 1.00 TO NODE 4.00 = 1557.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 4.00 TO NODE 4.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.203 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8578 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.74 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.53 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.9 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 19.97 TC(MIN.) = 12.46 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B1 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 430.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 44.30 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 4.60 TC = 0.303*[( 430.00**3)/( 4.60)]**.2 = 8.494 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.030 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8628 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.39 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 1.55 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.39 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA B2 I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>COMPUTE PIPE -FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< »»>USING COMPUTER -ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON -PRESSURE FLOW) ««< REPRESENTATIVE SLOPE = 0.0050 FLOW LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 MANNING'S N = 0.013 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 11.6 INCHES PIPE -FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.49 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 5.39 PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 0.67 Tc(MIN.) = 9.16 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 30.00 = 610.00 FEET. **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 30.00 IS CODE = 81 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.851 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8619 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.15 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.14 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.7 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.53 TC(MIN.) = 9.16 +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ PROPOSED SUBAREA C I I I I +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- »»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASSUMED INITIAL SUBAREA UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT IS COMMERCIAL TC = K*[(LENGTH**3)/(ELEVATION CHANGE)]**.2 INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 740.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 48.90 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION(FEET) = 39.00 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE(FEET) = 9.90 TC = 0.303*[( 740.00**3)/( 9.90)]**.2 = 10.092 10 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.634 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .8606 SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "A" SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.51 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.40 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.51 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY REPORT CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Technical Appendix D Underground Retention Basin Sizing Calculations 18-619 Hydrology Report .doc RETENTION BASIN SIZING (BASIN 'B) JEFFERSON SQUAR - CCD HOTEL & RESORTS, LA QUINTA, CA USE DESIGN VOLUME: 27,010 CUBIC FEET 1. ADS STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM (INFILTRATION BASIN) USE 100" X 60" OPEN BOTTOM ARCH PIPE: TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = 26,493 CF (SEE ATTACHED DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER) 2. DRYWELL ONE MAXWELL PLUS DRYWELL, 30' DEEP STORAGE IN THE 6' DIA. SHAFT: VOLUME = 3.14 x (3 FT)12 x 20' = 565 CF STORAGE IN THE 4' DIA. SHAFT: VOLUME = 3.14 x (2 FT)12 x 10' = 126 CF TOTAL VOLUME = 565 SF + 126 SF = 691 SF TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED: 26,493 CF + 691 CF = 27,184 CF DRAW -DOWN TIME BOTTOM AREA = 6,230 SF (SEE ATTACHED DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER), 1 DRYWELL PROPOSED USE PERCOLATION RATE OF 2 INCH/HOUR AND 0.1 CFS PER DRYWELL: TOTAL PERCOLATION = 6,230 SF x 1/12 x 2 INCH/HOUR x 1/ 3,600 + 1 DRYWELL x 0.1 CFS/DRYWELL = 0.388 CFS DRAW TIME = 27,184 CUBIC FEET 0.388 CFS' 3,600 S / 1 HOUR = 19.46 HOURS (< 72 HOURS, THEREFORE, O.K.) LLLLLLFAF ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. EQ u 18-619 Jefferson Square SWC Fred Waring Dr and Jefferson St, La Quinta, CA STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-4500 CHAMBER SYSTEM 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-4500 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT -MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 3. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORT PANELS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 4. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG -DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT -DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACTAND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 5. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWABLE LOADS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 7. ONLY CHAMBERS THATARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING UPON REQUEST TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE: a. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787AND BY AASHTO FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. b. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET. THE 50 YEAR CREEP MODULUS DATA SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 MUST BE USED AS PART OF THE AASHTO STRUCTURAL EVALUATION TO VERIFY LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. C. STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION DETAIL ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION IS BASED. 8. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 1. STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTITIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. 2. STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3. CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: • STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. • BACKFILLAS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. • BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. 4. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. 5. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. 6. MAINTAIN MINIMUM - 9" (230 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. 7. INLETAND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12" (300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS. 8. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2" (20-50 mm) MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3 OR #4. 9. STONE SHALL BE BROUGHT UP EVENLYAROUND CHAMBERS SO AS NOT TO DISTORT THE CHAMBER SHAPE. STONE DEPTHS SHOULD NEVER DIFFER BY MORE THAN 12" (300 mm) BETWEEN ADJACENT CHAMBER ROWS. 10. STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING. 11. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-4500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: • NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. • NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". • WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANTY. ©2015 ADS, INC. CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. CU C CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT COMPUTER GENERATED CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION J (148) STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS O (10) STORMTECH MC-4500 END CAPS co Cn } INSTALLED WITH 12 " COVER STONE, 9 " BASE STONE, 40% STONE VOID C INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME: 26493 CIF z �w z 0 AREA OF SYSTEM: 6230 FT2 L U I PERIMETER OF SYSTEM: 358 FT O0 Lu of 131.75' a) o U z O O U 125.87' OD O o of (� N O L � af d r co F z ISOLATOR ROW INSPECTION PORT i ° r j U w Lu ui 24" CORED END CAP PART# MC450OREPE24BC o a TYP OF ALL MC-4500 24" CONNECTIONS AND of L ISOLATOR ROWS LL w W z zz p ww z� F d N � w U �w W U U ww � HO K ui a Ha Z o W Z N w 0 77 = w J U K H w w� d' � O � d� �w > w� x< PROPOSED STRUCTURE W/WEIR (DESIGN BY W w OU 0 u a ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS) _ ° J _ w< za w © m � z zww 24" x 24" ADS N-12 BOTTOM so -= 2-' MANIFOLD, INV 2.26" ABOVE v w ow _ CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD N� o ' o BY ENGINEER / SEE TECH mw SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD p o 10 SIZING GUIDANCE) z a 18" x 18" ADS N-12 BOTTOM MANIFOLD, INV 1.97" M E O ABOVE CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER / E N w o SEE TECH SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING L N o a 0 GUIDANCE) O o _ w O �a w w PLACE MINIMUM 17.5' OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS Z N z 315WTK WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING Q STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR On SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INLET a ROWS o~ o r a = j J O m z co Z M O w K a� = V O ' w w J °O D p co COZ Q K O w ` CD � Z OCD �/1 aw m 7 2 � VJ z ❑C7 o O o w z F— d w O � W H � a O w = O mF LL ¢O Z ID F _Y Z � U a U z Z o Lw UO =w 6" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE ~ w SHEET (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER) (DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS) 2 OF Z5 c ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS AASHTO MATERIAL COMPACTION / DENSITY MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIREMENT FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. D OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT N/A PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER AASHTO M145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER'C' GRANULAR WELL -GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% A-1, A-2-4, A-3 MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 12" (300 mm) C STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE OR MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU AASHTO M43' WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE'C' LAYER. OF THIS LAYER. 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE 9,10 MATERIALS. EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' B CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE (W DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE. FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT A FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 SURFACE. 2' OF THE CHAMBER. PLEASE NOTE: 1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". 2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FORA' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. 3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 6) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) 12" (300 mm) MIN NOTES: MC-4500 END CAP (SEE NOTE 5) PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) \ 'TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED \ \ \ INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 30 (750 mm). (230 mm) MIN 7.0' 24" (2.1 m) (600 mm) MIN` MAX DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN 12" (300 mm) TYP 1. MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 2. MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 3. "ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS" TABLE ABOVE PROVIDES MATERIAL LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, GRADATIONS, AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION, EMBEDMENT, AND FILL MATERIALS. 4. THE "SITE DESIGN ENGINEER" REFERS TO THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF THE STORMTECH CHAMBERS FOR THIS PROJECT. 5. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. 6. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. 7. ONCE LAYER'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER'C' OR'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. U) c 0 L N N a7 ob T_ w fr ® s o ❑co J N m z� = v w0� �oM o Q o co J_ W V = SHEET 3 OF 6 Z5 c COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS FLEXSTORM PURE INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED) MC-4500 CHAMBER 24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE FACTORY PRE -CORED END CAP PART #: MC450OREPE24BC MC-4500 ISOLATOR ROW DETAIL NTS INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW FOR SEDIMENT A. INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) A. 1. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN A.2. REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED A.3. USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG A.4. LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) A.5. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B. ALL ISOLATOR ROWS B. 1. REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW B.2. USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW THROUGH OUTLET PIPE i) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAYBE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii) FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE B.3. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A. A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED B. APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN C. VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. Nf1TFS 1. INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. 2. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. 0 OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT m w J a N �: J w � C � ❑w MC-4500 END CAP Z tz (D ? U z O Q W ,7j, 7i� (D ❑ U 'll� r/III r/III _ III r/III r/III r/III r/III r/III r/III L � r :girCgirCgirCyirCyir Cyd �1irCgirCgirCgi\JC�gCyirCyirCg: :girCgir C\ iJ\, it C��ir\ \ ij \grCgirCgir'1ir U i o L 0 z — r L cu H K Q Wo n n n n a of_0 w II II II II ❑ a z 0 a U W w ❑ TWO LAYERS OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315WTM WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 10.3' (3.1 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS Y x U CONCRETE COLLAR PAVEMENT CONCRETE SLAB 8" (200 mm) MIN THICKNESS FLEXSTORM CATCH IT PART# 6212NYFX WITH USE OF OPEN GRATE 6" (250 mm) INSERTA TEE PART#06N12ST451P INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTERED ON CORRUGATION CREST I� ❑ I> w TH Jcp O U U CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED 3 a FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS Y U ` 0 3 a w 0 ¢� 12" (300 mm) NYLOPLAST INLINE 0 09 DRAIN BODY W/SOLID HINGED COVER OR GRATE PART# 2712AG06N SOLID COVER: 1299CGC GRATE: 1299CGS ❑ > co J N 6" (150 mm) ADS N-12 00 HDPE PIPE < _ w - n J)f (If o Q o co J_ W V 2 MC-4500 CHAMBER a Lo MC-4500 6" INSPECTION PORT DETAIL NTS SHEET 4 OF 6 I5 c STORMTECH UNDERDRAIN DETAIL NITS STORK CHP UTLET MANIFOLD I FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601 NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTIL STORMTECH END CAP i FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ..,�.����.,, _ _. ..�..,��..,�.,, 11 . ��..,� � � DESIGN ENGINEER . 4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 SYSTEMS 6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 & MC-4500 SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE PIPE MATERIAL MAY VARY (PVC, HDPE, ETC.) INSERTA TEE CONNECTIOI PLACE ADS GEOSYN GEOTEXTILE (CENTEF INLET) OVER BEDDINC PROTECTION AT SIDE INLET CONNECTIONS. GEOTEXTILE MUST EXTEND 6" (150 mm) PAST CHAMBER FOOT CREST STIFFENING RIB VALLEY STIFFENING RIB MC-4500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CREST WEB UPPER JOINT rnRRi it ATinni FOOT NITS L WALL L LOWER JOINT CORR. I� =GRATED f 100.0" (2540 mm) E a BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION ERDRAIN (12 INS err 48.3" .— 52.0" 27 mm) TALLIED(1321 mm) NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) CHAMBER STORAGE MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE' WEIGHT 100.0" X 60.0" X 48.3" 106.5 CUBIC FEET 162.6 CUBIC FEET 130.0 lbs. (2540 mm X 1524 mm X 1227 mm) (3.01 ml) (4.60 ml) (59.0 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 90.2" X 59.4" X 30.7" (2291 mm X 1509 mm X 781 mm) INSERTA TEE DETAIL END CAP STORAGE 35.7 CUBIC FEET (1.01 ml) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE' 108.7 CUBIC FEET (3.08 ml) NTS WEIGHT 135.0 lbs. (61.2 kg) NOTE: PART NUMBERS WILL VARY BASED ON INLET PIPE MATERIALS. CONTACT STORMTECH FOR MORE INFORMATION. DO NOT INSTALL INSERTA-TEE AT CHAMBER JOINTS INSERTA TEE TO BE INSTALLED, CENTERED OVER CORRUGATION SIDE VIEW CHAMBER MAX DIAMETER OF INSERTA TEE HEIGHT FROM BASE OF CHAMBER (X) SC-310 6" (150 mm) 4" (100 mm) SC-740 10" (250 mm) 4" (100 mm) DC-780 10" (250 mm) 4" (100 mm) MC-3500 12" (300 mm) 6" (150 mm) MC-4500 12" (300 mm) 8" (200 mm) INSERTA TEE FITTINGS AVAILABLE FOR SDR 26, SDR 35, SCH 40 IPS GASKETED & SOLVENT WELD, N-12, HP STORM, C-900 OR DUCTILE IRON -ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS, 12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY. STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T" PART # STUB B C MC450OREPE06T 6" (150 mm) 42.54" (1.081 m) MC450OREPE06B --- 0.86" (22 mm) MC450OREPE08T 8" (200 mm) 40.50" (1.029 m) --- MC450OREPE08B --- 1.01" (26 mm) MC450OREPE10T 10" (250 mm) 38.37" (975 mm) --- MC4500REPE10B --- 1.33" (34 mm) MC450OREPE12T 12" (300 mm) 35.69" (907 mm) --- MC4500REPE12B --- 1.55" (39 mm) MC450OREPE15T 15" (375 mm) 32.72" (831 mm) MC450OREPE15B --- 1.70" (43 mm) MC450OREPE18TC 18" (450 mm) 29.36" (746 mm) --- MC4500REPE18BC --- 1.97" (50 mm) MC4500REPE24TC 24" (600 mm) 23.05" (585 mm) --- MC450OREPE24BC --- 2.26" (57 mm) MC450OREPE30BC 30" (750 mm) --- 2.95" (75 mm) MC4500REPE36BC 36" (900 mm) --- 3.25" (83 mm) MC450OREPE42BC 42" (1050 mm) --- 3.55" (90 mm) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE 12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm) ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-4500 END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm) THE INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B' ARE THE HIGHTEST POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE SIZE. 90.2" (2291 mm) 0 (� J w a N �: J O C � 0O L Z Y tz U Z 2 O L � ❑ U o a o a " gym) co i ,L co o x O a z c>B H w O _0 o a w z O a U U w 30.7" (781 mm) INSTALLED Y U ❑ w o� I ~j 35.1" (891 mm) 3 o U w a w F 0 Z ❑ co J N m om z� = v w O � o Q o c J W '3- SHEET 5 OF 6 � � MC -SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL co Nr (D co 7 = , 7oR� ECHEND CAP � \ \ j } ,(aoomm) § \ z\ y N SEPARATION e ¢ _ ,z{oaomm MIN INSERTION 7 7 \ CD\ / \ MANIFOLD STUB ob / MANIFOLD HEADER 2 ! } ( MANIFOLD HEADER [ MANIFOLD STUB § § ,z{oaomm 1z(001mm) j\ MIN SEPARATION MININERiTON } - o w) R § NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BELAID HORIZONTAL }\ R A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING. > ) - , )) §( zw - \\ }\ E) \\ \\ � W.ol On Ix /\ - m% {}p 20/0. §co zzw /d/ - moo: }\ �\ \} !00 SHED 6 OF 6 SEZONDAiRy JIJ-LET -RDkA PAF.,It SFYE Z 7--!.2.611) /lic-10.09 Dl 2=7.5' 0 1 r, G SEE 30T-TC4V FN4HT AdA TC'H LkVE PROPCDSED HYDROLC)GY MAP RETENTION BASIN '13 2Z212 471, Fz@ LA OUWTA. CALW=C�� 27.154 CIF PDDVML'g RMAn AREA A [C-L. 15 REP =7 1 12.53 7. 771 j ir W—E, DR 14U, 13 17.77L i.''i (D Ir TIIJE 9- �:ENTFAT 04 IN P) mom___ W IF!?) L 'a I.NkR LWLJ� N W, wh"Aam va C 5 ± I P1 Uu "ryll r 0; I?jj I ly E a -fj�u =Vrwj I? gaml s m—I,,AI.J. 1.55 (ODD 1 !-1-81! SL, I F0 15.19 L-i tour. roam t POOL IIILXY SHOPS 3 N,—'[ DR,.fL-L kqLE7 ?;I 12, t T. MANE IN �r ... - mi. mom 11,11iWL _11C m"40ow CV� KF LOW D;—A.7 ffx (A: G,� (-S� c�,Dn :crsy T T AY 77 755 2�3 I OTAL 3 7:5 17 1 2-1) ' TY, SiIE- I Y 5. 5c [)RI,IG sLw,- r -r5llc cc L6 EXI&T- 5- C Ii! LeA. PR1IAE)LAN 31 IPJ HALE AREA O 00-21.2!) -P' JEFFOSON I STRW MATS HLRVE7 GRAPHIC SCALE SEE T0q' LC -FT UIFY DF LA UU10TA PROPOSM HYDWXGGY LW F, tnglnrc Ong, Inc Uj -Gm- 16 ka-IMID W SKAPK0 mil FW CrDD HOTEL A RESOTS 0 7 U. JUMSON SQUARE WARK V DAIL lr'F'F.' C.axrp.o. lw� r-, 'AlE .621� V4. r SWC J&IqRSON ST. A FRED WARING DRP/E CITY UAW 0-15-18 A.E.r. 'D. F�pftnm r)ATE LA OLUrA, CA Whitewater River Region WQMP Project Specific - Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan For: CCD Hotel & Resorts - La Quinta SWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, La Quinta, CA DEVELOPMENT NO. DESIGN REVIEW NO. 2017-0010 ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 604-521-010, 012,013 Prepared for: CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Telephone: 760-610-1196 Prepared by: Ron Sklepko, PE, LEED AP, QSD DRC ENGINEERING, INC. 6840 Indiana Ave, Suite 215 Riverside, CA 92506 Telephone:714-685-6860 /o QRpFESS w. W : fr7 No. C462160 A 'E Exp.12.31.2018 OF CA,� 3-21-18 WQMP Preparation/Revision Date: March 20, 2018 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta OWNER'S CERTIFICATION This project -specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for: CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC by DRC Engineering, Inc. for the project known as CCD Hotel & Resorts - La Quinta at SWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, La Quinta, CA. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of City of La Quinta for APN 604-521-010, 012, 013, which includes the requirement for the preparation and implementation of a project -specific WQMP. The undersigned, while owning the property/project described in the preceding paragraph, shall be responsible for the implementation of this WQMP and will ensure that this WQMP is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to-date conditions on the site. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party (or parties) having responsibility for implementing portions of this WQMP. At least one copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the project site or project office in perpetuity. The undersigned is authorized to certify and to approve implementation of this WQMP. The undersigned is aware that implementation of this WQMP is enforceable under City of La Quinta Water Quality Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 8.70). If the undersigned transfers its interest in the subject property/project, the undersigned shall notify the successor in interest of its responsibility to implement this WQMP. "I, the undersigned, certify under penalty of law that I am the owner of the property that is the subject of this WQMP, and that the provisions of this WQMP have been reviewed and accepted and that the WQMP will be transferred to future successors in interest." Owner's Signature Owner's Printed Name Owner's Title/Position Date 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 760-610-1196 ATTEST Notary Signature Printed Name Title/Position Date THIS FORM SHALL BE NOTARIZED BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF THE FINAL PROJECT SPECIFIC WQMP 02/28/2018 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Contents SECTION PAGE I. Project Description......................................................................................................................1 II. Site Characterization...................................................................................................................4 III. Pollutants of Concern..................................................................................................................6 IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern............................................................................................7 V. Best Management Practices........................................................................................................8 V.1 SITE DESIGN AND TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS............................................................... 8 V. LA SITE DESIGN BMPS.................................................................................................10 V. LB TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS................................................................................ 16 V. LC MEASUREABLE GOAL SUMMARY........................................................................... 18 V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPS................................................................................................. 19 V.3 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES...................................................... 23 VA REGIONALLY -BASED TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS........................................................ 23 VI. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs.........................................................24 VII. Funding.......................................................................................................................................25 TABLES TABLE 1. POLLUTANT OF CONCERN SUMMARY 6 TABLE 2. BMP SELECTION MATRIX BASED UPON POLLUTANT REMOVAL EFFICIENCY 0) 9 TABLE 3. IMPLEMENTATION OF SITE DESIGN CONCEPTS 11 TABLE 4. SITE DESIGN BMPS MEETING THE MEASUREABLE GOAL IN WQMP SECTION 3.5.1.1 15 TABLE 5: TREATMENT CONTROL BMP SUMMARY 17 TABLE 6: MEASUREABLE GOAL SUMMARY 18 TABLE 7. SOURCE CONTROL BMPS 19 APPENDICES A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL B. VICINITY MAP, WQMP SITE PLAN, AND RECEIVING WATERS MAP C. SUPPORTING DETAIL RELATED TO HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS OF CONCERN (IF APPLICABLE) D. EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS E. SOILS REPORT (IF APPLICABLE) F. SITE DESIGN AND TREATMENT CONTROL BMP SIZING CALCULATIONS AND DESIGN DETAILS G. AGREEMENTS — CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS AND/OR OTHER MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING ONGOING OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FUNDING AND TRANSFER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT -SPECIFIC WQMP H. PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT — SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS I. PROJECT -SPECIFIC WQMP SUMMARY DATA FORM February 28, 2018 1-1 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta I. Project Description Project Owner: CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Telephone: 760-610-1196 WQMP Preparer: Ron Sklepko, PE, LEED AP, QSD 6840 Indiana Ave, Suite 215 Riverside, CA 92506 Project Site Address: Planning Area/ Community Name/ Development Name: APN Number(s): Thomas Bros. Map: Project Watershed: Sub -watershed: Project Site Size Telephone: 714-685-6860 SWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quinta, CA N/A 604-521-010, 012, 013 Riverside County, 2007, Pg. 5410, Grid A7 Whitewater River Whitewater River Basin 6.40 Acres Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code: Formation of Home Owners' Association (HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA): 7011 - Hotels and Motels 5411, Grocery Stores 5331, Variety Stores 5812, Eating Places February 28, 2018 1-1 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Additional Permits/Approvals required for the Project: AGENCY Permit required State Department of Fish and Game, 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement Y ❑ N® State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification Y ❑ N® US Army Corps of Engineers, CWA Section 404 permit Y ❑ N® US Fish and Wildlife, Endangered Species Act Section 7 biological opinion Y ❑ N® Other (please list in the space below as required) N/A February 28, 2018 1-2 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta The project site is located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the existing Jefferson Square retail center. The site is currently in use as a retail center with a CVS store and various other smaller shops. A vacant building that was a former Fresh and Easy grocery store is also located on the site. The remainder of the site is improved with parking lot and three graded commercial pads. The Esplanade community is located to the north. South of the site is the Monticello community and the Monticello Park is located directly to the west. East of the site is a shopping center that is within the City of Indio. The project site will disturb approximately 3.5 acres of the three legal lots that total 6.40 acres. The entire Jefferson Square retail center is 10.5 acres in area. The proposed addition / renovation consists of construction of new a 168-room hotel with small retail shops along the first -floor east side, as well as a year-round indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities and restaurant. Appendix A of this project -specific WQMP includes a complete copy of the final conditions of approval. Appendix B of this project -specific WQMP includes: a. A Vicinity Map identifying the project site and surrounding planning areas in sufficient detail; and b. A Site Plan for the project. The Site Plan included as part of Appendix B depicts the following project features: ■ Location and identification of all structural BMPs, including Source Control, LID/Site Design and Treatment Control BMPs. ■ Landscaped areas. ■ Paved areas and intended uses (i.e., parking, outdoor work area, outdoor material storage area, sidewalks, patios, tennis courts, etc.). ■ Number and type of structures and intended uses (i.e., buildings, tenant spaces, dwelling units, community facilities such as pools, recreation facilities, etc.). ■ Infrastructure (i.e., streets, storm drains, etc.) that will revert to public agency ownership and operation. ■ Location of existing and proposed public and private storm drainage facilities (i.e., storm drains, channels, basins, etc.), including catch basins and other inlets/outlet structures. Existing and proposed drainage facilities should be clearly differentiated. ■ Location(s) of Receiving Waters to which the project directly or indirectly discharges. ■ Location of points where onsite (or tributary offsite) flows exit the property/project site. ■ Delineation of proposed drainage area boundaries, including tributary offsite areas, for each location where flows exit the project site and existing site (where existing site flows are required to be addressed). Each tributary area should be clearly denoted. ■ Pre- and post -project topography. Appendix I is a one -page form that summarizes pertinent information relative to this project - specific WQMP. February 28, 2018 1-3 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta II. Site Characterization Land Use Designation or Zoning: Commercial Current Property Use: Commercial Proposed Property Use: Commercial / Retail Availability of Soils Report: Y ® N ❑ Note: A soils report is required if infiltration BMPs are utilized. Attach report in Appendix E. Phase 1 Site Assessment: Y ❑ N ® Note: If prepared, attached remediation summary and use restrictions in Appendix H. February 28, 2018 1-4 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Receiving Waters for Urban Runoff from Site 303(d) List Impairments Designated Proximity to Receiving Beneficial Uses RARE Waters Beneficial Use Coachella Valley Storm DDT, Dieldrin, Indicator Bacteria, Nitrogen, FRESH, REC I, Water Ammonia (Total Ammonia), PCBs, Toxaphene, REC II, WARM, N/A Channel Toxicity WILD, RARE Arsenic, Chloride, Chlorpyrifos, Ddt ND AQUA, R (Potential), REC Salton Sea (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) Enterococcus I, REC II, N/A Low Dissolved Oxygen, Nitrogen, Ammonia (Total WARM WILD Ammonia), Nutrients, Salinity, Selenium, Toxicity RARE February 28, 2018 1-5 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta III. Pollutants of Concern Table 1. Pollutant of Concern Summary Pollutant Category Potential for Project Causing Receiving Water Impairment BacteriaNirus x Heavy Metals x Nutrients x x Pesticides x Organic Compounds x Sediments x Trash & Debris x Oxygen Demanding Substances x Oil & Grease x Other (specify pollutant): x Other (specify pollutant): February 28, 2018 1-6 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta IV. Hydrologic Conditions of Concern Local Jurisdiction Requires On -Site Retention of Urban Runoff: Yes ® The project will be required to retain urban runoff onsite in conformance with local ordinance (See Table 6, Permittees Requiring Onsite Retention of Stormwater, of the Whitewater River Region WQMP). This section does not need to be completed. No ❑ This section must be completed. This Project meets the following condition: ❑ Condition A: Runoff from the Project is discharged directly to a publicly -owned, operated and maintained MS4; the discharge is in full compliance with Permittee requirements for connections and discharges to the MS4 (including both quality and quantity requirements); the discharge would not significantly impact stream habitat in proximate Receiving Waters; and the discharge is authorized by the Permittee. ❑ Condition B: The project disturbs less than 1 acre and is not part of a larger common plan of development that exceeds 1 acre of disturbance. The disturbed area calculation must include all disturbances associated with larger plans of development. ❑ Condition C: The project's runoff flow rate, volume, velocity and duration for the post - development condition do not exceed the pre -development condition for the 2-year, 24-hour and 10-year 24-hour rainfall events. This condition can be achieved by minimizing impervious area on a site and incorporating other site -design concepts that mimic pre - development conditions. This condition must be substantiated by hydrologic modeling methods acceptable to the Permittee. ❑ None Refer to Section 3.4 of the Whitewater River Region WQMP for additional requirements. Supporting engineering studies, calculations, and reports are included in Appendix C. 2 year — 24 hour 10 year — 24 hour Precondition Post -condition Precondition Post -condition Discharge (cfs) Velocity (fps) Volume (cubic feet) Duration (minutes) February 28, 2018 1-7 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta V. Best Management Practices This project implements Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address the Pollutants of Concern that may potentially be generated from the use of the project site. These BMPs have been selected and implemented to comply with the Section 3.5 of the WQMP and consist of Site Design, Source Control and, if/where necessary, Treatment Control BMPs as described herein. V.1 SITE DESIGN AND TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs Local Jurisdiction Requires On -Site Retention of Urban Runoff: Yes ® The project will be required to retain urban runoff onsite in conformance with local ordinance (See Table 6, Permittees Requiring Onsite Retention of Stormwater, of the Whitewater River Region WQMP). Section VA does not need to be completed. No ❑ Section V.1 must be completed. This section of the Project -Specific WQMP documents the Site Design BMPs and, if/where necessary the Treatment Control BMPs that will be implemented on the Project to meet the requirements within Section 3.5.1 of the WQMP. Section 3.5.1, includes requirements to implement Site Design Concepts and BMPs, and includes requirements to address the project's Pollutants of Concern with BMPs. Further sub -section 3.5.1.1 specifically requires that the projects Pollutants of Concern be addressed with Site Design BMPs to the extent feasible. This project incorporates Site Design BMPs to fully address the Pollutants of Concern where and to the extent feasible. If and where it has been acceptably demonstrated to the Permittee that it is infeasible to fully meet this requirement with Site Design BMPs, this section includes a description of the conventional Treatment Control BMPs that will be substituted to meet the same requirements. In addressing pollutants of concern, BMPs are selected using Table 2 below. February 28, 2018 1-8 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Table 2. BMP Selection Matrix Based Upon Pollutant Removal Efficiency (1) (Excerpted, with minor revision, from the Orange County Water Quality Management Plan dated September 26, 2003 and the San Bernardino Water Quality Management Plan dated April 14, 2004) Wet Water Hydrodynamic Manufactured Detention Infiltration Ponds Filtration Quality Separator or Proprietary Pollutant of Biofilters Basins (3) BMPs (4) or Systems (1) Inlets Systems (1) Devices (1) Concern (2) Wetlands (s) Sediment/Turbidity H/M M H/M H/M H/M L H/M U (L for Turbidity) Nutrients L M H/M H/M L/M L L U Organic U U U U H/M L L U Compounds Trash & Debris L M U U H/M M H/M U Oxygen L M H/M H/M H/M L L U Demanding Substances Bacteria & Viruses U U H/M U H/M L L U Oil & Grease H/M M U U H/M M L/M U Pesticides U U U U U L L U (non -soil bound) Metals H/M M H H H L L U Abbreviations: L: Low removal efficiency H/M: High or medium removal efficiency U: Unknown removal efficiency Notes: (1) Periodic performance assessment and updating of the guidance provided by this table may be necessary. (2) Includes grass swales, grass strips, wetland vegetation swales, and bioretention. (3) Includes extended/dry detention basins with grass lining and extended/dry detention basins with impervious lining. Effectiveness based upon minimum 36-48-hour drawdown time. (4) Includes infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, and porous pavements. (5) Includes permanent pool wet ponds and constructed wetlands. (6) Includes sand filters and media filters. (7) Also known as hydrodynamic devices, baffle boxes, swirl concentrators, or cyclone separators. (8) Includes proprietary stormwater treatment devices as listed in the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks, other stormwater treatment BMPs not specifically listed in the WQMP, or newly developed/emerging stormwater treatment technologies. February 28, 2018 1-9 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta V.1.A SITE DESIGN BMPS This section documents the Site Design BMPS that will be implemented on this project to comply with the requirements in Section 3.5.1 of the WQMP. • Table 3 herein documents the implementation of the Site Design Concepts described in sub -sections 3.5.1.3 and 3.5.1.4. Table 4 herein documents the extent to which this project has implemented the goals described in sub -section 3.5.1.1. February 28, 2018 1-10 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Table 3. Implementation of Site Design Concepts Included Brief Reason for BMPs Design Concept Technique--F Specific BMP Yes No N/A Indicated as No or N/A Conserve natural areas by concentrating or cluster development on the lease environmentally sensitive portions ❑ ❑ ® The project site is already developed. of a site while leaving the remaining land in a natural, undisturbed condition. Conserve natural areas by incorporating the goals of the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan or other natural ❑ ❑ ® The project site is already developed. resource plans. Preserve natural drainage features and natural depressional ® ❑ ❑ storage areas on the site. Maximize canopy interception and water conservation by �. preserving existing native trees and shrubs, and planting ❑ ❑ ❑ The project site is already developed. Minimize Urban additional native or drought tolerant trees and large shrubs. = C Runoff, Minimize Impervious Use natural drainage systems. ❑ ❑ ❑ The project site is already developed. V Footprint, and = Conserve Natural Increase the building floor area ratio (i.e., number of stories ® ❑ ❑ Areas above or below ground). 0 O (See WQMP Construct streets, sidewalks and parking lot aisles to minimum widths necessary, that safety and a ® ❑ ❑ Section 3.5.1.3) provided public walkable environment for pedestrians is not compromised. co Reduce widths of streets where off-street parking is ❑ ❑ ® No off-street parking. available. Design driveways with shared access, flared (single lane at ® ❑ ❑ street), or wheel strips (paving only under the tires). Minimize the use of impervious surfaces, such as decorative ® ❑ ❑ concrete, in the landscape design. Other comparable and equally effective Site Design BMP (or BMPs) as approved by the Permittee (Note: Additional El Elnarrative required to describe BMP and how it addresses site design concept). February 28, 2018 1-11 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Table 3. Site Design BMPs (continued) Included Brief Reason for Each BMP Design Concept Technique Specific BMP Yes No N/A Indicated as No or N/A Residential and commercial sites must be designed to contain and infiltrate roof runoff, or direct roof runoff to vegetative swales or buffer ® ❑ ❑ areas. Drain impervious sidewalks, walkways, trails, and patios into adjacent ® ❑ Ellandscaping. Incorporate landscaped buffer areas between sidewalks and streets. ❑ ❑ ❑ Existing streets are fully improved. Uncovered temporary or guest parking on residential lots paved with a ❑ ❑ ® Not a residential project. permeable surface, or designed to drain into landscaping. Rural swale system: street sheet flows to vegetated swale or gravel shoulder, curbs used at street corners, and culverts used under ❑ ❑ ® Project site is a commercial site. driveways and street crossings. N Urban curb/swale system: street slopes to curb; periodic swale inlets ❑ El ® Project site is a commercial site. drain to vegetated swale or biofilter. aQi Minimize Directly Dual drainage system: first flush captured in street catch basins and O Connected discharged to adjacent vegetated swale or gravel shoulder; high flows ❑ ❑ ❑ Project site is a commercial site. V Impervious connect directly to MS4s. Area Maximize the permeable area by constructing walkways, trails, patios, y overflow parking, alleys, driveways, low -traffic streets, and other low- traffic ❑ ® ❑ Runoff from the site will discharge (See WQMP areas with open -jointed paving materials or permeable surfaces to an underground retention basin. g Section 3.5.1.4) such as pervious concrete, porous asphalt, unit pavers, and granular +- materials. CO Use vegetated drainage swales in lieu of underground piping or ❑ ® ❑ Runoff from the site will discharge imperviously lined swales. to an underground retention basin. Incorporate parking area landscaping into the drainage design. ® ❑ ❑ Where soil conditions are suitable, use perforated pipe or gravel El ® ❑ Runoff from the site will discharge filtration pits for low flow infiltration. to an underground retention basin. Construct onsite infiltration BMPs such as dry wells, infiltration trenches, and infiltration basins consistent with vector control ® ❑ ❑ objectives. Construct onsite ponding areas or detention facilities to increase opportunities for infiltration consistent with vector control objectives. ❑ ® ❑ Runoff from the site will discharge to a underground retention basin. February 28, 2018 1-12 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Table 3. Site Design BMPs (continued) Design Concep N c� o a V � O O y Included Brief Reason for Each BMP Technique Specific BMP Yes No N/A Indicated as No or N/A Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. ❑ Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Use vegetated drainage swales in lieu of underground piping or ❑ Area imperviously lined swales. (See WQMP Incorporate tree well filters, flow -through planters, and/or bioretention ❑ Section 3.5.1.4) areas into landscaping and drainage plans. Other comparable and equally effective Site Design BMP (or BMPs) as approved by the Permittee (Note: Additional narrative required ❑ describinq BMP and how it addresses site desiqn concept). ❑ ❑ (Runoff from the site will discharge to an underground retention basin. ® ❑ Funoff from the site will discharge an underground retention basin. ❑ ❑ Runoff from the site will discharge to an underaround retention basin. February 28, 2018 1-13 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Proiect Site Desizn BMPs: N/A Alternative Proiect Site Design BMPs: N/A February 28, 2018 1-14 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Table 4. Site Design BMPs Meeting the Measureable Goal in WQMP Section 3.5.1.1 (1) DRAINAGE SUBAREA ID OR NO. (2) SITE DESIGN BMP TYPE * (See Table 2) (3) POLLUTANTS WITHIN SUBAREA CAUSING RECEIVING WATER IMPAIRMENTS (refer to Table 1) (4) RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF BMP (COLUMN 2) AT ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED POLLUTANTS (COLUMN 3) (U, L, M, H/M, H; see Table 2) (5) BMP MEETS WHICH DESIGN CRITERIA? (identify as VBMP OR QBMP) (6) BMP TRIBUTARY AREA (nearest 0.1 acre) TOTAL AREA TREATED WITH SITE DESIGN BMPS NEAREST 0.1 ACRE)** * Site Design BMPs included in this table are those that completely address the Treatment Requirements for their tributary area. February 28, 2018 1-15 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Justification of infeasibility for sub -areas not addressed with effective Site Design BMPs in Table 4: N/A V.1.B TREATMENT CONTROL BMPs Conventional Treatment Control BMPs shall be implemented to address the project's Pollutants of Concern as required in WQMP Section 3.5.1 where, and to the extent that, Section V.1.A has demonstrated that it is infeasible to meet these requirements through implementation of Site Design BMPs. ® The Site Design BMPs described in Section V.1.A of this project -specific WQMP completely address the Pollutants of Concern for the entire project site as required in Section 3.5.1.1 of the WQMP. Supporting documentation for the sizing of these Site Design BMPs is included in Appendix F. *Section V.1.13 need not be completed. ❑ The Site Design BMPs described in Section V.1.A of this project -specific WQMP do NOT completely address the Pollutants of Concern for the entire project site as required in Section 3.5.1.1 of the WQMP. *Section V.1.13 must be completed. The Treatment Control BMPs identified in this section are selected, sized and implemented to address the Pollutants of Concern for all project sub -areas where these pollutants were not fully addressed with Site Design BMPs. Supporting documentation for the sizing of these Treatment Control BMPs is included in Appendix F. February 28, 2018 1-16 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Table 5: Treatment Control BMP Summary (1) DRAINAGE SUBAREA ID OR NO. (2) TREATMENT CONTROL BMP TYPE (SEE TABLE 2) (3) POLLUTANTS POTENTIALLY GENERATED WITHIN SUBAREA CAUSING RECEIVING WATER IMPAIRMENTS* (REFER TO TABLE 1) (4) RELATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF BMP (COLUMN 2) AT ADDRESSING IDENTIFIED POLLUTANTS (COLUMN 3) (U, L, M, H/M, H; SEE TABLE 2) (5) BMP MEETS WHICH DESIGN CRITERIA? (IDENTIFY AS VBMP OR QBMP) (6) BMP TRIBUTARY AREA (NEAREST 0.1 ACRE) TOTAL AREA TREATED WITH TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS NEAREST 0.1 ACRE)", February 28, 2018 1-17 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta V.1.0 MEASUREABLE GOAL SUMMARY This section documents the extent to which this project meets the measureable goal described in WQMP Section 3.5.1.1 of addressing all of the projects Treatment Requirements with Site Design BMPs. Table 6: Measureable Goal Summary (1) (2) (3) % of Treatment Total Area Treated with Total Area Treated with Requirement addressed Site Design BMPs Treatment Control BMPs with Site Design BMPs February 28, 2018 1-18 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta V.2 SOURCE CONTROL BMPs This section identifies and describes the Source Control BMPs applicable and implemented on this project. Table 7. Source Control BMPs BMP Name Check One If not applicable, state brief reason Included Not Applicable Non -Structural Source Control BMPs Education for Property Owners, Operators, Tenants, Occupants, or Employees ® ❑ Activity Restrictions ® ❑ Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance ® ❑ Common Area Litter Control ® ❑ Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots ® ❑ Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance ® ❑ Structural Source Control BMPs MS4 Stenciling and Signage ® ❑ Landscape and Irrigation System Design ® ❑ Protect Slopes and Channels ❑ ® No slopes and channels within or adjacent to the site. Provide Community Car Wash Racks ❑ ® This is a commercial site. Properly Design*: — Fueling Areas ❑ ® Not proposed onsite. Air/Water Supply Area Drainage ❑ ❑ No gas station proposed. Trash Storage Areas ❑ ❑ Loading Docks ® ❑ Maintenance Bays ❑ ® Not proposed onsite. Vehicle and Equipment Wash Areas ❑ ® Not proposed onsite. Outdoor Material Storage Areas ❑ ® Not proposed onsite. Outdoor Work Areas or Processing Areas ❑ I ® Not proposed onsite. Provide Wash Water Controls for Food Preparation Areas ❑ ® Not proposed onsite. *Details demonstrating proper design must be included in Appendix F. February 28, 2018 1-19 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Non -Structural Source Control BMPs Education for Property Owners, Operators, Tenants, Occupants, or Employees Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: Ongoing. Orientation shall be given to property owners, tenants, and occupants within 30 days of startup. Conditions of approval will require the Property Owner to annually provide environmental awareness education materials to all members. These materials shall include general housekeeping practices that contribute to the protection of Urban Runoff quality and BMPs that eliminate or reduce pollution during subsequent property improvements. These materials or a resource list for obtaining these materials will be available through City of La Quinta. However, City of La Quinta may elect to recover printing costs for such materials. The POA shall request these materials (in writing) at least 30 days prior to the intended distribution date. Practical information shall be provided on general good housekeeping BMPs and other practices that contribute to protection of storm water quality. This WQMP shall be provided with emphasis placed on the materials included in, but not limited to, Sections V, VI and VII of this report. Educational materials to be used include, but are not limited to, SC-10, Non-Stormwater Discharges, SC-41, Building & Grounds Maintenance, SC-43, Parking/Storage Area Maintenance, The Ocean Begins at Your Front Door, After the Storm —A Citizen's Guide to Understanding Stormwater, Preventing Pollution Through Efficient Water Use, and Protecting Water Quality from Urban Runoff. Activity Restrictions Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: Daily management of operation. Onsite activities shall be restricted to those currently granted by the City of La Quinta and as stated throughout this WQMP. Some common restrictions are as follows: • No discharges of fertilizer, pesticides, and wastes to streets or storm drains • No blowing or sweeping of debris into streets or storm drains • No hosing down of paved surfaces In addition, onsite activities shall be limited to the requirements of this WQMP as described herein. Irrigation System and Landscape Maintenance Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: Common area landscape shall be maintained on a weekly basis. All maintenance shall be consistent with the City of La Quinta Water Quality Ordinance and water conservation ordinance, which can be accessed through City of La Quinta's website or obtained through City of La Quinta's planning/permitting counter. Fertilizer and pesticide usage shall be consistent with the instruction contained on product labels and with regulations administered by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. Additionally, landscape maintenance must address replacement of dead vegetation, repair of erosion rills, proper disposal of green waste, etc. Irrigation February 28, 2018 1-20 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta system maintenance must address periodic testing and observation of the irrigation system to detect overspray, broken sprinkler heads, and other system failures. Common Area Litter Control Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: On a weekly basis The Owner shall implement trash management and litter control procedures aimed at reducing pollution of storm water runoff. The Owner will contract with a maintenance firm to provide regularly scheduled landscape maintenance and parking lot maintenance that will include litter removal and picking up grass and plant clippings. For additional information, see BMP SC-41, Building & Grounds Maintenance, and SC-43, Parking/Storage Area Maintenance, included in Appendix D. Street Sweeping Private Streets and Parking Lots Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: Monthly and prior to the onset of the rainy season (Oct. 1 st) The Owner shall be responsible for sweeping the surrounding parking lot with a vacuum -type sweeper on a monthly basis to remove debris. The parking area must also be swept prior to the onset of the rainy season (October 1 st) each year. Under no circumstances are outdoor areas/lots to be rinsed or washed with water unless said rinse/wash water is collected and disposed of properly (i.e. into the sewer). For additional information, see BMP SC-34, Waste Handling and Disposal and BMP SC-43, Parking/Storage Area Maintenance, included in Appendix D. Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: All catch basins/inlets and drywells on the site must be inspected once per year, prior to the rainy season (generally accepted as October 1 st through April 30th), and cleaned when necessary. The drainage facilities must be cleaned if accumulated sediment/debris fills 25% or more of the sediment/debris storage capacity. Structural Source Control BMPs MS4 Stencilin a�jznaje Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: Inspect a minimum once per year and repair as necessary. All catch basins/inlets on the site must be marked using the City's "No Dumping - Drains to Ocean" curb marker or stenciled using an approved stencil. Each catch basin must be marked on the top of curb directly above the inlet and on one side of the curb face. This stencil is to alert the public/employees to the destination of pollutants discharged into storm water. The owner shall inspect the catch basins once per year, at minimum, and re -stencil as necessary to maintain legibility. All onsite private catch basins will remain the property of the Owner(s). For additional information, February 28, 2018 1-21 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta see BMP SD-13, Storm Drain Signage, in Appendix D and the BMP Maintenance Responsibility/Frequency Matrix in Section VI. Landscape and Irri ate ion System Desig_n Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Implementation Frequency: Inspect irrigation equipment on a monthly basis. Check water sensors and adjust irrigation heads and timing monthly. Design irrigation systems to each landscape area's specific water requirements. The proposed landscape and irrigation system shall group plants with similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff and promote surface filtration. Employ rain shutoff devices to prevent irrigation during and after precipitation events. The timing and application methods of irrigation water shall be designed to minimize the runoff of excess irrigation water into the MS4. Monthly inspection of the irrigation system shall be conducted to insure efficient water uses. For additional information, see BMPs SC-41, Building and Grounds Maintenance, SD-10, Site Design and Landscape Planning, and SD-12, Efficient Irrigation, in Appendix D and the BMP Maintenance Responsibility/Frequency Matrix in Section VI. Properly Design Trash Storage Areas Responsible Party: CCD Hotel & Resorts Maintenance Implementation Frequency: Loose trash will be picked up daily and placed in containers. Trash dumpster pickup shall be a minimum of once a week. The proposed trash storage areas will be paved with an impervious surface and designed so that drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements will be diverted around the areas. The trash enclosure will be designed according to the City of La Quinta standards. For additional information, see BMP SD-32, Trash Storage Areas, in Appendix D, the BMP Maintenance Responsibility/Frequency Matrix in Section VI, and the trash enclosure details in Appendix F. Appendix D includes copies of the educational materials that will be used in implementing this project - specific WQMP. February 28, 2018 1-22 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta V.3 EQUIVALENT TREATMENT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES N/A V.4 REGIONALLY -BASED TREATMENT CONTROL BMPS N/A February 28, 2018 l -23 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta VI. Operation and Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs Appendix G of this project -specific WQMP includes copies of CC&Rs, Covenant and Agreements, and/or other mechanisms used to ensure the ongoing operation, maintenance, funding, transfer and implementation of the project -specific WQMP requirements. The BMPs proposed in this WQMP will be operated and maintained by: CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 February 28, 2018 1-24 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta VII. Funding The operation and maintenance of the BMPs proposed in this WQMP will be funded by CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 February 28, 2018 1-25 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix A Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Resolution Dated Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix B Vicinity Map, WQMP Site Plan, and Receiving Waters Map BERMUDA DUNES COUNTRY %V6 FRED WARING DRIVE w� w MILES AVENUE WMTWARU m VICIN)TY Ma� NOT TO SCALE NX.S. Whitewater River Region Receiving Waters Map r JfAThlA WAY CREEK erphroLvNpc cRrfx---T4LJ77L1 MOHGMGO CREfX 4 SAN GOR4;0NIOIR7 VERCl 4 f µ rn n *I CIO tra CAN YON CREf-14 s � - r A10�7YGCMER Y•CkfF�f {in � rJ4DV9AND PALIH5 CA hf YON CREUX shim MEEK � �f SNOW CREEK CH gar WEST t THEDRAL CANYON CHAMMEL ZAI- d CREEK ��4 � y�1► f n EA&T C TMED LUCANVON CHAAMML €n8r.rw4Grrl� $ fA GAAWYWP GnAfffv J, a►iGWm Gli# k ti DEEP CA hf Vj3k SrA WWATEA CHANAWL SITE WILLOkf C,x,EEI{ .v 1 I Cl 13 n ,a WF5rwA6m"lRCA0y CAAfONEc I1 9 eaJJLLA n 74. PALM VAL LEr SrORAIWATC-R CPIANPlEL I Sr La QVINrA.EVACUATIONCHANIVEL x�y f 'YA II A 011fNTA RESORT CMAIYhfEL L GR"EViHK,CAMYVN CREEK 1I€Ah' CRE€IS CA RRlSO CREEK C0Ya7TE CREEK = YIHI rF WA1 ER Y5 S PF RM17 Cd OLINCVARY MITE WATERWVURWATERSHED BUUWMRV x �tr REGENW& WATERS - LINES RErFIVIM, YMTERS -POLYS - -i i-OURTY 0CWH 7ARY WOMP EXHIBIT SWC OF JEFIFERSON AVE AND FRS WARM DR LA QUNTA, CALIFORNIA RETENTION BASIN '81' SF_L`ONAk OU7LE7 I Z= or 11% // — — -,— — — — — -- L F'K6i --PARK S17E e?JM4 CP W�477 I { (— r�. ow x39:�_ 1 OF art...;-ti] LL W 4 Ate - ,irr;+��i wr � � iw5 s� a-,.,rp, pr Irw ,YE- r K&. CWa lu ex WENMI i Waq Q. D n nSURMIE I I I L I MM FEW- r9R IOC Ylc ? I SHOPS 3 — r[}7D PARCEL 2 " I I 11 FARCE fi r':'NARiU. I I -V ]LPE• PARCEL'5 , PARcC_ 3 �I k —arm ulf I — --- ----—'IYfFi7 -- '#fill P!7W--X U3Z DM I r I 1 I I I { 1 � { I I PARCEL 1 r — I Sk10PS 1 I � I DRUG I — 7 { PARCEL JEFFERSON 0 I i I I _ I �-ZF ------------------------ LEGEND: 71 7REA-WIi AREA DESKG%Mon ,• FCREFSE :LrYA PATH �.�.�.� DLLl ARrat @GUMAPr �— - D13TURBED &REA (3.5 ACRES) TOTAL PROJECT AREA = 6,4 ACRES (PARCELS 3, 5, AN) 6} CCE, NOTE_ L FESLWiS — LA QUINT. 1 Q P EXHIBIT LA CUINTA, CA I:] ;I] )Jri`:, : o: ff3W0Engineerin9, Inc. — Clvll kngln�mnq;'Lani Sbrvep nq;'Land Plain rg i� Ilf.r wl:ll. Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix C Supporting Detail Related to Hydraulic Conditions of Concern N/A Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix D Educational Materials TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL ENGINEERING PHASE Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix E Soils Report GROTECHNICAL LNGE4FF+'RING I WEWIGATION PROPOSLM JEFFERSON SQUARE TEFFERSON STRWr AND FRED WAPING DIUVE LA QUINTA, CALIFOkNLA, PROJECT NO.112-07036 M KY 257 2007 isRLPA MD FOR; REGENCY CENTERS, INC. 36 EXECUTWE PARK, SUrrE 100 IRVR48, CALIFQ] EA. 92614 Amrraw MR. THOMAS MIDDLETON PREPARED IM KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 4121 SRICKELL STREE3 ONTMU0, CAUFORANIA 91761 (949) 974.440C Offices Serving the Western United States No. 1 IZ-07036 Page No- 5 Saismicmy, LlQlumcTtoN POTCNTIAL AND SEISMIC 1NUUCEO S$TTt EMENT Seismkity is a general term relating to the abrupt reslonse of accumulated strain energy ill die rack materials of the esrtb's cmt in a given geographical area. The recurrence of acetunulation and subsequent release of strain have resulted in faults and fault systems. Fault patterns and density refled relative degrees of regional stress through dine, but do not necessarily indicate recent seismic aetivity; therefore, the degree of seismic risk must be deteradned or estimated { y the seismic record in arty given region. Soil liquefaction is a state of soil particle suspension caused by a cotrtple Le loss of strength when the effective stress drops to zero. Liquefaction normally occurs under saturated conditions in soils such as sand in which the strength is purely frictional. However, liquefaction has occurred in sails other than clean sand. Liquefaction usually occurs under vibratory conditions such as those induced by seismic events. To evaluate thrs liquefaction potential of the site, the fallowing items were evaluated; I) Soil type 2) Groundwater depth 3) Relative density 4) 166ai couf`uting pressure 5) Intensity and duration of ground shaking The soils beneath the site consist predominately of dense and stiff materials. Groundwater is expected to be a depth of greater than 50 feet, The potential for liquefaction is Wnsideread to be low based on the absence of shallow groundwater and the relatively dense and stiff rrtnterials unde ying the sits. One of the most common pheaotnena during seismic shaking nccornpauying any earthTake is the induced Wenieut of loose uncexiisalidatcd soils. Based on site subsurface conditions and the moderate to liigh seisi>'tioity of the region, any loose granular materials at the site could be vulnerable to this poteutW hazard. Our analysis of dynamic deasiflcation of "dry" soil above rite water table In the upper 50 feet of existing soil profile was perfomied. The seise-dc densification of dry to damp alluvial sandy soils due to onsite seismic activity is calculated to have total settlements of approxituately 2 to 3 inches. To reduce the effects and rniagriitude of the seismic induced settle;n=nts, rcmadial grading is recommended, as discussed later in this report.. Following completion of the recommended retreedial grading and fotutdation design, we ostimate that differe atitil settlements of approximately �/ inch in 20 feet laterally iney mult from seismic densification. Soil COR1i091VITY Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil corrosivity to the buried strictures. The results of the tests are included as follQws: trs efcr 'Lesii! 77777777-7 Trst.:7letiiod: Resistivity 12,300 ohms -eau Caltrans { S-Wfate Less thmi 5 i gft UA. 9038 CWonda 23.4 mgfkg EPA 925 - . pTI 9.02 EPA 9045C KraEan & Associates, hnc, 0[ftea Serving The Western United Stoles 'i ' . 1120-0t 4.due 4NKJr'aZan & ASSOCIATES, INC, GEOTECFINICAL ENGINEERING; ;,'ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION TESTING & iNSPECTION July 8, 2009 r. Thomas Middleton Regency CcvcrS Inc. 36 Exemdve Park, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92614 RE: Percolat eon ]Bute Study "wed Shopping Center Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive La Quima, California Dear Mr. Middleton: KA Noject No. l 12-01036 In accordance with your request, we have performcd percolation testing at the subject site, This report docun=ts. the services aud'providcs the results of our field and laboratory study. This study was conducted to measure the approximate percolation rates within the naar-surfka strata of the site. It is our understanding that the data will be used by the project design team in their development of the uo site norm water disposal system. The percolation testing conducted .at. the subject site was perfiarmed in general aeoardame with the City of La Quints, Public Works Departmeat, Engineering Bulletin 406-1 b- Hydrology and Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain 'Systems, USER Percolation Test Standard. Our scope of services was outlined in our change order dated ,Tuna 11, 2008 (KA Project No. 112-07036) and in uded the following. ■ Conducting three (3) percolation tests within the -am of the proposed detention basins at the subject site. Two of the percolation tests were perfo med at depths of approximately 10 to 13 feet below existing grade. The pemoiation test fnr the underground basin was pafonned at a depth of approximately 20 to 23 feet below the existing grade. A. total of three exploratory borings were performed adjacent to the percolation tests, These exploratory bohW were extended to a depth of at least 15 feet below the bottom of each test. • Prepamtion of this report sunuumizing the results of our investigation. t?ffkzs Serving The Western United States 4221$rrdcdl Sweet, Onia.dc, Cali%mia 91761 + f909] 974-440.0 • Fax: (90919744022 JCA No. 11247036 Page 7 of 4 The proposed site is located at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive in Le Quinta, California. T"he site is roughly rectangular in scrape and roughly sloping to the north and east. At the time of onr field investigation and testing program, the site was undeveloped and oovered with sparse bushes and exposed soil. The subsurface profile generally c=isted of.loose to dense fwe sand and fine silty sands extending to the maximum depth explored. During the excavation of the borinA continuous visual and physical examination was conducted as the soil cuttings. Significant silt or clay layers/tomes were not identified as being enoaountcred in any of the borings at the site. Corrosion tests were performed to evaluate the soil oomosivitp to the buried strvcturm. The results Of the tests are included as follows. �"l4S jljy's `�:. ��! r:�,.4..�. �_��y: •'.r�� �•,.:�l: ' I •,. V..i. :.'� •i.'I����.:JLa�er,,;ls�^`:iAslr; 11�.:... I n./W'�..-�'�3:: In; �lii r.Cl l, '. '"..1hY''.L::.t [�"q! �I '.ef YL �'? �ri��. �. 1'.:.' .. f�M1n� r �� � i' �f-:;. �..r.�:�l?b�t+al pnHawa:a.:I.L-`!�:I :IqS 4ti�C�' ryl�;!1111 �.14`".i s'�'."jij. I�':i:i,�x�l�I.�� :� y,5 �'e :'+t, �. �I'rl;:'i.•�[9.... ��F:k-:�A'"�.y"r� liy'�.;a� I::-:'i ` � I��i Ir.J: � i� � ��.�� . ML.I :.-7i� r�:�i���': f W���i'I': ';k������ .a.. �x wNtt.'3'J�' .: 7r�: :ilY :��� Resistivity 2,460 ohms -cm Caltretus sulfate 268 mg/kg FPA 9039 Chloride 117 mg/kg EPA 9253 PH 7.52 EPA 9045C Excessive sulfate or chloride in either the soil or native water may result in an adverse reaction. between tho cement in concrete and the soil. California Building Code has developed criteria for evaluation of sulfate and chloride levels and how they relate to cement reactivity with sail and/or water. The sail samples fits the subject site were tested to have & low mdfate-and chloride cuneeutrations. Therefore; no special design requirements are necessary to compensate for sulfate or chloride reactivity with the cemem Electrical resistivity testing of the sail indicates that the onsite soils may have a mild potential for metal loss ftm electrochemical corrosion process. r 11. s 41k ti Two methods for perwlation testing are given in the City of La Quinta, Public Works Depadmeru, Engineering Bulletin 006-16. Hydrology and Hyftulic Report CiReria for Storm Drain Systems, USBR Percolation Test Standard. Either ASTM .Double using b fsltrometer Tact or U.S, Bureau of Reclamation Test were recomtt aded by the City of La Quint& as approved test methods, The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation method was detennmW to be the most prudent for the subject site. The test locations are presented on the attached site Platt,, Figure 1. Detail results of the percolation tests are attached. The data is presented in tabular format, The soil .percolation rates are based on Nests conducted with clean water. The infilvation rates may vary with elute as a result of soil clogging from water impurities. A factor of safety should be incorporated into the design of the basins to cornpe=te Offices Scotian The Western UsUmd Mates 4221 Brickell Su=4 Ontario, Calirasn#a 91761 r (909) 974-4400 * Fan: (9m) 9744022 l t2-07e136 in Ou1 m Pero 02 ILA No. t I2.0036 Page 3 of 4 s for these factors. In addition, periodic maintenance: consisting of clearing the bottom of the basins should be expected, Tl-4 highest percolation rate ranges from 4-25 inches to 6.5 inches per hour. A minimum factor of safety of2.0 should.be assigned to this value. The =ommended design percolation rate should be a mwdmum of 2.0 inches per hour. t UMTAnom Ceotechnical Engi,neaing is one of the newest divisions of Civil Engineering: This branch of Civil Engineering is contamtly improving as bony tedmologies and understanding of earth sciences advance. Although our services were conducted in accordance with current engineering practice, undoubtedly there will be substamtial future improvements in this branch of engineering. in addition to advancements in the field of Soils Engineering, phytical changes in the site, either due to excavatioa or 0 placement, new agency regulatioals, or possible changes in the proposed structure after the soils Mort is completed may require the soils report to be-professionaffy reviewed. In light of this, the Owner should be aware that there is a practical limit to the usefulness of this report without cot;cal review. Although the came limit for this review is strictly arbitrary, it is suggested that 1 year be considered a reawnable tune for the usefulness of this report. The scope of our ses ices did not include a groundwater study and was lien ted to the performance of percolation testing and the submitted of the data only. Orin services did.not include those associated with an Environmental Site Assessment for the presence or absence of hazardous and/or toxic materials in .the soi 1, groundwater, or atmosphere; or the prcsence o f wedamda. Any statements, or absence of statements, is this report regarding odors, unusual or suspicious items, or conditions observed, are strictly for descriptive purposes and an riot intended to convey engineering judgment regardiug potential hazardous and/or toxic assesarncnt. The geoteclmical engineering information presented herein is based upon professional intapremtion utilizing standard engineering practices_ She work conducted -through the course of this investigation, including the preparation of this report, have been.perfonned in accordance with thegenerally accepted standaMs of geoteahnical engineering practice, which existed in the geographic area at the time the report was written. No other warnoty, express or implied, is rwde. It is nut warrantod that such information and interpretation canwt be superseded by future gemechnicai engineering developments. We emphasize that this report is valid for the project outlined above and should not be used for any other sites. Offices Sa-Asg The Wextwr Uulted Slates 4222 9rickell Su=( flrttario, California 91761 a (909) 9744400 . Frx: (9M 9744U22 )12N036 La Ovinu Pate #2 KA No. 1 12-07036 Pap 4 Of 4 14 If you bave any garosdw regard ing the services perfariacd or tho data regortad heroin, or if we may be of further assistanm please do not besitatt to cmteat our office at (909) 97"400. AeapaetfbUy wlamnttod, KRAZAN ac ASSOCIATES,.W. 4 project o lie noSM-0O4! PC No_ 941 ■ add, E4Z � C1�}]MIC{tm � p44�r� Aaachme dta: Figwe 1, Site Plan Results ofPamolatWn Teas Boring Togs �� JF,M6ESh4,Itftl.gGG RCE No, M Nt UM2 P� Evom a"ep v.'2c09 ;�, Cs1 L OM ma Sssvbg The Weiter11 UhkW SUtai 4221 Brjadl Strad, Ontario, Cal rvu�a 917 51 - (W.) 9744400 • Fey; (949) 974.4U2 112-MG6 La Quidt■ Fem *2 1 i F t.1 - u W S � S ■ Sc 4 a .. .. n z W 4_ �-2 Ulf �.. LILT I ® 1 f LE JEFFERSON ST B-16 AMMOMMAlM BMM4GLUCATIM P-rAFMO TE FMCE)L.ALTMN WCATEON stwv PROPOSU) MITERSON SQUARE NTS JMY2006 i QU !'A, CA on br Apprwmd l y 4Q.Krazan SITE DEVEWP ENT ENG 3 9rrR PLAN Qff1OW SW&B the Western United Statz Project- Propoead Jefferson Square Client: Regency Centers Location. La Quinta, CAS lie I* Water Log .of brill Hole B47 Initial: Project No; f 12-07036 Figure No.. A-V Logged By, WP At 0NVietlon SUBSURFACE PROFILE SAMPLE r-. Weter Corrtent 6} � aes6tf'ptlpn a n 22 SAL.40 m Ground Surface SILTY SAND (SW fEne grolned, lfgrd silg y nlolet fine to medium pained, IISht brown, slfchtly moist siLry sANDVSAMD {Slti tine grained, brawn, slightly rmo�st, medium dense 14 - -�— - - SAND (SP), - very Tina grained, yells w-tan, slIgKfl y motet; rnediunn ` I- ..... ... . dense BILTYSAND(SAM 1 medlum to Doe ma gmined tan, medium dense j_ �•. •..;. ... w 1� _' - .� • rt 3 _ � .-.. � . .. S�LT1► SAIV�VSA AID (SAMPJ fine In medium ligrh# brown s�plllly mt►ict grained. t le- - _ . _. ... �.. s1UMSANATAND {SMPJr 20 fins grained, bmr bramn _•.4 ' --- 22- SA MD f SPA medfu emmagrained, Ilght brawr7. dense SAND (SP7, medium to coarse grained, light brown, dense 26 : -- FM of Bornholm 25- No pmur0otar wes onmunkred durtne drllMrig ' Hole bec*Mled with sal cuIfigs and tamped nirl method: Hollow 5tam Auger QrTitl Rig: CME 15 Krazan and Associates MI Data: O 26fb8 Hole $fee; T t3+fller. ,JG ration: Sw Bite Plan AhFWL 1 of 1 Lin PIM MUTTER. 1 prcqect 0 112 Dde -----Lju[y3,2oo8 3afrim, j PEMWAddrosa Jeffwwn Shreet and Fred -WarlrigDdye Most No.- P-o ITatal D 13 feet I Teat Sias 6 inches X pippoo :M, Ilk SM 0.00 �2•1010D 3 MOD 10.00 14 00.00 120.00 30.00 ao, 180.00 30.00 BMW 300.0460.00 13 V WSJ 14 : , U :.. � � - - 77 P-2 14 13 12 C 10 7 6 4 3 2 0 i 0.00 60.00 120.00 180.00 240.00 300.00 350.00 420M Time (minutes) 1 4' ' "lies :5WOW {': 17:r.- ", �^�.!+efI�tllai:Ft�rti �s .. ., ,'�t" i Start V�y.��MQyl V. iJ yyY��yy'yy l 3 30,00 4o ou 0.6 14%7 .. .. ,...:..: $... ,; .;, 7;:.� .. 6 OO.GO 30,OD '1.3 1 0.6.., 7 120.00 30JOD 2.1 8:0 �n e] & 9 1110.00 30.00 3.1 8A :. 11 300.00 180,00 4.1 6.7 '13 ` 15 : ftrwellpn: Nte thin ; JRWa4-QM8 Q ; 34 ENU! f CHEM , I Nc 9095903%5 P. 02,,97 'enviro - Chem, Inc. 1214 E. LejdngW Annual ftmans, CA ams Tip 04W Fox f 590-8907 4. L"CMUTORY REPORT CVSTQXM; xrasan & Assoeiatem, xw. 4221 ftiolkell, ft Ontario, CA 91791 Tel j9OA)g74--44L0Q F0049991974-am PR=T: ran R KATATX.,fiQM DATE RWEIVED 011 a l SAMPLING DATE:jg�21f„ .GATE by-ZEV; DV0�j RspcfirP TO:�HEt.._ S OTT__ L DAIM REFURTED:01/04tOR ------------------ --------------------- n, � SAMPLE I.10.! 112-07030 LAB T.D.r 00O102-1 EPA YAVARMR AWLS R]RB'Qi,l' L pm DRY DW22M 4 t -- 1C I JJPA 3B CULAURIM 7 MG A 9253 EPA 90415C- - comH=5 DF = nTLUTION FACTOR L = PRA=ICAL QU ZTATION WHIT ACT13AL O CTZCN LIMIT s aP X POL XGIXG = MILLIGEU -PIR KrL - PFX oms - cm - c m s-CAMIMETER * as RIH LmrT DATA REVIEM AND APPROVED BY - C'AL--ms EZ'AP C'zxrx71jCA'3 110- 2 1555 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix F Site Design and Treatment Control BMP Sizing Calculations and Design Details RETENTION BASIN SIZING (BASIN 'B) JEFFERSON SQUAR - CCD HOTEL & RESORTS, LA QUINTA, CA USE DESIGN VOLUME: 27,010 CUBIC FEET 1. ADS STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM (INFILTRATION BASIN) USE 100" X 60" OPEN BOTTOM ARCH PIPE: Note: Refer to Preliminary Hydrology Report for Required Storage Volume Determination. TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED = 26,493 CF (SEE ATTACHED DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER) 2. DRYWELL ONE MAXWELL PLUS DRYWELL, 30' DEEP STORAGE IN THE 6' DIA. SHAFT: VOLUME = 3.14 x (3 FT)12 x 20' = 565 CF STORAGE IN THE 4' DIA. SHAFT: VOLUME = 3.14 x (2 FT)12 x 10' = 126 CF TOTAL VOLUME = 565 SF + 126 SF = 691 SF TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED TOTAL VOLUME PROVIDED: 26,493 CF + 691 CF = 27,184 CF DRAW -DOWN TIME BOTTOM AREA = 6,230 SF (SEE ATTACHED DETAIL BY MANUFACTURER), 1 DRYWELL PROPOSED USE PERCOLATION RATE OF 2 INCH/HOUR AND 0.1 CFS PER DRYWELL: TOTAL PERCOLATION = 6,230 SF x 1/12 x 2 INCH/HOUR x 1/ 3,600 + 1 DRYWELL x 0.1 CFS/DRYWELL = 0.388 CFS DRAW TIME = 27,184 CUBIC FEET 0.388 CFS' 3,600 S / 1 HOUR = 19.46 HOURS (< 72 HOURS, THEREFORE, O.K.) LLLLLLFAF ADVANCED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, INC. EQ u 18-619 Jefferson Square SWC Fred Waring Dr and Jefferson St, La Quinta, CA STORMTECH CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS IMPORTANT - NOTES FOR THE BIDDING AND INSTALLATION OF MC-4500 CHAMBER SYSTEM 1. CHAMBERS SHALL BE STORMTECH MC-4500 OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. CHAMBERS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM VIRGIN, IMPACT -MODIFIED POLYPROPYLENE COPOLYMERS. 3. CHAMBER ROWS SHALL PROVIDE CONTINUOUS, UNOBSTRUCTED INTERNAL SPACE WITH NO INTERNAL SUPPORT PANELS THAT WOULD IMPEDE FLOW OR LIMIT ACCESS FOR INSPECTION. 4. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE CHAMBERS, THE STRUCTURAL BACKFILL, AND THE INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET FOR: 1) LONG -DURATION DEAD LOADS AND 2) SHORT -DURATION LIVE LOADS, BASED ON THE AASHTO DESIGN TRUCK WITH CONSIDERATION FOR IMPACTAND MULTIPLE VEHICLE PRESENCES. 5. CHAMBERS SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418, "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 6. CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ALLOWABLE LOADS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787, "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 7. ONLY CHAMBERS THATARE APPROVED BY THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER WILL BE ALLOWED. THE CHAMBER MANUFACTURER SHALL SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING UPON REQUEST TO THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE DELIVERING CHAMBERS TO THE PROJECT SITE: a. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE SAFETY FACTORS ARE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1.95 FOR DEAD LOAD AND 1.75 FOR LIVE LOAD, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED BY ASTM F2787AND BY AASHTO FOR THERMOPLASTIC PIPE. b. A STRUCTURAL EVALUATION SEALED BY A REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE LOAD FACTORS SPECIFIED IN THE AASHTO LRFD BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS, SECTION 12.12, ARE MET. THE 50 YEAR CREEP MODULUS DATA SPECIFIED IN ASTM F2418 MUST BE USED AS PART OF THE AASHTO STRUCTURAL EVALUATION TO VERIFY LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE. C. STRUCTURAL CROSS SECTION DETAIL ON WHICH THE STRUCTURAL EVALUATION IS BASED. 8. CHAMBERS AND END CAPS SHALL BE PRODUCED AT AN ISO 9001 CERTIFIED MANUFACTURING FACILITY. 1. STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED UNTIL THE MANUFACTURER'S REPRESENTITIVE HAS COMPLETED A PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE INSTALLERS. 2. STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". 3. CHAMBERS ARE NOT TO BE BACKFILLED WITH A DOZER OR EXCAVATOR SITUATED OVER THE CHAMBERS. STORMTECH RECOMMENDS 3 BACKFILL METHODS: • STONESHOOTER LOCATED OFF THE CHAMBER BED. • BACKFILLAS ROWS ARE BUILT USING AN EXCAVATOR ON THE FOUNDATION STONE OR SUBGRADE. • BACKFILL FROM OUTSIDE THE EXCAVATION USING A LONG BOOM HOE OR EXCAVATOR. 4. THE FOUNDATION STONE SHALL BE LEVELED AND COMPACTED PRIOR TO PLACING CHAMBERS. 5. JOINTS BETWEEN CHAMBERS SHALL BE PROPERLY SEATED PRIOR TO PLACING STONE. 6. MAINTAIN MINIMUM - 9" (230 mm) SPACING BETWEEN THE CHAMBER ROWS. 7. INLETAND OUTLET MANIFOLDS MUST BE INSERTED A MINIMUM OF 12" (300 mm) INTO CHAMBER END CAPS. 8. EMBEDMENT STONE SURROUNDING CHAMBERS MUST BE A CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE 3/4-2" (20-50 mm) MEETING THE AASHTO M43 DESIGNATION OF #3 OR #4. 9. STONE SHALL BE BROUGHT UP EVENLYAROUND CHAMBERS SO AS NOT TO DISTORT THE CHAMBER SHAPE. STONE DEPTHS SHOULD NEVER DIFFER BY MORE THAN 12" (300 mm) BETWEEN ADJACENT CHAMBER ROWS. 10. STONE MUST BE PLACED ON THE TOP CENTER OF THE CHAMBER TO ANCHOR THE CHAMBERS IN PLACE AND PRESERVE ROW SPACING. 11. ADS RECOMMENDS THE USE OF "FLEXSTORM CATCH IT" INSERTS DURING CONSTRUCTION FOR ALL INLETS TO PROTECT THE SUBSURFACE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FROM CONSTRUCTION SITE RUNOFF. NOTES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". THE USE OF EQUIPMENT OVER MC-4500 CHAMBERS IS LIMITED: • NO EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON BARE CHAMBERS. • NO RUBBER TIRED LOADER, DUMP TRUCK, OR EXCAVATORS ARE ALLOWED UNTIL PROPER FILL DEPTHS ARE REACHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". • WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSRUCTION EQUIPMENT CAN BE FOUND IN THE "STORMTECH MC-3500/MC-4500 CONSTRUCTION GUIDE". FULL 36" (900 mm) OF STABILIZED COVER MATERIALS OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REQUIRED FOR DUMP TRUCK TRAVEL OR DUMPING. USE OF A DOZER TO PUSH EMBEDMENT STONE BETWEEN THE ROWS OF CHAMBERS MAY CAUSE DAMAGE TO CHAMBERS AND IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BACKFILL METHOD. ANY CHAMBERS DAMAGED BY USING THE "DUMP AND PUSH" METHOD ARE NOT COVERED UNDER THE STORMTECH STANDARD WARRANTY. ©2015 ADS, INC. CONTACT STORMTECH AT 1-888-892-2694 WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS OR WEIGHT LIMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT. CU C CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT COMPUTER GENERATED CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION J (148) STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBERS O (10) STORMTECH MC-4500 END CAPS co Cn } INSTALLED WITH 12 " COVER STONE, 9 " BASE STONE, 40% STONE VOID C INSTALLED SYSTEM VOLUME: 26493 CIF z �w z 0 AREA OF SYSTEM: 6230 FT2 L U I PERIMETER OF SYSTEM: 358 FT O0 Lu of 131.75' a) o U z O O U 125.87' OD O o of (� N O L � af d r co F z ISOLATOR ROW INSPECTION PORT i ° r j U w Lu ui 24" CORED END CAP PART# MC450OREPE24BC o a TYP OF ALL MC-4500 24" CONNECTIONS AND of L ISOLATOR ROWS LL w W z zz p ww z� F d N � w U �w W U U ww � HO K ui a Ha Z o W Z N w 0 77 = w J U K H w w� d' � O � d� �w > w� x< PROPOSED STRUCTURE W/WEIR (DESIGN BY W w OU 0 u a ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS) _ ° J _ w< za w © m � z zww 24" x 24" ADS N-12 BOTTOM so -= 2-' MANIFOLD, INV 2.26" ABOVE v w ow _ CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD N� o ' o BY ENGINEER / SEE TECH mw SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD p o 10 SIZING GUIDANCE) z a 18" x 18" ADS N-12 BOTTOM MANIFOLD, INV 1.97" M E O ABOVE CHAMBER BASE (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER / E N w o SEE TECH SHEET #7 FOR MANIFOLD SIZING L N o a 0 GUIDANCE) O o _ w O �a w w PLACE MINIMUM 17.5' OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS Z N z 315WTK WOVEN GEOTEXTILE OVER BEDDING Q STONE AND UNDERNEATH CHAMBER FEET FOR On SCOUR PROTECTION AT ALL CHAMBER INLET a ROWS o~ o r a = j J O m z co Z M O w K a� = V O ' w w J °O D p co COZ Q K O w ` CD � Z OCD �/1 aw m 7 2 � VJ z ❑C7 o O o w z F— d w O � W H � a O w = O mF LL ¢O Z ID F _Y Z � U a U z Z o Lw UO =w 6" ADS N-12 DUAL WALL PERFORATED HDPE UNDERDRAIN PROPOSED OUTLET CONTROL STRUCTURE ~ w SHEET (SIZE TBD BY ENGINEER) (DESIGN BY ENGINEER / PROVIDED BY OTHERS) 2 OF Z5 c ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS: STORMTECH MC-4500 CHAMBER SYSTEMS AASHTO MATERIAL COMPACTION / DENSITY MATERIAL LOCATION DESCRIPTION CLASSIFICATIONS REQUIREMENT FINAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER'D' STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE 'C' LAYER TO THE BOTTOM ANY SOIL/ROCK MATERIALS, NATIVE SOILS, OR PER PREPARE PER SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S PLANS. D OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR UNPAVED FINISHED ENGINEER'S PLANS. CHECK PLANS FOR PAVEMENT N/A PAVED INSTALLATIONS MAY HAVE STRINGENT GRADE ABOVE. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT SUBBASE SUBGRADE REQUIREMENTS. MATERIAL AND PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS. MAY BE PART OF THE 'D' LAYER AASHTO M145' BEGIN COMPACTIONS AFTER 24" (600 mm) OF INITIAL FILL: FILL MATERIAL FOR LAYER'C' GRANULAR WELL -GRADED SOIL/AGGREGATE MIXTURES, <35% A-1, A-2-4, A-3 MATERIAL OVER THE CHAMBERS IS REACHED. STARTS FROM THE TOP OF THE EMBEDMENT FINES OR PROCESSED AGGREGATE. COMPACT ADDITIONAL LAYERS IN 12" (300 mm) C STONE ('B' LAYER) TO 24" (600 mm) ABOVE THE OR MAX LIFTS TO A MIN. 95% PROCTOR DENSITY FOR TOP OF THE CHAMBER. NOTE THAT PAVEMENT MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE MATERIALS CAN BE USED IN LIEU AASHTO M43' WELL GRADED MATERIAL AND 95% RELATIVE SUBBASE MAY BE A PART OF THE'C' LAYER. OF THIS LAYER. 3, 357, 4, 467, 5, 56, 57, 6, 67, 68, 7, 78, 8, 89, DENSITY FOR PROCESSED AGGREGATE 9,10 MATERIALS. EMBEDMENT STONE: FILL SURROUNDING THE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' B CHAMBERS FROM THE FOUNDATION STONE (W DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 NO COMPACTION REQUIRED. LAYER) TO THE 'C' LAYER ABOVE. FOUNDATION STONE: FILL BELOW CHAMBERS CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE, NOMINAL SIZE AASHTO M43' PLATE COMPACT OR ROLL TO ACHIEVE A FLAT A FROM THE SUBGRADE UP TO THE FOOT (BOTTOM) DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN 3/4-2 INCH (20-50 mm) 3,4 SURFACE. 2' OF THE CHAMBER. PLEASE NOTE: 1. THE LISTED AASHTO DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR GRADATIONS ONLY. THE STONE MUST ALSO BE CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR. FOR EXAMPLE, A SPECIFICATION FOR #4 STONE WOULD STATE: "CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR NO. 4 (AASHTO M43) STONE". 2. STORMTECH COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET FORA' LOCATION MATERIALS WHEN PLACED AND COMPACTED IN 9" (230 mm) (MAX) LIFTS USING TWO FULL COVERAGES WITH A VIBRATORY COMPACTOR. 3. WHERE INFILTRATION SURFACES MAY BE COMPROMISED BY COMPACTION, FOR STANDARD DESIGN LOAD CONDITIONS, A FLAT SURFACE MAY BE ACHIEVED BY RAKING OR DRAGGING WITHOUT COMPACTION EQUIPMENT. FOR SPECIAL LOAD DESIGNS, CONTACT STORMTECH FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ALL AROUND CLEAN, CRUSHED, ANGULAR STONE IN A & B LAYERS PERIMETER STONE (SEE NOTE 6) EXCAVATION WALL (CAN BE SLOPED OR VERTICAL) 12" (300 mm) MIN NOTES: MC-4500 END CAP (SEE NOTE 5) PAVEMENT LAYER (DESIGNED BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER) \ 'TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT. FOR UNPAVED \ \ \ INSTALLATIONS WHERE RUTTING FROM VEHICLES MAY OCCUR, INCREASE COVER TO 30 (750 mm). (230 mm) MIN 7.0' 24" (2.1 m) (600 mm) MIN` MAX DEPTH OF STONE TO BE DETERMINED BY DESIGN ENGINEER 9" (230 mm) MIN 12" (300 mm) TYP 1. MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2418 "STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR POLYPROPYLENE (PP) CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 2. MC-4500 CHAMBERS SHALL BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM F2787 "STANDARD PRACTICE FOR STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THERMOPLASTIC CORRUGATED WALL STORMWATER COLLECTION CHAMBERS". 3. "ACCEPTABLE FILL MATERIALS" TABLE ABOVE PROVIDES MATERIAL LOCATIONS, DESCRIPTIONS, GRADATIONS, AND COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR FOUNDATION, EMBEDMENT, AND FILL MATERIALS. 4. THE "SITE DESIGN ENGINEER" REFERS TO THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF THE STORMTECH CHAMBERS FOR THIS PROJECT. 5. THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ASSESSING THE BEARING RESISTANCE (ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY) OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS AND THE DEPTH OF FOUNDATION STONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE RANGE OF EXPECTED SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS. 6. PERIMETER STONE MUST BE EXTENDED HORIZONTALLY TO THE EXCAVATION WALL FOR BOTH VERTICAL AND SLOPED EXCAVATION WALLS. 7. ONCE LAYER'C' IS PLACED, ANY SOIL/MATERIAL CAN BE PLACED IN LAYER'D' UP TO THE FINISHED GRADE. MOST PAVEMENT SUBBASE SOILS CAN BE USED TO REPLACE THE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAYER'C' OR'D' AT THE SITE DESIGN ENGINEER'S DISCRETION. U) c 0 L N N a7 ob T_ w fr ® s o ❑co J N m z� = v w0� �oM o Q o co J_ W V = SHEET 3 OF 6 Z5 c COVER PIPE CONNECTION TO END CAP WITH ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE STORMTECH HIGHLY RECOMMENDS FLEXSTORM PURE INSERTS IN ANY UPSTREAM STRUCTURES WITH OPEN GRATES CATCH BASIN OR MANHOLE SUMP DEPTH TBD BY SITE DESIGN ENGINEER (24" [600 mm] MIN RECOMMENDED) MC-4500 CHAMBER 24" (600 mm) HDPE ACCESS PIPE REQUIRED USE FACTORY PRE -CORED END CAP PART #: MC450OREPE24BC MC-4500 ISOLATOR ROW DETAIL NTS INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE STEP 1) INSPECT ISOLATOR ROW FOR SEDIMENT A. INSPECTION PORTS (IF PRESENT) A. 1. REMOVE/OPEN LID ON NYLOPLAST INLINE DRAIN A.2. REMOVE AND CLEAN FLEXSTORM FILTER IF INSTALLED A.3. USING A FLASHLIGHT AND STADIA ROD, MEASURE DEPTH OF SEDIMENT AND RECORD ON MAINTENANCE LOG A.4. LOWER A CAMERA INTO ISOLATOR ROW FOR VISUAL INSPECTION OF SEDIMENT LEVELS (OPTIONAL) A.5. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. B. ALL ISOLATOR ROWS B. 1. REMOVE COVER FROM STRUCTURE AT UPSTREAM END OF ISOLATOR ROW B.2. USING A FLASHLIGHT, INSPECT DOWN THE ISOLATOR ROW THROUGH OUTLET PIPE i) MIRRORS ON POLES OR CAMERAS MAYBE USED TO AVOID A CONFINED SPACE ENTRY ii) FOLLOW OSHA REGULATIONS FOR CONFINED SPACE ENTRY IF ENTERING MANHOLE B.3. IF SEDIMENT IS AT, OR ABOVE, 3" (80 mm) PROCEED TO STEP 2. IF NOT, PROCEED TO STEP 3. STEP 2) CLEAN OUT ISOLATOR ROW USING THE JETVAC PROCESS A. A FIXED CULVERT CLEANING NOZZLE WITH REAR FACING SPREAD OF 45" (1.1 m) OR MORE IS PREFERRED B. APPLY MULTIPLE PASSES OF JETVAC UNTIL BACKFLUSH WATER IS CLEAN C. VACUUM STRUCTURE SUMP AS REQUIRED STEP 3) REPLACE ALL COVERS, GRATES, FILTERS, AND LIDS; RECORD OBSERVATIONS AND ACTIONS. STEP 4) INSPECT AND CLEAN BASINS AND MANHOLES UPSTREAM OF THE STORMTECH SYSTEM. Nf1TFS 1. INSPECT EVERY 6 MONTHS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION. ADJUST THE INSPECTION INTERVAL BASED ON PREVIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION AND HIGH WATER ELEVATIONS. 2. CONDUCT JETTING AND VACTORING ANNUALLY OR WHEN INSPECTION SHOWS THAT MAINTENANCE IS NECESSARY. 0 OPTIONAL INSPECTION PORT m w J a N �: J w � C � ❑w MC-4500 END CAP Z tz (D ? U z O Q W ,7j, 7i� (D ❑ U 'll� r/III r/III _ III r/III r/III r/III r/III r/III r/III L � r :girCgirCgirCyirCyir Cyd �1irCgirCgirCgi\JC�gCyirCyirCg: :girCgir C\ iJ\, it C��ir\ \ ij \grCgirCgir'1ir U i o L 0 z — r L cu H K Q Wo n n n n a of_0 w II II II II ❑ a z 0 a U W w ❑ TWO LAYERS OF ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 315WTM WOVEN GEOTEXTILE BETWEEN FOUNDATION STONE AND CHAMBERS 10.3' (3.1 m) MIN WIDE CONTINUOUS FABRIC WITHOUT SEAMS Y x U CONCRETE COLLAR PAVEMENT CONCRETE SLAB 8" (200 mm) MIN THICKNESS FLEXSTORM CATCH IT PART# 6212NYFX WITH USE OF OPEN GRATE 6" (250 mm) INSERTA TEE PART#06N12ST451P INSERTA TEE TO BE CENTERED ON CORRUGATION CREST I� ❑ I> w TH Jcp O U U CONCRETE COLLAR NOT REQUIRED 3 a FOR UNPAVED APPLICATIONS Y U ` 0 3 a w 0 ¢� 12" (300 mm) NYLOPLAST INLINE 0 09 DRAIN BODY W/SOLID HINGED COVER OR GRATE PART# 2712AG06N SOLID COVER: 1299CGC GRATE: 1299CGS ❑ > co J N 6" (150 mm) ADS N-12 00 HDPE PIPE < _ w - n J)f (If o Q o co J_ W V 2 MC-4500 CHAMBER a Lo MC-4500 6" INSPECTION PORT DETAIL NTS SHEET 4 OF 6 I5 c STORMTECH UNDERDRAIN DETAIL NITS STORK CHP UTLET MANIFOLD I FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601 NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTIL STORMTECH END CAP i FOUNDATION STONE BENEATH CHAMBERS ADS GEOSYNTHETICS 601T NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ..,�.����.,, _ _. ..�..,��..,�.,, 11 . ��..,� � � DESIGN ENGINEER . 4" (100 mm) TYP FOR SC-310 SYSTEMS 6" (150 mm) TYP FOR SC-740, DC-780, MC-3500 & MC-4500 SYSTEMS CONVEYANCE PIPE MATERIAL MAY VARY (PVC, HDPE, ETC.) INSERTA TEE CONNECTIOI PLACE ADS GEOSYN GEOTEXTILE (CENTEF INLET) OVER BEDDINC PROTECTION AT SIDE INLET CONNECTIONS. GEOTEXTILE MUST EXTEND 6" (150 mm) PAST CHAMBER FOOT CREST STIFFENING RIB VALLEY STIFFENING RIB MC-4500 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CREST WEB UPPER JOINT rnRRi it ATinni FOOT NITS L WALL L LOWER JOINT CORR. I� =GRATED f 100.0" (2540 mm) E a BUILD ROW IN THIS DIRECTION ERDRAIN (12 INS err 48.3" .— 52.0" 27 mm) TALLIED(1321 mm) NOMINAL CHAMBER SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) CHAMBER STORAGE MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE' WEIGHT 100.0" X 60.0" X 48.3" 106.5 CUBIC FEET 162.6 CUBIC FEET 130.0 lbs. (2540 mm X 1524 mm X 1227 mm) (3.01 ml) (4.60 ml) (59.0 kg) NOMINAL END CAP SPECIFICATIONS SIZE (W X H X INSTALLED LENGTH) 90.2" X 59.4" X 30.7" (2291 mm X 1509 mm X 781 mm) INSERTA TEE DETAIL END CAP STORAGE 35.7 CUBIC FEET (1.01 ml) MINIMUM INSTALLED STORAGE' 108.7 CUBIC FEET (3.08 ml) NTS WEIGHT 135.0 lbs. (61.2 kg) NOTE: PART NUMBERS WILL VARY BASED ON INLET PIPE MATERIALS. CONTACT STORMTECH FOR MORE INFORMATION. DO NOT INSTALL INSERTA-TEE AT CHAMBER JOINTS INSERTA TEE TO BE INSTALLED, CENTERED OVER CORRUGATION SIDE VIEW CHAMBER MAX DIAMETER OF INSERTA TEE HEIGHT FROM BASE OF CHAMBER (X) SC-310 6" (150 mm) 4" (100 mm) SC-740 10" (250 mm) 4" (100 mm) DC-780 10" (250 mm) 4" (100 mm) MC-3500 12" (300 mm) 6" (150 mm) MC-4500 12" (300 mm) 8" (200 mm) INSERTA TEE FITTINGS AVAILABLE FOR SDR 26, SDR 35, SCH 40 IPS GASKETED & SOLVENT WELD, N-12, HP STORM, C-900 OR DUCTILE IRON -ASSUMES 12" (305 mm) STONE ABOVE, 9" (229 mm) STONE FOUNDATION AND BETWEEN CHAMBERS, 12" (305 mm) STONE PERIMETER IN FRONT OF END CAPS AND 40% STONE POROSITY. STUBS AT BOTTOM OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "B" STUBS AT TOP OF END CAP FOR PART NUMBERS ENDING WITH "T" PART # STUB B C MC450OREPE06T 6" (150 mm) 42.54" (1.081 m) MC450OREPE06B --- 0.86" (22 mm) MC450OREPE08T 8" (200 mm) 40.50" (1.029 m) --- MC450OREPE08B --- 1.01" (26 mm) MC450OREPE10T 10" (250 mm) 38.37" (975 mm) --- MC4500REPE10B --- 1.33" (34 mm) MC450OREPE12T 12" (300 mm) 35.69" (907 mm) --- MC4500REPE12B --- 1.55" (39 mm) MC450OREPE15T 15" (375 mm) 32.72" (831 mm) MC450OREPE15B --- 1.70" (43 mm) MC450OREPE18TC 18" (450 mm) 29.36" (746 mm) --- MC4500REPE18BC --- 1.97" (50 mm) MC4500REPE24TC 24" (600 mm) 23.05" (585 mm) --- MC450OREPE24BC --- 2.26" (57 mm) MC450OREPE30BC 30" (750 mm) --- 2.95" (75 mm) MC4500REPE36BC 36" (900 mm) --- 3.25" (83 mm) MC450OREPE42BC 42" (1050 mm) --- 3.55" (90 mm) NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS ARE NOMINAL CUSTOM PRECORED INVERTS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. INVENTORIED MANIFOLDS INCLUDE 12-24" (300-600 mm) SIZE ON SIZE AND 15-48" (375-1200 mm) ECCENTRIC MANIFOLDS. CUSTOM INVERT LOCATIONS ON THE MC-4500 END CAP CUT IN THE FIELD ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PIPE SIZES GREATER THAN 10" (250 mm) THE INVERT LOCATION IN COLUMN 'B' ARE THE HIGHTEST POSSIBLE FOR THE PIPE SIZE. 90.2" (2291 mm) 0 (� J w a N �: J O C � 0O L Z Y tz U Z 2 O L � ❑ U o a o a " gym) co i ,L co o x O a z c>B H w O _0 o a w z O a U U w 30.7" (781 mm) INSTALLED Y U ❑ w o� I ~j 35.1" (891 mm) 3 o U w a w F 0 Z ❑ co J N m om z� = v w O � o Q o c J W '3- SHEET 5 OF 6 � � MC -SERIES END CAP INSERTION DETAIL co Nr (D co 7 = , 7oR� ECHEND CAP � \ \ j } ,(aoomm) § \ z\ y N SEPARATION e ¢ _ ,z{oaomm MIN INSERTION 7 7 \ CD\ / \ MANIFOLD STUB ob / MANIFOLD HEADER 2 ! } ( MANIFOLD HEADER [ MANIFOLD STUB § § ,z{oaomm 1z(001mm) j\ MIN SEPARATION MININERiTON } - o w) R § NOTE: MANIFOLD STUB MUST BELAID HORIZONTAL }\ R A PROPER FIT IN END CAP OPENING. > ) - , )) §( zw - \\ }\ E) \\ \\ � W.ol On Ix /\ - m% {}p 20/0. §co zzw /d/ - moo: }\ �\ \} !00 SHED 6 OF 6 Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix G AGREEMENTS - CC&RS, COVENANT AND AGREEMENTS AND/OR OTHER MECHANISMS FOR ENSURING ONGOING OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, FUNDING AND TRANSFER OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT -SPECIFIC WQMP TO BE PROVIDED IN FINAL ENGINEERING PHASE Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix H PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT - SUMMARY OF SITE REMEDIATION CONDUCTED AND USE RESTRICTIONS N/A Whitewater River Region WQMP CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Appendix I PROJECT -SPECIFIC WQMP SUMMARY DATA FORM Project -Specific WQMP Summary Data Form Applicant Information Name and Title Caleb Ro, Acquisition and Business Development Manager Company CCD Hotel & Resorts Phone 760-610-1196 Email caleb@ccdhotelandresorts.com Project Information Project Name (as shown on project application/project-specific WQMP) CCD Hotel & Resorts — La Quinta Street Address SWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive Nearest Cross Streets Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive Municipality (City or Unincorporated County) La Quinta Zip Code 92253 Tract Number(s) and/or Assessor Parcel Number(s) APN 604-521-010, 012, 013 Other (other information to help identify location of project) N/A Watershed Whitewater River Indicate type of project. Priority Development Projects (Use an "X" in cell preceding project type): SF hillside residence; impervious area >_ 10,000 sq. ft.; Slope >_ 25% SF hillside residence; impervious area z 10,000 sq. ft.; Slope z 10% & erosive soils Commercial or Industrial >_ 100,000 sq. ft. Automotive repair shop Retail Gasoline Outlet disturbing > 5,000 sq. ft. Restaurant disturbing > 5,000 sq. ft. Home subdivision > 10 housing units X Parking lot >_ 5,000 sq. ft. or >_ 25 parking spaces Date Project -Specific WQMP Submitted Size of Project Area (nearest 0.1 acre) 6.4 acres Project Area managed with Site Design or Low Impact Development (LID) BMPs (nearest 0.1 acre) 6.4 acres Is the project subject to onsite retention by ordinance or policy? Yes Are Treatment Control BMPs required? No (pretreating before runoff enters underground chamber) Name of the entity will implement, operate, and maintain the post -construction BMPs CCD Hotel & Resorts Contact Name Caleb Ro Street or Mailing Address 41-750 Rancho Las Palmas Drive, Suite 0-3 City Rancho Mirage Zip Code 92270 Phone 760-610-1196 Space Below for Use by City/County Staff Only Preceding Information Verified by (consistent with information in project -specific WQMP) Name: Date: Date Project -Specific WQMP Approved: Data Entered by Name: Date: Other Comments Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix F Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis -101- URBAN CROSSROADS Jefferson Square NOISE IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF LA QUINTA PREPARED BY: Bill Lawson, PE, INCE blawson@urbanxroads.com (949) 336-5979 Alex Wolfe, INCE awolfe@urbanxroads.com (949) 336-5977 APRIL 18, 2018 11615-02 Noise Study Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Noise Study. docx URBAN „ L4#C7S SR�fLD€ Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............. APPENDICES ........................... LIST OF EXHIBITS .................... LIST OF TABLES ....................... LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........... III IV .V .V VI .1 Operational Noise Analysis.................................................................................................................1 Construction Noise Analysis................................................................................................................1 Construction Vibration Analysis..........................................................................................................2 Summary of CEQA Significance Findings..............................................................................................4 1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 7 1.1 Site Location.............................................................................................................................7 1.2 Project Description...................................................................................................................7 2 FUNDAMENTALS..........................................................................................................................11 2.1 Range of Noise....................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Noise Descriptors...................................................................................................................12 2.3 Sound Propagation................................................................................................................. 12 2.4 Noise Control......................................................................................................................... 13 2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation....................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise......................................................................................... 14 2.7 Community Response to Noise............................................................................................... 14 2.8 Exposure to High Noise Levels................................................................................................ 15 2.9 Vibration................................................................................................................................15 3 REGULATORY SETTING.................................................................................................................19 3.1 State of California Noise Requirements.................................................................................. 19 3.2 State of California Building Standards..................................................................................... 19 3.3 City of La Quinta General Plan Environmental Hazards Element ............................................. 19 3.4 Operational Noise Standards.................................................................................................. 20 3.5 Construction Noise Standards................................................................................................ 21 3.6 Construction Vibration Standards...........................................................................................22 3.7 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Standards ................................................... 23 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA...............................................................................................................25 4.1 Noise -Sensitive Receivers.......................................................................................................25 4.2 Significance Criteria Summary................................................................................................27 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS.....................................................................................29 5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria..................................................................................... 29 5.2 Noise Measurement Locations............................................................................................... 29 5.3 Noise Measurement Results................................................................................................... 30 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES......................................................................................................33 6.1 Operational Reference Noise Levels....................................................................................... 33 6.2 Construction Noise Levels.......................................................................................................35 6.3 Construction Reference Noise Levels......................................................................................35 Noise Study. docx O URBAN ER{7SiRnfiD4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 6.4 Construction Vibration Assessment Methodology.................................................................. 36 7 RECEIVER LOCATIONS.................................................................................................................. 39 8 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS...............................................................................................................43. 8.1 Operational Noise Levels........................................................................................................42 8.2 Operational Noise Level Compliance......................................................................................44 8.3 Project Operational Noise Contribution..................................................................................44 9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS............................................................................................................47 9.1 Construction Noise Analysis....................................................................................................48 9.2 Construction Noise Thresholds of Significance........................................................................ 50 9.3 Construction Noise Level Increases.........................................................................................52 9.4 Construction Vibration Impacts..............................................................................................54 10 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................57 11 CERTIFICATION.............................................................................................................................59 APPENDICES APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS APPENDIX 8.1: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 9.1: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION CALCULATIONS APPENDIX 9.2: TEMPORARY NOISE BARRIER SAMPLE PHOTOS Noise Study. docx URBAN IV �+�ossr�nraa� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT ES -A: SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION MEASURES ...........................5 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP.................................................................................................................8 EXHIBIT1-B: SITE PLAN..........................................................................................................................9 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS.....................................................................................................11 EXHIBIT 2-13: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION...............................................................................15 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION............................................................17 EXHIBIT 3-A: FUTURE BERMUDA DUNES AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS.................................................24 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS.................................................................................32 EXHIBIT 7-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS......................................................................................................40 EXHIBIT 8-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS..............................................41 EXHIBIT 9-A: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS....................................................47 LIST OF TABLES TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS.............................................................................4 TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS..................................................................................... 20 TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS............................................................................................. 22 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS AT NOISE -SENSITIVE RECEIVERS...................................26 TABLE 4-2: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY.................................................................................... 28 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS............................................................31 TABLE 6-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS........................................................................33 TABLE 6-2: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS........................................................................ 36 TABLE 6-3: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.........................................37 TABLE 8-1: UNMITIGATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS.......................................................43 TABLE 8-2: UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE.................................................44 TABLE 8-3: DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS....................................................45 TABLE 8-4: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS.................................................46 TABLE 9-1: DEMOLITION ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS.................................................................................48 TABLE 9-2: GRADING/EXCAVATION ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS................................................................49 TABLE 9-3: PAVING ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS.........................................................................................50 TABLE 9-4: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY (DBA LEQ)...............51 TABLE 9-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE (DBA LEQ)...................................51 TABLE 9-6: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (DBA LEQ) ..............52 TABLE 9-7: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (DBA LEQ) ...................53 TABLE 9-8: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS.......................................55 TABLE 9-9: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS............................................56 Noise Study. docx -ChURBAN V �+�ossr�nraa� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS (1) Reference ADT Average Daily Traffic ANSI American National Standards Institute CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dBA A -weighted decibels EPA Environmental Protection Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level Lmax Maximum level measured over the time interval Lmin Minimum level measured over the time interval mph Miles per hour PPV Peak Particle Velocity Project Jefferson Square RMS Root -mean -square VdB Vibration Decibels Noise Study. docx URBAN VI �+�ossr�nraa� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this noise study to determine the noise exposure and the necessary noise mitigation measures for the proposed Jefferson Square development ("Project"). The Project site is located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta. The Project is currently proposed to consist of a 162-room hotel, 16,568 square feet of food market use, and 8,849 square feet of retail use. It should be noted that the project site also consists of 13,013 square feet of existing pharmacy/drug store use, 7,000 square feet of retail use, and future retail pads of approximately 9,500 square feet. This study has been prepared to satisfy applicable City of La Quinta noise standards and significance criteria based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) OPERATIONAL NOISE ANALYSIS Using reference noise levels to represent the potential noise sources within Jefferson Square site, this analysis estimates the Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels at the nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations. The Project -related operational noise sources are expected to include: roof -top air conditioning units, shopping car corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities. The analysis shows that the Project -related operational noise levels will satisfy the City of La Quinta exterior noise level standards at the off -site receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, this analysis demonstrates that the Project will contribute a less than significant operational noise level impact to the existing ambient noise environment at all the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise level impacts associated with the proposed Project activities, such as the roof -top air conditioning units, shopping car corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities will be less than significant. CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS Construction noise represents a short-term increase on the ambient noise levels. Construction - related noise impacts are expected to create temporary and intermittent high-level noise conditions at receivers surrounding the Project site. Using sample reference noise levels to represent the planned construction activities of Jefferson Square site, this analysis estimates the Project -related construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since the City of La Quinta General Plan and Municipal Code do not identify specific construction noise level thresholds, a threshold is identified based on the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) limits for construction noise. The Project -related short-term construction noise levels are expected to approach 67.5 dBA Leq and will satisfy the 85 dBA Leq threshold identified by NIOSH at all receiver locations. Therefore, based on the results of this analysis, all nearby sensitive receiver locations will experience less than significant impacts due to Project construction noise levels. Noise Study. docx 1 uRB,AM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis To describe the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements at the off -site receiver locations. A temporary noise level increase of 12 dBA Leq is considered a potentially significant impact based on the Caltrans substantial noise level increase criteria which is used to assess the Project -construction noise level increases. (4) The analysis shows that the Project will contribute unmitigated, worst -case construction noise level increases ranging from 1.5 to 16.0 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations during the daytime construction hours. Since the worst -case temporary noise level increase of up to 16.0 dBA Leq during Project construction will exceed the 12 dBA Leq significance threshold, the unmitigated construction noise level increases are considered a potentially significant temporary noise impact at receiver locations R3 to R5. Therefore, construction noise mitigation is required to reduce the short-term noise level increases at the potentially impacted receiver locations. With the minimum 10-foot high temporary noise barrier mitigation measure identified herein, and outlined below, all nearby sensitive receiver locations will experience less than significant impacts due to temporary Project construction noise levels. The construction noise analysis presents a conservative approach with the highest noise -level -producing equipment for each stage of Project construction operating at the closest point from primary construction activity to the nearby sensitive receiver locations. This scenario is unlikely to occur during typical construction activities and likely overstates the construction noise levels which will be experienced at each receiver location. CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ANALYSIS At distances ranging from 78 to 440 feet from the Project construction activities, construction vibration levels are expected to approach 0.011 in/sec RMS. Based on the City of La Quinta vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec RMS, the proposed Project construction activities will generate unmitigated vibration levels which exceed the threshold at receiver locations R4 and R5, and therefore, represents a potentially significant impact. To reduce the potential impacts due to Project construction equipment vibration levels, a 90-foot buffer in which auger drilling, loaded trucks, and large bulldozers are prohibited shall be included as Project construction vibration mitigation to reduce the vibration levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. The mitigated Project vibration levels at R4 and R5 will approach 0.009 in/sec RMS, and therefore, will remain below the 0.01 in/sec RMS threshold. As such, Project - construction vibration levels will be less than significant with mitigation. LOMR13AN G4?V'iim �AD5� Noise Study. docx 2 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures are required to reduce noise and vibration levels produced by the construction equipment to the nearby sensitive residential land uses. • Install a minimum 10-foot high temporary construction noise barrier at the Project's southern site boundary adjacent to sensitive receiver locations R3 to IRS (residential homes), shown on Exhibit ES -A, for the duration of Project construction. The noise control barriers must have a solid face from top to bottom. The noise control barriers must meet the minimum height and be constructed as follows: o The temporary noise barriers shall provide a minimum transmission loss of 20 dBA (Federal Highway Administration, Noise Barrier Design Handbook). The noise barrier shall be constructed using an acoustical blanket (e.g. vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets) attached to the construction site perimeter fence or equivalent temporary fence posts. Example photos are provided in Appendix 9.2.; o The noise barrier must be maintained, and any damage promptly repaired. Gaps, holes, or weaknesses in the barrier or openings between the barrier and the ground shall be promptly repaired; o The noise control barrier and associated elements shall be completely removed, and the site appropriately restored upon the conclusion of the construction activity. • The use of auger drills, loaded trucks, and large bulldozers capable of generating vibration levels of 0.01 in/sec RMS at sensitive receiver locations shall be prohibited within 90 feet of nearby occupied sensitive uses to reduce the noise and vibration levels for the entire duration of Project construction. If the contractor can demonstrate that specific pieces of large construction equipment will generate vibration levels at adjacent sensitive uses which remain below 0.01 in/sec RMS, then they shall be allowed to operate within the buffer zone shown on Exhibit ES -A. Otherwise, smaller, rubber -tired, or alternative, lower vibration -generating equipment shall be used within the 90-foot buffer. • Prior to approval of grading plans and/or issuance of building permits, plans shall include a note indicating that noise -generating Project construction activities shall only occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of October to April, and to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of May to September. All year, construction activities are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays. (4) The Project construction supervisor shall ensure compliance with the note and the City shall conduct periodic inspection at its discretion. • During all Project site construction, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers' standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction -related noise sources and noise -sensitive receivers nearest the Project site during all Project construction (i.e., to the center). • The construction contractor shall limit construction haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment (between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mondays to Noise Study. docx 3 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Fridays during the months of October to April, and to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of May to September. All year, construction activities are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays (4)). The contractor shall design delivery routes to minimize the exposure of sensitive land uses or residential dwellings to delivery truck -related noise. SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS The results of this Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report. Table ES-1 shows the findings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact before and after any required mitigation measures. TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS Report Significance Findings Analysis Section Unmitigated Mitigated Operational Less Than n/a Noise Level Compliance 8 Significant Long -Term Operational Less Than n/a Noise Level Increases Significant Construction Less Than n/a Noise Levels Significant Short -Term Construction Potentially Less Than Noise Level Increases 9 Significant Significant Construction Potentially Less Than Vibration Levels Significant Significant Noise Study. docx 4 L URHAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis EXHIBIT ES -A: SUMMARY OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION MEASURES elki - ! i fi?,11J WARONG VA PL = F car' - - - .r: � � .e•. AM8r455AR� .'J■k I I � i� '. r, � rsr'� �] •� I I � �' rl I I _j/�.� + U3 i ZE r '4 - - � � iNEiV]L714�A! pi fi • Kit�rrypk. i'n r'•• OJi'. ` LEGEND: ReL'eivel Lacation , CuristrL--ion Activity IJ 8errier F144ighi [W reek} Rat Temporary NOi Se. Barri er Existing Barrier --6 yis-lanee from rererrer to mnstryctioi: schyity (in Fecal Augertinllina,loaded truwh and dir4ebulldowrAsM11heprohibtedwithinthe9a-fwtbuR,,rfnrsensitive receiver Iocatton&lazller, rubber-tiredr oralternatwe, lower vibration-generatln& equipment shall be used [nstaad, Noise Study. docx 5 OURNAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 1 INTRODUCTION This noise analysis has been completed to determine the noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Jefferson Square ("Project"). This noise study briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, describes the local regulatory setting, provides the study methods and procedures for this analysis, and evaluates the potential Project -related long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts. 1.1 SITE LOCATION The proposed Jefferson Square Project is located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta, as shown on Exhibit 1-A. The Project site is currently occupied by an existing pharmacy/drug store and retail uses. Additional vacant but planned future retail pads are located within the Project site. Existing residential homes are located north, south, east, and west of the Project site, and the Monticello Park is located immediately west of the Project site. The closest airport to the Project site is Bermuda Dunes Airport which is located approximately 1.2 miles north on Avenue 42. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is currently proposed to consist of a 162-room hotel, 16,568 square feet of food market use, and 8,849 square feet of retail use. It should be noted that the project site also consists of 13,013 square feet of existing pharmacy/drug store use, 7,000 square feet of retail use, and future retail pads of approximately 9,500 square feet. The currently proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 1-B. The on -site Project -related operational noise sources are expected to include: roof -top air conditioning units, shopping car corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities. Noise Study. docx 7 URBAM Iva 44 Mai %Arm es.' '� Q _ mores /lute Wit f4 p MIN'S Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1-B: SITE PLAN Noise Study. docx URNA 1 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Noise Study. docx This page intentionally left blank 10 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 2 FUNDAMENTALS Noise has been simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A -weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects that are described in more detail below. EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOOR COMMON INDOOR A - WFIGNTED SUBJECTIVE EFFECTS OF ACTIVITIES ACTIVITIES BOUND LEVEL dBA LOUDNESS NOISE THRESHOLD OF PAIN 140 130 iT0 1t0 100 90 1fElt1~ NOIS# NEAR JET ENGINE JET FLYOVER AT 300m (1000 ft) ROCK BAND LOUD AUTO HORN GAS LAWN MOWER AT 1m (3 k) DIESEL TRUCK AT 1Sm (50 it), FOOD BLENDER AT 1m 131t) Bo at W hm/hr (SO mph) 70 SPEECH NOISY URBAN AREA, DAYTIME VACUUM CLEANER AT 3m (10 ft) i011D INTERFEN13[1E HEAVY TRAFFIC AT 90m (300 ft) NORMAL SPEECH AT I 13It) E0 QUIET URBAN DAYTIME LARGE BUSINESS OFFICE SO MODERATE SLEET THEATER. LARGE CONFERENCE 40 QUIET URBAN NIGHTTIME DISTURBANCE ROOM (BACKGROUND) QUIET SUBURBAN NNUfFTIME LIBRARY 10 FAINT QUIET RURAL NIGHTTIME BEDROOM AT NIGHT, CONCERT 20 HALL (BACKGROUND) NO EFFECT BROADCASTIRECORD114G STUDIO 10 VERY PAINT LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN LOWEST THRESHOLD OF HUMAN 0 "RARING HEARING Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 55019-74-004) March 1974. 2.1 RANGE OF NOISE Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the logarithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (5) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine noises equate to 110 dBA Noise Study. docx 11 URHAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (6) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time. 2.2 NOISE DESCRIPTORS Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most commonly used figure is the equivalent level (Leq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from sound pressure levels typically measured in A - weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period and is commonly used to describe the "average" noise levels within the environment. To describe the time -varying character of environmental noise, the statistical or percentile noise descriptors Lso, Les, L8 and L2, are commonly used. The percentile noise descriptors are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 50 percent, 25 percent, 8 percent, and 2 percent of a stated time. Sound levels associated with the L2 and L8 typically describe transient or short-term events, while levels associated with the Lso describe the steady state (or median) noise conditions. While the Lso describes the median noise levels occurring 50 percent of the time, the Leq accounts for the total energy (average) observed for the entire hour. Therefore, the Leq noise descriptor is generally 1-2 dBA higher than the Lso noise level. Peak hour or average noise levels, while useful, do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur during times when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. To account for this, the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composite 24-hour noise level is utilized. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time of day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions are made to account for the noise sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder. CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time, but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of La Quinta relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation related noise sources. 2.3 SOUND PROPAGATION When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The way noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors. 2.3.1 GEOMETRIC SPREADING Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to Noise Study. docx 12 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (5) 2.3.2 GROUND ABSORPTION The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (7) 2.3.3 ATMOSPHERIC EFFECTS Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. (5) 2.3.4 SHIELDING A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an "out of sight, out of mind" effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line -of -sight to nearby resident. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide and dense enough to completely obstruct the line -of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. The FHWA does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (7) 2.4 NOISE CONTROL Noise control is the process of obtaining an acceptable noise environment for an observation point or receptor by controlling the noise source, transmission path, receptor, or all three. This concept is known as the source -path -receptor concept. In general, noise control measures can be applied to these three elements. Noise Study. docx - T URBAN 13 Gf?ViimM�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 2.5 NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most effective when placed close to the noise source or receptor. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a noise barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (7) 2.6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambient noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area's desirability as a place to live, shop and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and design process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate land development in such a way that noise -sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a highway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed in such a way that noise impacts are minimized. (8) 2.7 COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE Community responses to noise may range from registering a complaint by telephone or letter, to initiating court action, depending upon everyone's susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance including: • Fear associated with noise producing activities; • Socio-economic status and educational level; • Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated; • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise -producing activity; • Belief that the noise source can be controlled. Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise not of their making. Consequently, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Another twenty-five percent of the population will not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (9) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approximately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (9) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels as shown on Exhibit 2-B. An increase or decrease of 1 dBA cannot be perceived except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 3 dBA are considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (7) Noise Study. docx 14 - LOMR13AN Gf?ViimR�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 2-13: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION Twice as Loud Readily Perceptible Barely Perceptible Just Perceptible 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Noise Level Increase (dBA) 2.8 EXPOSURE TO HIGH NOISE LEVELS The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets legal limits on noise exposure in the workplace. The permissible exposure limit (PEL) for a worker over an eight -hour day is 90 dBA. The OSHA standard uses a 5 dBA exchange rate. This means that when the noise level is increased by 5 dBA, the amount of time a person can be exposed to a certain noise level to receive the same dose is cut in half. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recommended that all worker exposures to noise should be controlled below a level equivalent to 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise induced hearing loss. NIOSH also recommends a 3 dBA exchange rate so that every increase by 3 dBA doubles the amount of the noise and halves the recommended amount of exposure time. (10) OSHA has implemented requirements to protect all workers in general industry (e.g. the manufacturing and the service sectors) for employers to implement a Hearing Conservation Program where workers are exposed to a time weighted average noise level of 85 dBA or higher over an eight -hour work shift. Hearing Conservation Programs require employers to measure noise levels, provide free annual hearing exams and free hearing protection, provide training, and conduct evaluations of the adequacy of the hearing protectors in use unless changes to tools, equipment and schedules are made so that they are less noisy and worker exposure to noise is less than the 85 dBA. This noise study does not evaluate the noise exposure of workers within a project or construction site based on CEQA requirements, and instead, evaluates Project -related operational and construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, periodic exposure to high noise levels in short duration, such as Project construction, is typically considered an annoyance and not impactful to human health. It would take several years of exposure to high noise levels to result in hearing impairment. (11) 2.9 VIBRATION Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment (3), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure -borne noise. Sources of ground -borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human -made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. Noise Study. docx 15 L URHAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis As is the case with airborne sound, ground -borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground -borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (especially residents, the elderly, and sick), and vibration -sensitive equipment. The background vibration -velocity level in residential areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground -borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration -velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground -borne vibration are construction equipment, steel -wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground -borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration -velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground -borne vibration. Noise Study. docx 16 LOMROAN G4?V'iim �AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND -BORNE VIBRATION Velocity Typical Sources Human/Structural Response level* (60 ft from source) Threshold, minor cosmetic damage fragile buildings Difficulty with tasks such as reading a VDT screen Residential annoyance, infrequent events (e.g. commuter rait) -4 Blasting from cans#ruction projects {— Bulldozers and other heavy tracked 90 construction equipment — C xnmuter rail, Upper ra3 e 80 1 " Rapid transit, upper range -- Commuter rail, typral Residential annoyance, frequent Bus or truck ovet bump events (e.g. rapid transit) 70 _ - Rapid transit, typical Limit for vibration sensitive — equipment. Approx. threshold for human perception of vibration 60 �M Bus or truck, typical '4-- Typical barourrd vibration ` RMS Vibration Velocity Level in VdB relative to i 0-6 irrcheslsecond Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. L URHAM Noise Study. docx 17 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Noise Study. docx This page intentionally left blank 18 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 3 REGULATORY SETTING To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal government, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, and commercial and industrial activities are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Federal and state agencies generally set noise standards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies. 3.1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies noise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires that each county and city adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element which is to be prepared per guidelines adopted by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. (12) The purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels. In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts. 3.2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS The 2016 State of California's Green Building Standards Code contains mandatory measures for non-residential building construction in Section 5.507 on Environmental Comfort. (13) These noise standards are applied to new construction in California for controlling interior noise levels resulting from exterior noise sources. The regulations specify that acoustical studies must be prepared when non-residential structures are developed in areas where the exterior noise levels exceed 65 dBA CNEL, such as within a noise contour of an airport, freeway, railroad, and other areas where noise contours are not readily available. If the development falls within an airport or freeway 65 dBA CNEL noise contour, the combined sound transmission class (STC) rating of the wall and roof -ceiling assemblies must be at least 50. For those developments in areas where noise contours are not readily available, and the noise level exceeds 65 dBA Leq for any hour of operation, a wall and roof -ceiling combined STC rating of 45, and exterior windows with a minimum STC rating of 40 are required (Section 5.507.4.1). 3.3 CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT The City of La Quinta has adopted an Environmental Hazards Element (Chapter 4), Noise section, of the General Plan which identifies areas where noise levels are expected to reach unacceptable levels, and provides policies and programs which will assure that noise levels do not negatively impact the community. (14) The Noise Element specifies the maximum exterior and interior noise levels for new developments impacted by transportation noise sources such as arterial roads, Noise Study. docx —LdWRBAN 19 Gf?ViimW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis freeways, airports and railroads. To protect City residents from excessive noise, the Environmental Hazards Element contains the following goal related to the Project: N-1 A healthful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character. The noise policies specified in the City of La Quinta Environmental Hazards Element provide the guidelines necessary to satisfy this goal. To minimize noise impacts to noise -sensitive land uses, the City has established Policy N-1.1 to identify transportation noise standards consistent with the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments, TablelV-3, for various land uses. The Noise Element also provides several policies to minimize noise impacts from transportation, such as Policy N-1.2, which requires a noise study and any necessary mitigation measures for new developments along roadways where the noise levels are in excess of 65 dBA CNEL. However, for the purposes of this analysis, Project operational and construction noise impacts are evaluated based on the Municipal Code and applicable standards described below. 3.4 OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS To analyze noise impacts originating from a designated fixed location or private property such as the Project, stationary -source (operational) noise such as the expected roof -top air conditioning units, shopping car corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities are typically evaluated against standards established under a jurisdiction's Municipal Code. The City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Ordinance 550, Sections 9.100.210 (B) and (C) establish the noise level standards for stationary noise sources. For residential properties, the exterior noise level shall not exceed 65 dBA Lso during the daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and 50 dBA Lso during the nighttime hours. (4) The exterior noise level standards shall apply for a cumulative period of 30 minutes in any hour, as well as plus 5 dBA cannot be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 10 dBA fora cumulative period of more than 5 minutes in any hour, or the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute in any hour, or the standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time. The City of La Quinta operational noise level standards are shown on Table 3-1 and included in Appendix 3.1. TABLE 3-1: OPERATIONAL NOISE STANDARDS Exterior Noise Level Standards' Jurisdiction Land Use Time Period Lso Lzs Ls Lz Lmax (30 mins) (15 mins) (5 mins) (1 min) (<1 min) La Quintal Residential, Schools, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 65 70 75 80 85 10:00 m. to 7:00 a.m. p 1 50 55 60 65 70 Hospitals & Churches p The percent noise level is the level exceeded "n" percent of the time during the measurement period. Lzs is the noise level exceeded 25% of the time. z Source: City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Ordinance 550, Section 9.100.210 (B) & (C) (Appendix 3.1). Noise Study. docx 20 ft URBkAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 3.5 CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of Jefferson Square, noise from construction activities are typically evaluated against standards established under a City's Municipal Code. The Municipal Code noise standards for construction are described below for the City of La Quinta to determine the potential noise impacts at nearby receiver locations. The construction -related noise standards for each City are summarized in Table 3-2 below. To control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Project, the City has established limits to the hours of operation. The City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050 indicates that construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of October to April, and to the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays during the months of May to September. All year, construction activities are limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no activity allowed on Sundays. (4) However, the City's General Plan and Municipal Code do not establish numeric maximum acceptable construction source noise levels at potentially affected receivers, which would allow for a quantified determination of what CEQA constitutes as the generation of noise levels in excess of standards or as a substantial temporary or periodic noise increase, the following construction noise level thresholds are used in this noise study. 3.5.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant temporary construction noise levels at off -site sensitive receiver locations, a construction -related noise level threshold is adopted from the Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure prepared by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). (15) A division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIOSH identifies a noise level threshold based on the duration of exposure to the source. The construction related noise level threshold starts at 85 dBA for more than eight hours per day, and for every 3 dBA increase, the exposure time is cut in half. This results in noise level thresholds of 88 dBA for more than four hours per day, 92 dBA for more than one hour per day, 96 dBA for more than 30 minutes per day, and up to 100 dBA for more than 15 minutes per day. (15) For the purposes of this analysis, the lowest, more conservative construction noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq is used as an acceptable threshold for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Since this construction -related noise level threshold represents the energy average of the noise source over a given time, they are expressed as Leq noise levels. Therefore, the noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq over a period of eight hours or more is used to evaluate the potential Project -related construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. The 85 dBA Leq threshold is also consistent with the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment criteria for construction noise which identifies an hourly construction noise level threshold of 90 dBA Leq during daytime hours, and 80 dBA Leq during nighttime hours for construction for general assessment at noise -sensitive uses (e.g., residential, medical/hospital, school, etc.). (3) Detailed assessment, according to the FTA, identifies an 8-hour dBA Leq noise level threshold specific to noise -sensitive uses of 80 dBA Leq. Therefore, the Noise Study relies Noise Study. docx 21 uRB,AM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis on the NIOSH 85 dBA Leq threshold, consistent with FTA general and detailed assessment criteria for noise -sensitive uses and represents an appropriate threshold for construction noise analysis. 3.5.2 CONSTRUCTION -RELATED HEARING CONSERVATION The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires hearing protection be provided by employers in workplaces where the noise levels may, over long periods of exposure to high noise levels, endanger the hearing of their employees. Standard 29 CFR, Part 1910 indicates the noise levels under which a hearing conservation program is required to be provided to workers exposed to high noise levels. (10) This analysis does not evaluate the noise exposure of construction workers within the Project site based on CEQA requirements, and instead, evaluates the Project -related construction noise levels at the nearby sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. Further, periodic exposure to high noise levels in short duration, such as Project construction, is typically considered an annoyance and not impactful to human health. It would take several years of exposure to high noise levels to result in hearing impairment. (11) TABLE 3-2: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Municipal Permitted Hours of Construction Jurisdiction Code Construction Activity Noise Level Section Standards October 1st to April 30th May 1st to September 30th 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. La Quinta 6.08.050 Mondays to Fridays Mondays to Fridays n/a All Year: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays; no activity Sundays and holidays "n/a" = The City of La Quinta does not specify specific construction noise level standards. 3.6 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS Since the City of La Quinta does not identify specific construction vibration level standards, the County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element Policy N 16.3 vibration standards are used in this noise study. Policy N 16.3 identifies a motion velocity perception threshold for vibration due to passing trains of 0.01 inches per second (in/sec) over the range of one to 100 Hz. (16) For the purposes of this analysis, the perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec shall be used to assess the potential impacts due to Project construction at nearby sensitive receiver locations. Typically, the human response at the perception threshold for vibration includes annoyance in residential areas as previously shown on Exhibit 2-C, when vibration levels expressed in vibration decibels (VdB) approach 75 VdB. The County of Riverside, however, identifies a vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec. For vibration levels expressed in velocity, the human body responds to the average vibration amplitude often described as the root -mean -square (RMS). The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a one -second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to reduce the range of numbers used to Noise Study. docx 22 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis describe human response to vibration. Therefore, the County of Riverside vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec in RMS velocity levels is used in this analysis to assess the human perception of vibration levels due to Project -related construction activities. 3.7 RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS The Bermuda Dunes Airport is located approximately 1.2 miles north of the Project site. According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) Policy Document, Table 2B of Chapter 2, Countywide Policies, commercial land uses such as the Project are divided into office and retail, service commercial and light industrial, and general manufacturing uses. Based on the Project description, the RCALUCP Table 2B noise compatibility criteria for retail uses are applied to the Project site. In addition, the hotel use of the Project requires evaluation based on more conservative, residential criteria. Per Table 2B of the RCALUCP multi -family residential, office, and retail uses are considered clearly acceptable with exterior noise levels below 55 dBA CNEL, normally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 60 dBA CNEL, and marginally acceptable with exterior noise levels approaching 65 dBA CNEL due to aircraft noise. (17) As shown on Exhibit 3-A, buildings within the Jefferson Square site are located outside of the 55 dBA CNEL noise level contour boundaries of Bermuda Dunes Airport. Based on the Table 2B compatibility criteria of the RCALUCP, the compatibility of Project land uses in relation to aircraft - related noise levels is, therefore, considered clearly acceptable. LOMR13AN G4?V'iim �AD5� Noise Study. docx 23 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 3-A: FUTURE BERMUDA DUNES AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS S =4- �'[7�7;y-� ■ 114,nq P1 q'i wo 1,1 S z N lai n NIIA11 Pu , . Opp %W 14. + n, y1:Yrp 'r, Hu.ti 7- �r F n �.,� rver■ z i ti f 3 _ � r 9 y 2araRW i.. MlR i ,1r 41, —, I IW LN k 4x•,.,s On1�. r.,,�♦�■ ei,1F - Y +irv�lpn Gr L.&d1 L) r ,-06 rn vkm GI ITS' f.Yr.i e1 r'1 45:rt R.w 1 LEGEND, Cnrrtonr Soun *OL s (d8A CNN) SU4r[Y: R(',uUi#Cnoutrr �riiicadL+o+a*.r/U7�9 +OYES U»d Cp�FpPU•br�itA MOM MOL9..-3. Noise Study. docx 24 ,r,y,r Cr r r L ww�r,114 j3f hi�mlrla h+ 0aw An mcnv.c 1 rn r .ii. 4k Ftrartle ryfir 4 5 .w 1e'DIM ...1. I:1 3p)Ireex_ E1W NfREr G=—Irr +oe¢r=A rdt RednfPtArP.r CTeCI), UW51 ia0, NOS, NR"Wr GIBROSY'. IGP& xamtr& N , Urdmisa SnAl Y, FWIRM AQ, j ,76 {A'r CMF+rR f+�A+R xPlA$b L%URBAIN LRV a SRC3AD€ Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following significance criteria are based on guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne vibration or ground -borne noise levels. C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above existing levels without the proposed Project; or D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above noise levels existing without the proposed Project. E. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. F. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. While the CEQA Guidelines and the City of La Quinta General Plan Guidelines provide direction on noise compatibility and establish noise standards by land use type that are sufficient to assess the significance of noise impacts under CEQA Guideline A, they do not define the levels at which increases are considered substantial for use under Guidelines B, C, and D. CEQA Guidelines E and F apply to nearby public and private airports, if any, and the Project's land use compatibility. The Project site is located within two miles of Bermuda Dunes Airport; but is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. As previously discussed in Section 3.7, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations, and therefore, impacts are considered less than significant, and no further noise analysis is conducted in relation to Guidelines E and F. 4.1 NOISE -SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Noise level increases resulting from the Project are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest sensitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing ambient noise levels, and the location of noise -sensitive receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (18) Unfortunately, there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or of the corresponding human reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted —the so-called ambient environment. Noise Study. docx 25 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 4.1.1 SUBSTANTIAL PERMANENT NOISE LEVEL INCREASES In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (19) developed guidance to be used for the assessment of project -generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average -daily noise level (i.e., CNEL), the energy average equivalent level (Leq), or median noise level (Lso). For example, if the ambient noise environment is quiet (<60 dBA) and the new noise source greatly increases the noise levels, an impact may occur if the noise criteria may be exceeded. Therefore, for this analysis, FICON identifies a readily perceptible 5 dBA or greater project -related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded. Per FICON, in areas where the without project noise levels range from 60 to 65 dBA, a 3 dBA barely perceptible noise level increase appears to be appropriate for most people. When the without project noise levels already exceed 65 dBA, any increase in community noise louder than 1.5 dBA or greater is considered a significant impact if the noise criteria for a given land use is exceeded, since it likely contributes to an existing noise exposure exceedance. Table 4-1 below provides a summary of the potential noise impact significance criteria, based on guidance from FICON. TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF NOISE IMPACTS AT NOISE -SENSITIVE RECEIVERS Without Project Noise Level Potential Significant Impact < 60 dBA 5 dBA or more 60 - 65 dBA 3 dBA or more > 65 dBA 1.5 dBA or more Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON), 1992. 4.1.2 SUBSTANTIAL TEMPORARY OF PERIODIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Due to the temporary, short-term nature of noise -generating construction activities, the temporary or periodic noise level increases over the existing ambient conditions must be considered under CEQA Guideline D, consistent with the legal case, Friends of Riverside's Hills v. Riverside Transportation Commission, et al. (20) Therefore, the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol 12 dBA Leq substantial noise level increase threshold is used in this analysis to assess temporary noise level increases. (2) If the Project -related construction noise levels generate a temporary noise level increase above the existing ambient noise levels of up to 12 dBA Leq, then the Project construction noise level increases will be considered a potentially significant impact. Although the Caltrans recommendations were specifically developed to assess traffic noise impacts, the 12 dBA Leq substantial noise level increase threshold is used in California to address noise level increases with the potential to exceed existing conditions. (2) Noise Study. docx 26 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 4.2 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4-2 shows the significance criteria summary matrix. OPERATIONAL NOISE • If Project -related operational (stationary -source) noise levels: o exceed the exterior 65 dBA L5o daytime or 50 dBA L50 nighttime noise level standards for residential land uses. These standards shall not be exceeded for a cumulative period of 30 minutes (Lso), or plus 5 dBA cannot be exceeded for a cumulative period of more than 15 minutes (Lzs) in any hour, or the standard plus 10 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 5 minutes (La) in any hour, or the standard plus 15 dBA for a cumulative period of more than 1 minute (Lz) in any hour, or the standard plus 20 dBA at any time (Lmax) (City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Ordinance 550, Section 9.100.210 (B) & (C)); • If the existing ambient noise levels at the nearby noise -sensitive receivers near the Project site: o are less than 60 dBA L5o and the Project creates a readily perceptible 5 dBA L5o or greater Project -related noise level increase; or o range from 60 to 65 dBA L5o and the Project creates a barely perceptible 3 dBA L5o or greater Project -related noise level increase; or o already exceed 65 dBA L5o, and the Project creates a community noise level impact of greater than 1.5 dBA L50 (FICON, 1992). CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND VIBRATION • If Project -related construction activities: 0 occur at any time other than the permitted hours identified on Table 4-2 (City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050); o create noise levels which exceed the 85 dBA Leq acceptable noise level threshold at the nearby sensitive receiver locations (NIOSH, Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure); or o generate temporary Project construction -related noise level increases which exceed the 12 dBA Leq substantial noise level increase threshold at noise -sensitive receiver locations (Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol). If short-term Project generated construction vibration levels exceed the County of Riverside vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec (RMS) at sensitive receiver locations (County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element, Policy N 16.3). Noise Study. docx 27 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 4-2: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY Analysis Land Use Conditions) Significance Criteria Daytime Nighttime Operational' Noise- Sensitive >_ 30 Minutes L50 65 50 >_ 15 Minutes L25 70 55 >_ 5 Minutes L8 75 60 >_ 1 Minute L2 80 65 Anytime Lmax 85 70 Construction October 1st to April 30th 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays May 1st to September 30th 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mondays to Fridays All Year: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Saturdays; no activity Sundays and holidays Noise Level Threshold 85 dBA Leq n/a Noise Level Increase' 12 dBA Leq n/a Vibration Level Thresholds 0.01 in/sec RMS n/a ' Source: City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Ordinance 550, Section 9.100.210 (B) & (C) (Appendix 3.1). z Source: City of La Quinta Municipal Code, Section 6.08.050 (Appendix 3.1). 3 Source: NIOSH, Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure. °Source: Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, May 2011. 5 Source: County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element, Policy 16.3. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise Study. docx 28 ft URBAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS To assess the existing noise level environment, five 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at sensitive receiver locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Wednesday, March 281", 2017. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos. 5.1 MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels and calculate the 24-hour CNEL. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson -Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All noise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All noise level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (21) 5.2 NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS The long-term noise level measurements were positioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the existing ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent any part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when estimating impacts for new development projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines which indicate that, sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources. (5) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is not necessary nor recommended that existing noise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise -sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (3) Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence, because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (3) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent a location of noise sensitive areas and are used to estimate the future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambient noise level measurements at the nearby Noise Study. docx Lft URBAN 29 G4iS} S §R� ADS Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparison of the before and after Project noise levels and is necessary to assess potential noise impacts due to the Project's contribution to the ambient noise levels. 5.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS The noise measurements presented below focus on the average or equivalent sound levels (Leq). The equivalent sound level (Leq) represents a steady state sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) and nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location. Appendix 5.2 provides a summary of the existing hourly ambient noise levels described below: • Location L1 represents the noise levels west of the Project site and Monticello Park near existing residential homes. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24-hour exterior noise level of 63.0 dBA CNEL. The hourly noise levels measured at location L1 ranged from 53.7 to 62.7 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and from 47.5 to 64.3 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 57.1 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 56.3 dBA Leq. • Location L2 represents the noise levels southwest of the Project site in the Monticello Park adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24-hour exterior noise level of 58.7 dBA CNEL. The hourly noise levels measured at location L2 ranged from 45.7 to 60.0 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and from 43.4 to 59.7 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 53.0 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 52.0 dBA Leq. • Location L3 represents the noise levels within an existing commercial parking lot adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes south of the Project site on Memorial Place. The 24-hour CNEL indicates that the overall exterior noise level is 57.5 dBA CNEL. At location L3 the background ambient noise levels ranged from 48.1 to 55.3 dBA Leq during the daytime hours to levels of 46.1 to 55.4 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 51.6 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 50.6 dBA Leq. • Location L4 represents the noise levels adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes south of the Project site, west of Jefferson Street. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24-hour exterior noise level of 64.8 dBA CNEL. The hourly noise levels measured at location L4 ranged from 58.4 to 62.2 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and from 50.6 to 62.9 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 60.6 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 57.4 dBA Leq. • Location L5 represents the noise levels east of the Project site across Jefferson Street, adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise barrier for residential homes. The noise level measurements collected show an overall 24-hour exterior noise level of 72.7 dBA CNEL. The hourly noise levels measured at location L5 ranged from 66.1 to 70.9 dBA Leq during the daytime hours and from 57.0 to 70.5 dBA Leq during the nighttime hours. The energy (logarithmic) average daytime noise level was calculated at 68.7 dBA Leq with an average nighttime noise level of 65.3 dBA Leq. Noise Study. docx 30 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Table 5-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each hour as well as the minimum, maximum, L1, L2, L5, L8, L25, L50, Lgo, L95, and L99 percentile noise levels observed during the daytime and nighttime periods. The background ambient noise levels in the Project study area are dominated by the transportation -related noise associated with the arterial roadway network. The 24-hour existing noise level measurements shown on Table 5-1 present the existing ambient noise conditions. TABLE S-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Distance Energy Average to Hourly Noise Level Location' Project Description (dBA Le,)2 CNEL Boundary (Feet) Daytime Nighttime Located west of the Project site and Monticello L1 290' Park near existing residential homes. 57.1 56.3 63.0 Located southwest of the Project site in the L2 46' Monticello Park adjacent to an existing 6-foot 53.0 52.0 58.7 high noise barrier for residential homes. Located within an existing commercial parking lot adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise L3 0' barrier for residential homes south of the 51.6 50.6 57.5 Project site on Memorial Place. Located adjacent to an existing 6-foot high L4 0' noise barrier for residential homes south of the 60.6 57.4 64.8 Project site, west of Jefferson Street. Located east of the Project site across Jefferson L5 120' Street, adjacent to an existing 6-foot high noise 68.7 65.3 72.7 barrier for residential homes. 1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. z Energy (logarithmic) average hourly levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Noise Study. docx 31 L URHAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis WAY Z5YL, S NI+CG�p Aarlr EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS f { ' fRfU 4VAR S WAY Z n lu _4t {. INDEPEND€WE WAY MW WyL4C.X W ii." A U low-T.'r, I . LEGEND: A Noise Measurement Locations Noise Study. docx�i 32 �ns�ssns�r�as Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 6 METHODS AND PROCEDURES The following section outlines the methods and procedures used to model and analyze the potential Project -related operational and construction noise impacts. 6.1 OPERATIONAL REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS To estimate the Project operational noise impacts, reference noise level measurements were collected from similar types of activities to represent the noise levels expected with the development of the proposed Project. This section provides a detailed description of the reference noise level measurements shown on Table 6-1 used to estimate the Project operational noise impacts associated with roof -top air conditioning units, shopping car corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities. TABLE 6-1: REFERENCE NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Distance Noise Hourly Noise Level (dBA Lso) Duration From Source Noise Source (hh:mm:ss) Source Height Activity @ Ref. @ SO (Feet) (Feet) (Min.)' Distance Feet Roof -Top Air Conditioning Units' 96:00:00 5' 5' 39 74.4 54.4 Shopping Cart Corral' 00:00:16 5' 3' 20 61.9 41.9 Truck Loading Activity3 00:01:00 20' 8' 17 77.2 69.2 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements' 00:15:00 5' 5' 60 56.7 41.7 Roof -Top Special Event Activity4 00:03:00 10' 5' 60 83.4 69.4 'As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 7/27/2015 at the Santee Walmart located at 170 Town Center Parkway. z As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 5/30/2012 at the Laguna Niguel Walmart located at 27470 Alicia Parkway. 3 As measured at a Huntington Beach store with Walmart truck loading by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 4/14/2011. 4 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 3/5/2010 during peak activity within the bar area of the Daley Double Saloon in the City of Encinitas between 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. 5 Duration (minutes within the hour) of noise activity during peak hourly conditions. 6.1.1 ROOF -TOP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS To assess the noise levels created by the roof -top air conditioning units at the Project site, reference noise levels measurements were taken at the Santee Walmart on July 27th, 2015. Located at 170 Town Center Parkway in the City of Santee, the noise level measurements describe a single mechanical roof -top air conditioning unit on the roof of an existing Walmart store. The reference noise level represents a Lennox SCA120 series 10-ton model packaged air conditioning unit. Using a uniform reference distance of 50 feet, the reference noise level noise level is 54.4 dBA L5o. The operating conditions of the reference noise level measurement reflect peak summer cooling requirements with measured temperatures approaching 96 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with average daytime temperatures of 82°F. The noise attenuation provided by a parapet wall is not reflected in this reference noise level measurement. Noise Study. docx 33 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 6.1.2 SHOPPING CART CORRALS (METAL CARTS) To evaluate the noise level impacts from shopping carts placed by customers into assigned shopping cart areas, Urban Crossroads collected noise level measurements at the Laguna Niguel Walmart located at 27470 Alicia Parkway on May 301", 2012. The reference noise level at a uniform distance of 50 feet is 41.9 dBA L50. The noise impacts are mainly due to the metal shopping carts crashing into other carts already placed in the corral as well as striking the side rails. It is expected the shopping cart corral activity will operate for a maximum of 20 minutes per hour during typical operating hours. 6.1.3 TRUCK LOADING ACTIVITY To evaluate the noise impacts associated with the delivery truck tractor trailer unloading/loading activities, a reference noise level measurement was taken at a large anchor store located at the southwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Edinger Avenue by Urban Crossroads Inc. on April 14th, 2011 in the City of Huntington Beach. The reference noise level measurement includes a Walmart truck approaching, backing -into, and docking in the loading area of the anchor store. The primary noise generated by tractor trailer unloading is the noise of the truck arriving, backing into the dock area, detaching the cab, attaching the cab to the empty trailer, and exiting the loading dock. Since the trailer seals to the loading dock, employees unload the tractor trailer from the inside of the store. The receiving crew places a 20-foot long rolling conveyor assembly inside the trailer to roll merchandise (on pallets or in boxes) into the store. The unmitigated noise levels were measured at 77.2 dBA L50 at 20 feet from the tractor trailer, which results in reference noise levels of 69.2 dBA L50 a uniform reference distance of 50 feet. Based on the reference measurements, delivery truck activities will last an average of 3 to 6 minutes per truck, depending on whether the loading bay is empty at the time of arrival. In the event idling does occur, the idling time would be limited to no more than 5 minutes per California State law (Cal. Code Regs. 2485). Delivery trucks are generally equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically turns off the engine after 5 minutes of idling. Reference noise level measurements taken at an existing Santee Walmart loading dock, located at 170 Town Center Parkway, indicate that activity is expected to occur for a duration of 17 minutes per hour during typical operation. 6.1.4 PARKING LOT VEHICLE MOVEMENTS To determine the noise levels associated with parking lot vehicle movements, Urban Crossroads collected reference noise level measurements at the at the Laguna Niguel Walmart located at 27470 Alicia Parkway on May 301", 2012. The 15-minute noise level measurement indicates that the parking lot vehicle movements generates noise levels of 41.7 dBA L50 at a normalized distance of 50 feet. The parking lot noise levels are mainly due to cars pulling in and out of spaces, car alarms sounding, and customers moving shopping carts. LOMR13AN G4?V'iim �AD5� Noise Study. docx 34 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 6.1.5 HOTEL ROOF -TOP SPECIAL EVENT ACTIVITY To assess the potential impacts created by amplified music and special event activity at the Project's roof -top patio area, reference noise levels measurements collected at the Daley Double Saloon in the City of Encinitas on March 51", 2010 are used in this analysis. Located within the bar area, the noise level measurements describe peak activity of a bar setting including amplified music and people talking. The reference noise level is 69.4 dBA L50 at the uniform reference distance of 50 feet from the noise source. The roof -top special event activities are expected to occur for the full hour under Project operational conditions (60 minutes). 6.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS Noise generated by the Project construction equipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable generators that when combined can reach high levels. The number and mix of construction equipment is expected to occur in the following stages: • Demolition • Grading/Excavation • Paving This construction noise analysis was prepared using reference noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. to describe the typical construction activity noise levels for each stage of Project construction. The construction reference noise level measurements represent a list of typical construction activity noise levels. Noise levels generated by heavy construction equipment can range from approximately 68 dBA to in excess of 80 dBA when measured at 50 feet. Hard site conditions are used in the construction noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source (i.e. construction equipment). For example, a noise level of 80 dBA measured at 50 feet from the noise source to the receiver would be reduced to 74 dBA at 100 feet from the source to the receiver and would be further reduced to 68 dBA at 200 feet from the source to the receiver. The construction stages used in this analysis are consistent with the data used to support the construction emissions prepared by Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. (22) 6.3 CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS To describe the Project construction noise levels, measurements were collected for similar activities at several construction sites. Table 6-2 provides a summary of the construction reference noise level measurements. Since the reference noise levels were collected at varying distances, all construction noise level measurements presented on Table 6-2 have been adjusted to describe a common reference distance of 50 feet. Noise Study. docx 35 ft URBAN Gf?ViimW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 6-2: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS Reference Reference Reference Distance Noise Levels Noise Levels ID Noise Source From @ Reference (d50 Feet Source Distance (dBA Leq)7 (Feet) (dBA Lej 1 Dozer Activity' 30' 68.6 64.2 2 Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities2 30' 71.9 67.5 3 Foundation Trenching2 30' 72.6 68.2 4 Rough Grading Activities2 30' 77.9 73.5 5 Concrete Mixer Truck Movements' 50' 71.2 71.2 6 Concrete Paver Activities' 30' 70.0 65.6 7 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities' 30' 70.3 65.9 8 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes' 50' 71.6 71.6 9 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities' 50' 67.7 67.7 10 Auger Drill Rig6 50' 77.0 77.0 'As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/14/15 at a business park construction site located at the northwest corner of Barranca Parkway and Alton Parkway in the City of Irvine. z As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 3As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/20/15 at a residential construction site located in Rancho Mission Viejo. 4 As measured by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on 10/30/15 during grading operations within an industrial construction site located in the City of Ontario. 5 Reference noise level measurements were collected from a nighttime concrete pour at an industrial construction site, located at 27334 San Bernardino Avenue in the City of Redlands, between 1:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on 7/1/15. e Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Reference noise levels are calculated at 50 feet using a drop off rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (point source). 6.4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY This analysis focuses on the potential ground -borne vibration associated with construction activities. Construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 6-3. Based on the representative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the human response (annoyance) using the following vibration assessment methods defined by the FTA. To describe the human response (annoyance) associated with vibration impacts the FTA provides the following equation: Noise Study. docx PPVequip = PPVref X (25/D)1.5 36 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 6-3: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet Small bulldozer 0.003 Jackhammer 0.035 Loaded Trucks 0.076 Large bulldozer 0.089 Auger Drilling 0.089 Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Noise Study. docx 37 ft URBAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Noise Study. docx This page intentionally left blank 38 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 7 RECEIVER LOCATIONS To assess the potential for long-term operational and short-term construction noise impacts, the following seven receiver locations as shown on Exhibit 9-A were identified as representative locations for focused analysis. Sensitive receivers are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the use of the land. Noise -sensitive land uses are generally considered to include: schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas. Moderately noise -sensitive land uses typically include: multi -family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, out -patient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, agriculture, natural open space, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals. Sensitive receivers near the Project site include existing residential homes, as described below. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area that are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise study will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. R1: Located approximately 399 feet west of the Project site, R1 represents existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential homes on Ambassador Circle. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R2: Location R2 represents existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential homes located approximately 311 feet west of the Project site on Hemmings Way. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L1, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R3: Location R3 represents the existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential homes located roughly 42 feet southwest of the Project site on Memorial Place. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L2, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R4: Location R4 represents the existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential homes located roughly 10 feet south of the Project site on Memorial Place. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R5: Location R5 represents the existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential south of the Project site at roughly 10 feet. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L3, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. R6: Location R6 represents the existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential south of the Project site at roughly 10 feet. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L4, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. Noise Study. docx 39 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis R7: Location R7 represents the existing outdoor living areas (backyards) of residential homes located approximately 138 feet east of the Project site across Jefferson Street. A 24-hour noise level measurement was taken near this location, L5, to describe the existing ambient noise environment. EXHIBIT 7-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS j x .r G' 311 4 F Q fifrF4MMYS WAYL2 w U FRID WA9 Wa OR M SITE x x� ti IL WWWAI 4— X� I'*'." r t ?fV0FAEIPDEIYCF WAY I M - R14FW�— f SyiUrx5t: F1rIG :ulyar• LEGEND: J Recei4er Locations F6. Existing Barrier HaighL (in feet) D4Wnee from receiver to Project site beunddry (In feel} Existing Barrier Noise Study. docx OURBAN40 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 8 OPERATIONAL IMPACTS This section analyzes the potential operational noise impacts due to the Project's stationary noise sources on the off -site sensitive receiver locations identified in Section 7. Exhibit 8-A identifies the receiver locations and noise source locations used to assess the Project -related operational noise levels. &AX00EP)q CT r t EXHIBIT 8-A: OPERATIONAL NOISE SOURCE AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS `i LEGEND: N riecelyer Loceti'am [3 Truck 16ading dock Aetivity FASTllLP, Barr iel Height IIn leetf ❑ Par king LaL 1101lcre MWEN11antS i Fxlstirig Rmmor 13 RoafTop Special E- entActivlty Root -TOP Alf Coo dttlprrin$ Urllt --* Distance from rq�celvw to noise sovroe1n Feel] Shoppwg Cstt Corral Noise Study. docx 41 OURBAIN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 8.1 OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Based upon the reference noise levels, it is possible to estimate the Project operational stationary -source noise levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations. The operational noise level calculations shown on Table 8-1 account for the distance attenuation provided due to geometric spreading, when sound from a localized stationary source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. Hard site conditions are used in the operational noise analysis which result in noise levels that attenuate (or decrease) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from a point source. The basic noise attenuation equation shown below is used to calculate the distance attenuation based on a reference noise level (SPL1): SPL2 = SPL1- 20log(D2/Di) Where SPL2 is the resulting noise level after attenuation, SPL1 is the source noise level, D2 is the distance to the reference sound pressure level (SPL1), and D1 is the distance to the receiver location. Table 8-1 indicates that the noise levels associated with the roof -top air conditioning units, shopping car corrals, truck loading and unloading activities, parking lot vehicle movements, and hotel roof -top special event activities are expected to range from 42.8 to 49.2 dBA Lso at the sensitive off -site receiver locations. The operational noise level calculation worksheets are included in Appendix 8.1. Noise Study. docx 42 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 8-1: UNMITIGATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS Receiver Location' Noise Source' Project Operational Noise Levels (dBA)' Lso (30 mins) L25 (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) Lz (1 min) Lmax (Anytime) Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 33.4 35.1 36.4 36.7 37.2 Shopping Cart Corral 0.0 6.4 15.6 18.8 19.5 Truck Loading Activity 43.3 43.7 44.0 44.3 46.7 R1 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 12.9 16.9 19.9 23.3 35.7 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 45.4 46.7 48.3 50.5 55.0 Combined Noise Level: 47.7 48.7 49.9 51.6 55.7 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 35.1 36.8 38.1 38.4 38.9 Shopping Cart Corral 0.0 6.9 16.1 19.3 20.0 Truck Loading Activity 44.6 45.0 45.3 45.6 48.0 R2 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 15.0 19.0 22.0 25.4 37.8 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 47.0 48.3 49.9 52.1 56.6 Combined Noise Level: 49.2 50.2 51.4 53.1 57.3 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 38.7 40.4 41.7 42.0 42.5 Shopping Cart Corral 7.7 16.1 25.3 28.5 29.2 Truck Loading Activity 40.2 40.6 40.9 41.2 43.6 R3 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 25.7 29.7 32.7 36.1 48.5 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 46.2 47.5 49.1 51.3 55.8 Combined Noise Level: 47.8 49.0 50.4 52.3 56.9 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 39.3 41.0 42.3 42.6 43.1 Shopping Cart Corral 0.0 8.1 17.3 20.5 21.2 Truck Loading Activity 28.3 28.7 29.0 29.3 31.7 R4 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 32.2 36.2 39.2 42.6 55.0 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 39.2 40.5 42.1 44.3 48.8 Combined Noise Level: 42.8 44.6 46.3 48.1 56.2 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 40.1 41.8 43.1 43.4 43.9 Shopping Cart Corral 9.7 18.1 27.3 30.5 31.2 Truck Loading Activity 27.3 27.7 28.0 28.3 30.7 R5 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 32.8 36.8 39.8 43.2 55.6 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 39.1 40.4 42.0 44.2 48.7 Combined Noise Level: 43.2 45.0 46.7 48.5 56.7 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 37.1 38.8 40.1 40.4 40.9 Shopping Cart Corral 11.3 19.7 28.9 32.1 32.8 Truck Loading Activity 25.8 26.2 26.5 26.8 29.2 R6 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 24.7 28.7 31.7 35.1 47.5 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 45.7 47.0 48.6 50.8 55.3 Combined Noise Level: 46.3 47.7 49.3 51.4 56.1 Roof -Top Air Conditioning Unit 28.0 29.7 31.0 31.3 31.8 Shopping Cart Corral 10.6 19.0 28.2 31.4 32.1 Truck Loading Activity 23.0 23.4 23.7 24.0 26.4 R7 Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 18.5 22.5 25.5 28.9 41.3 Roof -Top Special Event Activity 43.1 44.4 46.0 48.2 52.7 Combined Noise Level: 43.3 44.6 46.3 48.4 53.1 See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver and noise source locations. Reference noise sources as shown on Table 6-1. s Operational noise level calculations are provided in Appendix 8.1. Noise Study. docx OMRBAN 43 cf?V i mW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 8.2 OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project -only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level threshold based on the City of La Quinta exterior noise level standards. Table 8-2 shows the operational noise levels associated with Jefferson Square Project will satisfy the City of La Quinta Municipal Code exterior noise level standards at all receiver locations, for both residential and non-residential land uses. TABLE 8-2: UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE Receiver Locations Land Use Noise Level at Receiver Locations (dBA)2 Threshold Exceeded?' Lso (30 mins) Lzs (15 mins) L8 (5 mins) Lz (1 min) Lmax (Anytime) Residential Daytime 65 70 75 80 85 - Thresholds Nighttime 50 55 60 65 70 - R1 Residential 47.7 48.7 49.9 51.6 55.7 No R2 49.2 50.2 51.4 53.1 57.3 No R3 47.8 49.0 50.4 52.3 56.9 No R4 42.8 44.6 46.3 48.1 56.2 No R5 43.2 45.0 46.7 48.5 56.7 No R6 46.3 47.7 49.3 51.4 56.1 No R7 43.3 44.6 46.3 48.4 53.1 No See Exhibit 8-A for the receiver and noise source locations. Estimated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 8-1. 3 Do the estimated Project operational noise levels meet the operational noise level standards (Table 3-1)? 8.3 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE CONTRIBUTION To describe the Project operational noise level contributions, the Project operational noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements for the off -site receiver locations potentially impacted by Project operational noise sources. Since the units used to measure noise, decibels (dB), are logarithmic units, the Project -operational and existing ambient noise levels cannot be combined using standard arithmetic equations. (5) Instead, they must be logarithmically added using the following base equation: SPLTotai = 10log10[10SPL1/10 + 10SPL2/10 + 10SPLn/10] Where "SPL1," "SPL2," etc. are equal to the sound pressure levels being combined, or in this case, the Project -operational and existing ambient noise levels. The difference between the combined Project and ambient noise levels describe the Project noise level contributions. Noise levels that would be experienced at receiver locations when Project -source noise is added to the ambient daytime and nighttime conditions are presented on Tables 8-3 and 8-4, respectively. Noise Study. docx 44 T ft UR13AIV Gf?ViimW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis As indicated on Tables 8-3 and 8-4, the Project will contribute an operational noise level increase of up to 1.1 dBA L50 during the daytime and up to 1.4 dBA L50 during the nighttime hours. Since the Project -related operational noise level contributions of up to 1.4 dBA L50 will satisfy the significance criteria discussed in Section 4, the increases at the sensitive receiver locations will be less than significant. On this basis, Project operational stationary -source noise would not result in a substantial temporary/periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project and impacts in these regards will be less than significant. TABLE 8-3: DAYTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS Total Project Reference Combined Project Receiver Operational Measurement Ambient Project and Threshold Location' Noise Level Location' Noise Levels Ambient Contribution Exceeded?' (dBA L50 )6 (dBA Lso)z (dBA L50)4 (dBA Lso)s R1 47.7 L1 57.1 57.6 0.5 No R2 49.2 L1 57.1 57.7 0.6 No R3 47.8 L2 53.0 54.1 1.1 No R4 42.8 L3 51.6 52.1 0.5 No R5 43.2 L3 51.6 52.2 0.6 No R6 46.3 L4 60.6 60.8 0.2 No R7 43.3 L5 68.7 68.7 0.0 No 1 See Exhibit 8-A for the sensitive receiver locations. 2 Unmitigated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 8-2. 1 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. s Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. e The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. 7 Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4. Noise Study. docx 45 OMRBAN Gf?ViimW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 8-4: NIGHTTIME OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CONTRIBUTIONS Total Project Reference Combined Project Receiver Operational Measurement Ambient Project and Threshold Location' Noise Level Location' Noise Levels Ambient Contribution Exceeded?' (dBA L50)2 (dBA L50)4 (dBA L50)5 (dBA L50)6 R1 47.7 L1 56.3 56.9 0.6 No R2 49.2 L1 56.3 57.1 0.8 No R3 47.8 L2 52.0 53.4 1.4 No R4 42.8 L3 50.6 51.3 0.7 No R5 43.2 L3 50.6 51.3 0.7 No R6 46.3 L4 57.4 57.7 0.3 No R7 43.3 L5 65.3 65.3 0.0 No 1 See Exhibit 8-A for the sensitive receiver locations. z Unmitigated Project operational noise levels as shown on Table 8-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed nighttime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. Significance Criteria as defined in Section 4. Noise Study. docx 46 OMRBAN Gf?ViimW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 9 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS This section analyzes potential impacts resulting from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 9-A shows the construction activity boundaries in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations. RMD(h PH CT aW 1P �4o A.rt rfa=MJtl ANH VAY EXHIBIT 9-A: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND RECEIVER LOCATIONS rNLU WAMNIJ D.R LEGEND - lib Recewerlocnt,orrs ® CoWnAvlonAuGwy b'J Barriar Halpt lin fautj a iamponry hal% Barrlcr I'Witing Rarder -# pisranne from receNer to rw,,JractlOn a[tivtN frn re(n} Auger drilling, Ipiprled trmks, and large hyrlldorers Shall he pmhibited within the 90-font hvifer for sensitivc receiver InCation5,Smaller, n,hber-k"li)*erylbratrgn-gerlpratleg,egblpmentshall beg15Qd Instead. Noise Study. docx 47 ft URBAN G4iS} S §R� fkD� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 9.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS Tables 9-1 to 9-3 show the Project construction stages and the reference construction noise levels used for each stage. Table 9-4 provides a summary of the noise levels from each stage of construction at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Based on the reference construction noise levels, the Project -related construction noise levels when the peak reference noise level is operating at a single point nearest the sensitive receiver location will range from 52.6 to 67.5 dBA Leq at the sensitive receiver locations, as shown on Table 9-4. TABLE 9-1: DEMOLITION ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity' Reference Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA Leq) Construction Vehicle Maintenance Activities 67.5 Foundation Trenching 68.2 Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 68.2 Distance to Calculated Distance Construction Receiver Construction Noise Barrier Attenuation Noise Level Location Activity (dBA Le3 Q) Attenuation (dBA LeQ) (Feet)' (dBA Leq)4 R1 421' -18.5 -5.1 44.6 R2 335' -16.5 -4.9 46.7 R3 107' -6.6 -5.5 56.1 R4 78' -3.9 -5.6 58.7 R5 78' -3.9 -5.6 58.7 R6 144' -9.2 -5.5 53.5 R7 440' -18.9 -5.5 43.8 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. z Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Calculated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area (Appendix 8.1). Noise Study. docx 48 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 9-2: GRADING/EXCAVATION ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity' Reference Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA Lej Dozer Activity 64.2 Foundation Trenching 68.2 Rough Grading Activities 73.5 Auger Drill Rig 77.0 Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 1 77.0 Distance to Calculated Distance Construction Receiver Construction Noise Barrier Attenuation Noise Level Location Activity (dBA Lej Attenuation (dBA Lej (Feet)' (dBA Leq)4 R1 421' -18.5 -5.1 53.4 R2 335' -16.5 -4.9 55.6 R3 107' -6.6 -5.5 64.9 R4 78' -3.9 -5.6 67.5 R5 78' -3.9 -5.6 67.5 R6 144' -9.2 -5.5 62.3 R7 440' -18.9 -5.5 52.6 1 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Auger Drill Rig reference noise level provided in the FH WA Roadway Construction Noise Model). z Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Calculated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area (Appendix 8.1). Noise Study. docx 49 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 9-3: PAVING ACTIVITY NOISE LEVELS Reference Construction Activity" Reference Noise Level @ 50 Feet (dBA Leg) Concrete Mixer Truck Movements 71.2 Concrete Paver Activities 65.6 Concrete Mixer Pour & Paving Activities 65.9 Concrete Mixer Backup Alarms & Air Brakes 71.6 Concrete Mixer Pour Activities 67.7 Foundation Trenching 68.2 Highest Reference Noise Level at 50 Feet (dBA Leq): 71.6 Distance to Calculated Distance Construction Receiver Construction Noise Barrier Attenuation Noise Level Location Activity (dBA Le,3 ) Attenuation (dBA LeQ) (Feet)' (dBA Le,)4 R1 421' -18.5 -5.1 48.0 R2 335' -16.5 -4.9 50.2 R3 107' -6.6 -5.5 59.5 R4 78' -3.9 -5.6 62.1 R5 78' -3.9 -5.6 62.1 R6 144' -9.2 -5.5 56.9 R7 440' -18.9 -5.5 47.2 Reference construction noise level measurements taken by Urban Crossroads, Inc. z Distance from the nearest point of construction activity to the nearest receiver. 3 Point (stationary) source drop off rate of 6.0 dBA per doubling of distance. 4 Calculated barrier attenuation from existing barriers in the Project study area (Appendix 8.1). 9.2 CONSTRUCTION NOISE THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The construction noise analysis shows that the highest construction noise levels will occur when construction activities take place at the closest point from the center of Project construction activity to each of the nearby receiver locations. As shown on Table 9-4, the unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 52.6 to 67.5 dBA Leq at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short- term noise levels at off -site sensitive receiver locations a construction -related the NIOSH noise level threshold of 85 dBA Leq, previously described in Section 3, is used as acceptable thresholds for construction noise at the nearby sensitive receiver locations. Noise Study. docx 50 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 9-4: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY (DBA LEQ) Receiver Location' Construction Phase Hourly Noise Level (dBA Ley) Demolition Grading/ Excavation Paving Highest Levels R1 44.6 53.4 48.0 53.4 R2 46.7 55.6 50.2 55.6 R3 56.1 64.9 59.5 64.9 R4 58.7 67.5 62.1 67.5 R5 58.7 67.5 62.1 67.5 R6 53.5 62.3 1 56.9 62.3 R7 43.8 52.6 147.2 52.6 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. z Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions. Table 9-4 shows the highest construction noise levels at the potentially impacted receiver locations are expected to approach 67.5 dBA Leq and will satisfy the NIOSH 85 dBA Leq significance threshold during temporary Project construction activities. The noise impact due to unmitigated Project construction noise levels is, therefore, considered a less than significant impact at all nearby sensitive receiver locations. TABLE 9-5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE (DBA LEQ) Receiver Location' Construction Noise Levels (dBA LeQ) Highest Levels' Threshold' Threshold Exceeded?' R1 53.4 85 No R2 55.6 85 No R3 64.9 85 No R4 67.5 85 No R5 67.5 85 No R6 62.3 85 No R7 52.6 85 No 1 Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. z Estimated construction noise levels during peak operating conditions, as shown on Table 9-4. 3 Construction noise level threshold as shown on Table 4-2. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? Noise Study. docx 51 L URHAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 9.3 CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES To describe the temporary Project construction noise level contributions to the existing ambient noise environment, the Project construction noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurements at the off -site receiver locations. The difference between the combined Project -construction and ambient noise levels are used to describe the construction noise level contributions. Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when Project construction -source noise is added to the ambient daytime conditions are presented on Table 9-6. A temporary noise level increase of 12 dBA is considered a potentially significant impact based on the Caltrans substantial noise level increase criteria which is used to assess the Project -construction noise level increases. (2) No nighttime construction activity is permitted in the City of La Quinta Municipal Code, and therefore, nighttime noise level increases are not analyzed in this noise study. As indicated in Table 9-6, the Project will contribute unmitigated, worst -case construction noise level increases between 1.5 to 16.0 dBA Leq at nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations. Since the worst -case temporary noise level increases during Project construction will exceed the 12 dBA Leq significance threshold at receiver locations R3 to R5, the unmitigated construction noise level increases are considered a potentially significant temporary noise impact. All other receiver locations will experience less than significant temporary construction noise level impacts. TABLE 9-6: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (DBA LEQ) Highest Temporary Reference Combined Receiver Project Measurement Worst -Case Threshold 1 Location Construction Location' Ambient Project and Project Exceeded? Noise Levels' Ambients Noise Level' Contributionb R1 53.4 L1 57.1 58.6 1.5 No R2 55.6 L1 57.1 59.4 2.3 No R3 64.9 L2 53.0 65.2 12.2 Yes R4 67.5 L3 51.6 67.6 16.0 Yes R5 67.5 L3 51.6 67.6 16.0 Yes R6 67.5 L4 60.6 68.3 7.7 No R7 52.6 L5 68.7 68.8 0.1 No Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. z Highest unmitigated Project construction noise levels as shown on Table 9-5. 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. e The temporary noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. Based on the 12 dBA temporary increase significance criteria as defined in Section 4. Noise Study. docx 52 L URHAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Therefore, temporary construction noise mitigation measures are required to reduce the impacts at receiver locations R3 to R5. This includes mitigation in the form of a minimum 10-foot high temporary noise barrier for receiver locations R3 to R5 where Project construction noise level increases could potentially exceed the noise level increase threshold, as shown on Exhibit 9-A. The construction noise analysis presents a conservative approach with the highest noise -level - producing equipment for each stage of Project construction operating at the closest point from primary construction activity to the nearby sensitive receiver locations. This scenario is unlikely to occur during typical construction activities and likely overstates the construction noise levels which will be experienced at each receiver location. With the construction noise mitigation measures identified in this noise study, shown on Exhibit 9-A, the worst -case construction noise level increases at the nearby residential receivers would be reduced. The noise attenuation provided through temporary noise barriers depends on many factors including cost, wind loading, the location of the receiver, and the ability to place barriers such that the line -of -sight of the receiver is blocked to the noise source, among others. This analysis assumes a temporary noise barrier constructed using frame -mounted materials such as vinyl acoustic curtains or quilted blankets attached to the construction site perimeter fence. As shown on Table 9-7, the temporary construction noise barrier mitigation will reduce the construction noise level increases at R3 to R5 to range from 7.6 to 11.2 dBA Leq which is below the 12 dBA Leq temporary noise level increase threshold. Therefore, the noise impact due to Project construction is considered a less than significant impact with mitigation for receiver locations R3 to R5. Appendix 9.1 includes the temporary construction noise barrier attenuation calculations. Sample temporary noise barrier photos are provided in Appendix 9.2 for reference. TABLE 9-7: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (DBA LEQ) Mitigated Highest Reference Combined Temporary Receiver Measurement Worst -Case Threshold Location' Project Location 3 Ambient Project and Project Exceeded? 7 Construction Noise Levelsa Ambient' Contribution' Noise Level2 R3 59.8 L2 53.0 60.6 7.6 No R4 62.5 L3 51.6 62.8 11.2 No R5 62.5 L3 51.6 62.8 11.2 No Noise receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. z Mitigated construction noise level with the temporary noise barrier (Appendix 9.1). 3 Ambient noise level measurement locations as shown on Exhibit 5-A. 4 Observed daytime ambient noise levels as shown on Table 5-1. s Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. e The temporary noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project activities. Based on the 12 dBA temporary increase significance criteria as defined in Section 4. Noise Study. docx 53 JRBAN Kr,��a.�� r��. Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 9.4 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that ground -borne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion. The proposed Project's construction activities most likely to cause vibration impacts are: • Heavy Construction Equipment: Although all heavy mobile construction equipment has the potential of causing at least some perceptible vibration while operating close to building, the vibration is usually short-term and is not of sufficient magnitude to cause building damage. It is not expected that heavy equipment such as large bulldozers would operate close enough to any residences to cause a vibration impact. • Trucks: Trucks hauling building materials to construction sites can be sources of vibration intrusion if the haul routes pass through residential neighborhoods on streets with bumps or potholes. Repairing the bumps and potholes generally eliminates the problem. Ground -borne vibration levels resulting from construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Construction activities that would have the potential to generate low levels of ground -borne vibration within the Project site include grading. Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 6-3 and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, it is possible to estimate the Project vibration impacts. Table 9-8 presents the expected Project related vibration levels at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Based on the reference vibration levels provided by the FTA, a large bulldozer represents the peak source of vibration with a reference velocity of 0.089 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. At distances ranging from 78 to 440 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are expected to approach 0.016 in/sec PPV, as shown on Table 9-8. To assess the human perception of vibration levels in PPV, as previously discussed in Section 3, the velocities are converted to RMS vibration levels based on the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual conversion factor of 0.71. Table 9-8 shows the construction vibration levels in RMS are expected to approach 0.011 in/sec (RMS) at the nearby receiver locations. Based on the County of Riverside vibration standards, the proposed Project construction activities will exceed the County of Riverside vibration standard of 0.01 in/sec RMS at two of the nearby sensitive receiver locations during Project construction: R4 and R5. Therefore, the Project -related vibration impacts represent a potentially significant impact during the worst -case construction activities at the Project site. The potentially significant vibration impacts are due to loaded trucks, auger drills, and large bulldozer operation at 78 feet from the closest sensitive receiver locations south of Project construction activities. As such, to reduce the potentially significant vibration impacts, a 90-foot buffer distance from adjacent residential receiver locations is required in which loaded trucks, auger drills, and large bulldozers shall be prohibited for the duration of Project construction. Smaller, rubber tired, or alternative lower vibration -generating equipment shall be used within the 90-foot buffer to reduce vibration impacts to less than significant levels with mitigation. Noise Study. docx 54 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Table 9-9 shows the mitigated Project construction vibration levels at R4 and R5 will remain below the 0.01 in/sec RMS threshold with the 90-foot buffer zone mitigation. Further, the vibration levels due to Project construction do not represent vibration levels capable of causing building damage to nearby residential homes. The FTA identifies construction vibration levels capable of building damage ranging from 0.12 to 0.5 in/sec PPV. (3) The peak Project -construction vibration levels are shown on Table 9-8 to approach 0.016 in/sec PPV, and are below the FTA vibration levels for building damage at buildings near the Project site. Further, the levels at the site of the closest sensitive receivers are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. Construction at the Project site will be restricted to daytime hours consistent with City requirements thereby eliminating potential vibration impact during the sensitive nighttime hours. TABLE 9-8: UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Receivers Distance to Const. Activity (Feet) Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)' RMS Velocity Levels (in/sec) s Threshold Exceeded?' Small Bulldozer Jack- hammer Loaded Trucks Auger Drill Large Bulldozer Peak Vibration R 1 421' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 No R2 335' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 No R3 107' 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.007 No R4 78' 0.001 0.006 0.014 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.011 Yes R5 78' 0.001 0.006 0.014 0.016 0.016 0.016 0.011 Yes R6 144' 0.000 0.003 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.005 No R7 440' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 No Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-3. 3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013. 4 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold shown on Table 4-2? Noise Study. docx 55 OMRBAN Gf?ViimW�AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis TABLE 9-9: MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT VIBRATION LEVELS Distance Receiver PPV Levels (in/sec)' RMS to Velocity Threshold Receivers Const. Small Jack- Loaded Auger Large Peak Levels Exceeded?' Activity Bulldozer hammer Trucks Drill Bulldozer Vibration (in/sec) s (Feet) R4 90, 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.009 No R5 90, 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.009 No 'Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A. z Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment included on Table 6-3. 3 Vibration levels in PPV are converted to RMS velocity using a 0.71 conversion factor identified in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013. 4 Does the peak vibration exceed the maximum acceptable vibration threshold shown on Table 4-2? Noise Study. docx 56 L URHAN Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 10 REFERENCES 1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2016. 2. California Department of Transportation. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. May 2011. 3. City of La Quinta. Municipal Code, Sections 9.100, 6.08. 4. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA: s.n., September 2013. 5. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004. 6. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. June, 1995. 7. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook -A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981). EPA 550/9/82/106. 9. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Standard 29 CRF, Part 1910. 10. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. About Hearing Loss. [Online] [Cited: 04 15, 2016.] http://www.cdc.gov/healthyschools/noise/signs.htm. 11. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. May 2006. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. 12. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidlines 2003. October 2003. 13. State of California. 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. January 2017. 14. City of La Quinta. General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, Noise. December 2013. 15. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Criteria for Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure. June 1998. 16. County of Riverside. General Plan Noise Element. December 2015. 17. -. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document. March 2005. 18. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008. 19. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992. 20. Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. Friends of Riverside's Hills v. Riverside Transportation Commission, et al. RIC 1113896, January 2013. 21. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 201411 EC 61672-1:2013. 22. Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. Jefferson Square Air Quality Data Sheet. March 2018. Noise Study. docx 57 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Noise Study. docx 58 URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis 11 CERTIFICATION The contents of this noise study report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed Jefferson Square Project. The information contained in this noise study report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5979. Bill Lawson, P.E., INCE Principal URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. 260 E. Baker Street, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (949) 336-5979 blawson(@urbanxroads.com EDUCATION rNu- pxf55 0p R25s7 ftA 11ti OF CAUV0 Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • December, 1993 Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo • June, 1992 PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS PE — Registered Professional Traffic Engineer — TR 2537 • January, 2009 AICP — American Institute of Certified Planners — 013011 • June, 1997—January 1, 2012 PTP — Professional Transportation Planner • May, 2007 — May, 2013 INCE — Institute of Noise Control Engineering • March, 2004 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS ASA — Acoustical Society of America ITE — Institute of Transportation Engineers PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS Certified Acoustical Consultant — County of Orange • February, 2011 FHWA-NHI-142051 Highway Traffic Noise Certificate of Training • February, 2013 Noise Study. docx 59 ft UR13AIV G4?V'iim �AD5� Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis Noise Study. docx This page intentionally left blank 60 L URBAM Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis APPENDIX 8.1: OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis APPENDIX 9.1: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE BARRIER ATTENUATION CALCULATIONS Noise Study. docx L, LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis APPENDIX 9.2: TEMPORARY NOISE BARRIER SAMPLE PHOTOS Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Noise Impact Analysis This page intentionally left blank Noise Study. docx URBAN LR43SAS�fLP4 Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study August 2018 Appendix G Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment Focused Traffic Assessment and Parking Evaluation -102- L!*oURBAN 260 E. Sakef St. I. Suite= I Costa Mesa. CA 92626 M (949) 5fi0-1994 CR0SSR0A1>S March 23, 2018 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 SUBJECT: JEFFERSON SQUARE TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. Nicole Criste: The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed Jefferson Square development (referred to as "Project") located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta. INTRODUCTION The previous land use assumptions for the site was evaluated in the Jefferson Square —Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., "Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo") and Focused Traffic Impact Study for The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, prepared by Clyde E. Sweet and Associates, "Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study"). The Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo consisted of 16,500 square feet (sf) of retail, 13,928 sf of supermarket uses, a 42,500 sf hardware stores, a 4,500 sf drive thru bank, and a 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store. The Project is currently proposing to replace the retail uses with a hotel. The land use evaluated in Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study was 90,441 sf of retail shopping center. The previous site plan is shown on Exhibit 1. The Project is currently proposed to consist of a 162-room hotel, 16,568 sf of food market and 8,849 sf of retail. It should be noted that the project site also consists of existing 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store, 7,000 sf of retail and future retail pads of approximately 9,500 sf. The currently proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 2. The purpose of this trip generation assessment is to compare the number of trips generated by the current proposed uses to the previous study assumptions and the land use assumptions for the site in the City of La Quinta General Plan. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. The trip generation rates used for this assessment are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip 11514-02 Letter OURBAN Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. March 23, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Generation Manual (loth Edition, 2017). Rates applicable to the Trip Generation Assessment are shown on Table 1. The trip generation summary for the proposed Project, existing pharmacy/retail and the future retail pads is shown on Table 2. The Project site based on currently proposed uses is anticipated to generate 5,500 trip -ends per day with 213 AM peak hour trips and 482 PM peak hour trips. GENERAL PLAN TRIP GENERATION The City of La Quinta General Plan designates the Project site as General Commercial land use area. Per the General Plan, commercial land uses have a floor -area ratio (FAR) of 0.22. Based on 10.31 acres for the site, the quantity used for the purposes of this trip generation is 98,803 sf. As shown on Table 3, the currently adopted land use for the site is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 5,963 trip -ends per day with 200 AM peak hour trips and 539 PM peak hour trips. The development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 463 fewer trip -ends per day with 13 more AM peak hour trips and 57 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the land use currently adopted in the City of La Quinta General Plan. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES As shown in Table 3, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 2,461 fewer trip -ends per day with 22 fewer AM peak hour trips and 376 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo. As shown in Table 3, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,616 more trip -ends per day with 66 more AM peak hour trips and 103 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic study. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5982. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Pranesh Tarikere, PE Senior Engineer 11514-02 Letter Table 1 Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use' ITE LU Code UnitS2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In T Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 RM 0.28 0.19 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.36 Shopping Center (Average Rate) 820 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 Shopping Center (Equation)3 820 TSF 1.26 0.77 2.03 2.62 2.83 5.45 60.35 Supermarket 850 TSF 2.29 1.53 3.82 4.71 1 4.53 9.24 106.78 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 881 TSF 2.04 1.80 3.84 5.15 1 5.14 1 10.29 109.16 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions 3 Rates calculated based on ITE equations for LUC 820 for 98,803 sf Shopping Center URBAN Table 2 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use I Quantity Ul Init5 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In I Out Total In I Out Total Proposed Project Hotel 162 RM 45 31 76 50 48 98 1,354 Retail 8.849 TSF 5 3 8 16 18 34 334 Food Market 16.568 TSF 38 25 63 78 75 153 1,769 Proposed Project Sub -Total 88 59 147 144 141 285 3,457 Existing Buildings Retail 7.000 TSF 4 3 7 13 14 27 264 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 13.013 TSF 27 23 50 67 67 134 1,420 Existing Retail Sub -Total 1 31 26 57 80 81 161 1,684 Future Retail Pads Retail 9.500 TSF 6 3 9 17 19 36 359 Future Retail Pads Sub -Total 6 3 9 17 19 36 359 Total Site Trips 125 88 213 241 241 482 5,500 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions L�1 URBAN Table 3 General Plan Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Quantity Units2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In 7 Out Total In Out Total General Commercial 98.803 TSF 124 76 200 259 280 539 5,963 Proposed Project 125 88 213 241 241 482 5,500 Variance 1 12 13 -18 -39 -57 -463 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 General Commercial Square Footage based on 10.31 acres of commercial retail at 0.22 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) L�1 URBAN Table 4 Trip Generation Comparison with Previous Traffic Studies Site Occupant Weekday AM PM Daily Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo': 235 858 7,961 Proposed Project: 213 482 5,500 Variance 1 -22 -376 -2,461 Site Occupant Weekday AM PM Daily Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study2: 147 585 3,884 Proposed Project: 213 482 5,500 Variance 1 66 -103 1,616 1 Jefferson Square Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban crossroads, Inc.) Z Focused Traffic Impact Study For The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, Clyde, Sweet & Associates) Lam, URBAN Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment EXHIBIT 1: PREVIOUS SITE PLAN 11514 - siteplan.dwg OURBAM CROSSROADS Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment EXHIBIT 2: CURRENT PROPOSED SITE PLAN FRED WARING DR. 11514 - siteplan.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS L!*oURBAN 260 E. Sakef St. I. Suite= I Costa Mesa. CA 92626 M (949) 5fi0-1994 CR0SSR0A1>S July 23, 2018 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 SUBJECT: JEFFERSON SQUARE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND PARKING EVALUATION Dear Ms. Nicole Criste: The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following Focused Traffic Assessment and Parking Evaluation for the proposed Jefferson Square development (referred to as "Project") located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta. INTRODUCTION The previous land use assumptions for the site were evaluated in the Jefferson Square —Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., "Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo") and Focused Traffic Impact Study for The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, prepared by Clyde E. Sweet and Associates, "Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study"). The Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo considered the traffic generated by 16,500 square feet (sf) of retail, 13,928 sf of supermarket uses, a 42,500 sf hardware stores, a 4,500 sf drive thru bank, and a 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store. The land use evaluated in the Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study was 90,441 sf of retail shopping center. The Project is currently proposing to replace most of the retail uses with a hotel. The Project is currently proposed to consist of a 162-room hotel, 15,589 sf of food market and 8,849 sf of retail. It should be noted that the project site also consists of existing 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store, 7,000 sf of retail and future retail pads of approximately 9,500 sf. The currently proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 1. This Focused Traffic Assessment has been prepared in response to comments from the City of La Quinta and City of Indio to provide a focused traffic study based on current traffic counts. The study has been prepared consistent with the scoping agreement reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. As indicated in the scoping agreement, the analysis has been conducted for weekday PM and Saturday mid- day peak hours which would represent the worst -case conditions for the Project traffic. A copy of the approved scoping agreement is included in Attachment A of this letter. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The Project site, including the existing retail, proposed Project and future retail pads is anticipated to generate a net total of 3,445 trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 295 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday PM peak hour and 446 VPH during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. 11514-05 Letter OURBAN Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 2 of 7 The study area intersections have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 methodology. Peak hour intersection analysis indicates that the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) under Existing (2018) traffic conditions and are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS under Existing plus Project (E+P) and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2020) traffic conditions. The parking evaluation demonstrates that adequate parking supply exists to accommodate the build out of Jefferson Square based on a review of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking. The Project provides 361 parking spaces that meet the parking requirement per Municipal Code. In addition, with the implementation of a shared parking approach, the Project can substantially increase the number available parking spaces. While the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements indicate no parking surplus, the shared parking analysis approach suggests a minimum parking surplus of 26 spaces. This shared parking surplus is possible due to the complementary nature of the parking demands associated with the hotel and retail uses for the Jefferson Square site. This parking evaluation demonstrates that adequate parking supply exists for the proposed Project. STUDY AREA The study area was determined based on discussions with the City Traffic Engineer and is listed below: ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction 1 Driveway 1 & Fred Waring Drive City of La Quinta 2 Jefferson Street & Fred Waring Drive City of La Quinta/Indio 3 Shopping Center Driveway & Fred Waring Drive City of Indio Exhibit 2 presents the study area intersection analysis locations. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Consistent with the City of La Quinta's Engineering Bulletin #06-13, which establishes standards and policies for traffic studies, analysis has been conducted for each of the following scenarios: • Existing (2018) Conditions • Existing plus Project Conditions • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (EAP) [2020] The study area intersections have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 methodology utilizing the parameters provided in Attachment 2 of Engineering Bulletin #06-13. The intersections have been analyzed using Synchro software (Version 10). 11514-05 Letter 0, URBAN r1RQ65;KPAP5[ Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 3 of 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA Per Engineering Bulletin #06-13, the following LOS criteria was utilized for study area intersections: Intersection Type LOS Criteria Signalized Intersection LOS "D" or better All -way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS "D" or better for all critical movements Cross -Street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS "E" or better for the side street EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS Exhibit 3 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls. The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in June 2018. Based on discussions with City staff, the following peak hours were selected for analysis: • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM) • Saturday (Mid -day) Peak Hour (peak hour between 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) Consistent with Engineering Bulletin #06-13, traffic counts should consider the seasonal population variations within the City of La Quinta. In accordance with the City of La Quinta's traffic study guidelines, a 15% seasonal variation factor has been applied to the June 2018 traffic count data. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Attachment B. The seasonally adjusted traffic counts were compared to the data provided in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Iteris, Inc., May 14, 2012) to ensure volumes are not lower for weekday PM peak hour. Existing (2018) peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are indicated on Exhibit 4. EXISTING (2018) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS As shown on Table 1, the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "D" or better) during both Weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. Existing (2018) intersection operations analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment C. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION In accordance with Engineering Bulletin #06-13, the Project trip generation rates used for the traffic impact analysis were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 11514-05 Letter 0, URBAN r1RQ65;KPAP5[ Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 4 of 7 10th Edition (2017). Internal capture between complementary land uses and the pass -by trips associated with the commercial uses were calculated based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Trip generation rates are presented on Table 2. As shown on Table 3, the Project site, including the existing retail, proposed Project and future retail pads is anticipated to generate a net total of 3,445 trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 295 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday PM peak hour and 446 VPH during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project are graphically depicted on Exhibit 5. The trip distributions have been developed based on past work experience in the vicinity of the Project site and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses in the vicinity of the proposed Project as they exist today. The trip distribution was reviewed and approved during the scoping process. PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT The assignment of traffic from the Project to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are indicated on Exhibit 6. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Existing plus Project traffic conditions have been analyzed to assess the potential impacts the Project may have on current traffic conditions at each of the study area intersections. Existing Plus Project peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are illustrated on Exhibit 7. E+P INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS As shown on Table 4, the addition of Project traffic to Existing (2018) traffic is not anticipated to result in any deficiencies at the study area intersections. Existing plus Project intersection operations analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment D. EAP (2020) CONDITIONS The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines the traffic impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions (i.e., baseline conditions). To account for background traffic growth, ambient growth of 6.19% over Existing conditions is included for EAP (2020) traffic conditions. The ambient growth rate was calculated based on the growth between 11514-05 Letter URBAN r1RQ65;KPAP5[ Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Existing (2018) conditions and the City's General Plan Buildout Year (2035) traffic volumes from the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Iteris, Inc., May 14, 2012). EAP (2020) peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are illustrated on Exhibit 8. EAP (2020) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS As shown on Table 5, the addition of Project traffic and ambient growth to Existing (2018) traffic is not anticipated to result in any deficiencies at the study area intersections. EAP (2020) intersection operations analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment E. PROJECT ACCESS Access to the Project site will be provided to both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street via the following driveways: 1. Fred Waring Drive via Driveway 1 (right-in/right-out/left-in only access) 2. Fred Waring Drive via Driveway 2 (right-in/right-out only access) 3. Jefferson Street via Driveway 3 (right-in/right-out only access) 4. Jefferson Street via Driveway 4 (right-in/right-out/left-in only access) The storage length on the existing westbound left turn lane at the driveway on Fred Waring Drive was evaluated based on the nomograph provided in Engineering Bulletin #06-13. As shown in Attachment F, the storage length required based on the left turning and opposing volume is 50 feet. The existing left turn pocket on Fred Waring Drive provides for a storage length of 100 feet and can accommodate anticipated queues. The 27 vehicles per hour (VPH) eastbound right turn volumes on Fred Waring Drive at the Project driveway does not meet the 50 VPH volume threshold for a right -turn deceleration lane. As such a right turn deceleration lane is not recommended at the Project driveway. PARKING EVALUATION The parking requirements for the Project site were estimated based on City of La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking Requirements. Table 6 presents a summary of the Jefferson Square parking requirements for the existing and planned hotel and retail uses. The retail uses include existing CVS and retail pads, proposed retail and food market, and future retail pads. According to the City of La Quinta parking requirements, General Retail uses under 100,000 sf GFA requires 1 space per 300 square feet. For Hotels, the City requires 1.1 spaces per room. As shown on Table 6, the total parking requirements for the Jefferson Square project is calculated at 361 spaces. Table 7 presents a summary comparing the City of La Quinta parking requirements and the total shared parking provided by the 11514-05 Letter Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Project. Table 7 indicates an overall parking requirement of 361 spaces. The Project proposes to provide 361 parking spaces, suggesting an adequate overall parking, but no parking surplus. SHARED PARKING As some of the proposed uses have parking demands that peak during different times of the day, there is an opportunity for these uses to "share" parking with other proposed uses. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking methodology estimates peak parking demand by applying hourly adjustment factors. The planned Jefferson Square hotel and retail land uses are complementary and, therefore, provide the opportunity to share parking spaces between land uses. Shared parking is the use of a single parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment as described in ULI's Shared Parking, 2nd Edition 2005. For example, the parking supply needed for retail uses during the mid -day and evening hours could be utilized by the hotel use in the night and early morning hours when retail use demand is low. PARKING UTILIZATION Parking Utilization represents the number of parking spaces required (parking demand) expressed as a percentage of the number of parking spaces provided. According the Shared Parking report published by the Urban Land Institute, during typical weekday conditions, the parking demand for a hotel is rarely less than 65% of the available parking spaces. As expected though for a hotel land use, parking utilization approaches 100% during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The parking demand for Retail peaks during the daytime of 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., but rarely exceeds 35% at all other hours of the day. Table 8 presents the average weekday shared parking rates per the Shared Parking report published by ULI. This table identifies the hourly weekday parking demands expressed as a percentage of available parking spaces occupied between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. Table 9 describes the average weekday shared parking utilization for each land use within the Project. The shared parking utilization estimates shown on Table 9 are calculated by applying shared parking rates from Table 8 with the number of required parking spaces for each land use. The results shown on Table 9 provide hourly estimates of actual shared parking utilization for the Project. Table 9 presents the expected number of available parking spaces occupied between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. The shared parking approach suggests a minimum parking surplus of 36 spaces during peak weekday activities from 6 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During peak hotel parking demands between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., the shared parking analysis indicates a parking surplus ranging from 36 to 189 spaces. This translates into an overall Project parking utilization (number of parking spaces required expressed as a percentage of the number of parking spaces provided) ranging from 48% to 90%. Similarly, the average weekend shared parking rates and shared parking utilization are shown in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. The shared parking approach suggests a minimum parking surplus of 28 spaces during peak weekend activities from 2 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. As shown in Table 11, the parking surplus during the weekend ranges from 28 to 189 spaces. This translates into an overall Project parking utilization 11514-05 Letter Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 7 of 7 (number of parking spaces required expressed as a percentage of the number of parking spaces provided) ranging from 48% to 92%. Based on this parking analysis, the Project as designed provides adequate parking to address average and peak parking requirements. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5992. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Pranesh Tarikere, PE Senior Engineer 11514-05 Letter URBAN KRQ�SR47AP5[ Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN It 14 ow- I . I . .. -a FRED WARING DR. ISTING , IS }y_ I I ON _EXISTING r w�� LL Jib Iwo — LU T = :f- �= I� 16 —�Li_��fi FUTURE ! «-- r ;' ? -y b Li i' _■mn si iq?Y -i {=R FIITIIRF 11514 - siteplan.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS Jefferson Squnre focused Troff)e ImdortAnolysu EXHIBIT 2: 5TU ❑Y AREA Jefrersof? Sauare Farused Traffic fmpor. r A nnMis EXHIBIT 3: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTIdN CONTROM I Dwy, M 2 Jvffvrson St, & 3 5hapong Center Fred Wedng dr. Freu Waring DF Dwy. & Fred WORN Dr. .4- T— _ +T I I I + r -L Y T / C1iO55PE"^o5 1 effersarr 5quore Focused Traffic fmpact ,4rrp+ysi5 EXHIBIT 4: EXISTING (2028) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH SEASONAL AIll UATMENT) 77LEGEND: 10(10)-AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 10A ■ VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S) 10.0 -ACTUAL (COUNT -BASED) VEHICLES PER DAY (IOOO'4) awy. 1 & 2 Jefferson St, & 3 5hOppinq Center Fraa UJadng Dr. Fred wadnq 4r ID". & ireo Waring Pr. cn In T oa m N tin C_lm 17j �ggrr{fiTa �T{2} } `O � m �53a{4G1 j �I } L 182{17Aj 204(1541,—� ' ' 616(352; — 7 g8 f 4 ) 973(5$p�� j' 75Pgy I� C4W 11514 . vo;s-dwg URBAN EXHIBIT 5: PRa1ECi TRIP Ell 5-FRIBUT ION Jefferson Satrore Focused Traffic lrrroart AnMusis URBAN Id! ff - mom' 11514 - uok.dwg r~mw_� 0 001, EXHIBIT 6: PRGJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES , *I 1 6 1pftr;sor) Square Focused Traffic tmpacr Anofys+s ■ AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES LND: ■ VEHICLES PER DAY (1000'S] - NOMINAL, LESS THAN 5D VEHICLES PER DAY Dwy. 1 & 2 Jaffor9on St. & 5hmppinQ Crater Free wedeg or. Frad Warlog or. owy. & Free WBtlnq Dr. m vo ) J �� t (20) o{ a r r 1 9(12)34M); ; (� u 34(48)— ooa D(0)- 0 0 0 00 a iv jejfersor, Square Focused TrafficImpacrAnalyvs ExHIBIT 7; E+P TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT r f; `• to L- INS 4 ; i .t t i LEGEND: 1G(10) -AM(PM) PEAK HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUHFS ■ VEHICLES PER DAY fliawS) pyry. 1& 2 )offerson St. & 3 ShopMfiq Center' Fred We in q Dr. Fred Warinq Dr. Dwy. & Fred WaNFMq Dr. — _ 4 ' ri v It �° �135{67j gg ggqq i 55Z409}— F i ,77 ry 193(9fi}� � r 13514 vnfs.dwg URBAN LRQSLROAIGS fefferswr Square Focused Traffic ]mpactAFro1Vsi5 EXHIRIT 8. EAR (2020) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WrrH SEASONAL AD] USTMENIT) J k LEGEND: 10(10) - AM(PMI PEAL{ HOUR INTERSECTION VOLUMES 70.0 ■ VEHICLES PER DAY (1000`5) 1 DVfy- 16. 2 JefFOP— St. & 3 SwppFnp Centw Fred 1Herinq dr. Fred Waring Dr bwY. 4 IFred Werinq dr. �7T T T- f 11 J •1-ice - 4.s 11 '1 ` Z' 932 716j r r u°}o �:81{-0-0d] ] _ �.. ..I G49 1L12) — 225(176)� 'j t I~ B970 l { �� f 690r422)� E c3 205(104? v m r N w coo T-a rs��r vols-dwg OURBAM Table 1 Intersection Analysis for Existing (2018) Conditions Intersection Approach Lanes' Delay z LOS Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (secs.) Acceptable L T R L T R L T R L T R PM SAT PM SAT # Intersection Contro13 LOS 1 Dwy. 1& Fred Waring Dr. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 15.9 11.1 C B E 2 Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 25.8 21.1 C C D 3 Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 9.0 8.6 A A D 1 When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right Z Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal URBAN Table 2 Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use' ITE LU Code UnitS2 PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 RM 0.31 0.29 0.60 0.40 0.32 0.72 8.36 Shopping Center (Average Rate) 820 TSF 1.83 1.98 3.81 2.34 2.16 4.50 37.75 Shopping Center (Equation 3 820 1 TSF 2.62 2.83 5.45 8.47 7.81 16.28 1 60.35 Supermarket 850 TSF 4.71 4.53 9.24 5.27 5.07 10.34 106.78 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 1 881 TSF 1 5.15 5.14 10.29 4.29 4.46 8.75 1 109.16 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms 3 Rates calculated based on ITE equations for LUC 820 for 98,803 sf Shopping Center L�1 URBAN Table 3 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use I Quantity Units PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Daily 1 In Out Total In I Out Total Proposed Project Hotel 162 1 RM 50 48 98 65 51 116 1,354 Internal Captures : -9 -4 -13 -10 -4 -14 -180 Retail 1 8.849 1 TSF 16 18 34 21 19 40 334 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34°0, SAT. 2016) -6 -6 -12 -5 -5 -10 -114 Food Market 15.589 1 TSF 73 71 144 82 79 161 1,665 Internal Captures : -4 -9 -13 -4 -10 -14 -150 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 36%) -26 -26 -53 0 0 0 -599 Proposed Project Sub -Total 94 92 185 149 130 279 2,310 Existing Buildings Retail 7.000 FTSF 13 14 27 16 15 31 264 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34% SAT. 26%) -5 -5 -10 -4 -4 -8 -90 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 1 13.013 1 TSF 67 67 134 56 58 114 1,420 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 49916) -33 -33 -66 0 0 0 -696 Existing Retail Sub -Total 1 42 1 43 86 68 1 69 137 898 Future Retail Pads Retail 9.500 1 TSF 17 19 36 22 21 43 359 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34% SAT: 26916) -6 -6 -12 -6 -6 -12 -122 Future Retail Pads Sub -Total 11 13 24 16 15 31 237 Total Site Trips 147 148 295 233 214 446 3,445 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms 3 Internal capture calculated from NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. URBAN Table 4 Intersection Analysis for E+P Conditions Existing (2018) E+P Delay 1 Delay 1 LOS LOS Traffic (secs.) (secs.) Acceptable PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM I SAT # Intersection Contro12 LOS 1 Dwy. 1 & Fred Waring Dr. CSS 15.9 11.1 C B 17.1 11.8 C B E 2 Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 25.8 21.1 C C 26.3 21.6 C C D 3 Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 9.0 8.6 1 A A 9.0 8.6 1 A A D 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic sign For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single la Z CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal L�1 URBAN Table 5 Intersection Analysis for EAP (2020) Conditions Existing (2018) EAP (2020) Delay 1 Delay 1 LOS LOS Traffic (secs.) (secs.) Acceptable PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM I SAT # Intersection Contro12 LOS 1 Dwy. 1 & Fred Waring Dr. CSS 15.9 11.1 C B 18.3 12.0 C B E 2 Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 25.8 21.1 C C 27.8 22.1 C C D 3 Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 9.0 8.6 1 A A 9.0 8.6 1 A A D 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic sign For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single la Z CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal L�1 URBAN Table 6 Jefferson Square Parking Requirements Use Quantity 1 Parking Rate Required Parking Stalls Totals Hotel Hotel 162 RMS 1.1 179 179 Retai12 CVS 13,013 sf 1 per 300 sf 44 182 Existing Retail Pad 7,000 sf 1 per 300 sf 24 Proposed Retail 8,849 sf 1 per 300 sf 30 Food Market 15,589 sf 1 per 300 sf 52 Future Retail Pads 9,500 sf 1 per 300 sf 32 Total Parking Requirement: 361 1 Based on the La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking Requirements Z Minimum Off-street Parking Rates for "General retail uses under 100,000 sf GFA" has been utilized U:VcJobsl 11100-1150M 115001115141ExceAI1514-06 Letter OURBAN Table 7 Jefferson Square Parking Summary Parking Shared Parking Land Use 1 Z Variance Requirments Provided Hotel 179 361 0 Commercial 182 Total 361 361 0 1 Based on the La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking Requirements Z Source: March 23, 2018 Jefferson Square Site Plan prepared by PARTI. WUcJobsl 11100-115001_11500M5141ExceA11514-06 Letter OURBAN 7 k R / / z( �§ \ \ § 2 c 0 \ f \ 2 2 $ o / I # / 7 2 2 2 $ a $ I y g a $ 2 f ? a § y \ J / m 2 f / a % � I y % » $ 2 f iD a § § \ 2 \ : k q I y 2 » $ \ » / < y % * $ 0 \ ) J 7 Q \ ) _ \ \ \ \ - � ' « y / * ® I « \ ± a a $ * _ \ to \ IA R \� \ 3 0 g a \ O 5 i Q1 O Ql N c N r^i r^ 00 O L" a Ln Ln O Ln Ln �D o CC O G r^ Ln N ri r 4 o r-I � o N CC r' � G ri N ri a � � L CC 00 G ri ri o m Lmn 0000 a tV M Ln lD C u1 I, N M O c r-I r-I M CY) a N m L(1 lD c Lo a In N m m p r- 00 CC 00 Lfl 00 a m m m L c L r-I r-I N 00 a Ln :zl- O> N N iD 00 I, p M d ri ri N 00 Ln cn oo m o N d N r-I I, r-I Ol N LD M 00 C r-I C r-I ri 00 r-I Ql N ID m 00 a lD M Q1 Nr-I c N r-I �^-I ONO ^ O 00 � a 00 P'I c L r'I ri ONO 00 00 a O C C N ri r-I1:T r-I N r-I r-I a oN a ri Ln ri I, 00 M c cC 1.0 N 00 C a `� Ln O Ql Ql N c c L I- ri I, ri 00 ri p Lin a O N N m c C n n 00 00 Lp C ri ri ri � a r- pop O1 H ri ri C 3 O L u C cr m w C Q 3 N at to a+ t C �C D 04 C v�f f0 � Cl Y a L � a c — J O ) N = cr in 00 c O u N c Y D_ v t J � � N � U C � N � YO s Em N J 6 � � L to p 0 O N i 0 N J t0.13J Q O D_ � to m O 4 Y O LO v LO D U u - w m U O 1 v CL N v E k o Y v 0 o W v .s m rr c w on u �- v o c a`) O o a O V a c 'O d O � E ' .c ° a = 00 ° -a ° Ln bn to O O c M Y O � O_ ? O ? �- � ti v v v U ° m m m v co w w w ry m v O (D m H N O O O O c z4 ma a � a o 0 Lr) 0 0 0 0 v w -0 o V v bD � Y d v N m a 0 Ln rn 0 oLr) 0 0 a 0 00 00 0 rl rl 0 00 0 O 00 00 0 rn a Ln 0 0 rn M d O n O O � N 0 O o O a 0 in to 0 O rn J v cc J C f6 � D i ) N a O Lf1 k.0 O O 00 Q 0 0 Q O O O O O C p O O T Q o 00 Om u LO u � N U a k N W 3 O O t6 r T � 00 Q 0 0 o OD Q c CY) oo Q Q n O N O p tD Q 0 Ln o Q O u'> � O O toO h C J _ _ Y a _I c p -O � O Q f6 N U Co o j �i i Q1 O Ql N c N r-A W O rn O r1 r1 Ln 00 a Ln 0 O 0 ^ N -1 F, 1O a or- o CC r- 00 a ,-I In �o Ln o co d 00 (V <D 00 M CC OM Ln G im-I rLn-I 00 a m � LO 0 000 Lo a r1 rl m OM °\ cC 00 M N Lfl °1 a m N o CL r-I M ,-I M m rn a N N cC O M N M C rl N M O1 a Ln 00 m 00 0 N O M N N eV a r1 N m � o L W ar1 r1 M 00 LO m o0 0 N C LO 00 I� Ln Ln r-I r-I cc L �N-I rM-I N N a Ln :t O1 N C O C C N r1 O r-I N N m r-I a ON Ln N a -1 Ln r1 r-I N Ql c N O 00 a Ln O O O r-I c c r- rl 00 00 O L a rl rl rl Lun) O N N m c C I� n 00 00 �p C rl rl rl � a N00 O "a Al to rl N C 3 O L C cr CL Al C Q 3 N at Ln a+ t C �C D 0A C v�f f0 � d Y a L � a c — J ) = cr in 0 c 0 v a v J � � N c � v v c a � YO � � L bA Lp f0 � i 0 N J t0.13J Q O O_ � to O 4 O Y O LO ou a v - u w m U 0 1 v CL N v E k o Y v 0 o W v 's m rr c w on u �- v o c a`) O o a O V a c 'O d O � E ' .c ° a = 00 ° -a ° L° bn oto M c O O O c M Y O � O_ ? O ? �- � ti >= v v v U ° m m m v co w w w ry m v PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 68,021 square -foot hotel, 25,778 square -foot food and beverage market and 8,849 square feet of retail shops, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that it will result in the Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 7 development of an approximate 125,000 sq. ft. shopping center which is permitted in the General Commercial land use designation. The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals and Policies: • Goal LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. • Policy LU-2.2 which requires Specific Plans for projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance. • Program PR-1.8.c: to promote and improve public access to farmers markets and grocery stores that sell fresh produce and healthy foods with the establishment of a supermarket at the site. • Policy AQ-1.6 which states that proposed development air quality emissions of criteria pollutants shall be analyzed under CEQA. The project's MND analyzed these and determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. • Policy BIO-1.2 which states that site -specific, species -specific surveys shall be required for species not covered by the MSHCP. The project's MND includes mitigation that requires pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl, which is not a covered species under the MSHCP. • GOAL CUL-1 which supports protection of significant archaeological, historic and paleontological resources which occur in the City. The project's MND includes mitigation measures to include a tribal monitor during ground disturbing activities. • GOAL N-1 which supports a healthful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character. The Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 7 project's MND includes mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. • GOAL GEO-1 which supports the protection of the residents' health and safety, and of their property, from geologic and seismic hazards. The project's MND determined that with implementation of required building and seismic code standards, the project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources. • Policy FH-1.3 which states that the City shall continue to implement development standards that provide for a reduction in runoff from developed lands and are consistent with local and regional stormwater management plans. The project is consistent with this policy since underground retention will be provided that will contain the 100 year storm for the site. • Policy PF-1.3 which states that the City shall identify all viable financing mechanisms for the funding of construction, maintenance and operation of municipal facilities. The project will be required to pay development impact fees which is a funding mechanism for municipal facilities and public services. • The project conceptual landscape design is consistent with Goal WR-1 and Policy UTL-1.2 as it will result in the efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 7 agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 3. Land Use Compatibility The proposed Specific Plan incorporates a land use that is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The property will continue to be zoned as Neighborhood Commercial which is intended to provide for the development and regulation of small- scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the General Plan which provide for the sale of food, drugs, sundries and personal services to meet the daily needs of a neighborhood area. The proposed food market, retail shops, personal service and recreational uses within the hotel would provide for the needs of visitors to the area as well as surrounding neighborhoods. The scope of the project is of relatively low intensity, particularly as it relates to traffic generation, when compared to currently approved retail commercial uses, and will result in a reduction of trips on area roadways. 4. Property Suitability The uses permitted in the Specific Plan are suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the site is relatively flat, vacant, and the area can be served by all necessary public services and utilities. The proposed project is located at the intersection of arterial streets and provides convenience to goods and services to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. Additionally, the hotel's location near major roadways and the Interstate result in compatibility of the site with the use. Site Development Permit 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The City's General Plan policies relating to General Commercial encourage shopping centers in the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. The proposed project is consistent with Goal ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial District as well as the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and Jefferson Square Specific Plan in terms of architectural style and landscaping. The project satisfies the District's intent to provide for the development and regulation of small-scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the general plan. The project is generally consistent with the Non- residential development standards and permitted use table, except for the inclusion of hotel uses as a permitted use, an increase in total building height and increased floor area ratio. These land use exceptions may be approved with the Specific Plan Amendment per the General Plan. 3. Compliance with CEQA The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 6 of 7 architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design The site design of the project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Landscape Design Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to enhance the building architecture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2018-0001, and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 7 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 231" day of October 20181 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 (SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062, AMENDMENT 3) JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 1 OF 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Specific Plan 2018-0001 shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of Specific Plan 2018- 0001, these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Specific Plan 2018-0001 shall comply with all applicable terms, conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Design and Development Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determinina the precedence. 4. Within 30 days of City Council approval, applicant shall provide an electronic copy (.pdf) and three bound paper copies of the Final Specific Plan document to the Design and Development Department. The Final Specific Plan shall include all text and graphics, all amendments per this action, and correction of any typographical errors, internal document inconsistencies, and other amendments deemed necessary by the Planning Manager. 5. The hotel structure shall incorporate solar panels in order to support alternative energy usage as referenced in the Specific Plan. 6. Representatives from tribes within the project vicinity commented and have requested the following considerations: A. The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 (SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062, AMENDMENT 3) JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 2 OF 2 B. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 1 of 18 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Site Development Permit 2018-0001 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approval(s): Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Tentative Parcel Map 36241 Site Development Permit 2007-898 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Director of Design and Development shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. 3. The Site Development Permit shall expire two years from City Council approval and shall become null and void in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.200.080, unless a building permit has been issued. A time extension may be requested per LQMC Section 9.200.080. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Development Division (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form - Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Planning Division • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 2 of 18 • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 5. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI') and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES Stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 3 of 18 inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall following Best Management 8.70.020 (Definitions)): include provisions for all of the Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. E. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 4 of 18 easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the Owners Association over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing parking lot that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. Said rights shall also include dedication of a new easement to the City for the relocation of the underground fire department equipment that crosses through multiple parcels. The existing water and access easement for the underground fire department equipment shall be quitclaimed. 11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 12. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking spaces and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking space design shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans so that accessibility issues can be evaluated. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking space lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 18 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for all parking spaces or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible parking space is required per 6 accessible parking PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 5 of 18 spaces. F. Drive aisles between parking spaces shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum of 20 feet on each side of approach drives shall be provided where divided by median islands and as approved by the City Engineer. 13. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 14. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 15. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 16. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. IMPROVEMENT PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 6 of 18 17. As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 19. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Design and Development Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal B. Erosion Control Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. Final WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) D. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading 1" = 20' Horizontal NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "On -Site Commercial Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Manager and the City Engineer. "On -Site Commercial Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on - site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and accessibility requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 7 of 18 20. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Public Works Development "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the City website (www.laquintaca.gov). Please navigate to the Design and Development Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 21. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 22. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. GRADING 23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 24. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. A. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: B. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, C. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a professional registered in the State of California, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 8 of 18 D. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and E. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), and F. A WQMP prepared by an authorized professional registered in the State of California, and G. A grading bond in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the grading bond requirements. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 25. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 26. Building pad elevations on the precise grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the Site Development Permit Preliminary Grading Plans, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 27. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the Site Development Permit Preliminary Grading Plans, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 9 of 18 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. nRATNA(-,F 29. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Jefferson Square, SDP 2018-0001, or as approved by the City Engineer. 30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06- 16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100-year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour or 24-hour event producing the greatest total run off. 31. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 32. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 33. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Manager and the City Engineer. 34. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 10 of 18 slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin or as approved by the City Engineer. 35. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.100.040(B)(7). 36. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 37. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013- 0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 11 of 18 stormwater BMPs. UTILITIES 38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 39. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 40. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 41. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have parking lot improvements and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 42. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. Said landscaping shall be constantly maintained by the center owner with damaged, dead or dying plant material immediately replaced with healthy plant material of equivalent size. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 12 of 18 45. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 46. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Manager for his approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff to minimize trespass of light off the property. The illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 47. All water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 48. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 49. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Design and Development Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Manager approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Manager determines extenuating circumstances exist which justifies an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Manager and/or City Engineer. 50. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5t" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. MAINTENANCE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 13 of 18 51. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 52. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 54. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). a10.1a010We10.749010011 55. All proposed gates shall be equipped approved KNOX key switch for emergency response with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Building plans shall include mounting location/position and operating standards for Fire Department approval. Electric gate openers shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed and constructed per ASTM F2200. 56. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. 57. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority. 58. Blue dot retro-reflector pavement markers shall be located on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of the fire PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 14 of 18 hydrant per standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org).- 59. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Access lanes will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 16%. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will be designed to withstand the weight of 75 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. 60. Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of building(s) and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum of 12" in height for building(s) up to 25' in height. In complexes with alpha designations, letter size must match numbers. All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours. 61. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler system(s) with pipe sizes in excess of 4" in diameter will require the project Structural Engineer to certify with a "wet signature", that the structural system is designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of the sprinkler system. All fire sprinkler risers shall be protected from any physical damage. 62. The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front of building within 50 feet of approved roadway and within 200 feet of an approved hydrant. Sprinkler riser room must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C- 16 licensed contractor must submit plans, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 63. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 6 or more heads in any one given fire area (limited area system), along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. An automatic/manual fire alarm system with occupant notification in accordance with section 907 in the California Fire Code might be required based on occupancy and occupant load. 64. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, for every 3,000 sq. ft. and/or 75 feet of travel distance. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted 3.5 to 5 feet above finished floor, measured to the top of the extinguisher. Where not readily visible, signs shall be posted above PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 15 of 18 all extinguishers to indicate their locations. Extinguishers must have current CSFM service tags affixed. 65. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which exceeds quantities listed in 2013 CBC. No class I, II or IIIA of combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building. 66. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path marking shall be installed per the 2013 CBC. 67. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside of door. 68. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted "FACP" on outside of door. 69. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted "Fire Riser" on outside of door. 70. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted "Roof Access" on outside of door. 71. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required by the Mechanical Code. 72. Air handling systems supplying air in excess of 2000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. 2013 CMC. 73. Nothing in the preliminary review shall be construed as encompassing structural integrity. Review of this plan does not authorize or approve any omission or deviation from all applicable regulations. Final approval is subject to plan review and field inspection. All questions regarding the meaning of the code requirements should be referred to Fire Department at 760-777-7074. 74. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for the turnaround capabilities of fire apparatus. 75. Any portion of the facility or of an exterior wall of the first story of the building shall not be located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access roads as measured by an approved route around the complex, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 16 of 18 exterior of the facility or building. 76. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the appropriate lane printing and/or signs. 77. No combustible material/construction is to occur without proper installation of an approved reliable water supply for firefighting operations. A stop work order shall be issued in such circumstances. BUILDING DIVISION 78. Building Plans prepared for permitting shall meet applicable California Building Codes effective at the time of submittal. MISCELLANEOUS 79. The hotel structure shall incorporate solar panels in order to support alternative energy usage as referenced in the Specific Plan. 80. An alternative tree species shall be planted along the south wall to prevent intrusion into the backyards to the south. 81. Representatives from tribes within the project vicinity commented and have requested the following considerations: A. The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). B. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. 82. The County Coroner shall be contacted if human remains are identified during earthmoving activities. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and the landowner will work PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 17 of 18 with the designated MILD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 83. No signage is permitted with this approval. A separate permit from the Design and Development Department is required for any temporary or permanent signs. 84. No special events are permitted with the approval. A separate permit from the Design and Development Department is required for special events. An Minor Use Permit application must be submitted 90 days prior to the first event. 85. Any outdoor lighting that is installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. 86. The following uses/activities shall be prohibited at this site: A. Any use or activity which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA - approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. B. Any use or activity which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. C. Any use or activity which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation in the area. Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, composting operations, production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal and incinerators. D. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 87. Any new detention basin(s) on the site shall be designed to provide for a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 18 of 18 maximum 48-hour detention period following the conclusion of the storm event for the design storm (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the detention basin(s) that would provide food or cover for bird species that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project landscaping. 88. The landscape architect shall identify standards for planting, irrigation and maintenance in the final landscape plan and the standards shall be included in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall be recorded on the Property and shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 89. Applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the Property. The CC&Rs shall (1) require minimum covenants for satisfactory, perpetual maintenance obligations on the Property; (2) name the City of La Quinta as an express third party beneficiary; (3) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation; and (4) state that the CC&Rs cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 141-room, three-story, 86,833 square -foot hotel and 20,172 square -foot food and beverage market, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.250.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Environmental Assessment [Exhibit A]: 1. The City prepared an Initial Study for the project and circulated it for public review. The Initial Study analyzed the project as a 160- room hotel, the rehabilitation of the existing grocery store building, and the addition of 8,849 square feet of retail space adjacent to the hotel. The revisions proposed represent a reduction in the amount Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 4 of retail space (8,849 square feet), and a reduction in the number of hotel rooms (19 fewer rooms). The hotel will be reduced in height from 38 feet to 35 feet, consistent with the zone in which it occurs. The changes to the project represent a reduction in impacts associated with traffic, air quality, greenhouse gases, water resources, noise and public facilities and utilities because of the reduction in the size of the project. Other environmental impacts analyzed would be consistent and equivalent, and would result in the need for the same mitigation measures as those identified in the Initial Study. The revised project will not result in any greater impact than that which was analyzed in the Initial Study. Conditions on the site and its surroundings have not changed, nor will the revised project change conditions in the area. The mitigation measures included in the Initial Study will be applied to the revised project, and will result in the lowering of applicable impacts to less than significant levels, consistent with the findings of the Initial Study. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination for the revised project, as it was for the original project proposed. 2. As conditioned, proposed application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2018-0001. 3. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 4 planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. Impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable can be mitigated to be less than significant. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. Impacts associated with noise and air quality can be mitigated to be less than significant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23t" day of October 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 141-room, three-story, 86,833 square -foot hotel and 20,172 square -foot food and beverage market, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan Amendment: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that it will result in the Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 7 development of an approximate 135,000 sq. ft. shopping center which is permitted in the General Commercial land use designation. The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals and Policies: • Goal LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. • Policy LU-2.2 which requires Specific Plans for projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance. • Program PR-1.8.c: to promote and improve public access to farmers markets and grocery stores that sell fresh produce and healthy foods with the establishment of a supermarket at the site. • Policy AQ-1.6 which states that proposed development air quality emissions of criteria pollutants shall be analyzed under CEQA. The project's MND analyzed these and determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. • Policy BIO-1.2 which states that site -specific, species -specific surveys shall be required for species not covered by the MSHCP. The project's MND includes mitigation that requires pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl, which is not a covered species under the MSHCP. • GOAL CUL-1 which supports protection of significant archaeological, historic and paleontological resources which occur in the City. The project's MND includes mitigation measures to include a tribal monitor during ground disturbing activities. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 7 • GOAL N-1 which supports a healthful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character. The project's MND includes mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. • GOAL GEO-1 which supports the protection of the residents' health and safety, and of their property, from geologic and seismic hazards. The project's MND determined that with implementation of required building and seismic code standards, the project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources. • Policy FH-1.3 which states that the City shall continue to implement development standards that provide for a reduction in runoff from developed lands and are consistent with local and regional stormwater management plans. The project is consistent with this policy since underground retention will be provided that will contain the 100 year storm for the site. • Policy PF-1.3 which states that the City shall identify all viable financing mechanisms for the funding of construction, maintenance and operation of municipal facilities. The project will be required to pay development impact fees which is a funding mechanism for municipal facilities and public services. • The project conceptual landscape design is consistent with Goal WR-1 and Policy UTL-1.2 as it will result in the efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 7 effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 3. Land Use Compatibility The proposed Specific Plan incorporates a land use that is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The property will continue to be zoned as Neighborhood Commercial which is intended to provide for the development and regulation of small- scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the General Plan which provide for the sale of food, drugs, sundries and personal services to meet the daily needs of a neighborhood area. The proposed food market, personal service and recreational uses within the hotel would provide for the needs of visitors to the area as well as surrounding neighborhoods. The scope of the project is of relatively low intensity, particularly as it relates to traffic generation, when compared to currently approved retail commercial uses, and will result in a reduction of trips on area roadways. 4. Property Suitability The uses permitted in the Specific Plan are suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the site is relatively flat, vacant, and the area can be served by all necessary public services and utilities. The proposed project is located at the intersection of arterial streets and provides convenience to goods and services to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. Additionally, the hotel's location near and within an existing commercial center, near major roadways and the Interstate result in compatibility of the site with the use. Site Development Permit 2018-0012 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The City's General Plan policies relating to General Commercial encourage shopping centers in the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. The proposed project is consistent with Goal ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial District as well as the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and Jefferson Square Specific Plan in terms of architectural style and landscaping. The project satisfies the District's intent to provide for the development and regulation of small-scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the general plan. The project is generally consistent with the Non- residential development standards and permitted use table, except for the inclusion of hotel uses as a permitted use, an increase in total building height and increased floor area ratio. These land use exceptions may be approved with the Specific Plan Amendment per the General Plan. 3. Compliance with CEQA The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 6 of 7 architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design The site design of the project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Landscape Design Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to enhance the building architecture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2018-0001, and Site Development Permit 2018-0012 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 7 of 7 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 231" day of October 20181 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 (SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062, AMENDMENT 3) JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 1 OF 2 SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Specific Plan. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Specific Plan 2018-0001 shall be developed in compliance with these conditions, and the approved Specific Plan document. In the event of any conflicts between these conditions and the provisions of Specific Plan 2018- 0001, these conditions shall take precedence. 3. Specific Plan 2018-0001 shall comply with all applicable terms, conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approvals: Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Design and Development Director shall adjudicate the conflict by determinina the precedence. 4. Within 30 days of City Council approval, applicant shall provide an electronic copy (.pdf) and three bound paper copies of the Final Specific Plan document to the Design and Development Department. The Final Specific Plan shall include all text and graphics, all amendments per this action, and correction of any typographical errors, internal document inconsistencies, and other amendments deemed necessary by the Planning Manager. 5. The hotel structure shall incorporate solar panels in order to support alternative energy usage as referenced in the Specific Plan. 6. Representatives from tribes within the project vicinity commented and have requested the following considerations: A. The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 (SPECIFIC PLAN 2002-062, AMENDMENT 3) JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 2 OF 2 B. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 1 of 18 GENERAL 1. The applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of La Quinta ("City"), its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Site Development Permit, or any Final Map recorded thereunder. The City shall have sole discretion in selecting its defense counsel. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 2. Site Development Permit 2018-0012 shall comply with all applicable conditions and/or mitigation measures for the following related approval(s): Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Tentative Parcel Map 36241 Site Development Permit 2007-898 In the event of any conflict(s) between approval conditions and/or provisions of these approvals, the Director of Design and Development shall adjudicate the conflict by determining the precedence. 3. The Site Development Permit shall expire two years from City Council approval and shall become null and void in accordance with La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.200.080, unless a building permit has been issued. A time extension may be requested per LQMC Section 9.200.080. 4. Prior to the issuance of any grading, construction, or building permit by the City, the applicant shall obtain any necessary clearances and/or permits from the following agencies, if required: • Riverside County Fire Marshal • La Quinta Development Division (Grading Permit, Green Sheet (Public Works Clearance) for Building Permits, Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Exemption Form - Whitewater River Region, Improvement Permit) • La Quinta Planning Division • Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department • Desert Sands Unified School District (DSUSD) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 2 of 18 • Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) • Imperial Irrigation District (IID) • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) • State Water Resources Control Board • SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) • South Coast Air Quality Management District Coachella Valley (SCAQMD) The applicant is responsible for all requirements of the permits and/or clearances from the above listed agencies. When these requirements include approval of improvement plans, the applicant shall furnish proof of such approvals when submitting those improvements plans for City approval. 5. Coverage under the State of California Construction General Permit must be obtained by the applicant; who then shall submit a copy of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's ("RWQCB") acknowledgment of the applicant's Notice of Intent ("NOI') and Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number to the City prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit. 6. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES Stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 and the State Water Resources Control Board's Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. A. For construction activities including clearing, grading or excavation of land that disturbs one (1) acre or more of land, or that disturbs less than one (1) acre of land, but which is a part of a construction project that encompasses more than one (1) acre of land, the Permitee shall be required to submit a Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan ("SWPPP") to the State Water Resources Control Board. The applicant or design professional can obtain the California Stormwater Quality Association SWPPP template at www.cabmphandbooks.com for use in their SWPPP preparation. B. The applicant shall ensure that the required SWPPP is available for PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 3 of 18 inspection at the project site at all times through and including acceptance of all improvements by the City. C. The applicant's SWPPP shall following Best Management 8.70.020 (Definitions)): include provisions for all of the Practices ("BMPs") (LQMC Section 1) Temporary Soil Stabilization (erosion control). 2) Temporary Sediment Control. 3) Wind Erosion Control. 4) Tracking Control. 5) Non -Storm Water Management. 6) Waste Management and Materials Pollution Control. D. All erosion and sediment control BMPs proposed by the applicant shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to any onsite or offsite grading, pursuant to this project. E. The SWPPP and BMPs shall remain in effect for the entire duration of project construction until all improvements are completed and accepted by the City. 7. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual attorney's fees incurred by the City Attorney to review, negotiate and/or modify any documents or instruments required by these conditions, if Developer requests that the City modify or revise any documents or instruments prepared initially by the City to effect these conditions. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. 8. Developer shall reimburse the City, within thirty (30) days of presentment of the invoice, all costs and actual consultant's fees incurred by the City for engineering and/or surveying consultants to review and/or modify any documents or instruments required by this project. This obligation shall be paid in the time noted above without deduction or offset and Developer's failure to make such payment shall be a material breach of the Conditions of Approval. PROPERTY RIGHTS 9. Prior to issuance of any permit(s), the applicant shall acquire or confer PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 4 of 18 easements and other property rights necessary for the construction or proper functioning of the proposed development. Conferred rights shall include irrevocable offers to dedicate or grant access easements to the City for emergency services and for maintenance, construction and reconstruction of essential improvements. 10. Pursuant to the aforementioned condition, conferred rights shall include approvals from the master developer or the Owners Association over easements and other property rights necessary for construction and proper functioning of the proposed development not limited to access rights over proposed and/or existing parking lot that access public streets and open space/drainage facilities of the master development. Said rights shall also include dedication of a new easement to the City for the relocation of the underground fire department equipment that crosses through multiple parcels. The existing water and access easement for the underground fire department equipment shall be quitclaimed. 11. The applicant shall furnish proof of easements, or written permission, as appropriate, from those owners of all abutting properties on which grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments will occur. PARKING LOTS and ACCESS POINTS 12. The design of parking facilities shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and in particular the following: A. The parking spaces and aisle widths and the double hairpin stripe parking space design shall conform to LQMC Chapter 9.150. B. Cross slopes should be a maximum of 2% where accessibility is required including accessibility routes between buildings. C. Building access points shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plans so that accessibility issues can be evaluated. D. Accessibility routes to public streets and adjacent development shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. E. Parking space lengths shall be according to LQMC Chapter 9.150 and be a minimum of 18 feet in length with a 2-foot overhang for all parking spaces or as approved by the City Engineer. One van accessible parking space is required per 6 accessible parking PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 5 of 18 spaces. F. Drive aisles between parking spaces shall be a minimum of 26 feet with access drive aisles to Public Streets a minimum of 30 feet or as approved by the City Engineer. A minimum of 20 feet on each side of approach drives shall be provided where divided by median islands and as approved by the City Engineer. 13. The applicant shall design street pavement sections using CalTrans' design procedure for 20-year life pavement, and the site -specific data for soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including construction traffic). Minimum structural sections shall be as follows: Parking Lot & Aisles (Low Traffic) 3.0" a.c./4.5" c.a.b. Parking Lot & Aisles (High Traffic) 4.5" a.c./5.5" c.a.b. Loading Areas 6" P.C.C./4" c.a.b. or the approved equivalents of alternate materials. 14. The applicant shall submit current mix designs (less than two years old at the time of construction) for base, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete. The submittal shall include test results for all specimens used in the mix design procedure. For mix designs over six months old, the submittal shall include recent (less than six months old at the time of construction) aggregate gradation test results confirming that design gradations can be achieved in current production. The applicant shall not schedule construction operations until mix designs are approved. 15. Improvements shall include appurtenances such as traffic control signs, markings and other devices, raised medians if required, street name signs and sidewalks. 16. Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City adopted standards, supplemental drawings and specifications, or as approved by the City Engineer. Improvement plans for streets, access gates and parking areas shall be stamped and signed by qualified engineers. IMPROVEMENT PLANS PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 6 of 18 17. As used throughout these Conditions of Approval, professional titles such as "engineer," "surveyor," and "architect," refers to persons currently certified or licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of California. 18. Improvement plans shall be prepared by or under the direct supervision of qualified engineers and/or architects, as appropriate, and shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.040 (Improvement Plans). 19. The following improvement plans shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the Design and Development Department. A separate set of plans for each line item specified below shall be prepared. The plans shall utilize the minimum scale specified, unless otherwise authorized by the City Engineer in writing. Plans may be prepared at a larger scale if additional detail or plan clarity is desired. Note, the applicant may be required to prepare other improvement plans not listed here pursuant to improvements required by other agencies and utility purveyors. A. PM10 Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal B. Erosion Control Plan 1" = 40' Horizontal C. Final WQMP (Plan submitted in Report Form) D. On -Site Commercial Precise Grading 1" = 20' Horizontal NOTE: A through D to be submitted concurrently. (Separate Storm Drain Plans if applicable) Other engineered improvement plans prepared for City approval that are not listed above shall be prepared in formats approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing plan preparation. "On -Site Commercial Precise Grading" plan is required to be submitted for approval by the Building Official, Planning Manager and the City Engineer. "On -Site Commercial Precise Grading" plans shall normally include all on - site surface improvements including but not necessarily limited to finish grades for curbs & gutters, building floor elevations, parking lot improvements and accessibility requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 7 of 18 20. The City maintains standard plans, detail sheets and/or construction notes for elements of construction which can be accessed via the Public Works Development "Plans, Notes and Design Guidance" section of the City website (www.laquintaca.gov). Please navigate to the Design and Development Department home page and look for the Standard Drawings hyperlink. 21. The applicant shall furnish a complete set of the mylars of all approved improvement plans on a storage media acceptable to the City Engineer. 22. Upon completion of construction, and prior to final acceptance of the improvements by the City, the applicant shall furnish the City with reproducible record drawings of all improvement plans which were approved by the City. Each sheet shall be clearly marked "Record Drawing" and shall be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the accuracy and completeness of the drawings. The applicant shall have all approved mylars previously submitted to the City, revised to reflect the as -built conditions. The applicant shall employ or retain the Engineer of Record during the construction phase of the project so that the FOR can make site visits in support of preparing "Record Drawing". However, if subsequent approved revisions have been approved by the City Engineer and reflect said "Record Drawing" conditions, the Engineer of Record may submit a letter attesting to said fact to the City Engineer in lieu of mylar submittal. GRADING 23. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.050 (Grading Improvements). 24. Prior to occupancy of the project site for any construction, or other purposes, the applicant shall obtain a grading permit approved by the City Engineer. A. To obtain an approved grading permit, the applicant shall submit and obtain approval of all of the following: B. A grading plan prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California, C. A preliminary geotechnical ("soils") report prepared by a professional registered in the State of California, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 8 of 18 D. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan prepared in accordance with LQMC Chapter 6.16, (Fugitive Dust Control), and E. A Best Management Practices report prepared in accordance with LQMC Sections 8.70.010 and 13.24.170 (NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit and Storm Management and Discharge Controls), and F. A WQMP prepared by an authorized professional registered in the State of California, and G. A grading bond in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the grading bond requirements. All grading shall conform with the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Soils Report, and shall be certified as being adequate by soils engineer, or engineering geologist registered in the State of California. The applicant shall furnish security, in a form acceptable to the City, and in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the approved Fugitive Dust Control Plan provisions. Additionally, the applicant shall replenish said security if expended by the City of La Quinta to comply with the Plan as required by the City Engineer. 25. The applicant shall maintain all open graded, undeveloped land in order to prevent wind and/or water erosion of such land. All open graded, undeveloped land shall either be planted with interim landscaping, or stabilized with such other erosion control measures, as were approved in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan. 26. Building pad elevations on the precise grading plan submitted for City Engineer's approval shall conform with pad elevations shown on the Site Development Permit Preliminary Grading Plans, unless the pad elevations have other requirements imposed elsewhere in these Conditions of Approval. 27. Prior to any site grading or regrading that will raise or lower any portion of the site by more than plus or minus five tenths of a foot (0.5') from the elevations shown on the Site Development Permit Preliminary Grading Plans, the applicant shall submit the proposed grading changes to the City Staff for a substantial conformance finding review. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 9 of 18 28. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any building lot, the applicant shall provide a lot pad certification stamped and signed by a qualified engineer or surveyor with applicable compaction tests and over excavation documentation. Each pad certification shall list the pad elevation as shown on the approved grading plan, the actual pad elevation and the difference between the two, if any. Such pad certification shall also list the relative compaction of the pad soil. nRATNA(-,F 29. Stormwater handling shall conform with the approved hydrology and drainage report for Jefferson Square, SDP 2018-0001, or as approved by the City Engineer. 30. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.120 (Drainage), Retention Basin Design Criteria, Engineering Bulletin No. 06- 16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. More specifically, stormwater falling on site during the 100-year storm shall be retained within the development, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The design storm shall be either the 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour or 24-hour event producing the greatest total run off. 31. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. Nuisance water shall be disposed of per approved methods contained in Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems and Engineering Bulletin No. 06-015 - Underground Retention Basin Design Requirements. 32. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour. The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides site specific data indicating otherwise and as approved by the City Engineer. 33. No fence or wall shall be constructed around any retention basin unless approved by the Planning Manager and the City Engineer. 34. For on -site above ground common retention basins, retention depth shall be according to Engineering Bulletin No. 06-16 - Hydrology Report with Preliminary Hydraulic Report Criteria for Storm Drain Systems. Side PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 10 of 18 slopes shall not exceed 3:1 and shall be planted with maintenance free ground cover. Additionally, retention basin widths shall be not less than 20 feet at the bottom of the basin or as approved by the City Engineer. 35. Stormwater may not be retained in landscaped parkways or landscaped setback lots. Only incidental storm water (precipitation which directly falls onto the setback) will be permitted to be retained in the landscape setback areas. The perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right-of-way shall be shaped with berms and mounds, pursuant to LQMC Section 9.100.040(B)(7). 36. The development shall be graded to permit storm flow in excess of retention capacity to flow out of the development through a designated overflow and into the historic drainage relief route. 37. The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions for post construction runoff per the City's NPDES stormwater discharge permit, LQMC Sections 8.70.010 et seq. (Stormwater Management and Discharge Controls), and 13.24.170 (Clean Air/Clean Water); Riverside County Ordinance No. 457; and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011. A. For post -construction urban runoff from New Development and Redevelopments Projects, the applicant shall implement requirements of the NPDES permit for the design, construction and perpetual operation and maintenance of BMPs per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the project as required by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Colorado River Basin (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013- 0011. B. The applicant shall implement the WQMP Design Standards per (CRWQCB-CRB) Region Board Order No. R7-2013-0011 utilizing BMPs approved by the City Engineer. A project specific WQMP shall be provided which incorporates Site Design and Treatment BMPs utilizing first flush infiltration as a preferred method of NPDES Permit Compliance for Whitewater River receiving water, as applicable. C. The developer shall execute and record a Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Agreement that provides for the perpetual maintenance and operation of all post -construction PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 11 of 18 stormwater BMPs. UTILITIES 38. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.110 (Utilities). 39. The applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer for the location of all utility lines within any right-of-way, and all above -ground utility structures including, but not limited to, traffic signal cabinets, electric vaults, water valves, and telephone stands, to ensure optimum placement for practical and aesthetic purposes. 40. Underground utilities shall be installed prior to overlying hardscape. For installation of utilities in existing improved streets, the applicant shall comply with trench restoration requirements maintained, or required by the City Engineer. The applicant shall provide certified reports of all utility trench compaction for approval by the City Engineer. Additionally, grease traps and the maintenance thereof shall be located as to not conflict with access aisles/entrances. CONSTRUCTION 41. The City will conduct final inspections of habitable buildings only when the buildings have parking lot improvements and (if required) sidewalk access to publicly -maintained streets. The improvements shall include required traffic control devices, pavement markings and street name signs. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION 42. The applicant shall comply with LQMC Sections 13.24.130 (Landscaping Setbacks) & 13.24.140 (Landscaping Plans). 43. The applicant shall provide landscaping in the required setbacks, retention basins, and common lots. Said landscaping shall be constantly maintained by the center owner with damaged, dead or dying plant material immediately replaced with healthy plant material of equivalent size. 44. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots and setbacks, medians, retention basins, and parks shall be signed and stamped by a licensed landscape architect. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 12 of 18 45. All new and modified landscape areas shall have landscaping and permanent irrigation improvements in compliance with the City's Water Efficient Landscape regulations contained in LQMC Section 8.13 (Water Efficient Landscape). 46. Lighting plans shall be submitted with the final landscaping plans for a recommendation to the Planning Manager for his approval. Exterior lighting shall be consistent with LQMC Section 9.100.150 (Outdoor Lighting). All freestanding lighting shall not exceed 18 feet in height, and shall be fitted with a visor if deemed necessary by staff to minimize trespass of light off the property. The illuminated carports shall be included in the photometric study as part of the final lighting plan submittal. 47. All water features shall be designed to minimize "splash", and use high efficiency pumps and lighting to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. They shall be included in the landscape plan water efficiency calculations per Municipal Code Chapter 8.13. 48. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from view. Utility transformers or other ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened with a screening wall or landscaping and painted to match the adjacent buildings. 49. The applicant shall submit the final landscape plans for review, processing and approval to the Design and Development Department, in accordance with the Final Landscape Plan application process. Planning Manager approval of the final landscape plans is required prior to issuance of the first building permit unless the Planning Manager determines extenuating circumstances exist which justifies an alternative processing schedule. NOTE: Plans are not approved for construction until signed by the appropriate City official, including the Planning Manager and/or City Engineer. 50. The applicant or his agent has the responsibility for proper sight distance requirements per guidelines in the AASHTO "A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 5t" Edition" or latest, in the design and/or installation of all landscaping and appurtenances abutting and within the private and public street right-of-way. MAINTENANCE PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 13 of 18 51. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.160 (Maintenance). 52. The applicant shall make provisions for the continuous and perpetual maintenance of all private on -site improvements, perimeter landscaping, access drives, sidewalks, and stormwater BMPs. FEES AND DEPOSITS 53. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of LQMC Section 13.24.180 (Fees and Deposits). These fees include all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and construction inspection. Deposits and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the applicant makes application for plan check and permits. 54. Permits issued under this approval shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee programs in effect at the time of issuance of building permit(s). a10.1a010We10.749010011 55. All proposed gates shall be equipped approved KNOX key switch for emergency response with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox Company. Building plans shall include mounting location/position and operating standards for Fire Department approval. Electric gate openers shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed and constructed per ASTM F2200. 56. Prior to building plan approval and construction, applicant/developer shall furnish two copies of the water system fire hydrant plans to Fire Department for review and approval. Plans shall be signed by a registered civil engineer, and shall confirm hydrant type, location, spacing, and minimum fire flow. Once plans are signed and approved by the local water authority, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Department for review and approval. 57. Prior to issuance of building permits, the water system for fire protection must be provided as approved by the Fire Department and the local water authority. 58. Blue dot retro-reflector pavement markers shall be located on private streets, public streets and driveways to indicate location of the fire PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 14 of 18 hydrant per standard number 06-05 (located at www.rvcfire.org).- 59. Fire Apparatus access road shall be in compliance with the Riverside County Fire Department Standards. Access lanes will not have an up, or downgrade of more than 16%. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance not less than 13 feet and 6 inches. Access lanes will be designed to withstand the weight of 75 thousand pounds over 2 axles. Access will have a turning radius capable of accommodating fire apparatus. Access lane shall be constructed with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. 60. Display street numbers in a prominent location on the address side of building(s) and/or rear access if applicable. Numbers and letters shall be a minimum of 12" in height for building(s) up to 25' in height. In complexes with alpha designations, letter size must match numbers. All addressing must be legible, of a contrasting color, and adequately illuminated to be visible from street at all hours. 61. Install a complete commercial fire sprinkler system. Fire sprinkler system(s) with pipe sizes in excess of 4" in diameter will require the project Structural Engineer to certify with a "wet signature", that the structural system is designed to support the seismic and gravity loads to support the additional weight of the sprinkler system. All fire sprinkler risers shall be protected from any physical damage. 62. The PIV and FCD shall be located to the front of building within 50 feet of approved roadway and within 200 feet of an approved hydrant. Sprinkler riser room must have indicating exterior and/or interior door signs. A C- 16 licensed contractor must submit plans, along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. 63. Install an alarm monitoring system for fire sprinkler system(s) with 6 or more heads in any one given fire area (limited area system), along with current permit fees, to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. An automatic/manual fire alarm system with occupant notification in accordance with section 907 in the California Fire Code might be required based on occupancy and occupant load. 64. Install a portable fire extinguisher, with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC, for every 3,000 sq. ft. and/or 75 feet of travel distance. Fire extinguishers shall be mounted 3.5 to 5 feet above finished floor, measured to the top of the extinguisher. Where not readily visible, signs shall be posted above PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 15 of 18 all extinguishers to indicate their locations. Extinguishers must have current CSFM service tags affixed. 65. No hazardous materials shall be stored and/or used within the building, which exceeds quantities listed in 2013 CBC. No class I, II or IIIA of combustible/flammable liquid shall be used in any amount in the building. 66. Exit designs, exit signs, door hardware, exit markers, exit doors, and exit path marking shall be installed per the 2013 CBC. 67. Electrical room doors if applicable shall be posted "ELECTRICAL ROOM" on outside of door. 68. Fire Alarm Control Panel room doors if applicable shall be posted "FACP" on outside of door. 69. Fire Riser Sprinkler room doors if applicable shall be posted "Fire Riser" on outside of door. 70. Roof Access room door if applicable shall be posted "Roof Access" on outside of door. 71. Access shall be provided to all mechanical equipment located on the roof as required by the Mechanical Code. 72. Air handling systems supplying air in excess of 2000 cubic feet per minute to enclosed spaces within buildings shall be equipped with an automatic shutoff. 2013 CMC. 73. Nothing in the preliminary review shall be construed as encompassing structural integrity. Review of this plan does not authorize or approve any omission or deviation from all applicable regulations. Final approval is subject to plan review and field inspection. All questions regarding the meaning of the code requirements should be referred to Fire Department at 760-777-7074. 74. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provision for the turnaround capabilities of fire apparatus. 75. Any portion of the facility or of an exterior wall of the first story of the building shall not be located more than 150 feet from fire apparatus access roads as measured by an approved route around the complex, PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 16 of 18 exterior of the facility or building. 76. Driveway loops, fire apparatus access lanes and entrance curb radius should be designed to adequately allow access of emergency fire vehicles. The applicant or developer shall include in the building plans the required fire lanes and include the appropriate lane printing and/or signs. 77. No combustible material/construction is to occur without proper installation of an approved reliable water supply for firefighting operations. A stop work order shall be issued in such circumstances. BUILDING DIVISION 78. Building Plans prepared for permitting shall meet applicable California Building Codes effective at the time of submittal. MISCELLANEOUS 79. The hotel structure shall incorporate solar panels in order to support alternative energy usage as referenced in the Specific Plan. 80. An alternative tree species shall be planted along the south wall to prevent intrusion into the backyards to the south. 81. Representatives from tribes within the project vicinity commented and have requested the following considerations: A. The presence of an approved Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) shall be onsite during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). B. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. 82. The County Coroner shall be contacted if human remains are identified during earthmoving activities. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be contacted. The NAHC will make a determination of the Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The City and the landowner will work PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 17 of 18 with the designated MILD to determine the final disposition of the remains. 83. No signage is permitted with this approval. A separate permit from the Design and Development Department is required for any temporary or permanent signs, prior to installation of signs. 84. No special events are permitted with the approval. A separate permit from the Design and Development Department is required for special events. An Minor Use Permit application must be submitted 90 days prior to the first event. 85. Any outdoor lighting that is installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. 86. The following uses/activities shall be prohibited at this site: A. Any use or activity which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA - approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. B. Any use or activity which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. C. Any use or activity which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation in the area. Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, composting operations, production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal and incinerators. D. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 87. Any new detention basin(s) on the site shall be designed to provide for a PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET ADOPTED: Page 18 of 18 maximum 48-hour detention period following the conclusion of the storm event for the design storm (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the detention basin(s) that would provide food or cover for bird species that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project landscaping. 88. The landscape architect shall identify standards for planting, irrigation and maintenance in the final landscape plan and the standards shall be included in Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) which shall be recorded on the Property and shall be reviewed and approved by the City. 89. Applicant shall record Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) on the Property. The CC&Rs shall (1) require minimum covenants for satisfactory, perpetual maintenance obligations on the Property; (2) name the City of La Quinta as an express third party beneficiary; (3) be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's Office prior to recordation; and (4) state that the CC&Rs cannot be amended without prior written consent of the City. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 86,833 square -foot hotel and 20,172 square -foot food and beverage market, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and concerns of Planning Commission to justify recommending to the City Council denial of said Specific Plan: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in the development of a hotel, which is not a permitted use within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow a three-story building which is not permitted within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Site Development Permit 2018-0012 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code concerns of Planning Commission to justify denial of said Site Development Permit: 1. Information available on the architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, materials, colors, architectural details, and other architectural elements is not sufficient to determine compatibility with surrounding development and the quality of design prevalent in the City. 2. Building massing appears to be a solid mass and would be incompatible with surrounding development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council denial of Specific Plan 2018-0001 and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 231h day of October 2018, by the following vote: Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California ATTACHMENT 1 Project Information CASE NUMBER: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC PROPERTY OWNER: REGENCY MARINITA LA QUINTA REQUEST: ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE JEFFERSON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN (SP 2002-062), AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018- 0001 TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 160- ROOM HOTEL, 8,849 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND 25,778 SQUARE -FOOT INDOOR FOOD MARKET IN THE EXISTING JEFFERSON SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER AND RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. LOCATION: SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE APN: 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DESIGNATION: NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SURROUNDING ZONING/LAND USES: NORTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ESPLANADE COMMUNITY SOUTH: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MONTICELLO COMMUNITY EAST: SHOPPING CENTER IN THE CITY OF INDIO, HERITAGE PALMS COMMUNITY WEST: PARK, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MONTICELLO PARK AND COMMUNITY ATTACHMENT 2 Site Photos View of site from Jefferson Street, facing west 1 View of vacant pad and former Fresh and Easy building Site Photos View of southern boundary of site, facing south toward Monticello community View of southwest corner of site, facing southwest toward Monticello community Site Photos View of existing shops to the north, within the Jefferson Square shopping center View of current northwestern access of the site from Fred Waring Drive Site Photos View of access to Monticello Park at northwest portion of shopping center View to the east toward Heritage Palms shopping center in Indio ra yam.: 4 ATTACHMENT 3 JEFFERSON Amended Specific Plan City of La Quinta 12th September 2018 Applicant: CCD Hotel & Result Design Team: PARTI DRC Engineering, lnc Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc PARTI JEFFERSON Amended Specific. Plan City of La Quinta 12th September 2018 (IF--- - U l RQJECT 5ETTIN • 018-029 RQfECT MASTER PL s • 030-049 EVELO,PMENT REGULATION ES -IC N GUIDELINES ■ 054-OS7 PERATIONAL GUIDE �• 08 -09 0 1 _Intro Amended Specific Plan PARTI September 2018 I l�T T R * 00b - A) 1 INTRO Introduction A. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE Section b3450 of the California Goyernm,-nt Code grents iocal dgencies the authirity to plepare a specific plant of development over a given piece of property CoirsistenL with this ewLhoiity and in accordance with La Quinta General Plan, General iand use Policy 4, the city ig requisiag that a Specific Plan he prepared far the proposed commercial center. In order Lo appicove t}tie project. the Citv must make the findings required by La Quuita Zoning Cade, Chapter 9.240. Specific Plans. f3 PURrOSE AND INTENT The frurpose of tlus Specific P1alk doc-xrnettL is to address the land use issues associated with development ci f effersoa Square in sufficieuL detail to ensure that the subject site tie}elors in a inanner Which is c[1115i5tLea( with the General Pion; protects the public health, safety and general welfare; is compdtibie with zo Ling &it adjacent properties mid is suitable and apprapriate for the subject property ( Zoning Code 9.240.01tf,E;. Ultimately the project 4eeks to provide the surrotinding residential neighborhoods with a hish qualiLy and convenient eoninterrial i retail and hospitality center. In both text and illustration, this docuuient depicts the character and conkiguration of the various L ULWIP03;18 lg C0:L1Lprisi1tg tiie Specific 1)'Idll anid establishes a foundation document t12at will govern further development of the site. In this way, the Specific Plan will sera a to implenceiit the City- of L.L QuizLtx General Plan by specifying appropriate land tnses, intensity of use, and development sLazid4-rd5 whicla are couvistenL with General Plan goals, objectives and policies_ The specific Ilan i-3 3 flexible C[CCUM@11L, Which allows Minor modifications to accommodate minor changes to HOOT areas or te11an1 Uses-MifLar atiodificatiClIS to the specific plan are within the Canilmunity Development Director' s Power to approve, aixd do not require hirther eensideration at public fleariagg. C. DOCUMENT OAGANIZAr1ClN The Jefferson Square Specific Platt is organized into six sections. Section I provides a regularorp contexL cur the projecL anti ati overview of key project elempnts. Section 11, provides a context tor project pi4nning and design by briefly describing the projecr's existing setttng in terms cf regulatory wta use designs#ions and surrounding land uses. Against this biickgrGand, Section III presents Cho primary master }plan components of the 5pvcifir Plan Section IV describes the development T-tarldards to w111r11 the prOjert must atihpm. Section V contains design guidelines with respect to lan&<aping and architeclure to ensure that the project k of a high tpualily and is well integrated into the cnmmusLity v-hararLer, and Section VI discusses leev operational gyiidelines for the project Thr majority of Me* do iiwent rrmaius as approved us List° Amended Sprrifir Plan, ern 2, New propese4 amendurents to thr Ameptded Srerifir Pluto NTr,,-1 are Okown in red l FIJ itallr rpriril. Wild iOiLli'.t rlrlitt6 rear fii tTia ame7PJwFltrc $toaJV to th' -iie':uiled Sprri#it- Plan Na. 2. Nov, jigzires are previded u� nrcessary to Wustra.te -the rurreitt design. wtrikr- thougih le -VI rare I144 IfFnSo? relevajLt 10 Fhr ?+F11 ifii pla-1p 14n'L D, FROJECT LOCATTON From a regional PerspectiVe. the Jefferson Square Speti- fic Plan is located in the Crraihv11a Valley within the incorporated City ref La Quinta as shown in FigiirP 1. Regional Lcwativii Map, Locally, the project site 15 bounded by Fred Waring Drive and Ft residential rleveloliment on the north; residential along the west; and single faniilp residential e6sts along the southern periplierl, Df llxe site. As shown in Figure 2, Vicinity Vap. olio project area coroaists of a rectangular 10.79 acre parcel of land, containing Assessor Parcel tit -1- 521- 004. J' r-,z51 or fr#{er�,czn Sir,,ot rrcepdfl�f roppipleted ,z resat[ rerdrr within lire. Ciilr trf Tuiliv. Thrr 1 urrrtix Srrrifi',' Plan oFrrfoi in dl vidrif irit,i 7 Ph0iin-t lno4 loarve'ls rainpritiiog tr1.27 acre{ W Soda; (rr,.; {livain !ie Figizre 3). FlTlthin Or T i'uml poarrei; 3 of - haf been dr-Priopvd (Figure 4). I l�T T R * 008 - D09 The folloaving existing parcel coiftaljrs. Parcel 1 (1.467 acres) C VS Pharmacy el,lib drh!,--tlrrrr anti ,gs30riuted parklag Parcel 3 0.513 acres) 3 earnmerctallretuif unfits asiof associalerl Parking Parcel 3 fl.S59 acres) Former Fresh & Easy retalT store and associated parkong parcel -1 (0.375 aerrs) Upide eloped Parcel 5 (0.451 Icres) 3 CvMMerriallrt'tAif rilaiis alld rrLso0ated purlking ,arref 6 (4.08S greres) Undeveloped Parcel 7 (1.013 acres) Undeveloped PI31Af' �YG j�„Y��� a, k Fri it �i � s THC+l 54M11D PAM � ��� +.•� � PF,E.M SPI�M14G5 � i t0 � = x FALML 4ip- - ---- - - CXINCHELiA I � T l { i SdFA: [1AM 3Rg.? eS uj- Lo 50-w- QnoeM � hssoc�es INTRO • 010 - D11 U;,ol%- BERMUDA DUNES L L } FREE WARiNG DRIVE =:3P z INDIO Lu u- LU LA QUINTA dbL QbaYi7G i�L= i- n-' i inilymop I&ASSUClAT $ w- -r — P. —t6 nrn+ f F[,�iiE Tlp NOT i0 SCALE ON THE PTV OF LA QUINTA, OXAlITY OF RI EP-gN, 54W h 7F 7 94%N STATE 1W CAUHIRNIA PARCEL MAP NO. 36241 �` �E41E F S' MHON Q A P3I,IRL OF rKI Cry ' a 'JL}J�Mi Cr >•.�R AS7 Ou4R7O! a gC FJ-hQw N "p. "N p ..M31" 4,4,+Y 7 Ek47, SiN wA4�14rW FE�JLI� mn",r l; 'mv1'kRPALJ4l W" A5 ,U nki ORC WOYEiRINe. �RC [fA1C Gf mmwy. .IwjkTy. r010 7RF Q W Fr H G j1RL VE g ILY�l1 Iks M. 4 �� xrvur q41.+1 *, . 16 _ —f!d [ I I.Il•L4•� a! �{.q 'xrL� .IT,. its" e "--• lid 'r -- vAk= 7 0 1 0 T= F PMq� 1 C im In t rr r F- m G PAL S nmo, NltJli'Fi 41R '� 1 yC.i { /yl�� ft LIV 61 Ir t - R L Q Ill __yl ImM ice' Y D S7 AIIl71I££i �4iP q 9 '� iR OD Im _10. x - I Wk VluiC#1 S S aa�L Nr�y r �'' " 6 � r r � VI I YJYR�ROYI L rt � r I Pr 9 r P&AM 1 d C . rvIh n4LLK � ' +w+ eiWIR y ' a 4 e 4 i74K7 :.7 i _E I s r� eri �' ?� 'Tol, ii 'rLL 0-11-0 ! NOR LAV:Jarl WT[$ M: ii[E f I rV 5E I W?h w ? YLCI7f 1 1Y. - J@ rr 'WE SHEET i Y+l+ L1+E AJQi PURL'6 PAIN TAW Exiad-ag Pastels Diu Jeffersolt Squat& hJ Parcel Twlap No 36241 {]av, 2010) 3 NO to :,tale +� INTRO * 012 - 013 ,e� Iefferson Squdre & Fn�aEa Surrounding Coritex! Introduction E, PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Summarv; The project proposes development of a neighborhood eoinniercialr retail renter on an approximate 140.79 acre site. TIPP project ujfll reFult iv rre ation a siuglP t;ife Berea. Fufure sn'bmi9fal Quay h'- »rade to Create toldfVidurel rharcels, lout that sOdfuisiou ie; mrt requested at liar; time, The development will kriade the FolloToing uses. Afcerket Drug ,Start' 'RetaWsrrPfre straps .Bwnk -Restaurrarri: Hotr.l Tv addition Fo the prDpa;sud buildings, the project will include associated parking, street improvements, pederarian sidewalkrF, landGcaping, an above ground retention basins as well as undergrvuud reierkdon facilities and atiliticm. T7iv e-xeFtfij%, jajyo- a g-rolijeli roten-Hole bar,,tt adjar-ent tv NfoutireJUP Park iwr-r.l1 u4il lie i-opir,vrirl In an undergrautrd retuirt tortOoc For the nio-�t pArt, the Specific Plan will Hie cc+n isterat with the allrxwahle uses and development standard's of the site's neighborhood t:vinmerrial general plan and zoning designations. The adapt -ion of the Sperifir Plan would allow ~give-thru windows at the p.roposed drug store and bank building, A reduction in Iantiscape setlaacks trrtm the City's standard of i8 feet tomt ! fart min irRum along the proi�qct's western boundary is alto being pursued (rQi-r to Figure it 10). The 5perific Pian would provide a total of 3*2� 361 parking spaces on site, meeting Parking Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and would implmnent a reciprocal parking argreenrent among all uses on site whicb -will be snakle part Of the ronditians of She i Uilding Management A:ssneiation. A comparison of the Site Plan with devOoprnprit standards from the La Quinta Znning Code is shown in Table i Site Plate Compliance. RequestrA-Entirlements: Ta facilirate tlii; project, the developer is seeking the City at La Quinta' s approval oll an amended Specific Plan, and a Site Devetnpment Permit to develop the Specific Plan area. 77ae rxtsMg purcels d & 5 n'M let- AS n fienr-raurtd, inifnnr orgrzrsir frond and Nereroogr rrr-aFke$ ircrith dOILL• ire 10L- itFr'e0- The mader+rinped raF4-H G a4li lit rummer[ iuf ret"T rtrr'it•s to lrcesr. aad a lrutrf T"ttt 160 Gwent ruoMN and Pulrlfr resfauraept. tN TR • 014- tfl Table J 5ite Plan Comb+liince I]eTse10Prnessl Sl;Nndarj [ Z', Zone Specific Flan Min -Max Bldg Site (acres} 10.73 Max Structure Height (fti -, 25i1J Max Structure Height (ft) 150 feet from Ashexial Hwy. Max Number of Sto-iies '_ 4- 3 Max Flour Area Ratio (-FAR) sM.'_5 Jam 9.39(1 f Mire Building Setback - Primary linage Corridor (tt) 3U so Ndin 3ludi:ling Setback front OS and Pa-fJk D!Ejtrict (ft) 0 41 31 14 i Min Stulding betback troin residential Districts {It) _ o 3$ 61 Nhn Landscape SeLback PXiukary 1mt}ge Corrdior �Hj 'f) •)p Mitt Landscape 'Setback trom OS and Park District (it) 15 j 14 S 0 Miu Landscape Setbick trans Residential Districts (it) 1s 15 Min Setback tronl interior propery hnP !1 fi Buildhig Landscape- lnrerior Parking Lot Landscape Parking Spaces (I spare per 300 sy, LL) (o 35,v + 1_ Itio.t irirludina architectrrrrrZ opFendr¢gcs_ Buck as a i'uat px?-npaf or tower, up fa 41 fret. 2, Rfai irivlx.ding a p fo 10!; or the birileiTrrrg muse. w)rrclr will exirnj rip is 35 rrri. 3. 0 u i f d ing i i Ec may he aIightly rr+d.uvr•ri tar enIafg,ed d7JriAg final dJrergn. IYawevrer, Piro wax aTnam FAR of 0.25 11-30 rlrrt7 riot hs excceried fo,- the cnrirr site, or at any eudinidual lof- A_ Thr rlraeleprsenl �tuTtdard j9 30 ferf; 1roTbe-per, ikr unrteTri a:le pinn srlbdrk i9 3a f—I 31 feet S. 7trr lJfa J:t'tl IWJ7rkr.rti prnprj,fY 1-004 along Mnrflierlla Park averagea 11 fari, -mitt a men:marh Jtj 7.5 jerf nrrd ruas•iprrurrc v( 24-7 +;ref- The drarlvPracrrt staNdurd is for 5 fret miTriihrJru; 3rawerler tke crJrren! soie plan rrrirJixrrnrp 9eiZa1k is �ix-t I fie Ft, b. k urrrai lJuri,.rn�g lu! tG110 OJT JIJr fi'li:rrsrra+ 1;quarrr pitr is 3hi uIrdarrif parkitig regii{rttnenta t,'.jU40.4F! rh ia7rrfi of 55S parkitig tars. Tiff +Fropinied slro lel,sll .hell propide u natal Of asi 1IfTrk-log lots. Introduction r, REQUIRED FINDINGS According to the La Quinta 2(31ning Code, Cit Ater 9.240.01C.E, the City Council must make four sl?ecific findings in order to approve the project. Each finding is listed Mow followed i;v a discussion of how each is satisfied l)v this project - The prolect's success in meeting the required findings is supported by the facts presented throughout the. Spec fic Flan document, S.Cortsister4cy with the Geurrul Plan. The plan or amPridt�rera€ is roejs sfrro with Gate gawk, objectives awl palicfes of the GerwrA Platt. -The prvjecl proposes dew?lopmenl of a commercial i retail center that will serge the surrounding neigh17QrhPPd-,, whkh is consistent with the allDwable asses under the site's Neighburhogd Commercial (NC) General Plan Lanni use designation. Ili.? profeet- alsa pvPpncrc hale.; t+ses U+fr-lt•lt art, urit aglawe,4 under grit, NTeighborlcoad f-otlrttrrPr{-eal Zone but nor allaToetd in flee. Gi,vvral C'nnipnereiol (GC) Gruend PEerit ,frtsignatiopt, Thi, iorvro5ed hotel ass,,; eaoi be ar.i-omtitodairil through this "ipr i-ifir Plate. 2. Prihl!ic Wrifrrrr, ApprvvO ref the pfav or- ntaartrlrr+err€ TOM era€ create cnrrrlilidrrs rPalrriaffy 4e€rimexitgl la lira priblic hualfir, safely and gr7rerai wrifdre, -The site plan for this project is consistent with City development standards which are established to pratett the public health and safety, -Ili accordance with the City's General Plan, the proposed commercial development is consistent with the sites NC land use design-ation, which envisions commercial lame) uses such as: food and drug slores, peravnal cer— i4es, small restaurants: and Financial institutions, Rrfali ieor3ts and rrrrratanni}f farilWP5 operated ljy the how), which will serve the daily needs of adjacent neighl;orhoeft ,. Lauri lrsc C1?n1Pa1ibW1Yr The sper=.fir 1�1ott h; conopAtible mith roni'rig or adjarens Properliew, -Tlie subject property is genera] planned and zoned Neighborhood C'animarcial_ The commercial property is physically separates) and buffered from planned residential tine, along the narth by intervening roadways and iandscapel sidewall: easements. Residenlial 4evelopuient to the west 15 buffered from the site by an existing c-)' high htock wall, a city park, well -Waite, and retention basin. An existing 6' high block wall located atop a 2' berm, separates tbp site and existing rerAdential to the south, as sfto-quip iti Figure 5. -The Specific flan would be com?atible with planned ]and use an the City of IndW property to the east. The parcel of land immediately east of the sire and Jefferson Striwt h+ta be'eri d-Fvr1vpFd for rr+tt wereiiil Ilse aitd Iies 3r+etit in #OLP City of ba40. -Hours of operation will be consistent w irli adjacent land uses. -The piraposed uses will n u I generate excessive noise or Pthpr nuisances. -The prnpo5rtlf Xrofer's harirc n� Operatrnu rl'M r-wicLud lire vnd r"rllrem-crc aI/retail vprraOng hoters and will be host to rerreatiopinl e7pafs that way rXterMd stile) 9hO r'r,r?L4Mg. n F PIfrr'f r!i thiq P1Ui64P to the +rr*1gW;a1lrt11g 5it6.5 T01i lip. r}1l11gi2tPd IFy then rN35i9101P vF events saki eF 3W9V fforir Lire snitch of tier slab jer t site. t- Properly Si4iiabiFky: Tire specific lrfaii is saeitalale attrl 4PPrrrl:riR:f frrr CLrz sultiert lrrolrr_-ray. -Consistent with the { (- %rland use designation for the site, the Specific Plan area is appropriately Located at the intersuction of two primary and major arterial rnadways_ Alsr+ rtearfoU 15 thr r-fil Ughw4ty interrharigr rrttto fefTersnri Strrri. -The project is being proposed in a location that will allow canvenient access to commercial and retail uses by the surrounding residential communities, aced arre'ss to the hotel. -The site will require minimal grading, and all utilities are readily available, and cRn be routinely extended to serve the proposedd rise-, -The site pion canmpties with City development ctandard5, and iniplements General Plan Coals and Folic ies. INTRO • 016 - 017 Existing dense 14ndscetpe F]vLTI 0. buffer Against residenLill zonip to south of site t _Monticello Park (PR zone) serves as a valuable community asset to tite west of the situ The project will «se tale exi:3ting cormect between Monticello park and Je Person Square. 02_Project setting Amended Specific flan PART September 2018 r 14 �JE�TS�I-F I a 018-1)1Q 02 PROJECT SETTING Project Setting A. EXISTING GENERAL PLAItiT AND ZONING Tlee 10.79 atze prajELt site located at the �:ouLlLwe3t corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street is designated as Neighbarlsood Commercial (NCI in the City's General Plait. As skated hi rat+le �.i of the C'ity's General Plan, the NC land LLsw designation supports, "The development al commercial land cases which serve the daily needs of the adjacent Lieighborleood on parcels of 10 to M acres_ T7pical land uses include food and drug stares, pt�rsonal services, small restaurants, anLl financial instftutiona_ Thin de4ignatiozc gerirreilly ucctzrS at arterial died major arterial Consistent with the City` s General ChIlL desrgi►atioai, the Stablest pruperty is zoned Neighborhood Commercial W141. The City at La Q'1uiiila LuixiYig CDde, SeL2tirmn 9,"10,Db0 states that the purpone and intent of the Chi Zone is- °'Ta prazaide for tare deve;oprr ens aped regiilctiarr 01 small -strife c•omnirreiai areas iodated at Not snterseeflons; of rirferial highways as sfrowta art Me General Plan. 'Tior tN district n, rritemled fet provide tor Me Solt of tood. drrigs, Stmdrirs, and persojiaf se r-vicv-q fo r�aeer flit daily o Reds rif d acigf�f serf+�,U�d area." Eaeisting General Plan and zoning designations for the site and s-arrDun di ag preFerti"?s zee 51coWah in Figure 3 6 Existing Land Use Designations. The jeffer5011 Square Srecifit Plait Would remit iu development of commercial and srrvlce ar4entrd Ld,td uses on an apVtoxiiaate 10.79 t.-ve site. Iocatesd at the intersection of two niaE ar arterial ruadw aps, "hick is L-aiisis(eLit wiLth t11e city' s existxrig Genera-1 Plan and zoning designations for the site. The intent of the Jefferson Square Specific flash is to establish a site Man, designs staudxrda, and specific allowable land uses that will facilitate develop? Meat of n + airrnterckallretiil;'1iulel ceihte�r tlhat will cater to the surrounding residential ianghborlioods., nizd L!omyleutent the City and 9urrou,nrling community through the use of decorative. drLhiteituidl dILd i8iLdscELping themes, CIRCULATION ELEMENT The Jefferson Square Specizic Plain ,area is bordered by Frei Warmg Dleiue u111 [lie notth, and Jefferson Street on the east The City' s General Tian designates Fred Wiring Drive as 4 Primary Arterial, and Jefferson Street as a 1blajar Arterial, Both roadways are also desig-hated as Primary Image Corridors• 1n the General Plait. The develoFntt:ttt of the Froperty n Consistent With policies and p+rogfams outlines{ 1n the Circulation Eleute><►t of the Gesteral Pid-IL. stater r a trf ter yr�a�ref'a+eO41- s Svmlime 'I'ran-34+-A*rhzrrri4�-aaiFjrr-rr-Fkc CFig.' Policy CIR-2.1= "F1F['olftoae an4 coopeeate uiiM SmibL ie? Tramrit A$nfcy der f`lar rxpatrsidfi alf r'olgte'�, faC"Ttze5, 5ervfr es gildridership especfaljy in Congested areas acid those with Wyk l,rm,13 al earipivywerit and coarmereiifl Services, rrrori encourage the use aj rracst efrnrgy r'f ficieif and least p01211fiag rechoologies" the prujecL iiuiudt,s thte provLaaai for a bus slop on ]effersran Street. The project will idethtity a TraaesFrorteetidii Deancand Coordinator iit itecordancea with City Ordinance (See&Leia 9_1$0.03-G)_ who will be restuicsibl& fur coordinating ride sharing, bats ridership, ilexible work- schedules, anti other TrtLi partatiou Demand Maikagemertt l,togLaiu among emplovees_ RT,s f" ail- i eHtL-L� ra,d i�,T"Fpj a �d t L9, twtirm0-trrrf Hr- �t rtatiaF� y l* �°t " .�--r„l,1-r:> f e high ,ret7 +ri �rrrre r�t+rtlr VarPeft iffl fe nreftieasari Itsegr t r krfa+ e t tt� Lv md-aEfre r ,rrtti� PuliAiv CIR-1.1-I.12. "'A5 a means n# redriring rrebiruldr trajffe on iiiejor Ivadla'ay� d � r 4 fee tefffice r,th( rle uiiIv,; ti,00filed by ttaffir originated in flit City, the City -Ghall lrrrrsric lr,�e o rrrc'rrt t,f land use pall ertr flint ruriximfars fPiferartr0ll9 tie fulercPi arif42cetrf or later by Tirana uses" FRls.f_v CIR-2-3- "Uevriav dotal e0luo erase tlar rise ref c•ralif,naelf.9 wail cof�veyiirirt i�r csfririti flud bricyrfe rofile rend vrriitr- fi!iv peeM to plrit'r of eenploymesif, mi-crftico, skuppfug srhonk and other high activity areas zaitlr potenfiul for Fmcrea9ed pedestrax n, Lieyc• e, gall caPr -NCV anodes of travel. " �--k JECT�SETING ■ 020-P21 LDR N& _ ' 1 4 � WELL SITE a a # rS 4 � E- t � � a y CITY DARK { l LIR I MMf� a lu w + K BASIN II � r { MEMORIAL PLACf GENERAL PLAN IONNO C.0 Gevctol commerJoi GammE ffdal LDR Law ceroy Rfls znual 4 DulAc ML Law QG" Rw dendel P park Fscftii s ",.:'3 Parks & Rec eathn uae s hoee� r ad3sling land Use Designations A554{IkTES �QtM no rcm6 Project Setting The protect win its rliid.*5 mean dering pedestrian sidewalks and '"on road" bicycle lanes fronting the development along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, A Functional network of internal pedestrian walkways and bicycle racks will also be provided on site, 711, lttite] ujil'1 pruviide rEntui IFir yl-1Ca to enr.marugr ttotvl gltFst-+iot t•n retie aAfdIkrrntFilN6, OPEN SPACE EL1=MlEKT The site has nol bepm define-d in the General ii PIRn as an area that iiltides rrutstanding and Gig IjHCdll# W L[Tal 4r manniade fealmi-cr, there arp n4 steep topographical or geoteclinical constrain4, RUT doeS the sire fall under any of the criteria For Open Space designation. Thus, development of the rite is not in conlliO with any of the City'-; Open Space policies, goals and progrnrns. TliP hntel's central row 4yard ;bill lie oprim to the trufflir during operi;lk uai 1Wilr.y µnet d1411 n6N dLt pvictiitg prelp.ctriail +-opilled-tiom to pilik, PARK AND RECRFATSQN EZEMENT The site is not identif0d in the Coneral Plan ag an existing or propcxsed city park and for recreational Facility. Developmenl of the Specific Plan area Would not result in are increase in population generating a need ivr additional parkland or recreational fiicilities. The City's General Plan identifies hfonticelto Park a. being located immediately adjacent to the site's western boundary, The project will include the development of pedestrian siclewalks and "ori crud" bicycle lanes along ]fired Waring Drive and Pfferson would facilitate PL-deStriati movetnmat between the site ind the adjacent parkland. A Functional network of internal pedeorian w.alkways; and bicycle rack,. will alsri be prcvirded on site Thus, devt-lor-nivnt of the site is not in conflicl with any of the City's Parks and Recreation policies, goals aild programs. N?i7T.l-i?t11 RESOURCES ELEMENT T7e-velaprnent of the site will not degrade any aspects of the natural and man-made environrnenl whic'hi are of aestheric, environinental or cultliral value to the City. Development of ibe Jefferson Square Aine'rtdrd Specific Plan NoJ will be consistent with nt,inv of the policies and programs outlined in the Naturfil Resources Element of the General Plan Air Quality PoHL-ie7- Pnlir'V AQ-1.2: "Wori4 if) rediocc emissions from residerleW and GO+T+kriErClei� unef,By fist? by et ru;iraging iievr(,aaed p The project will result in the development of a neighborhood comnlerciallrelail ceoteron Jite. which would provide the local community with a convenlent location for baying -oo&i servtreB, which they would atherwise have to travel alit of IN, area to obla.11i. Titre ye r-rf-fund argot+lit fneiel mark -el tech? ulstl serr+r ra4 (i 459 foil eesriurre fnr re-rideoeta of La Qtidutai a Policy AQ-1.5 d'Enswi.' mll� actevitscS minimize a lig.;i0ria rif RH air gfoality Po]irr.kurfEs. T7r>x prpfabriraced hdri)dlfigelemiwtt Trill vedrire thi, amaursl vi tivisr coati air touiinthi t iluriteg r1311strurtlfife. EftL -.. r, era._ Giify ..r..t� ........,..�_ t._ �._,_r_..... _r r-xrr-r.�� ,, - _ F'P lj _1 . 0 Off Polley AQ-1.3: 'Wr?rk to reditrt, erreissfpnr f f7r+) TrtaMe roeerrav by cis reurag iag a derrrase irr fire muncher of vehicle (rips And vehiria crudes 1rawlied" -Hjr rxistiug sitr infruwtrai turn' includri alternailre traiurportaflou amrrrl#irfi iarlvditog: a bus rtiarr a brag Tarffrrxare agtreef, aria "un road" hicyrlr Jaavx ,evad Iredr<friaru sidirvulk,- frvaling Feed Wmrirrg DrFr,r- and fefferFrpa 14rrrt ilw1h pritasary arad m4for aeferial rpad-w in the, Gencr,111 MO. Thr rrrarntr y oprioed F-JA ia$rrr haf;gr rr-W a.ls❑ bring more traffiir a7rvanrd the site. Energy and Mineral Res-aurce Policies- ' ?ollcy lEM- 1 .2. "SMIPPorl 914r use n( alfertiative energy and conv,-FSafiori of rruditiarlui euorgy saim rcr5 trr a[Ir►rialirde erlrrgy. " The propw3ed project shall comply with the City's energy cunservatioii plans as identified in the City's General Plan. She City shall review all project related design and building � lairs to ensure campliance with ertergy saving techniquei. and policies, including compliance with Title 2-1 building standards of the California Adniini6trative Code 1604(f), The hairt F,rvrP!&1+1 ivill prov1dr solj6r Vapf rir in �;uprort t11F ww nr rritierrintire esler{gy Usage. Biological Resource Micies- N ,r PROJECT SETTING r D1L?-D23 ?rdicy 1310-1-21 'Wlrereapprol,riale,rioe-sj7rcific. spel:ses-spetifir sur77eys uhizll Le rrriuire.d Tor Ox s-7. Jeri spPeirs mp rnrrroA by flrr MSHCP" Policy BTG-1 .6: "Xaiive In.;ert 14aW mate-riats ShOP114 Pe irtr.oFl,orated iWO W-141 da:ae.Iv;rtRer;C p*vjOCGF to 1hir greroe.sf F-rtenk Itaassrble. Druat ive, nou naiivr sflccies sherd; be disrouragrd" Prior to the mass grading activities, the project site was intensively surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of sensitive biological resources. The associated survey concluded that there were no sensitive biological resources within the site. The Citv's regiiifed design and environmental review and conditioning procem, will ensure that the project does riot adversely affect any identified sensitive species. The pro}ecl's proposed landscaping palette incorporates flip tise of native drouglil -tolerant plants ;see Landscape guidelines be-1 nw 1. Tlzp vti3 w from wp�rtern Mote1 bedrooms, over Manticello Park Project Setting Palaenntnloglcal Resoiorce Policies. Policy CUL-1 . 1: 'All reasonably eefforfs slinuid ?uaxdtr 1v identify arrharohigiroi and TKsslariral ropwirr.a4 in Ow city." According ro F.xhlblt 6.8 of the C'ity'F, General Plan, the project site is I.vcrited within an aria of ,IUW,r paleontnlogir sen:Etivir7, and theri3Fore would r+o{liiire no furrhoi- stuf{lus or conflict wills any r�-leseint Grrrtera1 Plan policies at)d prograrn-, WATER RESOURCF. POLTCTES- FL1Ii0!j WR 1. I. "Sur+rrfF-r1 Mr! Cfnirhirllu Vfalir.y ihroUt Distrirt br its rfforts to P111714y arlt`qua4e d01P2r5r9i1_ rxffrtr* do ►r'fmirlVMN 01W 1+rmair�r ses." Prior Iv the issuanuo of grading permits, the developer shall secure the necessary coinrnitrneWs from CVWD for the projecl's dvurestic water needs 01 MM PLiIi6 G WR.- 1 .4: "Pri7ierl slnrrfr tiwatur frvnr rollalFelf aOed err.-ourage h T Jose 10 recharge 41? acquirer" Policy R-1.6: 'Eureurage 17rrr use of irerruro7ble �r¢r.rrri tl in rnridr--n1faJ and rrarrrfrierr.itrt dcrfr.iar)iffFw rrrnj �e1s " In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Art, IhQ groJecl wiTl be auhjeci rcf the }permit requiroments of the National Folit,rion 17ischeirge Elimination 5vsleni (N—P)E51. The construrttun cantract,rr. in roism ktnhan with the IPaki agQncv. shall 11e respoDziil-,le for filing all required nolices with the Regional Water Quality Control -Board (RWQC13), prPLpartng the Storm WaterFullntion F'reventiou Plan {SWFFP), and iniplementing required Tlest Nfinagenwi-J Practice: (13A'TP9) Thv C'itv-s required design and environmental review And cortt'litiuning process will onwro compliance with the Citv's applicable stoern water drainage standard•;, INFRASTRUCTURE ANT) RUFIT.TC SERVICES ELEMENTS Development Pf the site wi11 not be in con Rict with the policies and program. of the Tnfrastruoure acid TubIic 5&rvite Element_ The necessary p-attic utility infrastruclure is reartiiy available to the project site from the 4itsrrounding development, and the associated extertsions are anricil1ated tc, be rT,utirte once earrstrLtMiCri begins. The prnFect will inucirtentally increase the geed for public services within the City, and therefore the developer will ccmn 117Ul¢ IhP agpr0prtdfe di'velapment fees N help lend the expansion of these servlces within the rliv. E VTRONMENTAL 14AZARDS ELEMENT The site is nut ideritif ud in the Environmental HAaards Element as being located ithi>S an ar2d thdl IN .1L5%'4pt1bk' to a rignifieant rit-.k froin seirsmk, Uquefaction nr flood related hazardr,. Consistent with policy: cif tbq Geologic anti 5osismir Hazards section, all stn:cttires on site will be lrnilr in dCCQT6anCV with 111e lalest verra14n of the Cafffornia Building Code. (CBC) The Citv's s-tandard. prntacois for tontative tract nrap review, conditioning acid approvftl, will ensure compliance with the rele%anU goals, policies anti programs of the Environmental Hazards Element. CULTURAL UtSUURCE ELEMENT According to EY¢fiblr 9.1 of the City's Ge.nefal Flan, the PFOje.ci site dues not crintain anv 1Gientific11 crtltitral Or hi9t0riti resorPrces on site ar in the Immediate vikinity. Dkvelapmeut of 111e rTVJWrty will be consistent with poiicies a-nd pr'ogt'ams 6intTin3d in the Culltiral ResourceElenrarit nr the General Plan. T r. eoftifoi� Policy Ci~L-1..1: -All ReasonaPee}forisshouldbe made to idrnI fy arch iwcolvgical tjnd hiswrir• reuowrrra ;If 1;1,- c i iy. " Policy CUL-1 2, '"Assurr +eral significauf idcuhli arrharvlogicaf at4d historic resarrrcrs arc pro9eirIrd. " Pricer to the mass grading activities, the project site was intensively s€trveved by a quatlliied archaeologist for the presence of culhrral re Sources, The associated survey concluded that there were na archaeological resources within the site Construction specifications will be inclucled, which require the contractor to ii aimediately halt grading €3r any other cDnstructi xn activi.ty, If a buried culkural resource irdfact/skto is accidentally uncovered during grading operations The specifications will require that the developer or contractor notify the City and sunimon a qualified specialist in urder to cue#ermine the apprDpriate action for doctimenting and preserving a find, 13. 'EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing silr conditi,on.s arr shown in Fignrr 8 Existfrlg Sitr Nair. Parref ti ii scorer and rn#rtains sparse array of desert seru?i 1'rXj'taf1Ofr. The iFitr star, liceoi viascSraded Rtrd gerlwrally slopes to tits• rust of Pun arrproxiepialr 10n griide. Ground elpratiatls an parr_ek .3 and a range from approximately 50 feel abo , sea lovel NNO alvwg (tie u,,-st to ,2l1prp_riwAtell 40 feet ace at the rr LI•rn duuredaryr rxicting buildiKS r.JPrutivttc rrar'h ail to 80 feet frrsl). Thrre arrt nd gnique Pljysia-al or nii,,rgrarlrir f!• tore, ern nitre. R 0 j E C T SETTII�� ' L12-4- D25 Off-sile linprovornunm iIICludo a traffic signal, and existing curb and gutter (with handicapped access) at the north Past corner of the :site ( Fred Waring -Drive and Jefferson Street interwaion), and four electrical trYansmi.9sion line poles, which flank the northern peripliery of the site. Tho site is aiso bordered by ri' high masonry Walls on the southern and western boundaries_ Curb, guffer and decriv'rRiiort Earle impruveritents have bee-N completed on ]effersoo pact the itnrthern entry drkpp to the site. The jr,,,,,, & EQ{ y lrsrilifing (ft are T? tius reruained epapty zin e s ongtru rtion, and the lrafldirrg req ire-5 rruniiulinn tv rrirrc-tule Nc�entlal B74C fia strins and to f11nL-tins as fi , C+rrrrnr:rr'i,t✓f prarl•rty. The Propa.ried re -Purposing of the h:gilding Into an orgaiifr tend and bevera,gr market rl'iff rrrtuire iraod1ffCMti.4Vlss tx! tFLI' !r#rifdting'; tour(,, TI afhout wajo r structaraI c hariges to the existing hmr,duiions, Tval18 Or roof. The former Fresh & Easy budding TOTAL SITE AREA: 1a.79 AC f470,D60 SE) TOTAL BUILT SITE COVIRLAGE_ 29,$24% SQUAR1: PARKTWG REQUIRFDPRUF{}SP. USE FOOTACE RATE I`ARKING PAILKING 1=STALLSI isTAI,LSI i),r.FI- (p0 SF Ofi OClUSFi 7 q FR1 5er & EASY 13, 92 8 SF .Wl-UpOSL 34 .u.2uC cvs l3,011 SF U?I.CDOSF S-' suors-' $.Soa SF .011,uukosf.. 6b rAusµ- MloliJ SE ull,vullsr is TOTAL 40.ddL SF 36"_ 3rr"- LANDSLAPF P-RCVI ]EV! WIT141IN PARKING: L3,9J1 5F ib-2 b) PERIMETER & BUFLOING AREA9: 25,18.5 SF �10.i%) RETENTION AREAS: �N.b19 5F TOTAL; 77.77.5 5F il� .3 of tatal 9j7? area %! Not e s .7-he Osr4 rflaol 4Pu F-Cfl 6) 9i'a Fe wfi5 TTt17CF amd has rreeak erxply 1w the pasl 32 gasp 6. Durtng 2015 rhere// wwc 0 rp 61 heF prep osuj19r Li Fil r76S5 T6TF J'Fe bwJ wigs' A2 O2F Liu F�F �• 9JEop1. Pud A kW; k�lnw vH4t-eiopal )u- dh !Wst t? yeore aqd u j�tEtra miF� ae denrlaped by oihrr--- Mcnlicellu Parko 0 i i f�l Parc i L F Shops I � R�t 21iJfJed) 0 I.an&pe 'I I Amok IN - PROJECT NAME DRAWING TFTLE SHM PICTE: REVISICI A 6 PiGi'itf h0_ EXISTING SITE PLAIN Elm S jot Former 1�resh 1k Easy 13,928 SF 4 S11cps 3 i rs rK 7AK10 SF a i i 'r I . { � �r_���11�1111�1■ ■ I M I I I I I I I i I I I , I ; II I I I I t II .41 I i I � II I � I z I ram.+ II C I I I I, I � 66 II ` { I _�— -- --- — „-----___ — aM .rl L . - TUFFRSON STREET — — "ph bA7r= SCALE CLIENT — . = 1f9"=1'—a" 9 A3 CCU I-mTEI_ 2. RESORTS Ronclwn Wk%ile $ N 1 1 417M R.Pa. L— Pink.. Fwr -1 S�t9 1�.�r TI Rare" f4loge. CA 5227C iI I I M lit 3EU Project Setting MMIGINMAIII trtPII01�Wiir2ORW''I0 Ln order to provide a COMPNt faT project plannjug. sttrrouncling iand use is shown in Figure 4 F r g a re 9. The nubjed property is bDrdured on the north by Fred Waring Drive, which is a six lane primary arterial roadway wills a 12D foot wide right-of- way. The Esplanadt- single family resideritial subdivkinn is localpd directly acros9 Freri Waring -Drive, north of the project site. The project site is I-Pordered are lhP east by Jefferson Street, a major arterial with 120 (oot wirlo right-of-woiy. Property ro the east of Jeffermin 5trpet i{ witliiri the City at Tsidia's jurisdictional boundaries and if has been dearloped ai; a pet -ail rrrtter The Heritage Palms Golf Resort is 1ncaterl across 14Fersoa Street to the 9kautheast Land me immediately west of t17a site includes an existing well site, City park, and an existing reterilion basin associated with the recently develDped residential stihdivision (anlicella) further to the west. The rearyards of appro-ximately seven single farni1v residences A the Monticello. neighborhood exist along the southern periphery of the site- Th-&se homey are st=.parated from lhF project :;iie by an elevaavd 17ernn with a six Foot high ma-,Ainry block perimeter wall CITY PARK I L 1� 3EMION BASIN p i'rF+� F Inter 4' n C JECT SETTING ' 028- D2Q OJNGI_f� PAMILY F411 001 D;_=1\11JAL _j fi '— - - t-1 r2rw -7 -+R IV E 4 �n t�14 �� I [wRylwf{�rY�k�tirl� r IL 1 —# EbAN11 3 MWORIAL, MACE tz�w4Vo �>!. . ■ �xilsfinq Site Co IC�I�.on �e hsaoc i f y � +Y1f F➢GU6QL PtiQ 0 MASTED PLAN Amended Specific Flan FART September 2018 IViAS'I'�li PLA MASTER MASTER PLAN A. SITE PLANT rekleel Site rf the Specific Plan Na.^ would result in developuteiit of a Market, Drug Stare (vrith a drive-thru), assorted retail and service oriented shops, possible restaurant rues. and one bank (refer to Table 2, Laird Use StiiaLmary). The building areas 01 tine seven potential building footprints are illustrates in Figure Cx 10 Land Use Plan. The p-roposrd footpriatt9 may be modified (enlarged or reduced i during filled design, however, a utaximu-ni Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0,25 0.39 will not be exceeded over the elttire site. Far [lie nrost }part, the Specific Plan complies with the development standards of the site's Nt-igliborhoad Commercial (Chi] zan;rig designation Shive drive-thru estafrf{sTaneearts are gerterully not aJdovoed wfrhirt fhr Clry's CNI xaning dis#rlct, the 5periff: Plant seeks the Cfiy's dfseretionary approval to allow drive-thrlf z hedows at the proposed drug store avid bank buildisigs. A6 shown €rt Figure 16, the Amended Apes-flic l'fart Aro.3 would retsxft in development or a rood traaAet (kov5r,d fat the former Fresh 4 FaSy SIOPe Jaare{ the adjoining retail a nit-s), assorted retail narrd se¢rvice- orfelrteed shwas, pepsf-Mr rases eared a 160- roorii hotel assoEintegf Tnfth parms 3,5 aoid 6. Papeels 1 6 Tarr curvently errfedezaeloped, belt stlll rrlµtns lhrAtaatraelydJ sprr{lie pluzr NO.2 pruposaJ, of assorted retafi and service -oriented Shaps an parcrf 7. Tarr! a Posrak bartlding (strive-thru) witlein parrei 4. Other Parcel within Jetfierson Square site leas beren dedrelope J into rehoii-uritPttaredt.5Joups, (Pa rcef 11 and a edriare-thru Drag stare iParcc� 1). figure 11 shows the propose f Site plan uFith rir;e•rfption lit the v,trdeativrts on parceJ 3,i bb FL OJD.R AREA RATIO r}rd?r wriede•d Spe'cifit fluff 3v'er.3 seeks the C'ity's eiiscretio+ieary apprurtal to hr-erease the alfoulabie V v a r sire -a A#4110 IFAA) franc U 25 (OzS re'r C4044- 4.90.040) to 0.30. PARKING The project nrovisles landscape parking areas Containing a total of 4&-3- 361 Spaces. 11re rerfoaire'd m mlber of spaces fur 1Jrer Je/feraou Sgvezre sftet f-c 356: this tigure Jigs Greece calculated rasir4g 1 }fir+lie }Ter 300 btu ft of Pet AtI1 .9ft0Ce one! 1.1 ;pares per hat•el voorn gas per code q.250.070), It the square footage of an7 of the buildings trlianges, the tiuniLUer of required spaces also changes, The site plan will accomrnodiate this: cleange by providing the correct zme.unt of spaces using the I space }ties 300 sol i:t 250-sq. it. ratio for gerlerdl retail uses that are 100,006 `rf ff 5-a,069 scl. 4. or greater. Il restaurant uses are included on the site., the number of spaces required would be calculated using the I space per 125 :;q.tt 2-;fl 3q. it. ratio. The City Drdinance provides for restaurant uses that are part of shopping centers that are riot Al excess of 2M of titre shoppin& renter gross Hoof area to he allowed to use the parking ratio for the shoppinng center instead of cuing a separate restaurant parking ratio (1) SITE ACCESS Ingress � egress for the site will he taken from two locaLionts along Fred WarSlxg Drive, aitd two locations from Jefferson Street. Left tarn lanes frgm these roadways, will be provided at the western access along Fred Waring Drive, and the southern access OU JeffeVSOIL Street_ Deceleratioii lanes will be provided at the two entrances On Jefferson Street, and Litt= eastern entrance an Frets Warixtg Drive. The project will also provide a dedicated rig111 turn lane for easibOLL11C3 trafflC u5iug Fred Waring Drive turning south onto Jefferson Street. WATER SUPPLY Domestic water services will be extended to the proponie d hotel un d retail site front an existing 1S itirh grater line at th42 northv,=est corner of the site along Fred Warletg Drive, acid sal existing 12 uncle water line near the southeast corner of the site ar Jefferson Street. The"rte fs uer rMJsting cOnieet tf3}n to the tnrtner Fresh & Fa3y lrraildiaeg n-llfsh will be i-efustrdtea for use fee the or -genie warkert. Stiver si-,evices will lie extended frown a}a exfsfing ill ixch Newry f 6 e Iaje.j r+,LTr Sfreet fei 0lar propore:l loatef ato4 retaii sfte: IItere fs ato esi;tfPig sewn? calnne'clies fir f-lie Orwer lresfr & Ea=tj barildling_ DRAINAGE Yi9c t life in r, ii.._. di Street. iceriirt9 f W to abe-7eLtdnSt4 ret&rktion ba=rsi7tS,, ivizrrr�"a'r"Ves -sij 9--0-� fiit-Sife� ftL well flB to elft SY Sf eBY OF) silt' drutaaatgr is L'Nvrenrly cepwi,eyed to uliwir ground retention bastes, 7orated on the south- e'41st torfd nortl:-wesg s;rlrs or the site, as well as to aij uirdergrouisd retention system. The prapofed rjrldlitlortal automobile parkoig to the rturfla Wrst CPf HIr site 1-iII replarf HIf- rih.rr:r gtCRIfA lerrrdsCIF Pe j-efruifuat area ra-lth ra lurget, tatardergto,rrad rrfenlfvrl basfaf Heat -trill cfinowrt to the refs ting reteirfgorr Ny,lra?a. TRASH Trash enclosures will be located at various points within the }project site_ and will be screened tram view, to the extent leash+le. by landscapiaxg. r1he landscape plant maintains and enhances existing M! �AS�RP LAN 0 3 2 - D 3 3 ],indscaped areas along Fred Warhig Drina and Jefferson Street, and will accanl The praject's architectiiral theme within the site (see Section TIT C for additional dir;cus5ion of landccap#ng). Table 2 Lanai Use Summary Use SF Area M Building use (1) No. of 5tori4Ln Flaar Area Ratio eE;ff 110 ref 65.021 Hofet f 3 Tood Market 15,589 lancet 1 Fresh & EasVRetall Para& 8.s-18 R-Zetall Shops I CVS 13,013 DrLLS Store 1 Shop 1 5,000 Retail Shop-, 1 Shop 2 4,500 Retail Sliap_- 1 Shop 3 7,000 Retail Shop: I PaA A 4,5100 Sank I TOTAL 120.472 (2) 26:90 SITE AREA 470,O6o I. Liz ail Nar paid braildixK size rsny bB rnodifird, AFix) fnr stightIy rrdar.eri ur eralrTSrrl durjas* Final des Ia'� Howe7,er, 4he +naxi+nwnr FA14 of 0.25 0.10 wA1 oat Ter rae:ood-ed fp* t�r-e eutire orte, ar at any ins+ dirdae] !nt_ 2. Marinrrrha f eor area nNaurrd u4thirx flit spreij r Plau is 1973 $14J01 & Squo re feet_ TOTAL 5ITE AREA: 1E.79 AC (1170.D60 SFa TOTAL S17111T SITE COVERACEt 29.92 6 TAIiIi'I C. AFQUiRE U5E QUANTI'1'Y RATE ['IRiCIivG ', f#STALLSI HOTEL Ifig AU r.UEsr am xi i 17 G RETAIL P4uADF 9,549 SI 1,013409JF td FOOD ,WAllkET I3,589 SF 1.0)31210SF S1 SH[]P i 5,G(K 51: 1.0300SE 17 snor 3 7,UUti 51F i.al3Qasr 2A 7413 A 1,n0pusF Y5 DRUC CVS 13,U13 1.036fl5F Ct TOTAL 155 �. LAN DSCA E PRO V113EDi WITHIN TARKINC AND FER[MEIEK & BUILDING AREAS; 60,534 S.F {13.549.} INTERNAL COURTYAREU 35,ZE17 5F (7.849b� TOTAL; 9E,821 SF Adj 4c. Mu t [5 Resioci 11 II Jt J]O [] 14^11L�1[Ei 07 d1i �3L1YI Jd CS �FFe beck O� iJ �fJ �J� Monticello Park 0 r •+w FL-1 r r;, , PROJFCT NAME DRAWING TITLE $HM NOTE: FEVISIUE LAND USE PLAN 11111 MI Mrilri!.:13111111 I�irr�l�r�wi■I 1]��IIIIIIIII !'� 'f ��IIIIIIIIUVa aIINIIIIEmu _�`■k5/J�7I�ri.lrJ�'YIII�i�l�il:ll���i�����' a y� + I f Woll *� Ei '.�'p yp�a •hl I� i�'III PEA- 11 0 r, w J DATE SCALE CLIENT I,E=! @ Ali CU HOTEL a RESORTS El Al 5 N Qeneha Wwoe I 4175D RoF[ho I — PulFns Crh-L r n ��pn-3. 9rtnrhm Mre; r. CJ 92270 nr4w M I I.1 rn flla 7-ul CAP% PARKING AND LOA )F-.VG 0 RF[r U f'igserrrl parking lot, zone to the snuth of the sifr Frrapn5&d far the IaaieI raird rrla-il usr, Traaah l+iri rnour.d slightly s+tvth $a alfav- for fire frrlrk farming radims. Propni;ed parking tvt zvnr to $hr Itorth 'fl:L+St of th.- site Will provide arE rarlilitioanal 23 parkiny lots. The rxi.,lirag about- londsi-npr relenfion r:rru Will Le re lured ley rerr aPkdeYgruu}pil r•atrja lkQhin tlaut 4-PnIt!"1-11i to JhV Yxi+liilg refe.•Yeti on ?i My tee. Reconfigurird rearrllruck lnadfug lmo&ys for lhr hold-1 and favd marker Durk of house -11djjifinr:rat trpsll t+iL4a nddrd f(Ir• hrrfIII . T'he rRxislfmg road e.xtrudrd from 28ft is }wffit•lent far fire truck ict-c PSS. 361'1 haret syaff'arerd ramd retained for firr trri, k 3arcrs#. (D J.4-f. exi!cting parking ,y m1rrm arc refrainr+f, ina•luaiiAX r{Ji DD-4 sPrRr•es to 111r north Of llta sitr, Prnpo.xrrL Hpit-1 �trrr r+J'J. �rrnr�. CfIAN''GES TO EXISTI-NG ;TRUCTLERES The farmer Fresh and r,rtiy and `sfrr+ly ?' T�raildi�zgs r fl? be rr-purro�rpf la, hold p fond matrkrt- 1Q The farmer F€E's er{stsng rreaffs will h retarirrr.d to house the markrl'a Pnek n_l' house )l Retairl rsisting fop -ode of '5ha7 2' POPP )SEU STRUCTURE �r Patel /lout trf house, in'tluding !Merry .;.arj restacrra.nt and erkirmts roam. @ Hate; raants arranged around a :aariyard 9 Retail urtifs to lrasr lD Hate -A But'k of hnusr 1, r- Adfarent a Rk51dIlCC t �, i PROJECT NAME DRAWING T}TLE OHM NOTE: mmmimm �K4 REVISIOt LPROPOSED CHANGES ��a���1��r.wws ���o NIII !•.- ; 4 r ��+Nrirenu��� b� ■ � ! F _ �.4� �kS�P�1��■:X. lms �1171Y�T� �-a:• i I � t tF Ip � � 4 I � amp dL INS dt ,�� } �_ � yam;• ""� � wK; ,.�`�� ��;Y � 'y �I'l •' III, _ f- rA 'F&) 4 � - �' - � r ra I I! 1 i s � low - J DATE SCALE CLIENT E - - ll?.9'=1'-0' La Ali CAP Hf]TEL 8 RESORTS ll40'=f'—G' IC Al 5 N Qencho W"oe I 41750 RLl�Rns lb I — Pu1k('rrG r I, 1epn-3. vnrrhn 17rrtfle. r- 922?9 nr4W M 1 11 C63 flh �oLd ASTER PLAN B. PHASING PLATY The project rr ill br 4evelvprd in one 11Itase. C. LANDSCAPE PLAN The purpose of the landscape plan its to establish standards that will contribute to the thematic development of the proposed projectimportant to the development of a cpardinated project image artd identity are the project -wide enhancement of major 9treel5, entrla=3 and internal spaces. These plenlents are designed to establish levels of Weran-by Char. Will provitis a varied and high quality experience at the pedestrian and vt-hic�itar level within and siirmunding the project. Tlie landscape concept and the proposed plarrt psilet#e for the project are shown in ifigme a figvrr 12 Conceptual Plan. In general, Landscaping associated with the project consisis of two bdoic types; project perimeter anti streetscape; and. project site and building ldndscaping Tie projrri's ,pith rvFrldrortial proprrtins anii Afrrtotirefla Park zi?il! be stegotiat-ed with al varefol riafMns froaietir. Earld!-ca p Otg ,a?;5 dieted z,ith the projretrvill fore, ii fin fter :star wfth the rerirlenlial rrrnPrrties N the 5vw1h send crrafr a rrfatfora4Hii+ rr all floe western edge f) r rvfp Pi fire I to Park. The rxisitirg ift JerndsVgpCa (puffer epadifion refine the P,rk i+pns appirdired in the FrPT-crux Speri fir Nart ke,2 hell ih;o3 fryppoAal Toitt retain thl5L nainiomin ba ffer -zane, TFik- ]rater fi-ill aii:n pravidd, a per- til-trf ,arf'rr e-011" iaudsraprti court,ta,-d with a raagr of pia, ots Oiahli d m trrr 1-ands, ape PlAm. Coneepival landscape flan approval of streel5capvn along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street is being purnued with this Specific flan. The landscape Concept for the ]PrOjQ-0 pedieter and streetscape will intorporare limit ri furf areas, along witli a culnrful infix lit water PEfirient grDundeovers and accent shrubs- In order to integrate the prujvct into the srirrounding comic unity and create a harntonious street frontage, the 9treetscaping along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson will maintain a pliant palette and design concept which is coirpatible with s,trraunding street Frontages and will con Form tc City Design Guidelines, The retail buildings -will have a residential #eeling, Iifiitlg plentiful ornamental material in older ra provide a tempt -rate environment. Uncovered parking areas will be shaded with a comioination of Paiu Verde, and Desert Maaseutn trees. Palen trees will be. rased to provide vortical scale and aesthetic contrasts_ Tiptr Trees, Acacia, and Chitalpa Trees nxay bQ used to hells yCreen view9 From akJjacenl residential areas. Species in addition to those h.ted drtp to lie cansidered hi order to provido diversity. The wsociated plant materials liavebeen clrusen for their adaptability to the desert climate Df La Quinta, their relationship to the existing surrounding developments, and the intunded use and Function with the project .54rui1s alnrrg the street perimeters, shall frr minitfaum a to 15 gielTnn Size. FIGURE & 12, PRELINTINARY T.ANDSGAPE PLAN D, CIRCIUT ATTON PLAN As showu era Fi-grlM 9 Figurr 13, the praje.ct Circulatiu-n Plan is typical of a commercial canter, with an internal system of sidewalks, walkways, and a.cress akles Serving the variDias building locationSF panting areas, and patio location,- On site circulation provides for both vebicular and pedestrian movement tiro aghout the site. k1l;aif M"W.11 ! External accvmsso to the variour, uses an site iu from two locations along Fred V%rarting- Drive, and twat locations along Jefferson Street, Deceleration lanes are provided at the two entrance4 on Jefferson Street, and the eastern entrance vn Fre4l Waring Drive. The son liernmost access nn jfeff-rsori Street and the westernmost acr=esz= an Fred Waring Drive provides left turning lanes innto the sire from these peripheral roadwAyG. The renidining two ingress, egress locations provide re1stricted, right turn in - right turn mit rwvps.� only. There is a35n n dedicated right turn lane For eastbound traffic using Free Waring -Drive running south onto ]pfferson Street. On Jefferson Street, the left turning lane into thg project is 654 feet smith ref the interseclian with Fred Waxing Drive. On Fred Waring Drive the left turning lane is 340 feet west of the interrechan with Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive are designated in Ow general plan as major arterial raarls. The half -width of �i ma.}or artPrial 15 60 feel of riglit of wav and 51 feet of pavement. The current half -width right -of way for botli streets received an additional 5 feet of dedicated right of -�vay cinder the aineredtd Sperifir Plum No-2 dedicated an additional 4 foot wide and 100 foot long right of wav to accommodate the dedicaled right turn larip at the wuthwest corner of Frees Waring Drive anai Jefferson Street. The 12 foot iwi& and .50 font long standard Sunline bus turnout on feffprson Street has also been commit. fed, Dip Amended -Speefir Plua:rr Na„3 u+nulrr prordaff- FT tofai of361 i3a1-0jdgsrw--e5 rrer -its, and would iniplixment a r2ciproral parking agreement among all roses on site which will be madia pact of the conditions ❑f the building Mana;er<teilt Association. Tt... Gi ate. of T Fi Qy ice. to l.!uni ipal C-od..'ai.. 9el l .J F J L Mt [ .7-..t �l - a R,l i u . 111 , z ] -r on t kh i crim z. A -IYIIC%f3, l Direct access to the drugstore drive tl-iroogh lanes would he taken from the essteru}mvst accosswav location along Fred Waring Drive_ A right turn would be provided 50 Feet from the right-of-%vav, into+ two 12 foot wide drive-thru lanes loraled on t17e nrsrth aide of the drug store building. Each lane would provide enough stacking tv accenmrodato iip tax seven au.romsxbiles 1-12Q Feet) per lrarle, witlinrit ob.5tructing the acceasway, Drive - tiro IreLHc wrnuId exit the property at the nordi ern most ingress}egress location along jeffersvn Street. The western inost accensway �1\4STER PLAN # 038-030 along Fred Waring Drive will provide access intz ilie interior parcels via a 10-fow widv lava located betwo,-a Fresh & Ease and 5hap6 3. TIP rvesterumost entry will serve as the primary truck access for Fresh & £say, mitk those trucks then cuutfteufng carat filar perimeter drive to exit at the sautitprPi acresswary ou Jefferson- Bank A will also have drlue-t11ru Ianes. DireO access to the drive th.ru a Bank A will bQ frorD the sauthern accesst*a7 along Jefferson Street. To srrepn views Pi waiting cars from the street, earch drive-thru will have it A font wall t}r a combination of a wall Find bt-rin ta.tal rng J Feet. The priniar7 internal circulation corridors extend Errim all ace ess points on Jeffersnuti Street and Fred Waring Drive. PirSirpry trurk-s n{ifr Orrres thf. Jrrudi-Mg Jocks at the .sidr of the fPad ,trrarkrt aait lirpto, l lnaahiug bay Orfs is clone by f,pitering Ar uvirth ear.E a!"C47asre"Pr on Fred Waring Frrirr, fh,lly rFno+rid r,tit flir sarrre Tray Ore rirlfTyrrir trr,rrks c:rtiolp tsr.lFsghry r3a, ., rll . .6 , , .. . , , n.l . 4 _ r Irl [ VKCIN:5-,M HIIIS hIVC- _ -Pire and nzrmicinPed Pt _ plinviden i PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian ,itiewalks and on -street V1cvcl,7 laver are provided along buret the Fred WAritig -Drive and jeftersori Street irnntage.s (.see Figure 13) Sidewalks will be da!Agned S feet wide and on street bicvcle larnes will be d feet wide, A funr'tional network of sidewalks and walkwav* are provided within the Fite to link individual building sites, and facilitate safe pedestrian movement throughout the development. A hiss start will be provided along Jefferson Street which will lrye linked to the internal pedestrian svatpm, Th it ffofel will xillf:e the rxistitag r=nnuer+-tiller tperm?rrr Vo,rtlrello park. FREI 1MINARN LAND SCAt-ELEGEND PRFU 15ROtIND caVER VUML ^u7rA,LC7e hWT_ CAMP WWkbZ WE ou¢ay. sneeY.4.— "—s War Li[TW-IMFWD EAE*q NcIEr Grd Wr+aul Hra� [4�asr,t � G,c EA rN4 lmc y FAWr"LlEh m !MA L&Hlw hEEauri SCPL W-•ITRSV JM YYA pK*�s AllEo lrvi a ■ mclaw {® y� DELEM-MbAll Loh&. r DF97H iN Lg uLL'C3—lJ- 6AXCR%:OGLaM WWI rDEFTH Y lobo& 4CRF3TAFLAMUREi, ROBE !LLARf.C5B2_E',F WMiRt -FGE Ah,di Ar=ESE, Lr.we �n,. woLsaanRG 91iRi�5 [rL�w� mchxenL rx,vi rnuLmr rive srr rRR19^'r 1o'!MN IDML}TPDYP ar+• rkreoueL i" OOHLhLA C1d Lr_ hCQI �1A7'FAr�M4 OUNEcaE L A'dAW6MICPNIti 5 y� CGU�V1aoR L�fjlHu$n TL+AI 17J.NS 5Y21�,9 5T5^[rW.O' imnitCA aGu P lAR.Crt{A LIM' R EDo4)M `.mF.T,P. 2u31 Lnxwl{rLww ■rliR — PLVAE;i BW:e Rwmrrlmn.m nzGm rips cAft Ame L'•>t10M6FL *L upmjouW HLF1Eitl �L�• MHLEjIK'RM 6EII PWM h&LI LL15 W— 5� e.1 x 16'd`M t EM TREM i�'lh6aL• I d0'.,uYIpLL Ga►a{CN g� M1GICIi :.W-51M xaour �L� NCIGh £[ISG051M Iw3PU .111&3Y i DnMriuwul mw '.E 1 F.81Nr Y LyiorER Y�nE 7{"Bpk 0 onrt,yLRA 7�rIo��rlpe ' anxw. 3s�ort �711-AIICJ rn, TYGF Owl, PeruA,Ilfl nallTrFCMT arwR+NrrAr7>,I y m arrL4cwirAr�yrNooHeal �� A"Jc-sChk 1!.LF4rA WIMM CI4 [, YCJI@ m: rU MO'J RIiY { '�L']P46EG UEr FT7rLLEr66�MMlRIIE ira' P,LLY7VAI�PALL Amft IL/. f@II7Gr11'IHEE i1Lfl C3 SAY nwwu rc+u nru mee I P1Li FV 2Ln I D M6 547�f �lq¢�IIA RGN IX:Y '[mt PALo YLME PICPowC CHIGLLkL rAAN"=•i fr.Hd� [n:runwwma[Lsea iCD* i�oids: - 1 Frp7esFd lvn�lernyr Pur}vr vhifii ar2�orr��F r r4emidChLFS 7VYt�L V 17lri-v cr iuli 1rL,F6 au,d 2,3wer f YhIRJ610 !a ubkA- yarn V 0 W 9 1PtALl 1xUer! 1fLr bfjii., , 4 I' I W o Ira V- j New fart• t7urk P Zfh E-0PtRtr7ec10ri WiA psr=Er7bla �v.?i0o t.Q 1FirElizal o llrllsrosgu, r11c dapwriFA0-rjI ee- I I fo ronFirry ij pns]eMr�rO is arrrtnj7lr_ Rrteri lrianred flsliaexy Ny + rereleL4 r R2 liipuvll! I - r3r7T7C[r,$ 2nts — 4!J pruyvsra! illiqdaeapd cuurlk t1Td itlllyirraldd E}7 _ - - ---- -- ----- r w — PAWECT NAME UMMMG`" 17tL1` SHMT HOTS: V E V"O t -tFayrrti JI_I�zr= PR=_ 1+1=1�'�'r L;i�JuC�=F 17'=3nT_ =?U_IF= L _ . 4{ - - PL P16ti8E [tid. I i r IMINARY LANDSC"E FLAN 1 �{ J DATE SCALE CLIENT r=- F Ali CAP HOTEL & RESORTS ll40'=f'—G' IC Al 5 N Qencho W"oe I 41750 Rohchn I — P.Imt 4Yh'rl r I, 1epn-3. vnrrhn r7rrtfle. r- 92239 nrW M 1 11 C63 flh �oLd LEGEND 0 Unsignaliaed Intersection 0 Restricted Access - Right tufnlTurn out Bus stop 0 Signalized Intersection V2hicular cirL:ulatioxi Food Marker Trick Loadiiig Drug Stare 'Truck Loading PROJECT NAME DRAWING TITLe amm NOTE: REVISICt - - =1.1 FLAB! jSQ =APT--- IOIJPE _3 - FIGCIU NO. 13 I I 11 fASTCR PLAN E. GRADING PLAN The developer will submit a P34 IC Plan (dust coratrul plan) for the project in aLLordilr«e with the appEicable City and Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMDt sta1Adrd.S and codes, prior to the issuance of any grading periitits. The project Grading quid Drainage Plan is shnwrL in Figure i 0 FrLgvrz 14. The subjec# property has already been amss graded to sit average elevation of 45 teet above sea level, Precise grading of tiie site will result an develup-bent of sezren bttil3ing pads, an above aril undergrotnYd retelLtion s{■steitt, and associated parking areas designed to convey surface drainage flows to appropriate catciy basins oa site. i'hT=-T= -w+e— fam -tire Mi01e atio�r�€ err#ems iii P'rav It o vui-s`reT=r tarnE�yt-ed the site! to low r=1 e47&-efttiefts of ettrererlf1e PF-;Ppu3fed p4ltking u11 1Op vj rile r,ti.ting Yorth Fast laititsrape retentfon area zi,01 be !ieP- k ed fry a c ak fo i+n5in eftochell Ill the rxistflig iturf�r�rn��ied suytam in t6t-Ptl, alr" rn nnvti e AtHIWOrk c trld #t fL-qtliZed, tZ td rrl ra tufty w.,Rlartz a all -- `e�e.� try b,!rrrow vrd ptsal si es ixtee tine siEe 1 at alretd � �ras 9 radeft, rTee-IiLl gradiirEg xis it aci� The associated earthwork will be f4irly evenly distributed throughout the site 41L11 dSL avL--rage of less titan one to two feet being added or removed at roast It) taIionlS. Fsnal Sradiag will matclt finished elevations on svrravirding properties and will rioL resu1L in SLglulzLallt 111■11LUftCLureLi LLit'filI slopm Precise Grading Plans are subject IO review and appruval by the City according to standard engineering protacols- F. (DRAINAGE PLAN The praject's construction contractor, in L!0A3ultatiOnt With Lhe Citl+ of l.d QUIlita. Shall l;e resp,ansible for thirty all required notices with the Regional Writer QualAy Contrul Board (.RWQCB), preparing the Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing required Best Management Practices fB3iO!;) for the project. The pxojecl dnainage plate p±opose~F Lo direct surface runotf into a number of catch basins located diroughoul Llze site (see Figure 14). 5LurrilWdter will be conveyed tract~ the individual catch hasins into art iindp-rgrcrlind storm drain sysiQni, and ultYmatelF tc an undergreund retention system local.ed near the center of the site and above ground retention basins, located on the Torsi and systh sides of the site. All staratwater will be retained on site. The exact size and design of the 1}ropn5erl stone drain facilities will he determined liv the final engineering design and will bf3 reVieWed 17v tlJe City via standard Blau Check Protocols to ensure that the Llrainage is adequately addressed G. SEWER PLAN Sewer serv-rce to the lirojvcl is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District €CVWD) via an &Nistirtg 10 inch sewer llne within the right of wey of Jefferson Street along the site's eastern properry litre- As shown on conceptual serer & water }plan, the project will construct 2 -5" on site serer main (Private}, OPP Ii" rndi.ri Will run s4islh east corner of project from front side of -Hot-rUrvtoil shrill OSH 131; i 1 C1 1 Li g-and will he connet:Ied to existing 10" sewer main 1st Jefferson Street. This line will pick; up sewer laterals fQr FI0frllri'i401 ;ftor+ & Strap 1- Another S" ;ewer main will be c+,nslriicted in wpoheart side of prajert which will start from existing manhole located in leEfetson 5IrPt?r. Tliis will exteisd westward into ilie central portion of t-he site, w1wre a proposed manhole would l-Fe located and theti l7ineiy degrees south and north long the front of the Market whPre it would ter.raiinate at a manhole near shahs 2. Sewer laterals for Shops 2, Food If rket Fregl_ e- t__.. Sltops 3, Drug Store and Fad A will 1�e connected to this serer main. FTGURE 4-0- 14, CONCEPTUAi GIR 4.131N. . 9- DR ATM A G E PLAN I I lSi'fi�ti tl [� i �h Water Service will .91ro be pr.o;ided to the pile by CVWUF and is available to the property from an F'Nistilig IS mill Water lure inCdLed ltiithin Fred Waring Drive at the ii irthwest earner of tlik-site and existing 12 inch line in Jefferson 5tTeet al the southeast corner cf H3.e site as shown on coiiceprual sewer fir. water plan. Don;eatic, irrigaliOn and fire flaw water will he taken from these water lines. They project will hiclude off site extensions to these existing water lines to facilitate ?he necessary on sire t=xtenainns New on File waterlines will consists of 12 inch main lines extending From CVWD's offuite service liner, V two l-Points, one along Fred wari fig .1rive and another at je#ferson Srr?et rising 12" durable detector check assembly. 1.5 inch t,o T inch service limes will be used for lateral extensions to individual building pads. Tire internal. sgatIm wOuld result in ak looped network of water lines designed Io serve individual building pads: firp, hvdrants and the project` landscape irrigation Afrasfructure. Natural gas service is provIided in the site by The Gas Company, which currentiv maintains a I incli gas )Irie within the right of way for Fred Waring Drive, at +e prnject's northwest corder. The required extensions kV facilitate service to the site would he routine, and would tie coordinated 4► ith The Gas Company through their design review arld apprDval process prior ro the issuance of grading parmils fur the protect. Elourrir se.rvi6-e in provi•16-d to the site by the imperial irrigation District (It-D), which currently maintains existing above g ound q2 W and 1.2-5 kV transmission lines within the right of %ay for Frcd I'4aring DrIiW along the prajea's narthvrn property line. The project will extend jives from ITO'D existing 12,1 kV line cnlo the site. All on site transmission lines will be placed underground. iTD anlicillates service for this projUI to be ruittine Tel c p1i rxn e- TOiepIto 11L- service iS Irrravided to the site by Vprizon, which maintains existing telephone liII04 widlill the right of w.9v fc}r Fred Waring Drive approximeely IN Feet we{t of the 11roject Bruits. Veriaan serves rheVl nnticello rPSiderrital develop inent area tv the wrest of the property from a terminal located at I'hts interseaturi of Monticello Avemte and Fred i+ 4ring'Drive. Veriamn engineering staff do not anticipake any difficully extending seivice4 along Fred Waring DrIvP or Jefferson Street and connecting to the 1Troje0 MSdASTiER PLAN U--I"i Service Ear this project would be routine C'alzle Televrsion- Cable Tele-vision service is provided to the site by Time Warner Caiaie and is available to the property front existing cahlts within the right of iviy for Fred Waring Drive along the proje.ct's na.rthern property, line_ Tnstallation of cahle kelovisiosi wmiid he coordinated witli the extern,,irru of elecrrical service w t-hat a single trench ionta'rning boils farihrie4 would h ton ,trurtecl. Time Wainer Cable considprsr riprvice foi' this prviect tci 17a Tmcline. PULIMINARY GRj LITILITY lLQQ zm FDRU 8 M-94 OMC9ELIA 94LEK VgEH DIMCI (Mal M-2"l -HE LAM SHAWIOI TFR 9A%E'S LES WNW RUM ZOWEU'LW WEED mAlwnp- U4T�M-`T (No 3.1-!n CCTa,Mrm Tb Eii4dlT�[ �pi L,X LL006 50AFUM CJLFCMLL EDRM m7-MA, R IR Fl2m IMIY VI¢ RN,[ 11 A* IlRlil - � MW 2 v 0M. flrlE]t f4�4F7YA9 PA Gn rwc W C3iu4• {ux} NT-TJPo JRl.7R3T >9. 7WE. 7C2RK1! YCRmX Ii00� ,o.- MLE TIIE WARMER USE,)Eia4 7K9 314-,3,7 ONT FLU, - '� a❑24' I'IhTER.fS�� ' I � LFf yak I ro. 2U' P511T I EBM AROR.ILC, LaLITL�R INFL7RxTm lup E&7 26f6ME SESECTK)N J PA Kkm 'W Er. FET.14 Li HOTELPIL'kR5 c&I 019. SURFACE SN ND7 _n SCAIC PRELIMINARY GRA SWC OF JEFFERSON AIDE AND LA QUINTA, CALIF APPUCA PRELIWINANY E, 0 _?m N." LAC PkW4 Dw. 2v FE 0-3 cur, Ao4sm Wow- 4h 41>N MEJE C1MCN: Tda fm M-09 EaRlll IMP72fjF'lL- 6�Q}SA,G Pa11LR X6 B]�-4Y4-01� n7F-w��,7 ac+-3xw-oTa P Iq Q— gig' �RfNE'NAYIT C EY REF.WALL FL S/w 1t,{T Com EmCiL "FACE r TO SCALE 2""kF LT LIE FARCE �hW�TIeC'I a irzI 7 I 8 I n i 4 K bAt XtRF. r ve"tovon 7X J. 9,71E- ■FTP n,UR9 MG. MIND PLAN 14 DING PLAN FRED WARINei DPI. 'ORNIA kRTH WORK �r.I7L'SOIRIdIL aME= yy,, 5 ♦M 6 13F WEEL WNO. Mil ,all C1' N THE [il T,CIF LA CUMTk C"Tl CF-PIVM[iiO 11�90 N—M a 11Fao-an I�anrp r Ioor ]!i 5,700 rT ni® lix� a n i W CF W uo THE rW rE1 KE MINITY MAP N[7A \ 5S)I�Jx1E1ANC �+ INSIaLL i UFF sTowu oNy1 cm bl} PER [Ih'# LS cKm 9TLI. MIN NI ILO E�—IWALL 17• WIFE -F3W SRrh OJ9 " [47U U AEPnOl AP W LA WWI W PUM No. M MV. LL 14• FQFE -Km RYA r �.omE Ana FaE owwcE � INSTALL 1� '9WPM WAN WPM �• s(, F 77GE itB[pr OFFh Ix2 ULL -• FQnE GIOIM VMN xAM E.LLR-a'HE &--EnDC M;Ikit ArNd'_EE 9M sWFI M mM F5 �y a{flETE L'f�Ni ¢F1ii �IX3faLL 'JL nPRPJF& °rS�Pill GFmu MTBk YCA"m B* AM Its I - >4 ammmix Qw mH 7 IEMWI PRSNC HryIl WKME SEPM R, HrMW-ME]M41MU UNr \\ t'n6' WEkff CIE E76711G 'TM �FMM AM FII7P, A ►+ 3dl.FTlr OM1E S9 -Mrit WE E'xWW Wm-nrN M6EREM wmbLE arm At ompts E @o-INSUIL uNDEWFAM th%d" rEAba VFF dM GNJM MM TR LQ7 FlIE WT OCEML r,mu C lO IE mFwEo PE. SOILS EIIGiKEER FILyL NEFURr. &tb fl F1iIr far F', N!. d�E'A Rld'x5I5 uw[AIa Ib Till [7n ff IA xFFI� K r,7' A1Gfi I k I ON -WX& WP M211. W91:5. FB I-7 M BE aLrnaAw.D F 11;Ya Ll .. FF FUF.i LICE 54rL EF. W-NM PHWE +uC 1111 if.'• RM017 riEURN h REiIfl- Q7AR11C SCALE 1--5Y 07 0 z Q V LL Q E LIe PI[LIY- y FTE; LlEf61ff6 c EGi[ZL Ni/S pFiAY►e:1H :! A'MLC FLE, L..IXMEM v T110-w•+f a i X k SHEER_ F. H! RiR t QP Et 1I OMP EXHIBIT SWC OF JEFFE RSON AVE AND FRED WARM DFL LA OtANTA, CALFORMA L � � I '� JA1a •tCRdi �b y I RMENTION BASIN °13' /yamf _ � AjTa oj ii% �2K I#A'Ikld A- y — 161r lPQ A OIWIIS Td EXTematl:� DUN .BIj{jCR6 SFAVAL K•' � Y'ILERIJ� �i1aDGf HfFOFR F� A16f� Mi1L =�Ei:w ZZ- j � [ IMIiT r N+rR w+w� IDrva� I �QQ I, .. , tI,rr� +wnu+rnw swL I 48.50 FF I K Zp � i..C1T _77 T. I Tr� T"TIL I _T_[ - I � I 1F15 C[Rlldd {F t1Af Pam w6 - A�FJ4 I�INi r E71CN PARCEL 61 SMERIAG CENTER , PARCEL 1 a I —Nd A. P.' I-:' l I SHOPS 1ri •..'. - -- , _ r I`I`III omg7 ' ,• I II Ao0%D If �rl..; °W 4AnEL anM-L — � I 49. W$ }S'I'.` yea.•. i — ram, Q r 'r{e _ 00'itr,Jl sl _ i,F.FP 0l4ilix+f- � �. —�L+��� __l - — �- �� [7.LJ�"• i3, � i YR7�4-'14w' gkSA --�. LIME d 4 7, urr y wcFL0N 7 I(Q) A Z:S' C.6. _bGZE1� 42-1F FL ' 'W -' - - -a�EF—FER- - -_JPPRtSr�L- — —JC — - , UBIT nr1 G. 39.j BOT. 44- ws k 44.2 O I SRFEM AWA • 5 i- r � I �I sh PARCEL 2 {1 r;I I'01oft mma I s I. I I I}R1.IG' I I� Q- II .J in I a i i1N ri' 7tAm G ': 0 c +YE +8 iVE `A LEGEND: TREATMENT AREA DEIMCNA710N m AUkEWE FLJ71' PA-rH �.� ONA AREA RQLM0bFrY LAM�MQE AREA CONCREIE GRASS PAYM AC PAfEEMENT DISTURBED AREA 3-5 ACRES) TOTAL PROJECT AREA = 6,4 ACRES (PARCELS 3, 5, AND S) :�i:UI� iiL'�1��I�1�il:�+T��I+T► iir�+7�;3�T�'� SWM DDIN INLET STENCIUNG Q7 SIGNAGE LARE APE AND IRRW6AIIDN 5Y 61 ❑E73 GN [Al TRASH STURACE AREA El LCMIW3 BON no' e• w' eo' �2a' GRAPHIC SCALE; f =4' CCD HOTEL & RESORTS — LA QUINTA WQ IP EXHIBIT LA QUJNTA, GA M Spiimp Rm-1 Engineering, Inc. I�i12 a l.r j=,eim Hills, �A 92BO8 Clrll Englneerfng}Ea�tl ��lutylily?Land Pl�rining +fj 685480 04 DE ELOPNENT REGULATIONS Amended Specific flan FART September 2018 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION • ���-��1 DEVEL- OPMENT BEGS DEVELOPMENT I GULA'11ONS The development regxilations contained herein Provide 8gec1fiC standards relative to perinitted land uses in addition to sire design and construction regulations to be applied within the Specific Plan area. They are iaitended to protect the public health, safety and zvOHWe and to create a harmonious relationship with surrounding land, In general, this Specific Plan is consistent with Th-e CN Zane of the Citv of La Quinta Zoning Code. Linless a differew standard is identified beiow. The prolynsed land Lases are consistent with the NC land urw de7ignatian in the C'ity's General Plan Should a development standard contained in this Specific Plan conflict with an equivalent standard contained in the City of La Quinta Zoning Cade, the provisivils of the Specific Plan shall rake precedence. 1n insrances where the Specific Plan dues Rat address a particular regMativn, the applicable portion Df the City of La Quinta Zoning Code shall govern. Thee Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve minor -adiurtnients during development permit review, so long as he determines such adjustments are conslstent with the Specific Plan Land Use Plan. A. PRY CiPAL USES PERMITTED This 5ppcifit Plats -hall allow all uses identified as Permitted as a }principal u5i-, permitted as an acceiitory lcG the prin6p l use, Permitted as a principal or Rceesanry use if a Conditional Use Permit is approved, Perinitked if it ininvr use permit is apprvved, and Permitter.! 95 a t0r1p0rar7 use as identified in anti rrubject to the provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN-) Zoning Distri-ck descril,ed to Section 9.80.040 of the La Quinta Zoning Code Vitt perf0c Plan 4a,iil a?{n i 141le Hatris and Xfolel?i ail perritt!!ed stirs, 13_ PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT 51ANDARDS -Maximum structure freight: 35 feet 12) -Max Structure Height wAltiin 150 feet of Arterial Hwy: 22 feet(3] -Maximum number of starles4 3 -Maximum Floar Area Ratio- G475 0 30 -Building 5etbncls ill -f oom jefterson Street: 30 feel (3) -from lied Wraring Drive- 30 Feet (3) -frO327 coutmort proverty Lime: 1-10 feet 4U leer -re{till O�5'7ud Park Distvittsr 10 teat -Landscape Setback (S) -from Jekl:ersun Street_ 20 ieet (3) -from Fred Waring Drive: 20 feet (3) -!rani Open S-pate i Paric Districts: & 1 feet minimum -from residential areas : 15 tee# 2. NuI ineiuding utr.hifreIeaTu� oppmulag"_ t,ur.h rid a rnu7 purffFrf or tower, up to 41 fref. 3. Not {Treirsri'iir.g sip to I(t% of (Jir btrziljiYf.g alas.9, tuhiCh nay ear tend tip to 36frLrf. 771rs dines !tot affect the nrro rif the. iorlyossd lrruTri-k buI apphrs to rlther par1'aTf earlraetreA rep thin tlrr IPrev ioue Speeiltr Ptan A,t72. d. Nil on ber giaen is piirrinsxrri &miring seEback frem the Street right-of-way. In addifian to A required Faudscape, setback, the brjilding srtbuck rnay s:ontuiri p7rkEi18, r1rivmPay9 raid siruilar jneiiities. 5, Landscape setback shalt' consisf of landscaped area ruilhi1s the i�rsiirdin- ;etback. oleo+nbrrr givers es trfiairprisrrs Invifscape'd urea )rote thr street right-of-way, 6. The Ppevi0H5 Speeitlf 11i,7n IU O._ p oP0-5e4 ge 1l IF raI refill dv��rFa}+rrGr�lf Risu�,tr 1010,0O0 sj) ft rF11rl 111nC reriujrej 1 sl1lirr, T,i�r 2.50 yrl fr VFA F1tr SrPrerul r+•tail uses u)idrr 100,000 sq ff {as prerfiased in Yfris _ wTintdmrearNo 31 Ihr minimum paFkirlg 0equirvmrrl# is 1 apaee leer 300 s++ It GF_i, ns parr L'e'jo .0.1.50 U70 :. The tirinj?pTim h6i of porT in rrquTttnnrt'r 15' 1.1 sParef rpt r Vitrst r{+ol*, as fivr iodr 9.130.a70 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIC:)N:5 ' 052-09-1 -Inrerlor Landscape {6j -parking argas� 51of project area -nori parking areas; 5# of pToject area -Required Parking -Retail Stares; One space per a5&,300 ;gaare fFPf (rf) Gvosz MiorAres -Restaurant, One .space per 250 sf of GFA. when restaurant is scat rutgTV than 20% of shopping center iloor area. -A Pacility to aticasnniudate a minlfnum of five bicycle-s shall the prcvid.ed tot any EC5WIran.t LISP. -Other Uses. The parking provisicus of fhe La Quints Zoning Cede Section 9.1150:;ball avply 05 DE IGN GUIDELINES Amended Specific Ilan FART September 2018 DESIGN GUIDELINES 0 054-05' 05 DESIGN GUIDE- LINES DESIGN GUIDELINES The Design Guidelines For the Specific Plan have been devvlopod as a method of achieviiig a high ilua]11y, cohe&ive design character for the development cif the propowd project ill T.a QUiWd. They provide specific design criteria far the development of the Project, as well as encouraging creativity, inlagmation end a high level of harmony and conni:stency witlxin the surrounding couzi-ntjniry- Adherence to the Deign Guidelines will izeate a desirable asset to the community and enhance the projecfrs overatl vatue. These guidelines will govern the cipsign gttahi y nl' the project for applic-atiun it the fallowing wayr,. -Ta provide t1w City cif LA Quints with Hie necessary assi,rancp that the 5pecifir Flan area will develop !Ti accordance with the quality aiDd character proposed; -To provide guidance to developers, buiMers, engineers, architects, landscape architects and other professionals in order to maintain the desired deal,a quality; -To provide guidance to City staff, the Flaniiing Commission and the CitT Cotintiil in the review of cow3truction plans For the Specific Plan area 1:!]lf:'7 tip; � i rl t[� ft�l s�:1 �+l+l 1 i] � 4 �► fi �7 Thu building design therite of this commercial complex strives to achieve a Mediterranean style arcliitechare. In tttiilizing elements tram this vernactitar the complex achieves a massing and scale that is comforting and pleasing. Taxtureki plaster, deem] canopies, and trellises allow for contrast -arid shade, while simplified cornice detailing and the use of co]or unifies the different building elements wlkllin the complexFigures / illustrato the typical building elevations and use of the vernacti.lar to uniFy and provide a sense of -ra]Q tar the in -fine tPnanfs. The figures alry illustrate the ow of the vernacular for it mpical outlying pad building and how the architprlural style is eantimious around the exterior of the pLid bailding. Figure ttr ?A, 21, 21,1, 21.2 show-, cross sections of the site taken from variotas locations on the site The elevations used for the specific plan prc+vide a biisis for acceptabl.e materiats and iasagv for the variousbaiIdings and do not deem to illlistrate specific examples of tenants, or building ocvuparits. Through the use. of exreugive canopies, trellises, landscaping, patterned sidewalks and patios, the complex achieves a campus like en-'irGnment, suitable for pedestrian movement between the various elements of the cemf;vx_1,4meijd,•ti -irecffir Pratt Nn?I Mu+ty of Rh,- quatetirs of the Adri�ltvrr,rnrau inspiri'd urPAftrr'iUrl' Will hP eR11r10Ved VP fii,' rFia,Trrro '�1�4Prt-st i#' facader of tl+, hat -el l hiding, f felt[ shradr pirty, esi[or and riirtfPru mils be wti,P4 to add detoil + arnd rreitte :iinIJari#ir6; lor.trr,r<u tho 4f,yirir MA59TNC. & SCALE -Varied proportions are encouraged Elemenls in facades:shorold be spaced at regular intervals to create a visual rhythm, i:olonnade effect. Plaster pop -nut's on Hie bueWing sides, w Lire rant beneath an arcade, he 3'-5` in depth, to the FaNs factiDK of ithr P+aurtiug Director. -Ea,:-h building will incorporate a continuity of ntar,E, scale and architectural features 4nd similar detailing. -The facade of in -line retail stores shall he oif- set to help break rip building mass and giv+r thi, appearance of nztAltipte buildings. -Accent Features such as medallions, awnings and culorban ding should be utilizer#}encourage d, Far continuity of scale between the elements ? buildings. ROOF TREATMENTS -Approprlate use of flat, hip, shed, anti pji hest gable roof forms are encouragpd. -Fiat roafe may b¢ used with a parapet alone. or in comlAnadun with other roof forms. -The use of variable ridge lines i u a ,ingle s+a'uctitre is encnairaged, -Roof pitcli may vary between bitild ings in [lie complex, -Mechanical equipment may be placed only on Flat Portions of roofs provided that rlLev are screened From public view and that the screening i, mcorp-orated into building design- -Roof pitch on anyone str+actura should be co isistpnl within the limitation;, of the material being trisect. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND DETAILS -All mechanical egidprnent including fuse boxes, heating and ioFoling devices and satellite dishes shall be SCrapned from public view. The building parapet heights dull Tw adjnstud rn that toot elements are screened #rpm view. -The use of curtain walls is oot allawad. 5epardle sczeening walls, shall Only bla used as an eNception, and -~hall be designed tv utilize building materials and coloru. -Exterior walls OVUM emphasize shadow relkef using recesses, medaliinns, covered walkwavr,, lrelliser;, ,and lanciscaping wlipm appmpriate. --Riiilding entry -ways should be visually emphasized, and Iry to keep tense of pedestrian scale, -Shaded wall ways are encouraged in areas with high levels of perlestriati traffic -Conversion of first flvar wirtdows to exterior tenant entrieg is allowed subject to Staff approval of archilertural details Accent al corners of pad buildings by using small tower tearsjre•s is encouraged. WALLS AND FENCES -Walls are encouraged to ime materials anal crrlors which snatch or compliment associated f adjacent buildings and i ont,-xt. -Wills that create long, tiribroken straight lines should be avoided when possible by DESIC'.SV GLT>�DELINFS - 5 varying the parapets or With use of color and arcenls Buildisigs is tlir +f ,5rr1-MfP4j'Trr 11141!j u3P straight wihrokerl limns birt acre shoerld fie titken to [-r+tttlPltjF1 t!lift; zr11113 malerlalFr 41t infOrrst arRjii afarai ty to ayGsure ax -risually exritirpg frarade. laKRUNBIUM -Fx1Prinr lighting, when rued, 5hvi.ild ealiaiwe tise building design and the adjoining i rotated landm7pi u' -Lighting standards and buildings fixtures sliould be of a design and size compatilhlp with 1-he building and adjacent areaU. Exposed wall packs should be a -voided, -Lighting shall be restrained in design and exi essive brightness (night glow) avoided. -Standard design t?chniques should be employed to shield parking light finturos and control direct glare and .9pill light emanating from these fixtures Parking lot light Pvler, Should be Pijtlirped with a fixture and tamping that is compatible with arjacent pT-apertiefi, and a clash lerm and-:hmultl not exceed a maximum beight of B feet above ?arising lot surxace.. ELEVATIONS- HOTEL/ SHC G5 43 19 E}U THG �G 01. 3BR am r Y Y.�' r,1'r5 .ir ialn H[r,ruYr h[r Yri rrHH�IQ �� F000 MARKET ; HOTEL (1,NEIRTN EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑hi' 1 14 17 11 _311C III w i l 4111141 All 02.EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N FOOD WMET •r I sJ.vclEi�P{lxaulgQ YE'Jlsux�w iETi+x�,Qi �#E1EPrlaYil R.3MDK P5 aQaRNwWtxi QOgthAPC M:Eaaw ti}f.09 -,,10 fi PMFPCIW.) WWI PW NGI wl!E&lm: 11w jamK[ Mai c9mO Mfum PCLwtlE[1 ",9Kr-o mxroaF CULMDErsvrr W caar xaa[ .rkamw 1rfKF] 47E•tw w>FSn. PROJECT NAME DRAVANGT ME amm NOTE! — = EL= rT:J`'; r_—=L JSQ =-z-'Ti � 1G_IFF — ' V 21 FOOD MARKET WlflY.11PFiLGrIL'r G3CPI PDPW ow-B J 03mg PROPOSED < I D MWITNG U2 01 0fi i I �,3fi�L iMTgf iiCl1GRGL�TsiA fJ6l6.Y 033i ��d�CAIIkv GGfm W.%U—rL' +#glow-VYTEF 4ui* RVG Il DATE SCALE GLIIENT @ A3 w CCi] HQTEL 8 RESORTS 1/ 1]'=1"—din 141 S N R4- 17W PART 41395 RoPdL.a� Polho3 %h'rL S1#'Lr n Im 11-9. ftMe" hlroQe. ✓ 5227U' rni1 I H �13 7lH �0 IELEVATIONS— HOTEL/ SHC �n _ � ��m!r�i�r�rrrrtirr�r!m�nrtm+nrr�i�rnrrirlrrttR��rran!rfr� nrrirn�rm�a� � . L �,`_,, • =+r�n�rlil+xmrmirrnr�r n+rm�mmr�r+mn+t►�i��nir�:+�n,:marrnsmatr�sr,+�mt�nnrnx�n=��ri�rl4r�m�nrt���m � •! IIHl'.Ifll+frfp" hWIT FlFiNPFi PRFFP7"4rfiqd3ffl[LTRFFPTIMIFYFRIM(riTtF¢brIfIHFIV)M JDPIFitlifri iR{[1144NPffi{fSi 7F11lI�FrSMnlljBFjiFf ��ryry L IA4 �T.yl.Ilrw-,. x+wuill r;• HOTEL 31--71 L O, lznl PTW TYT�70KIA1 71 r7\IATTrlhl EXISFTWG < I > PROPOSED I FOOD h RKET NVEST EXTERNAL ELEVATION 03 03e ra -1 71- 71 —..- HOTEL �i, �,1 ipsi iC•! � 65 .�ti 1Q+ ' ' 1C 11 �-r �_W..-r7FEUUF&'S ME -A WJEF' lETX11t[llY:.74,k -ME IETI. FIILL54alf EYFEM"TURTMG IIE'FLL �,1R'F XH� PAWPEI[r. PAKT MCrN9 F�1M'TZOMD, piwiffri, MWT 9 7iA=i ..7'J9 {1tMD 3lpdF -imot 9-CC UL R F�M '.721a WM 8LGb Ci106i "_F]'S.n7l�" mfl! L--A7Ji( _UM CCl3L PJF-GSIDW CNIM L'EMIF RF l 'IfY, IIME: a)L-F._i—T;AMff,IE =MtMo EF {4k� IVIRI F4I[EMATED 199--N MERM %Cilln PROJECT NAME DRAWINGIME $AIM PIOM REVI'i141 )P 2/ FOOD MARKET F[rURFNO 16.1 01 03 31t N Lf.71 lilt I 'a" P;w MR PAW FNW usm DUM OPIPMEF&ST CflffUNS WAIF lx� :--N If- MK Ma-5 03LCH 9ALF .-,-g LA %F m3miteSIE fa1Pa32Fl!EPkM3Fd CX�XCF&45EBATILLY m2ft SURF. aw-F OICIRN7 -11 mm= Emil -DM34 ro= Ax)�x QrM IMM22 M:45 VrAiC MEEW4 I IRATE WALE CLIENT P A3 w CCE HOTEL L RESORTS s N Q"-ncFw w1rum" PARTI 4 17M R-P4- L= P-Im- DO-L &-ttr 11-3. ftMeho 141age. CA j 227C w F1 M MB sm 0 -*Refer fo Figure ICo 16.1 for up dated p ra Ixw-;etf e le vatiou EAST ELEVATION IPA kinut SCALE— 1J'•o':f Cr Elevations - OSH J Shops 2 / /Fresh & Easy FC7CY GF CURWK. i na•za,.nioo ssu�xeatxax � yo.i w w �aax es, w..ri.h+s CF 16' ew NalRi tlo it SCALE.- mr, v-or p Y�i ?.r Ilia", �� f+�#ii 1•li'Y 4r. �w� j,. ems;• - i'u�.r� •� 1 � �� � � IR�aY •�iF-1' 1r-iJwl.'-� - -1�•:� ne'r�.ii ,_ Yw..i• Im2ae���ff�}TO�.r! JEFFER ON SQUARE `SPEC a f I G PLAN AMENDED 3.24.08 a• 37 �f�slJ� i1�� h1'xsyl K�iL .iC ALE= I ! 1 is 1 {7 FORTH ELEVATION SCALE-1119* ,'C' EAST ELEVATION SCALE= III G'; I'.dr -; _W--- f --a.. SOUTH ELEVATION Elevations - Shops 1 PARTIAL PLAN F- WALE- 17 5-: 3'-R L WEST ELEVATION SCALE- IMT; T10- AMENDED 3.24.08 j Ii' - GRCUF.w� .J ■S� S9GSYR'9 + F11-141D Ev 1$ f34' f'7G LIRE NCL scALE- 1 rs-: 1 '-Cr 17 � - - - � �• r i�� i�. i� tom_. iL- --5 J a.. JEFFERSON SQUARE SPEC I F I c PI. AN PARTIAL PLAN r -I -� WEST ELEVATION Si!!ALE=-lejjr:j'-Cr AKENDED 3.24.08 15, rw IRGURENO SCALE a 5 fW: i --&- rL�ZT-7-p-l" ergs 7 �� Tr■ ''`'������ �� :�■� Cam■ JEFFERSON SQUARE SPEC I F I C P L A N PARTIAL PLAN SCALE � 1116':1'-0' WEST ELEVATION Clfq SCALE =117 AMENDED 3.24.08 *Fw KTGY GROUP we . rCn reCLUfe ■ RanrOna 0' 16' 64' FIGURE ND. 18 SCALE= 1/6": V-0" SCALE - 1 / 16" :1 '-0" SCA LE -1 I16' :1'-0" SCALE= 1116':1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Elevations - Pad A PARTIAL PLAN SCALE =1116* ; 1 '-0- ,..fir-� WEST ELEVATION SCALE -1116":1'-0' AMENDED 3.24.08 KTGY GROUP � n: :: racer: t.rrc ■.' �arininy u 16, 64' $' 32' SCALES 116": 1'•0' *Refer to Figure 21, 21.1, 21.2 for addition site sections SITE SECTION: SITE SECTION 1 KEYPLAN Site Sections Po RE FRESH & EASY SITE SECTION 3 SITE SECTION 4 .ABOVE GROUND ;ZE TEN TI➢Sti SA SIN' AMENDED 3.24.08 -- Mr. P W— Nure s ann I ny e sr.sr.aoa a.a.r�c.vo�a wn ro� .�.w. �r nuwaTr Ta u 4 &' 6 1 r qjUR�EN v 37 SCALE-116'!V-4r 4y11ILI11411MIL4MN Ul.L.0 I CJ 3E..0 I IUIV-M 02,L❑T 23 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 03,L❑T 23 VISUALIZATI❑N VIEW 01 rl- i i i t Y' LOT 23 ERADING LOT25 BACKYARD 04,L❑T 23 SECTI❑N-B 05,L❑T 23 PLAN-B LEVEL 3 0G L❑T 23 VISUALIZATI❑N VIEW PROJECT NAME DRAWING TITLE SHEET NOTE: REVISION JEFFERS❑N SQUARE SITE SECTI❑NS RESII7 - - -ARTI-FIGURE E1 A SITE LEVE . w WALL CIRCULATION AKSDNRY WALL CRCULATION SCAPE OFFS T OM 30' PARlU 'I� LOT 24 BUILDING LOT 25 BACKYARD044CAPE OFF T S 3{r FARIONG LOT 18 02 CITL❑T 24 SECTI❑N-A ORL❑T 24 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 09L❑T 24 VISUALIZATI❑N WEST PATIO/BALCONY—A LET 26 SECTION —A r: LOT 25 SECTION —A LOT 24 SECTION—A17Z ;:::: LOT 23 SECTION—B I wo l — -- —1 — -9 r7— LOT 23 SECTION —A ; — — — DATE SCALE CLIENT LOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 1/16'=1'—O' R Al w CCEI HOTEL & RESORTS 1/32'=1'—O' R A3 SON RRnch` rerage PARTI 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Prwel Su1te w w 64' E 11-3. Rancho Mhage. CA 922N M l +1 213 718 5610 4y11ILI11411MILgMN LOT 25 BUILDING " LOT 25 BACKYARD-LADSCAPE OFMETV JRbAD 39 " PARI{ING LOT 18" ' ' " LOT26 BUILDING ' LOT26 BACKYARD 01,L❑T 25 SECTI❑N-A 02,L❑T 25 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 03,L❑T 25 VISUALIZATI❑N 04,L❑T 26 SECTI❑N-A 05,L❑T 26 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 06,L❑T 26 VISUALIZATI❑N PROJECT NAME DRAWING TITLE SHEET NOTE: REVISION JEFFERS❑N SQUARE SITE_SECTI❑NS-KE` Ii. JSQ-PARTI-FIGLJRE 1.1 A SITE REVE ;SIDENTIAL FIGURE NO. 21.1 SCAPE OFFSEX31'-4' ROAD 3K WEST PATIO/BALCONY-A LOT 26 SECTION -A Tiff TI] LOT 25 SECTION-A� pomTw.lw'!`i,IMAM DATE SCALE CLIENT 'LOPMENT PERMIT 2103,201e 1/16'=1'-0' @ Al W CCD HOTEL & RESORTS 1/32'=1'-O' @ A3 S N Rancho Nrage PART[ 41750 Rancho Las Patnas Drlwl S�fte 0' 16' Say E 0-3, Rancho Mlrape, CA 92270 ■• 141+1213716 5910 4y11ILI11411M1IL4MN i f LOT 23 BUILDING ' LOT 25 BACKYARD 01,L❑T 23 SECTI❑N-A 02,L❑T 23 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 03,L❑T 23 VISUALIZATI❑N VIEW 01 04,L11T 26 SECTI❑N-A 05,L❑T 26 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 06,L❑T 26 VISUALIZATI❑N PROJECT NAME DRAWING TITLE SHEET NOTE: REVISION JEFFERS❑N SQUARE SITE-SECTI❑NS-H❑TEL JSLQ-PARTI-FIGURE 21.2 A SITE IIEVE FIGUR£ NO. 21.2 11110IN►r4tel101a01►19� MATERIALS & COLORS -The facade plays an integral role in building appearance and should use a continuous palette of similar materials and colors. -Restraint should be exercised in the number of materials and colors selected for a given structure. -Acceptable construction materials are steel, wood, stucco, concrete, plaster, ceramic tile, natural stone, aluminium and glass. -Architectural details should be painted to match the facade. -The following identifies the general colors and materials which will serve as a working palette to provide a basis of establishing architectural cohesiveness for the project (changes may occur at time ❑f Architectural review) -Trellis structures shall be color finished metal tube structures. Paint Colors: ( Manufacturer: Dunn Edwards Paint Company or equal) Main Building Colors These colors would be used on large wall surfaces, but could also be used as accents Paint 1. Amber Dawn #DE2277 2. Biscuit #DE5330 3. Golden Crest #D£5353 4. Crossroads # DE5359 S. Lustrous Yellow #DE5472 6. Aloe Plant #DE5563 7. Light Aspiration #DE6185 8. Rattan Basket 4DE6201 9. Calico Rock #DE6229 10. Union Springs 4DE6243 11. Mesa Tan #DEC 718 12. Adobe 4DEC726 Trim Colors 1. Calla Lily #DE5498 2. Marble Dust 4DE6156 3. Porous Stone 4DE6220 Stone Eldorado Stone Bouquetl Flintstone Roof Tile Monier Lifetile Type: Slate Color. Cherrywood Metal AWningS Berridge Double Rib Panel Colors: Hartford Green & Colonial Red Windnwc Material: Steel or Aluminium Frames with true divided lights Color: Ral # 502 3 Glazing: Clear [Light to Medium Bronze 'Pint with prior written approval] Hardscape Color Accents ChromiX& #C-26 Antique Cork #C-27 Westwood Brown These conditions are applied to Parcels 4 & 7 which are currently undeveloped. The following `Main building colors' refers to the material proposal of Parcels 3,5 and 6. Main Building Colors (Parcel 3,5,6) -The facade materials for the hotel, retail parade and Fuck of house have been carefully chosen to sit harmoniously alongside the Mediterranean vernacular popular in La Quinta, while being iconic, contemporary and environmentally intelligent. -The following identifies the general colors and materials which will serve as a ?corking palette to provide a basis of establishing architectural cohesiveness for the project Paint (Existing) Color: 1.Crossroads #D£5359 2.Mesa Tan #DEC718 3.Porus Stone 4DE6224 4.December Sky #DE6352 Paint Color: 1.Rose Fusion PDE5111 2.CIipped Grass 4DE5552 3.Lion's Mane 4DE5319 4.City of Pink Angels 4DET434 5.Flame 4DE5237 6.Cornf7o7t?er 9DE586 7.La Vie en Rose #DET416 8.Cloistered Garden PDET523 9.Dreange Daylily 9DE5145 14.Scarlet Apple #DEA146 11.Melted Copper 4DE5244 Concrete Perforated stacked blocks Color: Light gray (zohite pigment) Metal Screen Finish: Dark Brown Metal Window Frame Finish: Pozc;der Coated Color: Black Fine Metal Balustrade Finish: Powder coated Colour: Brown Exterior Curtain Color: White Metal Portecochere Color: Brass DESIGN GUIDELINES 082-083 Fabric curtains Colour: White Tiles Terracotta Roo 1.Hotel: Thermoplastic PoIyolefin (Tpo) 2.Retail: Polyurethane spray & painted to match retail facade. 3.Roo f Patio: Timber Decking (Spited Gum) 111]0M04r4tel101a01►19� SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable design adopts passive, Iow energy strategies to operate the building. The project will prioritise passive methods of cooling, ventilation and shading which have governed the design of low -energy, sustainable desert buildings for centuries, including; - naturaI wind ventilation - solar panels for electricity production - materials with high thermal mass for heat retention and release - low energy water pumps and water recycling units The project will harness natural ventilation driven by the prevailing wind. Differential temperatures created by a building fabric with high thermal mass also drives natural ventilation, and complements an efficient distribution of cooling vents across the building. By utilising natural ventilation and producing efficient on -site energy through solar panels the project will become ate exemplar of global sustainable design in the heart of La Quinta. These low energy production and conservation strategies will supplement existing utilities infrastructure at Jefferson Square: a strategy for their integration into the existing utilities plan will be developed -with civil and environmental engineers. LIGHT AND SHADE The project will adopt a thorough solar shading strategy, -which will be essential to mitigate overheating and will augment the environmental performance of the buildings' materials. Precedents of successful desert shading strategies around the -world range from filigree timber shading slats, to adjustable metal louvres which adapt to the changing sun position throughout the da Y. The project's approach to modulate natural light and prevent overheating will be defined by the solar path across the site. The project's south facing facade -will combat the high midday sun whilst the east and -western facades will block low -oncoming rays from the morning or late - afternoon sun. The project's precise shading strategy will be developed with environmental consultants and approved by the City Council during design reviews. ICONIC DESIGN Iconic design will complement the sophisticated environmental and material strategies to elevate the project to become a 'gem in the desert'; and located just beyond the Jefferson Square I-10 interchange, the proposed development will announce the gateway to La Quinta. The project will create a unique atmosphere, memorable photo opportunities and become a landmark development to celebrate La Quinta's heritage. The project will employ architecture with a distinctive, playful character that will embrace the creative design ideas that have made hospitality and retail developments successful in Palm Springs. The strength of hospitality and retail development at Jefferson Square will be reinforced by iconic design: the project -will seize the opportunity to set global design trends within the heart of La Quinta. EXPERIENTIAL DESIGN Allied with the broader environmental and architectural guidelines is the project's strategy for the more intimate pedestrian scale. The project -will choreograph unique experiences through framed views, material accents and sensitivity to the human experience of the site. This attention to the architectural detail -will ensure the project is coherent in quality and ambition across all scales of the development. DESIGN GUIDELINES ! 084-085 111]0M04r4tel101a01►19� B. SIGN GUIDELINES A detailed sign program for the Specific Plan area will be submitted under a separate sign permit subsequent to Specific Plan approval. The developer shall secure the sign permit from the City of La Quinta Building and Safety Department by submitting three (3) copies of the fully dimensioned scaled drawings as follows: a) A site plan showing the location of the occupant space on the site. b) An elevation of the occupant space drawing to scale and showing sign placement and occupant space width. c) A detailed elevation of the sign drawn t❑ scale and showing all colors, materials, dimensions and copy. d) Fabrication and installation details, including structural and engineering data, UL electrical specification, and type and intensity ❑f illumination (for electrical signs). e) Any other drawing, details and information as required by the City ❑f La Quinta. Since the Jefferson Square Specific Plan site is located at a secondary gateway into the City ❑f La Quinta, the project will provide an approximate 468 square foot area at the northeast corner of the site for a City monument sign. The design and ultimate construction of the City's monument sign will be the City's responsibility, and will be completed subsequent to development of the Specific Plan at the City's discretion. Landscaping and continued landscape maintenance within the sign area shall be the responsibility of the project's Building Management Association. C. LIGHTING GUIDELINES -Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. -Lighting standards and building fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent areas. -Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness (night glow) avoided. -Standard design techniques will be employed to shield parking light fixtures from adjacent land uses and control direct glare and spill light emanating from these fixtures. -Parking lot light poles will be equipped with a recessed lamp and a flush lens and not exceed a maximum height ❑f 18 feet throughout the site. -The average foot candles (fc) for the project site would be 1.8 fc, with a maximum of 4.9 fc and a minimum of 0.7 fc. D. LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES The guidelines presented herein are not intended to discourage creative design or individuality. Rather, they are intended to assist in providing the continuity and desired image which will make the proposed project a unique and special commercial community center. General Guidelines -Groundcovers should be used to enhance the appearance ❑f the project and protector soil from erosion. Acceptable groundcover includes gravel, rocks or living plant materials. Tree bark and shredded wood products, which are lightweight and subject to wind and water erosion, are prohibited. -Water efficient landscape materials, including native plants, with drip irrigation should be used wherever possible as a means ❑f conserving scarce water resources and minimizing maintenance costs. -Landscaping should be designed to screen above ground utility equipment, service areas and trash containers. Homogenous, visually subtle plant materials should be selected for use in these areas in order not to focus attention ❑n the objectionable items. Entryways -Areas which serve as a focus of vehicular traffic, such as project entries, should be accented by the use ❑f colorful shrubs and ground covers for DESIGN GUIDELINES 086-087 enhanced visual interest. These shrubs and ground covers may include Bougainvillea, Purple and gold Lantana, Verbina, and Angelita Daisy. -Project entries should utilize vertical accents such as palm trees to provide a sense ❑f arrival to the facility with California Fan Palms of varying Heights. -Plant materials at project entries should be located so as t❑ avoid interfering with motorist sight lines. Plant combinations shall leave an area from 30 inches above grade open to allow for unobstructed vision of approaching vehicles and pedestrians. Buildings -Plant materials should be used t❑ soften long stretches of blank wall surface. -Landscape materials shall be selected with colors and textures which enhance architectural elements. Streets apes -Streetscapes should incorporate informal masses of trees and shrubs. -Streetscapes fronting the project should maintain a plant palette and design concept which is compatible with surrounding finished street frontages. Parking Lots -Plant material will consist of Lantana groundcover, Palo Verde and Desert Museum trees, and Desert Cassia and Regal Mist, shrubs which will allow sight line over shrubs yet provide islands that are green. -The design of parking lots should include provisions for canopy trees t❑ provide shade for parked vehicles. -Parking areas should be screened from adjacent roadways by the use of low walls, landscaping, or berms. 00_OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES Amended Specific Plan PARTT September 2018 �PERATI�NAL GUIDELINES ! 088-089 TIONS 101W a WEII1630F.11 4181INamWI16991 The retail uses on site will operate from 6:00 AM to 12: 00 AM, Monday through Sunday. The Food Market and Drug Store would also be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Though the number of at the food market is opeit to the public would be a management decision. The hotel will also operate for public use during the same hours. Hotel guest will be able to check in 24 hours seven days a week after check -in hotel guest can move freer with the same time constraints. B. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT According to the guidelines contained in the City' s Transportation Demand Ordinance (Section 9. 180.030), this project is required to make provisions for transportation demand management. In response to this requirement, the project shall incorporate the following measures: -The project shall make provisions for bicycle racks in accordance with City Zoning Code Section 9.150.050.D.3.c. -The project shall identify a Transportation Demand Coordinator to promote participation in TDM programs among employees. -The TDM Coordinator shall encourage ride sharing, bus ridership, telecommuting,flexible work schedules, and other TDM programs as feasible and appropriate. C. MAINTENANCE Maintenance of buildings, parking facilities, common walkways and landscaped areas, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, and any other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the projects Building Management Association. On site facilities and landscaping shall be maintained in a clean, attractive and safe condition in accordance with City regulations. �PERATI�NAL GUIDELINES ! 090-09I ATTACHMENT 4 PROJECT NAME JEFFERSON SQUARE ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS APN: PARCEL 3: 604-521-010 PARCEL 5: 604-521-012 PARCEL 6: 604-521-013 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A P❑RTI❑N OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTI❑N 20, T❑WNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST, SAN BERNARDIN❑ BASE AND MERIDIAN, AS SHOWN BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY. SAID PROPERTY IS ALSO SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 8 OF RECORDS OF SURVEY, RIVERSIDE COUNTY STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: C❑MMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTI❑N 20: THENCE ALONG THE NORTH SECTI❑N LINE OF SECTI❑N 20, SOUTH 89'28'48" WEST, 80,25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'31'12' EAST, 55.00 FEET TO THE TRUE P❑INT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUNNING PARALLEL TO AND 55.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH OF SECTI❑N 20, SOUTH 89'28'48" WEST, 551.92 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'20'20" EAST, 814.24 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89'31'36' EAST, 577,00 FEET TO A P❑INT 55,00 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF SECTI❑N 20, NORTH 00'20'20" WEST, 789,93 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 25,00' RADIUS CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'10'52", A DISTANCE OF 39,35 FEET TO THE THRU P❑INT OF BEGINNING, EXISTING LAND USE SHOP 1 - 44-275 SHOP 2 - 44-155 SHOP 3 - 44-025 PAD A - 44-175 DRUG - 44-075 FRESH AND EASY- 44 -125 MAJOR - 44-255 NOTE: HOTEL &t RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SW CORNER OF JEFFERSON Ft FRED WARING DR. EXISTING AND PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION GENERAL C❑MMERCIAL EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN TITLE AND LAND USE DESIGNATION JEFFERSON SQUARE SPECIFIC PLAN EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING DESIGNATION NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL EXISTING LAND USE PARCEL 1, CVS PARCEL 2, SHOPS 3 PARCEL 3, MARKET PARCEL 4, UNDEVELOPED PARCEL 5, SHOP 2 PARCEL 6, UNDEVELOPED PARCEL 7, UNDEVELOPED PROPOSED LAND USE PARCEL 1, CVS PARCEL 2, SHOPS 3 PARCEL 3, MARKET PARCEL 4, PAD A PARCEL 5, MARKET PARCEL 6, H❑TEL/RETAIL PARCEL 7, SHOPS 1 LA QUINTAI CA 92253 TOTAL GROSS SITE AREA (GSA) FOOD MARKET: 27,741 SE HOTEL: 68,021 SE RETAIL: 8,849 SE TOTAL: 104,611 SE 2.4 ACRES TOTAL NET SITE AREA (NSA) PARCEL 3: 1.859 ACRES PARCEL 5: 0.451 ACRES PARCEL 6: 4,088 ACRES TOTAL: 6,398 ACRES 278,687 SF TOTAL BUILDING SITE AREA TOTAL BUILDINGS SITE AREA (INCLUDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT): 134,124 SF 307 TOTAL BUILDING SITE AREA PARCEL 3,5,6: 104,611 SF 23.397 CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ml: +1 213 718 5810 PARKING AREA OF NET SITE VEHICLE PARKING & ROAD SHARED PARKING WITH EXISTING USE: 40,92% TOTAL LANDSCAPING AREA PROPOSED 60,534 SF 13.54% NUMBER OF PARKING RATIO REQUIRED BY CITY HOTEL: 1.1 PER HOTEL UNIT RETAIL: 1,0/300SF CV'S: 1,0/300SF PAD A: 1,0/300SF SHOPS: 1,0/300SF NUMBER OF CAR PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY CITY EXISTING CAR STALLS: 364 PROPOSED SHARED CAR STALLS: 361 REQUIRED PARKING: 361 NUMBER OF AMERICAN WITH ADA PARKING SPACES REQUIRED EXISTING: 13 REQUIRED: 15 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PH; +44 (0) 2080321334 GREATEST NUMBER OF STORIES AND SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA PER FLOOR 3 ST❑RIES HOTEL: 68,021SF 2 ST❑RIES FOOD MARKET: 27,741SF 1 STORY RETAIL: 8,849SF GREATEST HEIGHT OF ANY BUILDING HOTEL: 38FT OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION SECTI❑N 310 GROUP R. SECTI❑N 309 GROUP M, SECTI❑N 307 HIGH -HAZARD GROUP H. TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION LIGHT GAGE STEEL VICINITY MAP JEFFERSON SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL SHEET DISCRIPTION A B C D E F A0001 INDEX A0501 SITE PLAN A0521 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN A0531 EXTERI❑R LIGHTING SCHEDULE A0532 EXTERI❑R LIGHTING PLAN A0533 EXTERI❑R LIGHTING STRATEGY A1001 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 01 A1002 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 02 A1003 FLOOR PLAN LEVEL 03 A1004 ROOF PLAN A1501 MATERIAL ELEVATI❑NS A1502 EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑NS A2001 SITE SECTI❑N RESIDENTIAL A2002 SITE SECTI❑N RESIDENTIAL A2003 SITE SECTI❑N HOTEL A3131 INTERNAL COURTYARD PLAN ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI SCALE N W E S DRAWING TITLE INDEX SHEET NO. A0001 ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LDR RL 15' 1 30' 1 19, Q a i 20 I U I I a J ID] 0 0 GATES LOCKED AT ALL TIME, AUTOMATED OPENING IF FIRE AIRES E._._�� ■ICI ■■�ii II .� I® I`I r MONTICELLO PARK P 0 0 0 PR FIRE ACCESS LANE TO WITH HOLD 75,000 Cl) POUNDS OVER 2-AXILS 0 GATES LOCKED AT ALL TIME, AUTOMATED OPENING IF FIRE AIRES 1111111 111IN1,11111 MINE I • � : , 011111111111111ni Iasi 1 1 111, lli: — ���'� �', • _�'`��� ,,��■nC/.■■■1�■h■i � 111 INII11■■■iw . L.,...� _ �� s;.,� �Q������,� �,,. . �. I�'&I III ■ `f riii� �::� '1► 9' , 10, r 0 o LOADING I �� AREA I B.O.H II 12,152 SF 0 0 � o • 0 0 0 0 0 FOO MAR ET 15,589 SIF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 L — I —9 5 I 9 1 4 I m 0t 14 C � 10 LANDSCAPE I I l ;.• r ® RETENTION AREA I ; • I 15 fv—® �❑ ••�• 1.0• •a •e +• •�• o Q ❑ n / �o u dol------------- — r) —_ ___________ _------- — -- I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — C -- -- - -- -- _-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ___ _--__ _ -- -- __ — _------- -- - --- -___ —__— ----- ----------------- - �q I PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: 1,This proposal is for plots 3,5 and 6 2,Colored Landscape indicates Proposed black Landscape indicates Existing Landscape CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 W +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PH; +44 (0) 2080321334 I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I ' I I BUS AND COACH STATION I I , I I �I STOP ID: 247 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LDR � I I I I I i RL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I I I I I ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI SCALE 1/40" = 1'-0" 0' 40' 160' 20' 80' LEGEND PLOT DIVISION LOTS DIVISION — — PUBLIC EASEMENT FIRE TRUCK ACCESS — — — — — — VIEW ABOVE — — — — — TURNING CIRCLE EXISTING BUILDINGS UNDEVELOPED PLOTS FIRE HYDRANTS j .. I --- . .. GC Parcel j ' Parcel P 5 Parcell arcel ---------- -........ General Plan GC General Commercial LDR Low Density Residential P Park Fadlities zmiAg CIS Neiobarhood Commercial RL Low Density Residential Park & Recreation . DRAWING TITLE SITE PLAN SHEET NO. A0501 LOT 27 46.0 PAD LOT 26 45.5 PAD LOT 25 45.1 PAD LOT 24 44.7 PAD LOT F I EXISTING RETENTION BASIN Proposed landscape buffer with adjacent residences wit a variety of tall trees and lower ubs to obscure v' s /Prom the hotel. I I ' I I de °:ec;aa;l, P LOT44.3 PAD •T 22 43.8 ., LOT 21 43.4 PAD TRACT No. 24197-1 M.B. 303/51-53 0 e7 7 ,n 0 o° 0 e%\e �J B� ch 'Adultpool0. �Izl i 2 & 1� a ■�■�i�l�ll�l�l�l� 1 _ ff }} .—.. mm=� LOT I CITY PARK WELL P SITE 71 7 e 8° Re °°o fig r delivery ggo IeB b c el e additional y parking lots I,I I I - III n h j i aal-i )=L( [I r,r, i �-jj F— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ----------------- -- _ •:,x. - �. . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. �, i -��'' �..♦.♦...♦.♦.�...♦.♦.♦...�...♦.♦.....♦.♦...♦.....♦.......fie ����` s I .,era �....?A.....<�;v!►�....♦ :. � '..:` /............................0 _ �................... � r:.. —r . L. 0113pr .------------------ mum A .................... � r LOT 20 �r �r I I ..I 1 -,. ■ �° " - iiii43.1 PAD iiiiiiiiiiii;�' • t� �,.' .........................oe 47 w 1 iii ..�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.�.Q.�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiisd�� . iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii`�i� POW /♦♦ ...........................III �. -_: �'OOOO��OOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOiI! � 1;� ►♦♦ ...........................III ■ 0t C C 8° a `yC° e y °° — - o 8 e".•''» a e• ems. � ew.,— —. - /\-� , e ao os <Ye•ie. .°8$Q o 8 t a ° ae a UOlJ e4 a• <4� � • e9.9 w Y,Y e".•, a» � / /ql ,B e °, l8 •y, — P. ° a 9 �0s�°. � .a'' 4 4 e ' °eo — — — e'�s.s — — — ` ,e ::t u : ae: a Y.� •e b .p,,;�.e; / ► — — — — — — — — — — ---------------------——————————————————— — —EkO — _----- _----- — — — — — / - --------------------------� - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ��•^' T I I I I I I I � I I ° I I I I I I I I ► II I ► pie PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: :,Total site area: 447,187 sq ft 2,Total landscape area (including courtyard): 60,534 sq ft (13,54% of total site area) 3,Courtyard landscape area:35,286 sq ft (7,89% of total landscape area) 4,Proposed landscape works only affect area within red dashed line, 5,Colored Landscape indicates Proposed black Landscape indicates Existing Landscape CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 MI: +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 21-R, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PH: +44 (0) 2080321334 ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI GROUND COVER SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE HERNIARIA GLABRA GREEN CARPET 1 GAL @ 12' OC LANTANA HYBRID SPREADING SUNSET 5 GAL LANTANA HYBRID CONFETTI 5 GAL PURPLE ■LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS LANTANA 5GAL NEW GOLD ■LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' LANTANA 5 GAL ANGELITA 8'HT ■HYMENOXYS ACAULIS DAISY 10-CANES VERBENA ■VEBENA GOODDINGII 5 GAL DESERT GOLD (DECOMPOSED GRANITE) 3/8 MINUS. 2" DEPTH IN ALL DESERT PLANTERS CALIFORNIA GOLD 3/8 MINUS 2" DEPTH IN ALL DESERT PLANTERS 2" TO 4" BAJA CRESTA FRACTURED ROCK SURFACE SELECT BOULDERS AIRPAVE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS LANE WITH POROUS PAVING SHRUBS SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE T KNIPHOFIA UVARIA RED HOT POKER 5 GAL . am BOUGAINVILLEA BOUGANIVILLEA 5GAL s ; •a,M: OOH LA LA CAESALPINIA RED BIRD OF PULCHERRIMA PARADISE 5GAL CASSIA NEWMOPHIA DESERT CASSIA 5GAL ENCELIA FARINOSA BRITTLEBUSH 5GAL FOUQUIERIA OCOTILLO 8'HT SPLENDENS 10-CANES HESPERALOE RED YUCCA 5GAL PARV I FLORA LARREA CREOSOTE 5GAL TRIDENTATA BUSH LEUCOPHYLLUM TEXAS RANGER 5 GAL FRUTESCENS MUHLENBERGIA REGAL MIST CAPILLARIS 1 GAL MUHLENBERGIA AUTUMN GLOW 1 GAL LINDHEIMERI MUHLENBERGIA DEER CRASS 1 GAL RIGENS RUELLIA BAJA RUELLIA PENINSULARIS 1 GAL TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE ACACIA SALICINA WILLOW ACACIA 24' BOX CERCIDIUM HYBRID 36' BOX DESERT MUSEUM CERCIDIUM FLORIDUM 24' BOX PALO VERDE CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS 36' BOX CHITALPA °� ;°"•}'Pa TIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE 36' BOX } 7 ges BRAHEA ARMATA MEXICAN BLUE 12'8" PALMTIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE BUTIA CAPITATA PINDO PALM PARKINSONIA ACULEATA 24' BOX PALO VERDE BUTIA CAPITATA PINDO PALM 12'8" PROPOSED BRAHEA ARMATA MEXICAN BLUE 12'8" PALMTIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE r PROPOSED TIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE 36' BOX •M PROPOSED cwx. CERCIDIUM FLORIDUM 24' BOX ,..r ••> ::x', PALO VERDE PROPOSED CHITALPA TASHKENTENSIS 36' BOX CHITALPA PROPOSED 1s�a SCALE 1/40" = 1'-0" 0' 40' 160' 20' 80' LEGEND PLOT DIVISION LOTS DIVISION — — PUBLIC EASEMENT FIRE TRUCK ACCESS ------ VIEW ABOVE — — — — TURNING CIRCLE EXISTING BUILDINGS UNDEVELOPED PLOTS FIRE HYDRANTS DRAWING TITLE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NO. A0521 CDHTSG FIXTURE SCHEDULE LMAPS LUMENS IMAGE SYMB❑L MANUFACTURING DISCRIPTI❑N M❑UNTING V❑LTS TYPE C❑L❑R,CRI WATTS HEIGHT REMARKS IF TBC FIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING FIGHT TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC 20 FT DETAILS TBC r LAMP P❑ST EXISTING DRAWINGS - ARE SENT T❑ PARTI TBC FIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING LAMP TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC 20 ET DETAILS TBC P❑ST EXISTING DRAWINGS ARE SENT T❑ PARTI • LIGHTING STYLES SURFACE M❑UNTED S❑FIT 230-240 LED 3000K 28 12 FT WIM1000447 C❑RRIB❑R LIGHT RETAIL& • ACTIVE LED PEDESTRIAN AND WALL 100-277 LED 5000K 16 18 FT WS❑ SERIES FEATURE LIGHTING PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite ❑-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ml; +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 21-R, London, United Kingdom C❑ No, 09749689 ARB No, 090895I PH: +44 (0) 2080321334 ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI SCALE DRAWING TITLE EXTERI❑R LIGHTING SCHEDULE SHEET NO. A0531 LOT 27 46.0 PAD LOT 26 45.5 PAD LOT 45.1 LOT 44.7 LO I LwJ 44.3 PAD LOT 22 43.8 PAD LOT 21 43.4 PAD LOT F I EXISTING RETENTION BASIN 0 0 0 11111. 1. o I I I �❑ o N 0 a —�-- 8 8 LOT 20 I 43.1 PAD Cfo TRACT No. 24197-1 M.B. 303/51-53 q 00 H '_. & 'L'� ® 00Eq LOT I CITY PARK WELL P SITE o \ ------- ��---------_ \ �. y --_--- - - NeW Dar ing lots nd loadin ' lamp post h t moa c x s i g ones Ll II I I 1 I — $ I i !r a 01IIIIIIIIIIII111M III I I 0 0 o b o 0 0 0 0 0 o o ® I 0 0 0 0 0 0 o I ® I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® I - I ®d0 — — — — — — . Et JIIIi�IIIIIJ�JII' l C �mJ 3 I© 0o u u=_----- PDA —lots_ ------------------ — o �� -- ----------- ----------- --------------- - - — — —------- - — — - - - ---_ ----i- ______ ______ ______ - -- _---- ---- -----_ -7 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ml: +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PH; +44 (0) 2080321334 I I I I I I I I 1 I I , 1 I l i I I i I I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I i y I ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI L16HTINFA SYMBOL LIGHT SOURCE HEIGHT PROPOSED 2-LIGHT LAMP POST TO 20 ET MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED 1-LIGHT LAMP POST TO 20 F 1 MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED CEILING-M❑UNTED LIGHT ALONG HOTEL 12 TT C❑RRID❑R PROPOSED CEILING LIGHT ALONG 18 ET RETAIL STRIP 1-LIGHT LAMP POST 20 ET (EXISTING) 2-LIGHT LAMP POST 20 ET (EXISTING) EXISTING LIGHTS TO 20 I I BE REMOVED LF - EXISTING FIXTURE 1 LIGHT LAMP —POST WITH SHIELD TO PREVENT CANDLE LEAKAGE EXISTING FIXTURE 2 LIGHT LAMP —POST WITH WIDER THROW SCALE 1/40" = 1'-0" W 0' 40' 160, S N 20' 80, E Lei 111111111• .0 DRAWING TITLE EXTERI❑R LIGHTING PLAN SHEET NO. A0532 PARKING LOT LIGHTING STRATEGY HOTEL C❑RRID❑R LIGHTING STRATEGY RETAIL STRIP LIGHTING STRATEGY HOTEL ROOM LIGHTING STRATEGY Proposed lights will match existing lamp posts, Dense landscape buffer prevents any candle leakage onto n rJ i n e- o v� + r-i v- r-i r� r-) v- + i r-) c- LOT 25 BUILDING LOT 26 BACKYARD LANDSCAPE MASONRY WALL 02LIGHTING DIAGRAM SECTI❑N A Ceiling -mounted lights will have a narrow throw and will sit behind a perforated facade screen that prevents candle or, fir, +r-, n ir, Gov,+ properties, ROAD CIRCULATION HOTEL ROOM LANDSCAPE 3RID HYBRID KING ARKING ILY ONLY 02, RETAIL LEVEL_ 1 PARKING LOT �' FIRE ACCESS LANE LANDSCAPE PAVEMENT Ceiling -mounted lights will have a narrow -throw and will sit behind a perforated facade screen. The "' remain lit by existing RETAIL 03LIGHTING DIAGRAM SECTI❑N B CCHTSD FIXTURE SCHEDULE LMACS LUMENS IMAGE SYMBOL MANUFACTURING DISCRIPTI❑N M❑UNTING VOLTS TYPE C❑L❑R,CRI WATTS HEIGHT REMARKS TBC LIGHT FIXTURE �♦ EXISTING LIGHT TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC 20 FT DETAILS TBC LAMP POST EXISTING DRAWINGS ARE SENT TO PARTI TBC LIGHT FIXTURE EXISTING LAMP TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC 20 ET DETAILS TBC POST EXISTING DRAWINGS ARE SENT TO PARTI • LIGHTING STYLES SURFACE MOUNTED S❑FIT 230-240 LED 3000K 28 12 FT WIM1000447 C❑RRID❑R LIGHT RETAIL& ACTIVE LED PEDESTRIAN AND WALL 100-277 LED 5000K 16 18 FT WS❑ SERIES FEATURE LIGHTING PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 W +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PHI +44 (0) 2080321334 Lighting fixture are located in each corner of the of the balcony, to allow the balcony to f eel smaller at night, 04, H❑TEL- PLAN LEVEL_ 3 FAMILY SUITE III �TANDARD ROOM HOTEL ROOMS MONTICELLO PARK FIRE ACCESS LANE 30' PATIO/BALCONY 05LIGHTING DIAGRAM SECTI❑N C SECTI❑N-A ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23,03.2018 KNG EHI SECTI❑N-C HOTEL ROOM 0 0 0 ?1 ■ I�■ � � �'� fly, ;:. •��•- ii li I _ ) .. I■ s� II II bG. r� 7P. �1'•'. NI � SAW III UII I s+wMin`wI® = i 17 SECTI❑N-B SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" W S N 0' 16, 64' E 8' 32' DRAWING TITLE EXTERI❑R LIGHTING STRATEGY SHEET NO. A0533 k J - 1 - 1 - . - 1 - 1 - . - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1SPA RM- —�♦ :: -� .. RM- 1 . 11 - -� - 1 •• •• •. •• •. •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •. •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• it SPA 1 � 1 III �� ail . . �,r; ;,,,,, Illlllllllq I (IIII IIIII IIIII IIIII IIII I IIII IID, - �1CIR rl I__I IIIIIIIIII ■ (III IIII III I plll �r �IMAID 291 SF I / yV00 \�� 1 • • .,._ � � � ,� `: ,, , . , � ... I „1,1,11„1,1111� ,1,■ ■,1, II�111111�111111111 ,1,■ ■,1, I IIIIIIIIIIIIIiIII ,1„1,1,1, 0 IBM CLUBHOUSE 1■ 1�■ Il■ q IIIIIIIIIIIIII Ili, SOCIAL IIIII IME ► %/� r m■ mmm�l, III II :• -• ��_ ��� �`��\o�`.� 11/►��� '`_ � , �� �`i 11■ � IIIIII II�I,I IIII,, � _ ..�,:., � , - �■ / • • . , �J r�,:� ` ''\'� .. .�,�� . 1 1 IIIIII II �111,.,�11� � � - �� �� _ ��_ - �� 11■ 11■ I� '� FWC • • •r� • ` �` � t+r'=ice " ^'� � `�:. �'��1:5 '�� �`� • • / III � �/ III • � I - ,. � • n �_,,, ,III _ _ • - = • „`�eI/ 11KI P I� 11 n 111 111 . �i■q' 111l11�11 ' 'i 11 I • 1 �, 1 1'11� , � I I • III ` � • er •y��\�iP: - i' �i��1�;4,�1�,:�i�ili�llllllllll I ■ Illlllll�iliii��li�ilililil�.��. I� r � 1 � ,. .... �:���_ _ ■■ /%..., . „' - " � , . _ � ..,� ".' ■_ IIA II — I ��`�` �% �: ��: �. r� � ' r�♦�� ' ; � — �'v � IIIIIIIIII ai' ..STD , ,,� 1■■ `, IIIIIIIIIIIII I� ail II — MM : •SF � 126SF1 .gyp/�/ �\\`� � ���• -- %� .� IIIII IIIIIPnvmnllllll IIIII IIIII � CLUBHOUSE BAR I"III1�1.11 II�Ih a •' • 09SF \� , �\��\�t,)��:� �'�"i ��? fir,.• �1 = _ �, %i' � i ull A ��a\\� � I,;�'"Yi%� ,t,,.�;�; ■j .. t'.q:'/ ,' , ,,. (IIIIIIIIII I' m 1 � � � �� i II � �•II � • � " ' � III I I III II IIII II I ,,_ -/, -� .,,.� •: II IIIIIIIIII I. ,II II1i11111111 li, Illlilll • • -!/ 1 _,, , / , VI / / \, ,\� .� I�.IIII,1,, ,-'_• IIII , I , I III .II IIII III , III - /./,I �\a � /./, \� � /�1.�\ � \ "`r�'li ° II it II J II A II J li A II • � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIII BAL CAB WC' B WC CAB B WC IIIII IIII • - 1 - . : • : • : • : • : • • • • • • I 11 11': • ■ 1 I I T _ I _ _ I _ 1• 1• 1• 1• 1• 1• 16li h, RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF RETAIL 671 SF CIRC 10498SF UNO AlNO NIN2,tl ONIAWd aWaXH alaaxH — PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: 1,Terracotta tiled flooring in front of retail CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 W +1 213 718 5810 RETAIL RETAIL 671 SF 1035SF ❑ ZL 0 O ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PHI +44 (0) 2080321334 CIRC- 106SF 11 0 0 co LAUNDRY 1,185SF LOADING BAY/B.O. H 2428SF PROGRAM LEGEND ■ STANDARD ROOM BALCONY/PATIO FAMILY SUITE BALCONY/PATIO CABANA SUITES PATIO ON BED ROOM SUITE BALCONY PRESIDENTIAL SUITE BALCONY I CHECK -IN MALE W.0 ■ LOUNGE FEMALE W.0 ■ BAR ■ RETAIL W.0 ' RESTAURANTS ■ STORAGE SOCIAL LOBBY/ CIRCULATION SPA/TREATMENT ■ M.E.P ■ FITNESS ■ LOADING BAY BALLROOM LAUNDRY ■ OFFICE ■ ROOF TOP GARDEN SECURITY ■ RETAIL MARKET HALL LEVEL 01 TOTAL G.I.A HOTEL 24,716 SF FOOD MARKET 13,750 SF RETAIL 8,849 SF B.O.H 6,422 SF TOTAL 53,737 SF I n •! I. ■ ■ o n ■ o n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ••D MARKET ■ ■ SF ■ El1■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ o ■ �_❑ ■ o ■ o w=� ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVEL❑PMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI rl -C 552F 5 SCALE w 1/16" = 1'-0// S N 0' 16' 64' E 8' 32' MWC 230SF FWC 232SF 10S I� 815F1 30 DRAWING TITLE GA LEVEL 01 SHEET NO. A1001 r BAL BAL I BAL BAL Q BAL BAL I BAL BAL 0 BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL PRS B 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 158F 78SF 282SF 129SF AP4CLI STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM SUT BR SUT LIV STD R SUT BR SUT LIV STD RM PRS LIV 42SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 179SF 193SF 284SF 342SF S WC lip L 101 SF UT WC CLL519jo UT WC CLT UT WC CLT UT WC CLT UT WC'ICI LT UT Wqi4 UT WC CLl' UT WL8S OSK PRS LOB 0 SF 8S104SF 8SFL 04SF 8SFL 04SF 8S 104SF 8I S-104SF 8SF=L 104S59S 59 59 59 �l 9 3S S I CIRC76069971SF�riF CIR 285SF STD RNIFBAL 286SF '126SF STD RM BAL 286SF 12 STD RM BAL 286SF r 126SF STD RM BAL 286SF 126SF STD RM BAL 286SF r 126SF STD RM I BAL 286SF 126SF STD RM BAL 286SF r 126SF STD RM � BAL 286SF 126SF STD RM BAL 286SF r 126SF I AM FAM RMMXF� BAL 233SF 149SF6 —1 KD RM MAID RM F" D RM 82SF BAL rFAW 149SF RM 233SF W 52SF F.'w 12 Y 88� PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NeAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM �aL 58 STD RM BAL BAL- SAL 5 STD RM BAL STD RM BAL 58SF STD RM BAL BAL 58SF STD RM BAL BAL BAL F_ STD RM BAL 58SF BA! 58SF STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF AC AC AC AC 5 /12 12" 12' ` 150° " 12 3"I 6 6 12; 12" / 12" 12" 12" 88 88� gg�/' F788 NOTE: AC 12"I AC 1/4" 12' 6" 13"8, 12" 12" 66 12"I 88° 88' i AC AC AC AC AC AC 15„ 5"' 12' \, L 12"L 12 12 12" 12" 8" 6" 12" 12"L 3"i - 13" 6„ 6" 12 12 ,8" 8„ 12 12" 8" 6" 12"' 12" 12" n 88 / 88F 88r n 88°� / n 88° / CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 W +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PH; +44 (0) 2080321334 77SF BALLROOM 3005SF 1/4" 12" D AC AC SOT SET PROGRAM LEGEND ■ STANDARD ROOM BALCONY/PATIO FAMILY SUITE BALCONY/PATIO r CABANA SUITES PATIO ON BED ROOM SUITE BALCONY PRESIDENTIAL SUITE BALCONY I CHECK -IN MALE W.0 ■ LOUNGE FEMALE W.0 ■ BAR ■ RETAIL W.0 ' RESTAURANTS ■ STORAGE SOCIAL LOBBY/ CIRCULATION SPA/TREATMENT ■ M.E.P ■ FITNESS ■ LOADING BAY BALLROOM LAUNDRY ■ OFFICE ■ ROOF TOP GARDEN SECURITY ■ RETAIL ■ MARKET HALL LEVEL 03 TOTAL G.I.A HOTEL 22,341 SF TOTAL 22,341 SF SET Ei�74 i�7 LOBBY PREP SET SET . . 241 SF 24 SET E E - 1 FWC SOT 5/16" SOT SET FW MWC • 1SETI��� � • Imo' 11 = -- [\AAID F�FA_ E ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI SCALE w 1/16" = 1'-0" S N 0' 16' 64' E 8' 32' DRAWING TITLE GA LEVEL 03 SHEET NO. A1003 BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL 115SF 115SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF 77SF ow KD 11M ■ 97 F FAM RM FAM RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM GYM YOGA 233SF K RM 233SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 568SF STUDIO 9 SF � � '� � � � � � '� 568SF �M VWC AID R FA � TW i �$2SF 2SF �� %� i 3T0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIRC \, CIR 51 S 285-SF 737SF _ AID TD R BAL 77SF 286SF 126SF STD RM BAL CLUBHOUS 286SF 126SF SO6IAL 7+ 5 1 S F STD RM BAL 286SF 126SF STD RM BAL SECURITY 286SF 126SF 248SF STORAGE VCL BHO 3E 896SF STD RM BAL COURTYARD REST --- 286SF 126SF BELOW 367SF OFFICE 248SF STD RM BAL STORAGE 286SF 126SF CIRC HOTEL MEP 862SF CLUBHOUSE 1187E 1038SF STD RM BAL 5 AR 286SF � 126SF� STD RM BAL ❑ ❑ o 0 286SF 126SF STD RM BAL El Eml El El 0 286SF 126SF AM W BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL BAL FAM RM 52SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF 89SF FWC BAL 233SF _ LOBBY 38SF 149SF D RM MAID 441SF RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM STD RM D RM 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF 286SF MWC 38SF 82SF BAL - - MAID �I FAM RM 233SFr52SF W %� 80SF AC AC AC AC AC AC 21/4" AC AC AC AC AC AC AC - 5 5 12' 15„ 12" 5"' 12" 12' 12"' L\� 12„ 12" 12" 12" 6" 12" \ 12" L 8" 6" 150 _150° \ 3, �3„ �8, 8, 12" 6" 6" 3"i -........ -13" - 8" 12" 8„ 12 '.... � � 12 8 12;........ 12 12" 12„ 12 12 12" g„ 6, 12' \"- 12' 12" 12"I, 12" 12" 88� 88� 88� 88� 88� 88° 88°88 / 88� 88� 88 V 88q / V V PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 W +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PH; +44 (0) 2080321334 rn ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI ❑ ❑ ❑ PROGRAM LEGEND ■ STANDARD ROOM BALCONY/PATIO FAMILY SUITE BALCONY/PATIO r CABANA SUITES PATIO ON BED ROOM SUITE BALCONY PRESIDENTIAL SUITE BALCONY I CHECK -IN MALE W.0 ■ LOUNGE FEMALE W.0 ■ BAR ■ RETAIL W.0 ' RESTAURANTS ■ STORAGE SOCIAL LOBBY/ CIRCULATION SPA/TREATMENT ■ M.E.P ■ FITNESS ■ LOADING BAY BALLROOM LAUNDRY ■ OFFICE ■ ROOF TOP GARDEN SECURITY ■ RETAIL ■ MARKET HALL LEVEL 02 TOTAL G.I.A HOTEL 20,964 SF FOOD MARKET 1,817 SF B.O.H 5,730 SF TOTAL 28,511 SF STORAGE 391 SF ❑ o F.M SEATING 1817SF ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ I � A SCALE w 1/16" = 1'-0" S N 0' 16' 64' E 8' 32' I= 7p F.M MEP 858SF DRAWING TITLE GA LEVEL 02 SHEET NO. A1002 1 LI T SH FT b AC AC 1/4" Jr �I Jr Jr 12" i II �H6 H UUUUI I4111111111111111 Id ■ MATERIAL: TPO COLOR: WHITE MATERIAL: TIMBER COLOR: SPOTTED GUM I: tl m :. I I I m ....., , •i , .....I : I � I ...., ...., ,, .....I : I I I .., T T m m m tl non :.. I I I ••:. I •• I I I I ••::. I I ••:. I ••: I I I I ••:.. I• I .�.I I I I I I I I I vm yam gul ..': m ::::a _ nnnm one:::: i i i� _ 1 ® ®�:::::::: iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iieeeeee. ._........ ::: :::::::: :::::::: ........WEDDING DEC iiiiiiiii i iiiiiiiii _i i iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i :mmn _nnnm nnnm nnnmnnnmnm wnnn .. nnnn_ _... �:........yiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii i -iiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii ::::::nnnn ._...__nnnnnnnnnn TTn n nn __._ I ___. LnL■■■n ._�n:.:mfni:iunimaml. n:.:m ni:iunui:iimni:ii ni l.7u:if:::lma�:n f.�na�... ciii�iii �I Il�l�nn:innl�� ��Inoiianll�ll IIIII IIIII ��'mqq�, ■ �� 1LIFT • 351 SF MATERIAL: Tj �� �� - - T COLOR:WHITE „'I IIIIIIIIIIIIII �/`- �'� 16 ...�ll�lll,,,��. IIIIIIIIIIIIII AC AC AC AC AC AC 12[� AC AC AC AC AC Al AC 1/4" p 5„� \-]5" 12 \ „ 5 12" 12" „ 12I u 12" 12" 12" 12" 1 � 6" 12" 8" 12°II \ 12 \ 6° 12" 12° 12" 12" 12^ 12" 12" 12" 12" 3" 1/4" 12" 12" 5„ 5"C� 12" 5" T' 12" 12" 12" 12" A 61 12" 12" Am ibL 88� ] V 88� ] V 88�] V $$� ] V 88�] V aa� ] 88° 88�] $$d �8a ' J ' 8a l/I sa MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS MATERIAL: PS COLOR: #E9845C COLOR: #B5C947 COLOR: #EBC450 COLOR: #FAB942 COLOR: #BE8335 COLOR: #AOC9FD COLOR: #135C947 COLOR: #DAB2ADCOLOR: #DAB2ADCOLOR: #734951 COLOR: #BE8638 COLOR: #EBC450 PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: 1, HOTEL ROOF MATERIAL— THERM❑PLASTIC P❑LY❑LEFIN (TP❑) 2, RETAIL ROOF MATERIAL— POLYURETHANE SPRAY (PS) 3. ROOF PATI❑ MATERIAL— SPOTTED GUM TIMBER DECKING 4. EXISTING (EXISTING) CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Mll +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PHI +44 (0) 2080321334 \ BT SOT 1/4„ 12" D AC AC 12" FT LO AC I - I f 1 EXIST: CONCRETE ROOFING TILES PROGRAM LEGEND ■ STANDARD ROOM BALCONY/PATIO FAMILY SUITE BALCONY/PATIO r CABANA SUITES PATIO ON BED ROOM SUITE BALCONY PRESIDENTIAL SUITE BALCONY I CHECK -IN MALE W.0 ■ LOUNGE FEMALE W.0 ■ BAR ■ RETAIL W.0 ' RESTAURANTS ■ STORAGE SOCIAL LOBBY/ CIRCULATION SPA/TREATMENT ■ M.E.P ■ FITNESS ■ LOADING BAY BALLROOM LAUNDRY ■ OFFICE ■ ROOF TOP GARDEN SECURITY ■ RETAIL ■ MARKET HALL LEVEL 03 TOTAL G.I.A HOTEL 22,341 SF TOTAL 22,341 SF EXIST: CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC GMS COOLSTAR SBS MODIFIED BITUMEN ROLL ROOFING WITH REFLECTANT COOLSTAR COATING EXIST: MATERIAL: METAL AWNING PAINT: BERRIDGE -"COLONIAL REE MATERIAL: METAL PORTECOCHERE FINISH: BRASS *5T SOT SOT SOT SOT SOT AC SOT SOT SOT SOT SOT SOT SOT 12"� SOT 5/16" SOT SOT SOT SOT 12" ■ 5" N _ SOT EXIST: CONCRETE ROOFING TILES EXIST: CERTAINTEED FLINTLASTIC GMS COOLSTAR ff SBS MODIFIED BITUMEN ROLL ROOFING WITH REFLECTANT COOLSTAR COATING ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVEL❑PMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI SCALE w 1/16" = 1'-0" S N 0' 16' 64' E 8' 32' DRAWING TITLE ROOF PLAN SHEET NO. A1004 06 03 13 EXISITNG 06 02 01 35ft 38ft _ V31ft 23ft������������IIf���������1 � -iffmKoffmMufflTT Iflllfllffllfflflfllfflllflflffllflfllfflflffflf IfflliflffllffllfllffllffllflllifffE! iF[F[F[F[F[FIFiF[Fiiii[FiF[Fii[F[F[F[F[F[FIfiIIFi IFiffiiffiF[fif[F[f[FIF[i[I[i[![F[f[il mum --� FIIII#IIiFIIIII#IFIlIFI11fI#IlI#I#IlIl1FIl11I111I (Fill#Ills#F#I#I#l1I#I#I#I#IlI#1lllll - - - FFi1I#I#1FI111I#11I#I#IlI#ill#�FIIIIIIIIIIIFIl1F# 11Y111IF1s#I#I#[#11I1I#I#I#[lllllilll - IFIII#IIIFI#IlIllllll#I#i#I#i#IFIfI#IIIFIlilI111I 11I111Il1I#[#I#I#l1I#I#1#I#I#I111I#II TLTi:itssiTs:iTTlillriTiriTiliTLTiILTir9119911Aif rLTiririLTiririr;riririririliTirirsTI TLTisisisiTiTTTisisiTTTi:isiliriTs:i7isis:lisiT - ITi:All sliTilirsrirsrilaws will :sriT1 n71:::: TLTirLTsriISTTTSIiTi:iTsisls:ilLTiTsiTsiTS[Ti:iTiiliriririliriririlisiri:sTiTl Oft"aliTiiBYTirils:iri:itisiTLrilirs19TTsissl:isisuririTiriTiriririri:irlLsriri� FOOD MARKET i HOTEL T 01,NORTH EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N PROPOSED D EXISITNG ;-MM 12 13 14 15 16 12 17 18 20 21 13 03 02 01 06 38ft l I 111111111fifflul V 36ft 35ft i II�II II I II��1���J��7 firi SfI,1f[�S� f+1f i+ JJlf it[+r�F i I[+f'[JI+Ir }[■IfFL{J{jIf-JfSJlfljFLif1'f+EEi+ifffEErriEEr EE IlJfiiLrSfjfiJFi iFr FLFL FLEr lf�frLltf `fr�rL FL E ■■iLfFEiI* `fry■L 1`f �fr�■L FL FLitf�}► FLLf Lfri■L FL [liirlfr`lf■ LfFFLi*{ FL LfR}EPEE `fFFL FL [fL FL �f�T■�}[fE■`f FLrLf lfr�■L1T■ i■r irL l■f P411111111 lrf[L FL Etit r111111� �11111FT111111�fi�����`�F�� r'r•►-r r•r•r•r•r-r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•■•■•r•rr•rr•r-r•rr-r-rrrrrrrrrrrrr rr►rr�rrrrrrr rrrrrrrrr►rrr rrr�Irrrr�rrr rrrr rrr r-'rr•r•r•r■ r•r•r•r•rr-r•r•r•rr•r•r• •r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•r•-r•r•r•►'r•r• •r•r•r•►•r•r-•r-rr•r•f•r•rrrrrr ;,:,;,:,... �r��:�: � �fF EIS �I�f���F! �r[�Ff�F[f ' � •.�,� ;.� �-,�:';.� � �Fr•r•rrr►rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr �tFjIE�f�E�fEf�I�fFf�I�f�EFf�f��Ef - - '•" E�.' -'�� •"�� f[F[F[fiF[f[FIF[F[F[F[F[F[f[FIF[F[ [F ip i F[F[F[f[F[f[F[f[f[F[F[F[f[F[F[f[F[ [F[F rF[;[i[F[F[�s�F[F[f[f[F[F[f[F[ Ur 1rt. 0 rr r[r[r[r[rm, & rtr[rcr[r[ . � - r[rLr[rcrcr[rcr crcr[rc r[rcr[r[rcr[rLr r[r[ �[*Lr[rCr[r[rCr L RETAIL FOOD MARKET 02,EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N 03 )(04 ) (06 ) (01) (02 ) (06 )(04 ) (05 ) (03 ) (06 ) (11 ) (03 �' �rllllUllilllLlilllii111UN11111U1i111iu►►NlillNllill1111►�aUillii►lli►illlli►Nil/Ii111N1111►►i14ll►lNilllllilll►l►i►i►lilllIll►lillll►►►1►1i11111111►►111i►uua,aul►Iuuuuruuaa�ulluuriiraura+,uuurruu�nu................... ............,..........,.. ,.� �23ft nmVIIIII nmlrmimr�m#rfm�rn i� � �� ,' 8.5ft ririTirir;TiTiririTirirmTiririritiTsrilimirr � TiTiTsliTiTiTiTSTSTiTilsTslirsliriTiisTiTiTSTs TinnVATSTili'ISTST ITSTiTts0 Tr:iRr1 Ti i"Iff iiivswmnvs=s !' i7:�d7iri�:7r7rT�7.�LL�i�L.' . -' 11`` HOTEL � RETAIL (l') <- —1I ITI I F_\/TF_F)N I A I F_I F_\ / A TTI—It\ I EXISITNG a I > PROPOSED WE V9�Y�fl�IflNflR�9 N�9NI�NIfl�Ifl�91�8118�flNRB9 1��4�1lIRN�NNfl�II�II�fl��flfl�fl�41N�II�IIN�hIflfl�INR�NININ��fl�NNI�fl1�9NflI�N1�4fl1�91N� RNM9fl�'"�f�flWh�fllNlM IV Ily 110, V1 9 1§9 or or 1419 1 �YD YN . .1 11!� I t.: 11A I' Ill I illhl.l 11 1 11411111 If IF Top I� �. ,r it 1► �� 04,WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1'r;WWriilr 1■171Jd 311o■ d.1 - - �Mr�j�■■:■ 0 1 ■if 7liiiiir�il�■ ifr�r11�� - 1111 1Ia�8is0w �Ylls T TI' ■ 1ti171sr0406 ■ 17 1 li rl ■ 1[ 1 � . . 1171711�11A7- CONCRETE PERFORATED METAL SCREEN METAL WINDOW FRAME FINE METAL BALUSTRADE EXTERIOR CURTAIN METAL PORTECOCHERE PAINT (EXISTING) PAINT (EXISTING) PAINT (EXISTING) PAINT (EXISTING) PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT PAINT STACKED BLOCKS COLOR: DARK BROWN COLOR: BLACK COLOR: BROWN COLOR: WHITE FINISH: BRASS COLOR: CROSSROADS COLOR: MESA TAN #DEC718 COLOR: PORUS STONE COLOR: DECEMBER SKY COLOR: #E9845C COLOR: #135C947 COLOR: #EBC450 COLOR: #FAB9A2 COLOR: #BE8335 COLOR: #AOC9FD COLOR: #DAB2AD COLOR: #A913395 COLOR: #ED875D COLOR: #734951 COLOR: BE8638 COLOR: LIGHT GARY (WHITE FINISH: POWDER COATED FINISH: POWDER COATED #DE5359 #DE6220 #DE6352 PIGMENT) PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite ❑-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ml� +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom C❑ No, 09749689sssssss�ARB No. 090895I PH; +44 (0) 2080321334 ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 01 16' 64' 8 32' DRAWING TITLE MATERIAL ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A 15 01 A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI C SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 13,08,2018 KNG EHI EXISITNG T 01,NORTH EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N 02,EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N 00 03,S❑UTH EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N 04,WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: FOOD MARKET i HOTEL i PROPOSED a D EXISITNG RETAIL FOOD MARKET 38ft �31 ft HOTEL EXISITNG a I C PROPOSED ❑■ 3ft .5ft Oft —01 —01 —01 01 1 17 —0 —1-7 No— FmA IF67 1671101671100101 NONE 17KL, iqp, INNIN1111 ■Ll FOOD MARKET i HOTEL CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite ❑-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ml; +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 21-R, London, United Kingdom C❑ No, 09749689 ARB No, 090895I PH: +44 (0) 2080321334 ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI SCALE 1/16" = 1'-0" 0' 16' 64' 8' 32' DRAWING TITLE EXTERNAL ELEVATI❑N SHEET NO. A1502 1. tw -Al► , 1 is F... V I IV Ago A k dr 04, L4 r A, p 9 em 1, VIO r 0*11".. MIT 4k -rA* _W11 - v III"A 'ti "Nw-v 11f "A- InAZ"',r.ih /!, P t4 pp Oil 41 Or JW, _45 va U!,Jmu IM" M,1 FAII JA I �MMMVM �ff m m IM ki 0 TWA my. -'I x, MC X Io;% 1A Pvt.- I• ev ONti 101 It �j".e 4 4,JW 't — )w " —r• 1 • —101 N�r4F JW4 • — - t 1JR, W1, 10 111A wpmizw 41� A - y .-�� S ; �y - a •tea t �-a' •r � ; .�I r .� �i7 �• ,.sue : " ,�.�`. y '�' ".'��_'+ `r. ws,'ir►��,,. .:��'�!` �' .� , �` f5k ;, • i'•i ki,'.. + � K' 4 ' '•L ` r � i . • Y 7 � 7 rV r r `� k ` �+�1 iy i I • y�" 'a'- I. i J `J r" -� I . _� V-' �.�• a� /. ;,% •�� S, J•� •. i �'�. f'+�, •1 w„ `'� , ' a t '•�yy� \ r, 74ti, hy; I 1{'i .'��` ' r' -'�ti •�. �. �� i �•! k ,r �.'Lii�.•i,':� i � `L`) ` • �•.' � It +� � y � ►� � , . _ ,y,;},.. r `� !• - � r� 1 I . A7 �� �� s t� o •i'• •► i' - III/ f' - �y, i%�� .` `y f T'�: f'�1� �y +T. -► 1 : i,� �`'+� ,t.,.t. V•'. ..- 1S.y '�rr'�.`., A' ._ - 71. - i � _ , . .,.,�� "'',n � .. - • � y �� _mil. r� ..y h.•� • ��, �1`�µy-�f• �`��iw!.�,,�v"`^� A _ . � ` 1 Y.r„ 1 � r FF y �! A• '... �'► � p :� h t _ ,`+S :1.'•• {.�'•: k' 1 1 �' \ t '' r..-ri .'�h'—.# rr'��� r1L• �'rol � 9►' y' '- ,y 'rY, 1 `� -�`• ,^,,11'���:.7 j`+i i� `•�!„rr�r r , a ' F;^:�"'� -.�i Sri irk,• ' Za,'r•,• k i .. r r"I -��l� r t � G •e~ � - .p s ■ •r WAX r�� �_..1.. } yr fir#1 s.I T' -L F•`iwr 1+T i . • `,� ** ```. Ti F i. i •. �{ ti ;{ r/ .i ' Y • i~1^:� r - ` ,tit^r` r. y. �.: • •a .� i�`p,_ ^� +� l +•,', L' I 3�' if Y ��- r,y �...r •.h a`•. ''s,1'i1 t�i,. +\. J t1 'h� r.., -rrit ;.i,_ f # ►+ .. �rs�♦ ti 1 'f./A .��' `�. �f.� ��.. , IF Itr 1 .-e � t �r L� � 5�, .i•4 r fy�i f rt. �. yr P _ .. �. "t_ • _ F, i` • ' r I _•!tl .. _ ' ...11i ' s7my .e 1 � q• .# r`7�r:�+• -.�+•' , iN ?_ -ti. 'a„` �.■• ,{. 1. �`�_?� �-`�As 'Fir. ..a � �{ ~':�-1-'~ ,r. � �a �e _. r'y�� f_ x: .�-1i.,r'- O J` '� • y;-:_ `Ri�F. ^^'=�,!�-. _ � x:.�� _ .. J-. �.' .ill `Ll�,yr:s�= "`f>k. F : _ _: �,' "�__ t _-�: _ , J-lM11sMi01,1FAIJ,I INE■,iral■ INErM■IJ,l■ INEW. 1A A J J 11 Ul,L-LJ I LJ JL-l_/ I 1LJIN f_1 I 02,L❑T 23 PLAN —A LEVEL 3 03,L11T 23 VISUALIZATI❑N VIEW 01 PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: U`tIL-LJ I E0 1_1>LI1 I ILJIN—H 05,L❑T 26 PLAN —A LEVEL 3 06,L❑T 26 VISUALIZATI❑N CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite ❑-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Ml; +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom C❑ No, 09749689 ARB No, 090895I PH: +44 (0) 2080321334 OTWEST PATI❑/BALC❑NY SECTI❑N—A ADJACENT RECREATI❑NAL PARK LAND 08WEST BALCONY VIEW PLAN —A LEVEL 3 jaw 09,WEST BALCONY VISUALIZATI❑N ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 23.03.2018 KNG EHI LOT 26 SECTI❑N-A LOT 25 SECTI❑N-A LOT 24 SECTI❑N-A LOT 23 SECTI❑N-B LOT 23 SECTI❑N-A 7�77 WEST PATI❑/BALC❑NY-A SCALE W 1/16 1 /-0// S �4 N 0' 16' 64' E 8' 32' DRAWING TITLE SITE -SECT IONS -HOTEL SHEET NO. A2003 FOR PROJECT NAME JEEEERS❑N SQUARE NOTE: n /\z� U AINo F.N lNO NINatl tlOMAH faAH 7 { � lr� 41" Fi�l �p Flr7 0 0. ADULT POOL 11557SF /\,/\\ u — /\\o u � ❑ u _� o, u ❑ u _ - ❑ a /\\/\ ❑ N n /\/\ i i oL CLIENT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS Rancho Mirage 41750 Rancho Las Palmas Drivel Suite 11-3, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 W +1 213 718 5810 ARCHITECT PARTI 216 Drake House, Vauxhall, SW8 2LR, London, United Kingdom CO No, 09749689 ARB No. 090895I PHI +44 (0) 2080321334 • n ISSUE REVISION DATE DRAWN BY APP BY. A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 06.07.2018 KNG EHI B SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 13.08.2018 KNG EHI ❑ ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ n n ❑ ❑ — ❑ iAf D = � v J .............. SCALE w 1/16" = 1'-0" S N 0' 16' 64' E 8' 32' GROUND COVER SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE HERNIARIA GLABRA GREEN CARPET 1 GAL @ 12' OC LANTANA HYBRID SPREADING SUNSET 5 GAL LANTANA HYBRID CONFETTI 5 GAL PURPLE ■LANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS LANTANA 5GAL NEW GOLD ■LANTANA 'NEW GOLD' LANTANA 5 GAL ANGELITA 8'HT ■HYMENOXYS ACAULIS DAISY 10-CANES T VEBENA VERBENA ,,,,, GOODDINGII 5GAL DESERT GOLD (DECOMPOSED GRANITE) 3/8 MINUS. 2" DEPTH IN ALL DESERT PLANTERS CALIFORNIA GOLD 3/8 MINUS 2" DEPTH IN ALL DESERT PLANTERS 2" TO 4" BAJA CRESTA FRACTURED ROCK ti SURFACE SELECT BOULDERS AIRPAVE FIRE TRUCK ACCESS LANE WITH POROUS PAVING 44=44=` LAWN TRUF SHRUBS SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE r� KNIPHOFIA UVARIA RED HOT POKER 5 GAL BOUGAINVILLEA BOUGANIVILLEA 5 GAL z�v OOH LA LA CAESALPINIA RED BIRD OF PULCHERRIMA PARADISE 5GAL CASSIA NEWMOPHIA DESERT CASSIA 5GAL ENCELIA FARINOSA BRITTLEBUSH 5 GAL FOUQUIERIA OCOTILLO 8'HT SPLENDENS 10-CANES HESPERALOE RED YUCCA 5 GAL PARV I FLORA LARREA CREOSOTE 5GAL TRIDENTATA BUSH LEUCOPHYLLUM TEXAS RANGER 5GAL " FRUTESCENS MUHLENBERGIA REGAL MIST CAPILLARIS 1 GAL MUHLENBERGIA AUTUMN GLOW LINDHEIMERI 1 GAL MUHLENBERGIA DEER CRASS 1 GAL RIGENS RUELLIA BAJA RUELLIA PENINSULARIS 1 GAL TREES BRAHEA ARMATA MEXICAN BLUE 12'8" PALMTIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE BUTIA CAPITATA PINDO PALM 12'8" DRAWING TITLE INTERNAL COURTYARD PLAN SHEET NO. A3131 r•` u v We CD C w 0 O n E J w LO I- LO Oo LU ' C CO <o O co z F;, ON C :5 w C) w Q Un o- Ln0 CDo N i CO U CD N - i .z Ew �w zz `6 z LU 00 a_r'V CITY PARK � O�� Ji I t �l / 0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0. + ° 0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +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 I +0• + 0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0. +0.0 +0 1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 + .1 +0 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0f• 1�0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 060 +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 (00 + .0 +0.1 +0.2 +0.3 +0. +0.4 +0.3 +0.3 +0.3 +0.3 +0.5 + + .8 +0. +0.3 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.2 +0.3 +0.5 + +0.8 +0.5 +0.3 +0 :3 +0.2 +0.3 + .3 +0. + +0.8 +0.4 +0.3 + .2 +0. +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 .0 + .0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 O.p 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 $Q 0.1 0.1 0.3 0. 0.5 .5 .1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0. 0 0.0 0.0 O.p 0.0 _ 8q A +0.1 +0 1 0.20.5 0.8 +0.9 0 8 +0. +0.7 +10 +1.6 +3.2 + +4.4 +2.8 +1. +0.8 +0.5 +0.4 +0.5 +0.6 +09 +1.7 +3.2 +4.4 +2.8 +1. +0.9 +0.7 +0.7 +1 0 +1.7 +3.2 + +4.4 +2.8 +1. +0.8 +0.5 +>+0'6' +0.4 +0.4 +0.5 +0.4 +0.4 +0.3 +0.3 +0.2 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 0. +0.0 0 0 +0.\0 + 10. + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++++++++++++++++++++I+++++0.1 0.2 0. 1.3 1.6 1.6 9 0.8 0. 1.6 2.8 4.0 3.8 2.4 1 4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0. 1.6 2.8 4.0 3.8 2.4 1 0.9 0.7 0.8 1. 1.6 2.8 4.0 3.7 2.4 1 0.8 0.6 0. 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 1. 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 .1 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 J IB­�^ 1�0. 2 +0. 4 1.2 +2. 3 +3. 0 +2. 8 1 +0.4 +0.6 +0. 8 2 +1.9 +2. 4 +2. 3 +1. +1.1 +0.8 +0.6 +0.6 +0.6 +0.7 +0.9 2 +1.9 +2.4 +2.3 +1. +1.1 + +1.8 +2.1 +2.3 +2.3 +1.9 +1. 7 +1. + . 1.2 1.1 +0.8 +0.7 +0.8 1.1 +1. 5 +1.8 +1.8 +1.6 +1. +0.7 +0.4 +0.1 +0.1 I +0.0 +0.0 01 + +0.0 115SF 77SF lVa 77SF lVH 77SF _1VH 77SF -W 7 1tlH itlH 77SF 1tlH 77SF ltlH 77 ltl8 77SF ltl 3OU SPA R 8 8S xxxx +0.3 +0 8 +1.9 +3. 3 +5 3.8 292SF SPAR SPA 1. +2.2 3.9 V4 3.3 '"2.8 '�2. '2.0 '2.0 '2.3 ''2.3 ''2.1 ) .7 3 3 ) .8 '2.5 3.2 3.2 ''2.6 ) .9 +1. 2 +0.5 +0.2 +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0. 0.0 ea, OU 03 W 0 N 8 • Prof e s s i o n a I E n g i n e e r s & L i g h t i n g C o n s u l t a n t s 34300 Gateway Drive, Suite 120 P a I In D e s e r t, C A 9 2 2 1 1 o: 7 6 0 - 3 4 0 - 9 0 0 5 f: 7 6 0 - 3 4 0 - 9 1 00 PROJECT: . } } } } y ID R UT FAN R STAN RM 3S982 STAN RM JS982 STAN RM 3S982 STAN RM AS962 STAN RM JS982 STAN RM AS962 STAN RM JS982 STAN RM 3S982 STAN RM AS982 STAN RM 3S982 STAN RM AS962 86S 0. 4 1 0 1.9 3. 5 4. 6 +b.°L °°° 97S 233SF 286SF WM Ntl1S 286SF WN Ntl1S 286SF WM Ntl1S 286SF Wd Ntl1S 286SF Wd Ntl1S 286SF WN Ntl1S 286SF WN Ntl1S 286SF Wtl Ntl1S 286SF W2 Ntl1S 286SF Wtl Ntl1S 286SF W2 Ntl1S OU SPA RM 02 0.2.12.72.51 6 .1 O: Fee4.2 ° 6 °1. 4 '1.2.8 �48.7 +1. +0.5 +0.2 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0. 0 86S SPA 'j 292SF °: • + + + + + + X'3 X + + + + + + 0.6 1. 1.6 2.5 2 m8 °a � o. d zsF °° eas 01 0.5 0.8 4.8 0„1 �I . .4 '�2.2 �3. 1. 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. '0. + +° • w A .MT 986SF * + + + + + + + 0.7 1.1 ) .1 0.7 CIRC \,,, # °°# ° 00 A �° CIRC 6 0 )°:6 '�2.3 ';2°2 4 .1°� :�4 4.7 'S.1 0 4 1.9 L. 3.8 4.0 3. 2. 1 2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.11 �S�Tq190SF �291SF 3S 4/I� JI/_ # _ $ "_612 +0.7 + 1.4 ).3 U.8 +0.4 " # $ MAID R +2.0 5.1 ]2 , *3.0 *3.0 *2. .2 .4 *3.0 0.1 's2.7 .1 ) . 5 ) . 3 .4 ) .8 *2.2 's2.2 ) .9 1. 5 1.0 Q 0. +0.1 +0.0 +0. 8 ° o 0 0 STAN RMF e,M®® 77SF 06 286SF '" °+ + + ° 1 g 0 ® + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 0 1.8 ).9 I. O 1. 1.9 2.7 3.1 3.3 2.7 2.1 1. 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 .4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0. b CLUBHOUSE SOCIAL jS98Z jS92i ®4 803SF + + + Wa Ntl1S IVEI �„ 4 $ � F1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .0 3.2 '3.1 *2.1 1.5 1.8 2.0 2.0 1.8 .5 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 O.Oo 0.0 � 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 o °. O +1 2 } 9 *4 6 L.7 ♦ STAN RM DAL I� 4 O + + + + + + + + + + + + 286SF 126SF o a 1.3 2.1 3.5 3.4 2.0 0.1 0.1 .0 8 �, e �,.0. 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0. y O O 1.1 +3.9 "4.4 Y2.6 .2 0.4 . WaSr9iv2S 'S0 921 Ed�1.8 4.2 8.9 8.5 3.8 1. .9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 IR 8 , + 7 '1.7 /.3 '� .0 +0.4 ® ko 0 dQb t.USE 2s Mwc + + 9 + . ° . +0.0 +0.0 +0. + + .0 +0.0 °e �O ♦ S286SFM 1BAL ( p CLUBHOUSE REST STORAGE LAUNDRY MWC dtfb 177SF +° + ° ^" I 900SF 1,185SF 230SF +° 1.5 � .6 0.8 0.4 ® 0 0 O O �0 F +0.0 +0.0 +0.0 +0. + . + . +0. '° °I ae ° jS982 lS92S Q wZ3SF FWC WM Ntl1S ltlH ,�J ®® 232SF ` +0.6 +1.1 'sl .1I.O 0.7 +0.4 ® `� ® + .0� 0.0 f�l +0.0 +0.0 +0. . + I �� CIR L-J ♦ STAN RM " „ _ $ ' _� � O ° 1 6SF /} �C, 7�, 286SF [B�AL2SF �ii_ - ® (,��\I�/��I +0.6 +1.1 .1 I.0 U.7 +0.4'\ (�' ® 00 CLUBHOUSE 909SF BAR CIR C[7 0 O 8 •° , ® Q $ a II R 0 o R 00S '0. , g _ I &�• ° ° •5 2 u•8 +0•4 ♦ waSr9vis rivet O `O �O 0000 0000 21S 00000 00000 p � 8 IR ,¢�Jp,p(..)p Statistics Q 2.7 6 U + STAN RM BAL b # 00� i� �V 8S 0000 0000 ° O O� 0000 0000 ° 0000 0000 ♦ 2a6SF 126SF Tic FOOD MARKET 13,750SF 1 1 1 a _ CLUBHOUSE LOUNGE 1 o V6t '14.2 2.5 + ♦ S1SF 190SF # _ $°ryi, /1\ i\ ###"$° 600SF (gyp ❑ ❑ O db O O /STOR Description Symbol Avg Max Min Max/Min Avg/Min Q `° e9 "4.6 's2.7 Q Q jS68 ° BAL 1568 BAL lS68 BAL jS68 BAL �568 HAL jSbE[ JSbai BAL jSbE[ BAL lIba, lva 89SF ltlH 89SF ltlH 89SF Iva 89SF Iva 134SF Iva ltlH 134SF Iva 134SF ltlH O M' + x� x„ ♦ COURTYARD STORAGE 0 0 9 3.1 J.2 L.2 .0 0.3 SOOSF IFT LOB 82SF Driveway X 1.7 fc 4.6 fc 0.7 fc 6.6:1 2.4:1 IRC NS982 STAN RM 8S982 STAN RM 8S982 STAN RM jS982 STAN RM jS982 CABA RM NJS82EVEIV CABA RM VaV CABA RM issacVaV CABA RM lS82E +O• +1.8 .8 .4 0.7 +0•3 ♦ OSF WM Ntl1S 286SF WM Ntl1S 286SF WN Ntl1S 286SF WM Ntl1S 286SF WM Ntl1S 328SF W21 tlHtl3 328SF W21 tlHtl3 328SF W?1 tlHtl3 328SF WM tlHtl3 CLUBHOUSE CHECK V V �J O7� Opi O(�' MAIDS R COURTYARD MEP dR 1107SF Q�O-00� [: 00000 10.7 + �S, + 152SF 353SF AHA WC 1S90I [yj06SF 7MStl8tl 106SF C 3MStlHtl ]06SF C 3MStlHtl Q d-{� d-(� Parkin 2.7 fc 5.5 fc 1.3 fc 4.2.1 2.1.10.7 1.1 1.2 ).1 0. 7 0.3TT T06sF 3M tletlpi 7p (� )p p( )p g Q-O P9 O'-'O ■ ❑ � z +0.6 +0.9 ).1 ).2 0.9 +0.5 1Di8SF STATISTICS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +0.6 +0.9 + .2 +1.7 +1. ' 7 RETAIL JSIL9 RETAIL JSIL9 RETAIL jSSE01 JSIG9 RETAIL RETAIL jSIL9 RETAIL ° 1035SF 1Itl13b 671SF 1Itl13?1 671SF 1IV138 1Itl138 671SF 1035SF 1Itl13w 671SF o Uj 10.4 10.8 +1.5 +2. 5 `. ° 6. •+2° t 8 +0.3 +0.6 +1.5 +2.9 +5.0 .2 ° 89SF � ��� TYPE: PROJECT NAME: J ' +O.2 +04 .2 +2.4 +3.7 +4.4 +2.7 +1.1 +0.8 + . +1.2 +1.3 +1. +0.6 +0.4 +0.3 e90IsF h-1 T 1 N C 1 C + + + + + + + + + + + +a + + + �L /M 0 LJJ 0.1 0.5 1.5 2.3 2.4 2.0 1.5 .3 1.7 2.4 2.8 2 4 0.9 0.6 0.4 + +10.°8 w 0.3 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.5 2.3 3.9 4.9 3.7 .0 6 ° 0.4;�:Bo e° °Bap °Bop° °Ba a• •Bso � se a •Ba° e is se Po re 4 + 0 +0 +0.9 +1. C +2. 2 +3. 5 93.5 .2 +1.0 +0LL ° + +0. +0.2 +0.6 +0. +0. +0 7 +0. ° 1.0 +0. 5 +0. 5 +0.�3 +G�e B D oe• °Doe . B aPosa w ta° +° + + I ++0.1 3+0.3 5 .0 10.4 10. +0 n .1 0.1 .:P: °8° e o ...°• ° °°°'Jew°°ea • ° °e ° °e °me • °°� ° o m ° o m o m +°°• °,+ + w..11•:°° } ,:'+°° a{ ° a - °eg�°o °m °eg�°o ° _ °Bg�e�.,ti n rt•�° n°� ° ng�,°: n h° rii,° n n n � + n � n 0ri°date n 1• 1 .� tA BLUX LED AREA LIGHT Direct LED illumination for area lighting environments offers superior photometric performance with multiple distribu- tion patterns. The all new sleek design is perfect to eliminate sky clutter and blend with todays architecture. Features: • 100 watt - 300 watt LED products versus 320 watt to 1000watt HID products reduces energy costs and provides savings up to 80% • LED module provides up to 158 lumens per watt • Precision optics for optimal lighting control • Sleek body design to reduce sky clutter • Motion sensors and smart control options • Multiple lighting distributions type 3, type 4 & type 5 l: us � 1 • Wattage range from 30 watts to 300 watts llSrEo AN AMERICAN COMPANY LIGHT FIXTURE CUTSHEET PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS SCALE:1] 1 "=30'-0' REVISIONS: NO, REVISION DATE DATE: 08-21-2018 DRAWN BY: GL CHECKED BY: FR PROJECT NO.: 18050 DRAWING TITLE: PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS SHEET NO.: E 1 , 0 UTILITY PURVEYORS SEWER & WATER COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (760) 398-2651 ELECTRIC IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT (760) 303-7756 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON (760) 202-4291 GAS THE GAS COMPANY (800) 427-2200 TELEPHONE VERIZON (800) 483-5000 CABLE TIME WARNER CABLEVISION 760 340-1312 2.3 1..2.50 �.; 48• :F �.$ c SsF J r %3 44,3 PAD 47:47: TC . `: ! S J1W • 7. 4 FS 7.87 FS 48.60 46:9 : FL­ I I II-- I 148.85 FS 5 .33 TW 44.1 2: ..I;,'.7.9 FS I '48.54 S I FFL�S.48 J FL I 47.34 .T • 4 3 T - 46.. 1.2 % 48.43 TCrT 47. NG 1 ' 2 48. 1 �`48. T L • � 46. �:4 :• :: 1. F 48:71 T�:: =' :: ::. E CA :.:.: 46.60 ft " - EX *ASH - - - LOT 22 INC us UI� ® o CON UIV � 43.6 PAD I P N 47.31 C 4 55 TC 46._8 S 4 .05 FS J I 47.23 TC r 46.73 FS ------I I 1 47.67 TC 2.33 TW 47.17 FS (4 .7) II - ( .33 T 47.83 T( ., :Z P/L 131' 82' 49' �EX. RET. WALL S/W MAJOR "B" CURB AC PZMT ? 00 --- -- CURB -20' AC PVMT RIBBON PROP. U.G. GUTTER INFILTRATION BASIN EXIST. SURFACE SECTION NOT TO SCALE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN SWC OF JEFFERSON AVE AND FRED WARING DR. FLOOD ZONE THE LAND SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE "X" (UNSHADED), BEING AN AREA DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE 500-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) - COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER 06065C2232G DATED AUGUST 28, 2008. HP LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA APPLICANT CCD HOTEL & RESORTS, LLC 41-750 RANCHO LAS PALMAS DRIVE, SUITE 0-3 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 TEL: (760) 610-1196 CONTACT: CALEB RO ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 604-521-010 604-521-012 604-521-013 TRACT No 24J91-- J\Asl' 3 J3 1- 6 3 ~Lf o.. (0, 1O'II WATER ESMT d L_, CD 3 Lo A 1201 -,- - - -; �... - Ir li �� � ; _�r-- � �Ir � ►I -�_ � � �Ir � � III_ �- � �Ir PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK CUT: 300 CY OVEREXCAVATION: 11,200 CY EARTH IMPORT/FILL: 5,700 CY LEGAL DESCRIPTIO PARCEL 3, 5 AND 6 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 36241 IN THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED IN BOOK 235, PAGES 1 TO 7 INCLUSIVE, OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 42ND AVE 10 �O �O S, o FRED WARING DR MILES AVE V) Z CD HWY 111 z Ln ti W w AVE 48 0 0 �� 0= cn Z o � Y W 0 AVE 50 111 W VICINITY MAP N. T•S � v I � � I •� _ IFATMV Y I��lllllllli - - 1 �tll1��A0lp�l��v�f 1MOMB •.. •'': ` , , ��� � • • . \ ill �-'r.�.�i�a■®e•�■ra■e■®e��®r■��■is_ ��•..�e.�u���os��•o�v�v�0ME. r��r■e•�■rI■��■�®®■e�rr�e�®.�_� _ �. II®Ill���q�i®��oe�ell��IR®�1l�1■-- _-.------� - s = _ s-_-:./..� ��.�" - ����� :, ;*{,�i ' 1 ■ Hill ' _��.�� E - I. �s�,��l�l,;. �•�..�.�e�I�e■:IEeesole'�e�..eii■®sue■e■■o■e■s■e■e■eet�®®e■:�/��R��� _:� - I �� I ■�I I,. �I ■ ■ I ■'��IL ■ ■ . � ; .•.�._ I�.�OiI►�e�ilAl�ws■ II��� f����.lm�.o�. i..�.i:, �l��s�i''/ ■ r� �� ni �� 1I� r� rr� �� III ��IrLKJ� I .cO' �'" .-�a_ir� ��.���•wea_.��11♦ e�e■®®���I■I��� ���...�� 1== 1 �� '''� � ' ® : •/HLSwl7is m11Mr. I Ii0 �%Izl I eeee■pum `► 1/ � � . • 4813 47.53 TC FS 47.82 47.32 F 48 4813 TC 0 TC 47. 3 FS 47.50 FS - I I I I ACTUAL S.D. SYSTEM TO BE DESIGNED WITH FINAL PRECISE GRADING PLAN DECK lk C. . :. - - .. '•: ;.` : . 58: • :. �� '�. • . • ; .: : 48:08 T '. 48.22 TC ...: ' FL ' • r `'? F -' 47,72'Fs:42 CF: • - 9 � I S .Q ;_ `47.30'F5 L .' .• 36 - :9 47;33 - - INV. CUT 2 47:82 TC 47 32 FS - M p0� E7 o4FS 6 48.30 48.30 FF FF ❑D 48.30 FF 48.30 FF 47.94 TC 47.44 FS 48.74. 4$02�4 $ 47.70 F 48.50 47.78 FS FF � �� �� 48.1 TC 4 . s Fs00 - 47. - ��..:LINE` NV, ,$=(0.00 "'' ,. r.::' '. ;� . ' •:' `! .• '� :;� . �: ' .' X. ' ':. ... fO .. • a °.I N p s ' c STO C M IN 47.93 TC DPt7A9iVFs 4s Ss FL HP 47.2 $ 4 $ X. STO 47.94 TC 47.44 FS M DRAIN COMTYARb A POOL I ® 8"C Tc .74 FS 47.92 Tc 47.42 FS ROTEq i 48.30 FF 48.30 LA POOL I I Ifl o CID rz .85 g) I S/W 48.85 1 IL6 4 •S5 48.8; -�� FF F Ff O ' 48. 7.'T •" 48:64iO•.: i' - 48ti4S _-_ Fs 2 SAWCUT "coo 48.71 T 22 Tc 4' o"cF ai 48.21 FS1 GF 0" N 48.37 TC HP47.g7 •29 TC 48.34 TC HP 48.29 TC 48.45 C 48.30 TC FS •79 FS 47.84 FS 47.97 TC 48.30 TC HP 47.79 FS 47.97 S 47.80 FS 48.29 TC 48.28 TC 48.24 TC 47.47 FS 47.80 FS 48.29 FS 48.28 FS 48.2�FS O 47_6847.67 •7.85 TC7.35 FS48.17 FS 48.12 TC 48.20 TC 48.19 TC 48.19 TC 48.17 TC TC 48.13 47.62 FL 47.70 FS 47.69 FS p '17 47.69 FS 47.67 FS �° 47.51 47.67 FS 47.63 FS 47 33 46 83 C L R 47.51 FS 47 .38 47 C 6 FS 4701 S L T E FS 38 ® ® 47.24 47.69 TC 47.24 FS 47 46.89 L 0 62' T FS 47.62 TC 47.62 TC 47.24 FS 47.62 TC 47.68 TC 47. 47.54 47.12 FS 47.1 47.18 FS 4 47.47 TC 47.54 TC 47.54 TC 47.60 TC 46.97 FL 47.04 FS 47.04 FS 47.10 FS 47 PA EX. RET. 31' WALL PAVERS HOTEL C&G EXIST. SURFACE SECTION n NOT TO SCALE �J .50 F 48.30 FF LP � ® I 46 .� 47.42 0 47. FS 1 ® 4 0.76 TC SHOPS 3 470 FS GB e7n. Tr LINE 48.30 48.16 TW FF 48.0 FG PARCEL 4.3D 13 48.30 48.16 TO 48.30 FF 46.9 FG FF d I �I 47.96 47.96 TW / 4?.'96 TW FS 47 9 FG / 46 0 FG n uIW O I\ Lo J4 uzs rL+i.4Z ra - / - - 48.3OE]b 0 �-- - 48IT.85 F 48.30 47.9 .11 FLz__ FF . . o cF -- /--� --- o. o. c' . . . . . . oI .: O o 00 R • % 48.07 TG. :.:. : :.:.:.:.:. I O 0" TO 6"CF • ° 0 CIF 47.64 TC 1 nj TRANSITION ^�' I 47.14 FS 4 .52 TC 43.81 TC 47.68 TC 6•CF B °°°°°°°°lmI., __° _�_ �°-.m' • 47.18 FS 47.59 TC 47.54 Tc 4 .02 IS 43.31 FL 4 72 2.75% 47.98 TC °° N 47.09 FS 7.04 FS FS GB 48.49 :2' '�7.90 TC 07 TC 47.98 TC „ 4.17% E 43.48 TC FS .1 . y �' do F[ 4 47.48 FS 0 oo 46. C 3.25 TC 47 �12, a0 M� 45.00 FS 42.98 FS �.l / TC 7.98 TC � � � � � � �° 8 o 2.75 FS =•:r M4::a;'t'. '. ' :.: - - - 44.50 TC 43.10 TC 4 - 4 4 3 N U •- `48.1` LOT LINE 47.31 TC 4 40 CF 46.41 0 0 46.30 FS 44.00 FS 430 FL 42 q I I o SAWCUT Hp FS GB �� I 46.00 TC 43.30 TC � 47.41 TC P 47.19 TC 46.20 TC 46.81 FS m 46.39 TC GB 45.07 TC 42.80 FS 47.93 FS 47.30 TC 46.91 FS 47.2 1.10% 1.25% 45.50 FS 71 TC END 6" ` I 46.80 FS 4s.69 FS 47.140 TCV14 45.8�FS 44.57 FS 43.00 FS o 42.12 46.70 F 21 FS LOT LINE 47.33 TC 46.64 FS • .; 47.1 46.83 FSo;{ 46.65 F 46.18 TC 45.79 TC Q '_FS AG 47.66 T 47.10 TC 45.66 STOP o 47.24 T 47.20 TC 47.09 TC 45.68 FS 45.29 FS J 46.60 FS EP 45.35 TC 45.06 TC 45.00 TC 09 TC .7.93 TC 47.16 FS .74 F 46.70 FS 46.59 FS 47.07 TC 45.51 44.85 FS 44.56 FS 44.50 FS 59 FS 47.43 FS 47.69 TC Q 5 57 FS I ">s EP 444.10 TC E 47.19 FS� O O 47.14 TCI 46.91 FS a t ", 0.53% 43.73 FL 0.53% 3.60 FS 43 Q 47.68 TC 46.64 FS C E L 47.18 FS 47.11 TC IPAR 45.48 3 FS 47.63 TC ; 46.61 FS 46.25 FS EP - 42 .° 44.06 TC ^ / n 47.13 FS 46.66 TC i ° ' , O 43.56 FS 43.71 TC �--'.r 46.69 TC ::� •' :•" -` _ . :' ... •• 44.45 TC 43.21 FL & . PARCEL_ 5 46.59 TC r ' 43.95 FS r� '• o CTA®ING 1 I 44.68 TC 46.27 FS 46.61 1, 1 4. 2 TC ❑ 44.18 FS 46.11 FS 4. 2 FL ❑ ❑ 43.55 TC •� `- 46.97 FS 6.25 FS 46.58 TC 1 45.66 FS 43.05 FL I -_ T I n o ^ 42.80 ■L GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES: STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES: I YDRODYNAMIC\ \ NG St ARATOR 5 \ CONSTRUCT AC PAVEMENT (4.5" OVER 5.5" CAB / CMB OVER COMPACTED SUBGRADE) 50 INSTALL 6" HDPE STORM DRAIN 57 REL ATE AS 2-CONSTRUCT 6" CURB ONLY PER CITY OF LA QUINTA STD. PLAN NO. 210 \ SHOW 51 INSTALL 12" HDPE STORM DRAIN \ 4057 P/L (3 )_CONSTRUCT 6" CURB AND GUTTER PER MODIFIED CITY OF LA QUINTA STD. PLAN NO. 201 52 INSTALL 15" HDPE STORM DAIN 58 I CONSTRUCT 6" SLOTTED CURB FOR DRAINAGE 54 15'--30' 19'_ 5 CONSTRUCT 3 WIDE RIBBON GUTTER 53 INSTALL 18" HDPE STORM DRAIN 1 \ \ 1V. 40.44 59 EX. RET. DRIVEWAY SPRKGTALL HOTEL CONSTRUCT CURB RAMP 54 INSTALL 30" HDPE STORM DRAIN 4047 �I 55 EXTEND EXISTING MANHOLE ACCESS SHAFT TO NEW F.S. IN 55 NL1N 7 WALL CONSTRUCT TRASH ENCLOSURE FL C&G - 8 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE LANDING (W=12") 56 INSTALL UNDERGROUND STORM CHAMBER SYSTEM, MC-4500 BY ADS, INC. 53 / 14V)\57 9�CONSTRUCT COMBINATION CURB INLET 57 RELOCATE EXISTING HYDRODYNAMIC SEPARATOR, HYDRO -INTERNATIONAL UNIT 1 Ixe INV.7 \ S/W // 10 DETAIL A CON &_ -REMOVE 18"X18" GRATE INLET REMOVE EXISTING STORM DRAIN AND FITTINGS • AC PVMT CURB 11 CONSTRUCT 12' DIA. ATRIUM GRATE 59 RE-CONFIGURATE EXISTING LOW -FLOW DIVERSION MANHOLE SCALE: 1" = 10' EXIST. SURFACE 12 TO BE RELOCATED AS DESCRIBED 60 INSTALL UNDERGROUND CHAMBER HEADER PIPE 13 INSTALL CONCRETE GRASS PAVERS TO MEET FIRE DEPT. CRITERIA SECTION NOTE: EASEMENT NOTE: , 30 Op 30 60 90 NOT TO SCALE 1. PAVEMENT THICKNESS' TO BE VERIFIED PER SOILS ENGINEER FINAL REPORT. EASEMENT FOR WATER AND ACCESS PURPOSES DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ON PARCEL MAP 36241, PMB 235, PISS 1-7 (TO BE QUITCLAIMED BY CITY OF LA QUINTA). 2. GUTTER WIDTH IS 1.5' WIDE. FIRE WATER LINE SHALL BE ON -SITE PRIVATE AND NO NEW EASEMENT DEDICATION IS REQUIRED. GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 "=30' 00 o 0 00 � cv o, Q - c� o �- - co cn cn 00 cD � = 0 I 0 � cV � OD N cD C C a „ a C1 = N GJ a' � •> C C W � N a c c .a c W > V N a z J 0 a N WLL C3 W O as W z>0 J � � W a a Q 3 C� z O a Lu x m r� U. J o 0 W V j a L m a z U z uj a o ISSUE: PRELIM. DATE: 03/01 /18 CHECKED:RWS DRAWN:YH DRAWING FILE: 18619CG101 PROJECT NO.: 18-M SHEET NUMBER: 1 OF 1 SHEETS SCALE: PER PLAN WOMP EXHIBIT SWC OF JEFFERSON AVE AND FRED WARING DR. LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA :r r • OWN �'�:�}'�,`�ai�au■.rt:�� '� ��,�,���, _ _ I ate - . r��l�ir�rir�i�■■■■■ Nil SRI U1 11 43.8 PAD i Fj ----J 2.33 TW � c4 .33 � a I rLOT 2 1 43.4 PAD 0 FL PARCEL 1 SHOPS 1 I I� ■ I �.. , MID STORAGE Sy ■ 45 �� � I [III' ��7 � -• I II1\ • : • I ' I I .II • • , •- i � �� I ICI • • • • - I 1 ' ,� S/,• �! ' � ' �'��• -�'� it emuEm - _ !• AJ — 1— •-► 0 DRUG 0 0 Asper — — w 42ND AVE to S I1,12 � o FRED WARING DR MILES AVE z HWY 111 z it y� AVE 48 0 0 o w o AVE 50 f�l w VICINITY MAP N. T.S. LEGEND: DA-1 TREATMENT AREA DESIGNATION 21.00 AC R EAG E FLOW PATH ■�■�■ DMA AREA BOUNDARY LANDSCAPE AREA CONCRETE GRASS PAVER AC PAVEMENT DISTURBED AREA (3.5 ACRES) TOTAL PROJECT AREA = 6.4 ACRES (PARCELS 3, 51 AND 6) STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS: STORM DRAIN INLET STENCILING AND SIGNAGE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN a TRASH STORAGE AREA LOADING DOCK I N 40' 0' 40' 80' 120' GRAPHIC SCALE: 1 "=40' CCD HOTEL & RESORTS — LA QUINTA WQMP EXHIBIT LA QUIN TA, CA 160 S. Od Springs Road Engineering, Inc. Suite 210 Anaheim Hi s, CA 92808 Civil Engineering/Land Surveying/Land Planning 714-685-6860 ATTACHMENT 5 U'd�URBAN 260 E. Baker St. I Suite 200 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1 (949) 660• ] 994 CZRQS5R0A LD -,4"t1Xs001d1k.1i0rn March 23, 2018 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 SUBJECT: JEFFERSON SQUARE TRIP GENERATION ASSESSMENT Dear Ms. Nicole Criste: The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following Trip Generation Assessment for the proposed Jefferson Square development (referred to as "Project") located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta. INTRODUCTION The previous land use assumptions for the site was evaluated in the Jefferson Square — Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., "Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo") and Focused Traffic Impact Study for The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, prepared by Clyde E. Sweet and Associates, "Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study"). The Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo consisted of 16,500 square feet (sf) of retail, 13,928 sf of supermarket uses, a 42,500 sf hardware stores, a 4,500 sf drive thru bank, and a 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store. The Project is currently proposing to replace the retail uses with a hotel. The land use evaluated in Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study was 90,441 sf of retail shopping center. The previous site plan is shown on Exhibit 1. The Project is currently proposed to consist of a 162-room hotel, 16,568 sf of food market and 8,849 sf of retail. It should be noted that the project site also consists of existing 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store, 7,000 sf of retail and future retail pads of approximately 9,500 sf. The currently proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 2. The purpose of this trip generation assessment is to compare the number of trips generated by the current proposed uses to the previous study assumptions and the land use assumptions for the site in the City of La Quinta General Plan. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. Determining traffic generation for a specific project is therefore based upon forecasting the amount of traffic that is expected to be both attracted to and produced by the specific land uses being proposed for a given development. The trip generation rates used for this assessment are based upon information collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) as provided in their Trip 11514-02 Letter L� URBAN CROSsrxonoS Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. March 23, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Generation Manual (loth Edition, 2017). Rates applicable to the Trip Generation Assessment are shown on Table 1. The trip generation summary for the proposed Project, existing pharmacy/retail and the future retail pads is shown on Table 2. The Project site based on currently proposed uses is anticipated to generate 5,500 trip -ends per day with 213 AM peak hour trips and 482 PM peak hour trips. GENERAL PLAN TRIP GENERATION The City of La Quinta General Plan designates the Project site as General Commercial land use area. Per the General Plan, commercial land uses have a floor -area ratio (FAR) of 0.22. Based on 10.31 acres for the site, the quantity used for the purposes of this trip generation is 98,803 sf. As shown on Table 3, the currently adopted land use for the site is anticipated to generate a total of approximately 5,963 trip -ends per day with 200 AM peak hour trips and 539 PM peak hour trips. The development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 463 fewer trip -ends per day with 13 more AM peak hour trips and 57 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the land use currently adopted in the City of La Quinta General Plan. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS STUDIES As shown in Table 3, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 2,461 fewer trip -ends per day with 22 fewer AM peak hour trips and 376 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo. As shown in Table 3, the development of the proposed Project is anticipated to generate 1,616 more trip -ends per day with 66 more AM peak hour trips and 103 fewer PM peak hour trips as compared to the Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic study. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5982. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. Pranesh Tarikere, PE Senior Engineer 11514-02 Letter URBAN CftO55ft4Aa5 Table 1 Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use' ITE LU Code UnitS2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In T Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 RM 0.28 0.19 0.47 0.31 0.29 0.60 8.36 Shopping Center (Average Rate) 820 TSF 0.58 0.36 0.94 1.83 1.98 3.81 37.75 Shopping Center (Equation)3 820 TSF 1.26 0.77 2.03 2.62 2.83 5.45 60.35 Supermarket 850 TSF 2.29 1.53 1 3.82 4.71 1 4.53 9.24 106.78 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 881 TSF 1 2.04 1 1.80 1 3.84 5.15 1 5.14 1 10.29 109.16 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions 3 Rates calculated based on ITE equations for LUC 820 for 98,803 sf Shopping Center Ld uRBAM Table 2 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use I Quantity Units' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In I Out Total In I Out Total Proposed Project Hotel 162 RM 45 31 76 50 48 98 1,354 Retail 8.849 TSF 5 3 8 16 18 34 334 Food Market 16.568 TSF 38 25 63 78 75 153 1,769 Proposed Project Sub -Total 88 59 147 144 141 285 3,457 Existing Buildings Retail 7.000 TSF 4 3 7 13 14 27 264 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 13.013 TSF 27 23 50 67 67 134 1,420 Existing Retail Sub -Total 1 31 26 57 80 81 161 1,684 Future Retail Pads Retail 9.500 TSF 6 3 9 17 19 36 359 Future Retail Pads Sub -Total 6 3 9 17 19 36 359 Total Site Trips 125 88 213 241 241 482 5,500 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; VFP = Vehicle Fuelling Positions C4URBAM CROSSF[OAaS Table 3 General Plan Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Quantity Units2 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In 7 Out Total In Out Total General Commercial 98.803 TSF 124 76 200 259 280 539 5,963 Proposed Project 125 88 213 241 241 482 5,500 Variance 1 12 13 -18 -39 -57 -463 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet 3 General Commercial Square Footage based on 10.31 acres of commercial retail at 0.22 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) C4URBAM CROSSF[OAaS Table 4 Trip Generation Comparison with Previous Traffic Studies Site Occupant Weekday AM PM Daily Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo': 235 858 7,961 Proposed Project: 213 482 5,500 Variance 1 -22 -376 -2,461 Site Occupant Weekday AM PM Daily Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study2: 147 585 3,884 Proposed Project: 213 482 5,500 Variance 1 66 -103 1,616 1 Jefferson Square Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban crossroads, Inc.) Z Focused Traffic Impact Study For The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, Clyde, Sweet & Associates) LP, URBAN Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment EXHIBIT 1: PREVIOUS SITE PLAN twirl tip • 11514 - siteplan.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS Jefferson Square Trip Generation Assessment EXHIBIT 2: CURRENT PROPOSED SITE PLAN t. Iry A 1� 11514 - siteplan.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS U'S�URBAN 260 E. Baker St. I Suite 200 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 1 (949) 660• ] 994 CZRQS5R0A LD .,4"t1Xs001d1k.1i0rn July 23, 2018 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 Palm Desert, CA 92211 SUBJECT: JEFFERSON SQUARE FOCUSED TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT AND PARKING EVALUATION Dear Ms. Nicole Criste: The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following Focused Traffic Assessment and Parking Evaluation for the proposed Jefferson Square development (referred to as "Project") located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in the City of La Quinta. INTRODUCTION The previous land use assumptions for the site were evaluated in the Jefferson Square —Trip Generation Comparison (January 24, 2008, prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc., "Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo") and Focused Traffic Impact Study for The Jefferson Square Shopping Center (May 2008, prepared by Clyde E. Sweet and Associates, "Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study"). The Urban Crossroads Trip Generation Memo considered the traffic generated by 16,500 square feet (sf) of retail, 13,928 sf of supermarket uses, a 42,500 sf hardware stores, a 4,500 sf drive thru bank, and a 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store. The land use evaluated in the Clyde Sweet Focused Traffic Study was 90,441 sf of retail shopping center. The Project is currently proposing to replace most of the retail uses with a hotel. The Project is currently proposed to consist of a 162-room hotel, 15,589 sf of food market and 8,849 sf of retail. It should be noted that the project site also consists of existing 13,013 sf pharmacy/drug store, 7,000 sf of retail and future retail pads of approximately 9,500 sf. The currently proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit 1. This Focused Traffic Assessment has been prepared in response to comments from the City of La Quinta and City of Indio to provide a focused traffic study based on current traffic counts. The study has been prepared consistent with the scoping agreement reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. As indicated in the scoping agreement, the analysis has been conducted for weekday PM and Saturday mid- day peak hours which would represent the worst -case conditions for the Project traffic. A copy of the approved scoping agreement is included in Attachment A of this letter. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The Project site, including the existing retail, proposed Project and future retail pads is anticipated to generate a net total of 3,445 trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 295 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday PM peak hour and 446 VPH during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. 11514-05 Letter L� URBAN CROSSrxonoS Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 2 of 7 The study area intersections have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 methodology. Peak hour intersection analysis indicates that the study area intersections are currently operating at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) under Existing (2018) traffic conditions and are anticipated to continue to operate at acceptable LOS under Existing plus Project (E+P) and Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (2020) traffic conditions. The parking evaluation demonstrates that adequate parking supply exists to accommodate the build out of Jefferson Square based on a review of the City of La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking. The Project provides 361 parking spaces that meet the parking requirement per Municipal Code. In addition, with the implementation of a shared parking approach, the Project can substantially increase the number available parking spaces. While the City of La Quinta Municipal Code requirements indicate no parking surplus, the shared parking analysis approach suggests a minimum parking surplus of 26 spaces. This shared parking surplus is possible due to the complementary nature of the parking demands associated with the hotel and retail uses for the Jefferson Square site. This parking evaluation demonstrates that adequate parking supply exists for the proposed Project. STUDY AREA The study area was determined based on discussions with the City Traffic Engineer and is listed below: ID Intersection Location Jurisdiction 1 Driveway 1 & Fred Waring Drive City of La Quinta 2 Jefferson Street & Fred Waring Drive City of La Quinta/Indio 3 Shopping Center Driveway & Fred Waring Drive City of Indio Exhibit 2 presents the study area intersection analysis locations. INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Consistent with the City of La Quinta's Engineering Bulletin #06-13, which establishes standards and policies for traffic studies, analysis has been conducted for each of the following scenarios: • Existing (2018) Conditions • Existing plus Project Conditions • Existing Plus Ambient Growth Plus Project (EAP) [2020] The study area intersections have been analyzed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 6 methodology utilizing the parameters provided in Attachment 2 of Engineering Bulletin #06-13. The intersections have been analyzed using Synchro software (Version 10). 11514-05 Letter �" URBAN cRassRo nos Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 3 of 7 LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA Per Engineering Bulletin #06-13, the following LOS criteria was utilized for study area intersections: Intersection Type LOS Criteria Signalized Intersection LOS "D" or better All -way Stop Controlled Intersection LOS "D" or better for all critical movements Cross -Street Stop Controlled Intersection LOS "E" or better for the side street EXISTING (2018) CONDITIONS Exhibit 3 illustrates the study area intersections located near the proposed Project and identifies the number of through traffic lanes for existing roadways and intersection traffic controls. The intersection LOS analysis is based on the traffic volumes observed during the peak hour conditions using traffic count data collected in June 2018. Based on discussions with City staff, the following peak hours were selected for analysis: • Weekday PM Peak Hour (peak hour between 2:30 PM and 5:30 PM) • Saturday (Mid -day) Peak Hour (peak hour between 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM) Consistent with Engineering Bulletin #06-13, traffic counts should consider the seasonal population variations within the City of La Quinta. In accordance with the City of La Quinta's traffic study guidelines, a 15% seasonal variation factor has been applied to the June 2018 traffic count data. The raw manual peak hour turning movement traffic count data sheets are included in Attachment B. The seasonally adjusted traffic counts were compared to the data provided in the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Iteris, Inc., May 14, 2012) to ensure volumes are not lower for weekday PM peak hour. Existing (2018) peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are indicated on Exhibit 4. EXISTING (2018) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS As shown on Table 1, the study intersections currently operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS "D" or better) during both Weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. Existing (2018) intersection operations analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment C. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION In accordance with Engineering Bulletin #06-13, the Project trip generation rates used for the traffic impact analysis were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, 11514-05 Letter �" WRBAN cRassRo nos Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 4 of 7 10th Edition (2017). Internal capture between complementary land uses and the pass -by trips associated with the commercial uses were calculated based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition (2017). Trip generation rates are presented on Table 2. As shown on Table 3, the Project site, including the existing retail, proposed Project and future retail pads is anticipated to generate a net total of 3,445 trip -ends per day on a typical weekday with 295 vehicles per hour (VPH) during the weekday PM peak hour and 446 VPH during the Saturday mid -day peak hour. PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trip distribution patterns for the proposed Project are graphically depicted on Exhibit 5. The trip distributions have been developed based on past work experience in the vicinity of the Project site and refined to reflect the roadway network and the surrounding uses in the vicinity of the proposed Project as they exist today. The trip distribution was reviewed and approved during the scoping process. PROJECT TRIP ASSIGNMENT The assignment of traffic from the Project to the adjoining roadway system is based upon the Project trip generation, trip distribution, and the arterial highway and local street system improvements that would be in place by the time of initial occupancy of the Project. Based on the identified Project traffic generation and trip distribution patterns, Project peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are indicated on Exhibit 6. EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Existing plus Project traffic conditions have been analyzed to assess the potential impacts the Project may have on current traffic conditions at each of the study area intersections. Existing Plus Project peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are illustrated on Exhibit 7. E+P INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS As shown on Table 4, the addition of Project traffic to Existing (2018) traffic is not anticipated to result in any deficiencies at the study area intersections. Existing plus Project intersection operations analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment D. EAP (2020) CONDITIONS The Existing plus Ambient Growth plus Project (EAP) conditions analysis determines the traffic impacts based on a comparison of the EAP traffic conditions to Existing conditions (i.e., baseline conditions). To account for background traffic growth, ambient growth of 6.19% over Existing conditions is included for EAP (2020) traffic conditions. The ambient growth rate was calculated based on the growth between 11514-05 Letter �" WRBAN cRassRo nos Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Existing (2018) conditions and the City's General Plan Buildout Year (2035) traffic volumes from the City of La Quinta General Plan Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis (prepared by Iteris, Inc., May 14, 2012). EAP (2020) peak hour intersection volumes and estimated daily link traffic are illustrated on Exhibit 8. EAP (2020) INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS As shown on Table 5, the addition of Project traffic and ambient growth to Existing (2018) traffic is not anticipated to result in any deficiencies at the study area intersections. EAP (2020) intersection operations analysis worksheets are provided in Attachment E. PROJECT ACCESS Access to the Project site will be provided to both Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street via the following driveways: 1. Fred Waring Drive via Driveway 1 (right-in/right-out/left-in only access) 2. Fred Waring Drive via Driveway 2 (right-in/right-out only access) 3. Jefferson Street via Driveway 3 (right-in/right-out only access) 4. Jefferson Street via Driveway 4 (right-in/right-out/left-in only access) The storage length on the existing westbound left turn lane at the driveway on Fred Waring Drive was evaluated based on the nomograph provided in Engineering Bulletin #06-13. As shown in Attachment F, the storage length required based on the left turning and opposing volume is 50 feet. The existing left turn pocket on Fred Waring Drive provides for a storage length of 100 feet and can accommodate anticipated queues. The 27 vehicles per hour (VPH) eastbound right turn volumes on Fred Waring Drive at the Project driveway does not meet the 50 VPH volume threshold for a right -turn deceleration lane. As such a right turn deceleration lane is not recommended at the Project driveway. PARKING EVALUATION The parking requirements for the Project site were estimated based on City of La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking Requirements. Table 6 presents a summary of the Jefferson Square parking requirements for the existing and planned hotel and retail uses. The retail uses include existing CVS and retail pads, proposed retail and food market, and future retail pads. According to the City of La Quinta parking requirements, General Retail uses under 100,000 sf GFA requires 1 space per 300 square feet. For Hotels, the City requires 1.1 spaces per room. As shown on Table 6, the total parking requirements for the Jefferson Square project is calculated at 361 spaces. Table 7 presents a summary comparing the City of La Quinta parking requirements and the total shared parking provided by the V �� � 11514-05 Letter Ld CftO55ft4Aa5 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 6 of 7 Project. Table 7 indicates an overall parking requirement of 361 spaces. The Project proposes to provide 361 parking spaces, suggesting an adequate overall parking, but no parking surplus. SHARED PARKING As some of the proposed uses have parking demands that peak during different times of the day, there is an opportunity for these uses to "share" parking with other proposed uses. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) shared parking methodology estimates peak parking demand by applying hourly adjustment factors. The planned Jefferson Square hotel and retail land uses are complementary and, therefore, provide the opportunity to share parking spaces between land uses. Shared parking is the use of a single parking space to serve two or more individual land uses without conflict or encroachment as described in ULI's Shared Parking, 2nd Edition 2005. For example, the parking supply needed for retail uses during the mid -day and evening hours could be utilized by the hotel use in the night and early morning hours when retail use demand is low. PARKING UTILIZATION Parking Utilization represents the number of parking spaces required (parking demand) expressed as a percentage of the number of parking spaces provided. According the Shared Parking report published by the Urban Land Institute, during typical weekday conditions, the parking demand for a hotel is rarely less than 65% of the available parking spaces. As expected though for a hotel land use, parking utilization approaches 100% during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The parking demand for Retail peaks during the daytime of 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., but rarely exceeds 35% at all other hours of the day. Table 8 presents the average weekday shared parking rates per the Shared Parking report published by ULI. This table identifies the hourly weekday parking demands expressed as a percentage of available parking spaces occupied between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. Table 9 describes the average weekday shared parking utilization for each land use within the Project. The shared parking utilization estimates shown on Table 9 are calculated by applying shared parking rates from Table 8 with the number of required parking spaces for each land use. The results shown on Table 9 provide hourly estimates of actual shared parking utilization for the Project. Table 9 presents the expected number of available parking spaces occupied between the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. The shared parking approach suggests a minimum parking surplus of 36 spaces during peak weekday activities from 6 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. During peak hotel parking demands between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., the shared parking analysis indicates a parking surplus ranging from 36 to 189 spaces. This translates into an overall Project parking utilization (number of parking spaces required expressed as a percentage of the number of parking spaces provided) ranging from 48% to 90%. Similarly, the average weekend shared parking rates and shared parking utilization are shown in Tables 10 and 11, respectively. The shared parking approach suggests a minimum parking surplus of 28 spaces during peak weekend activities from 2 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. As shown in Table 11, the parking surplus during the weekend ranges from 28 to 189 spaces. This translates into an overall Project parking utilization 11514-05 Letter URBAN CftO55ft4Aa5 Ms. Nicole Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. July 23, 2018 Page 7 of 7 (number of parking spaces required expressed as a percentage of the number of parking spaces provided) ranging from 48% to 92%. Based on this parking analysis, the Project as designed provides adequate parking to address average and peak parking requirements. If you have any questions, please contact me directly at (949) 336-5992. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. JL; Pranesh Tarikere, PE Senior Engineer 11514-05 Letter �" URBAN cRassRo nos Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 1: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN s �k LL 4 FRED WARING DR. 4 I i' I 1�IN� �, Ez EXISTING ; { LL LU - _ E.LIT.UR.E. ^� �L r F7 , .:.:��`� � - r ' � i - .. -'. -�r•. it FUTURE 11514 - siteplan.dwg OURBAN CROSSROADS Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 2: STUDY AREA Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 3: EXISTING NUMBER OF THROUGH LANES AND INTERSECTION CONTROLS 11514 - icon. dwg (aURBAM C Pl0rSii0A.nS Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 4: EXISTING (2018) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT) W m 101—m , : =ar- IE','. )-If* , i-•= '.:V —Aw'- _— ` L IT � 11514 - vols.dwg V URBAN CROSSROADS 1 Dwy.1 & Z Jefferson St. & 3 Shopping Center Fred Waring Dr. Fred Waring Dr. Dwy. & 0 v Fred Waring Dr. M ul m k-135(87) T877(671) 7(2) N � O �-534(401) �182(176) 71?(598) �69 6) 204(154)—� 618(352)— f (' 75. 4gg2] — �{S4] 973(590 (' 2(1w> coo N m 'D 193(98)- S 00 co co C) r— N co i+m s .- 7, 4-w-t All 11514 - trip.dwg Jefferson Square Focused Traffic ImnactAnolvsis EXHIBITS: PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION LEGEND: ~ 10 , PERCENT TO/FROM PROJECT 4s — -OUTBOUND � -INBOUND 4 URBAN CROSSROADS Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 6: PROJECT ONLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 11514 - vols.dwg T URBAN CR055ROAP5 Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 7: E+P TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT) Dwy.1 & 2 Jefferson St. & 3 Shopping Center Fred Waring Dr. Fred Waring Dr. Dwy. & �cl) Fred Waring Dr. Z v co C-135(87) 877(674) �23(28) —548(423) + f-195(196) 74 rrg41) T69�46) 98966199 — /)� (� 212(166) } (� gp` pj 7 B6 54]~ ] j~ M 652(400)+ o iZ � N 193(98)� OD 0 (O O to (O N to � 11514 - vols.dwg URBAN cRossreo.aos Jefferson Square Focused Traffic Impact Analysis EXHIBIT 8: EAP (2020) TRAFFIC VOLUMES (WITH SEASONAL ADJUSTMENT) 11514 - vols.dwg URBAN CROSSROADS Table 1 Intersection Analysis for Existing (2018) Conditions Intersection Approach Lanes" Delay z LOS Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Traffic (secs.) Acceptable L T R L T R L T R L T R PM SAT PM I SAT # Intersection Contro13 LOS 1 Dwy. 1& Fred Waring Dr. CSS 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 15.9 11.1 C B E 2 Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 25.8 21.1 C C D 3 Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 3 0 9.0 8.6 A A D " When a right turn is designated, the lane can either be striped or unstriped. To function as a right turn lane there must be sufficient width for right turning vehicles to travel outside the through lanes. L = Left; T = Through; R = Right Z Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic signal or all -way stop control. For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single lane) are shown. 3 CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal L1" URBAN Table 2 Project Trip Generation Rates Land Use' ITE LU Code Units2 PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Daily In Out Total In Out Total Hotel 310 RM 0.31 0.29 0.60 0.40 0.32 0.72 8.36 Shopping Center (Average Rate) 820 TSF 1.83 1.98 3.81 2.34 2.16 4.50 37.75 Shopping Center (Equation 3 820 1 TSF 2.62 2.83 5.45 8.47 7.81 16.28 1 60.35 Supermarket 850 TSF 4.71 4.53 9.24 5.27 5.07 10.34 106.78 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 881 TSF 1 5.15 1 5.14 10.29 4.29 4.46 8.75 109.16 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). Z TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms 3 Rates calculated based on ITE equations for LUC 820 for 98,803 sf Shopping Center C4URBAM CROSSF[OAaS Table 3 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use Quantity UnitS2 PM Peak Hour SAT Peak Hour Daily In Fout Total In Out Total Proposed Project Hotel 162 1 RM 50 48 98 65 51 116 1,354 Internal Captures : -9 -4 -13 -10 -4 -14 -180 Retail 1 8.849 1 TSF 16 18 34 21 19 40 334 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34% SAT: 26%) -6 -6 -12 -5 -5 -10 -114 Food Market 15.589 1 TSF 73 71 144 82 79 161 1,665 Internal Captures : -4 -9 -13 -4 -10 -14 -150 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 36%) -26 -26 -53 0 0 0 -599 Proposed Project Sub -Total 94 92 185 149 130 279 2,310 Existing Buildings Retail 7.000 1 TSF 13 14 27 16 15 31 264 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34% SAT. 26%) -5 -5 -10 -4 -4 -8 -90 Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive -Through 1 13.013 1 TSF 67 67 134 56 58 114 1,420 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 49%) -33 -33 -66 0 0 0 -696 Existing Retail Sub -Total 1 42 43 86 68 69 137 898 Future Retail Pads Retail 9.500 1 TSF 17 19 36 22 21 43 359 Pass -by Reduction (PM/Daily: 34% SAT: 26%) -6 -6 -12 -6 -6 -12 -122 Future Retail Pads Sub -Total 11 13 24 16 15 31 237 Total Site Trips 147 148 295 233 214 446 3,445 1 Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, loth Edition (2017). 2 TSF = Thousand Square Feet; RM = Rooms 3 Internal capture calculated from NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool. L1►URBAN Table 4 Intersection Analysis for E+P Conditions Existing (2018) E+P Delay 1 Delay 1 LOS LOS Traffic (secs.) (secs.) Acceptable PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM I SAT # Intersection Control2 LOS 1 Dwy. 1 & Fred Waring Dr. CSS 15.9 11.1 C B 17.1 11.8 C B E 2 Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 25.8 21.1 C C 26.3 21.6 C C D 3 Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 9.0 8.6 1 A A 9.0 8.6 1 A A D 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic sign For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single la Z CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal L� URBAM Table 5 Intersection Analysis for EAP (2020) Conditions Existing (2018) EAP (2020) Delay 1 Delay 1 LOS LOS Traffic (secs.) (secs.) Acceptable PM SAT PM SAT PM SAT PM I SAT # Intersection Control2 LOS 1 Dwy. 1 & Fred Waring Dr. CSS 15.9 11.1 C B 18.3 12.0 C B E 2 Jefferson St. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 25.8 21.1 C C 27.8 22.1 C C D 3 Shopping Center Dwy. & Fred Waring Dr. TS 9.0 8.6 1 A A 9.0 8.6 1 A A D 1 Per the Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition, overall average intersection delay and level of service are shown for intersections with a traffic sign For intersections with cross street stop control, the delay and level of service for the worst individual movement (or movements sharing a single la Z CSS = Cross -street Stop; TS = Traffic Signal L� URBAM Table 6 Jefferson Square Parking Requirements Use Quantity Parking Rate Required Parking Stalls Totals Hotel Hotel 162 RMS 1.1 179 179 Retai12 CVS 13,013 sf 1 per 300 sf 44 182 Existing Retail Pad 7,000 sf 1 per 300 sf 24 Proposed Retail 8,849 sf 1 per 300 sf 30 Food Market 15,589 sf 1 per 300 sf 52 Future Retail Pads 9,500 sf 1 per 300 sf 32 Total Parking Requirement: 361 1 Based on the La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking Requirements Z Minimum Off-street Parking Rates for "General retail uses under 100,000 sf GFA" has been utilized U:IUcJobsl 11100-1150M 11500015141Exce1111514-06 Letter ff @% I "F9AMM I' L, Table 7 Jefferson Square Parking Summary Parking Shared Parking Land Use 1 Z Variance Requirments Provided Hotel 179 361 0 Commercial 182 Total 361 361 0 1 Based on the La Quinta Municipal Code §9.150.070 Off -Street Parking Requirements Z Source: March 23, 2018 Jefferson Square Site Plan prepared by PARTI. WUcJobsl 11100-1150M 11500015141Exce1111514-06 Letter ff @% I "F9AMM I' L, 00 a) „'' 1J 0 0 I1 Q o I,I,II� IAI,117 0 0 � O o � n �- � b aLn rn m Illdl 0 0 oLr) m a rn 0 0 °° a rn °° 0 0 00 a) 0 0 Ln ui °° rn a 0 0 O an 0 0 Ln � a rn 0 v w o � O O 'o V vvi 0 0 O i1 1 !V d � 01 d v 0 N00 vD O d N I J O N Lf1 LQ v .N 0 o 0 O Ln c 00 J c f6 � O O O i (O o C O T Q 000 m o O P u LO u P O 0 o am) QD Q 01 -1 k v W 3 _ P 0 0 Ln Ln LO Q Ln P T Q Q �n O Ln -1 ` P tD Q c O p LO P P 3 O aco O N Y P 3 � P a _I C c y m O O O _ _ - Q 6 m _ ) j C O m N ++ D NO C Y L m a L m t N m ^W W i O1 O Ol N ^i � O `^ a a `n cc G r, L.n N m N rn � o CC rj a o i Ln 00 m Ln Ln 00 00 a N M Ln LO o a Ln I, N m M O O, ('4 M Lf) tD Lf)^-I M M O 'T r, � Ln 00 r1 r-I cn 00 a m � rn � cc L r1 r-I N rn 00 a Ln 'zl- Ol N fV lD 00 I, O M d -1 -1 f V 00 Ln M 00 M G N d N r-I I, r-I Ql N lD m 00 C r1 00 0) �o m r I C r-I rl N 00 a O N � N ^ O 00 r1 d Ln L11 O r-I cc L N t� 00 00 00 a Ln � o Cc O C N I r-I 'tt N -1 rl � Q r, cc iD O L11 a N r-I Ln r1 I, 00 M C l0 N 00 I� N 00 Q Ln O M M N c 1- I- 00 O C a rl rl rl Lr) O N N Ql o C I� n 00 00 Q tiN 41 r--I N oo L C O Q. a O y 3 N at N a a+ t C �C o4 C Leif f0 d Y a L � a c — J O ) 01 = Of R 0 d m H „'' 1J 0 0 IInG Q o I,I,II� Illy 0 0 : �I11�1 1 0 0 L!1 L(1 a rn m Illdl I 0 0 oLr) m a rn 0 0 as °° rn `° L 0 00 r- a 00 0 0 O a 00 00 0 0 O O 0 0 � a Ln rn 0 v w 0 o O O 'O M ^ O o d � V v � 0 0 � C N Y d v 0 70-7 v, O d rn N J O N Lf1 O v a L.0 00 .N a 0 o CC OLn G Q ^ � J C f6 � O O = l Q r, L() v Y O i (O o O C O Qo 00 -2 O P u LO u P O 0 o � N 00 Q -1 k v W 3 _Ln P 0 0 Ln Q Ln P T Q O �n O Ln -1 ` P tD Q 01 C O p LO P P 3 O � uo O h Y P 3 � P a _I C c y m O O O _ _ - Q 6 Co _ j �i i O1 O O1 N ^ i 00 O `^ a m 00 m 00 O rl ^ N r-I LD 1D � a o o CC ^ r, 00 a � Ln �D � 00 lD M M lD N 00 N (.D 00 m c a Ln r1 Ln rl O M Ln Lr) 00 N lD Ql N lD d i1 `1 M 00 m I, O r1 c C 1:3- 00 m m N C r1 r1 m CY) a M o cc L r-I Ql r-I M M N a Ln 00 cn 00 fV O M N N M d ii N M ONO o CC N O M N (V L �-A N m °' a `r1° o 0000 L.n ar-I 1-1 M 00 W 0 N � � 00 N 00 a Ln Ln r1 r1 cc L r1 r1 N O1 N Q L!1 0 Ql N c O C C N 1-I O r-I N N m r-I � Q m N lD Lr) cc ON Cl L Q i1 r-I Ln r1 i H N Ql c C to N 00 I� O 00 Q Ln O O 00 00 oLr) n Q rI O N N m o C I� n 00 00 Q '.N Cn 00 ON L � C 3 O Q. a O y 3 N at Ln Q a+ t C �C o4 C vWf f0 d Y a L � a c — J ) = Of R 00 0 0 v m a -o J � � N c � v v c a � YO N J 6 � � L i 0 v N � J a 00to O m O 4 i ° P 6 LO V Q d N P - u u P w m O 1 v CL N U k o Yv E v v W v s LO m O to u v o c v O 0 a O V aLIO C P O P a m cN CL = O ° -a ° LO P m ro c tM c P O O c Ma- 0 Y O .P � 0 O >= v v v U v co w w w ry m v ATTACHMENT 6 Renderings of Hotel Courtyard ouidaos d`ni, LJ �1 G:and battxi.N — �l � ul Beady Zone L. jjJAI 4L i+± L Cabanas Bar Calaa.tias :, PW L F pit Fire gil 11 I— —I� '� � �i�rrhna6 eeting�space: ] --71 L-JI �ii rii.r,ess - -. �!IPing WC .1r,.ir-� h i 12 Renderings of interior food market 11111111 ATTACHMENT 7 ATTACHMENT 8 APN PARCEL 3: 604-521-010 PARCEL 5: 604-521-012 PARCEL 6: 604-521-013 Imll } LAMo Irm SHOP 1-44-275 SHOP 2-44-155 SHOP 3-44-025 PAD A — 44-175 DRUG — 44-075 FRESH AND EASY- 44 -125 MAJOR— 44-255 THE JS HOTEL AND RESORT AND FESTIVAL MARKET PLACE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND PLANS :ppjEiLG y10 �Of�k TGIu14�Reb 9RE /I!A pG3.l}7EGP //U �t FOOD MARKET: 20,1R SF ARKING &ROAD ARKI NG WITH GEN ERAL COMMERCIAL HOTEL: 85,4585E USE: 40.92% RETAIL: 1375 SF .�-- TOTAL: 2AACRES '�/E}y���� * �D LANDV9CXPU L7TOHH 2.4ACRES II'PROPOSED: 60,534SF13.54% J EFFERSON SQUARE SPECIFICMLE MXWCIFAW)K UT* PLAN HOTEL: 1APERHOTELUNIT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL PARCEL 3: 1.859ACRE5 RETAIL: 1.0/3005F PARCEL 5: 0.451 ACRES PARCEL 6: 4.088ACRES CV'S: 1.0/3MSF { lr%rFAp LMO Ile! PARCEL 1. CV 278E , TOTAL: ACRES PAD A: 10/3005F PARCEL 2. SHOPS3 2]887 SF PSHOPS: 1.0 3005E PARCEL 3. MARKET PARCEL 4. UNDEVELOPED PARCEL 5. SHOP 2Y PARCEL 6. UNDEVELOPED PARCEL 7. UNDEVELOPED MK kilL{wb 31'li AN EXISTING CAR STALLS: 364 L TOTAL BUILDING SITEAREA PROPOSED SHARED CAR STALLS: 361 (INCLUDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT: PARCEL I. CVS 134,124SF 30% REQUIRED PARKING: 319 PARCEL 2. SHOPS3 PARCEL 3. MARKET TOTAL GUIDING SUTE SITE AREA PARCEL 4. PAD PARCEL 3,51 .�1�7�t'AN'YAtMIL PARCEL 5. MARKET 104,611 SF 23.39% PARCEL 6. HOTEL/RETAIL TEED� PARCEL 7. SHOPS 1: IS GjUrUT KIWW OF K* HOTEL: 35FT-ENTRANCE 41FT 4CCLl+�K4{Lh�LIIC><1� .P'4ii��471 SECTION 310 GROUP R. SECTION 309 GROUP M. /LP({i�ILid SECTION 307 HIGH -HAZARD GROUP H. f�M � 1� LIGHT GAGE STEEL/TIMBER FRAME 41CUIf4 YwF ••FS�m !� ELF�.arrle.:#wr�r��� 3'iF #F"#tom Ali., . vM ., ,r- "w==== P1161�TJ101� Mai 1 Am DUWNW #'FEY MAJ61 ��A55-4A�IIL� 3EFrp�Su'f SLlftt LEGIy OCT;E a $0E5VR;7. a u Y17�L'.ISSIttLJa;.1,:!, . � gl�e4 T wu �HrT two — LL I n 2 m 00 G w _ § \ E § | � m ! � _ \ § § § : 4. a \� IrrA% ■� � - - } ■ . i � SIF \ $ 7 § = \ � Mr IL s CCD HOTEL & RESORTS laa S. om "'i aooe SWC FRED WARING DR. & JEFFERSON ST. & 0C ua�w l� stae eio A J............nnilu.........•An.•........ Anaheim Nils, CA 91808 LA OUNTA, CA 114-685-6860 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Ar€ CIF; O 11 D m q� ��RJR' o� O m Ih m tF •■ SC emf.'- Jim r R:UPdl�i:�ia�yi�s°19i� 3 A N m m m z z m r O z Is �i N N 0 N m m x --i m X z m m 0 z I F in m A z m O m�rz O rn 4 E o scF �s 3 a.El ,,No _� ng a o Opz V z~ 1. i1+:11III A o 0 0 0 z D z z 0 N m D N m X m m z D r m r m O z 0 z O z 2 m X m m A z D r m r D O z O 4A 1 m X 1 m Z D r m r m O z x M f4� Q 4 1 * LJ LJ s * • i i i I i v a u n o t jDL E �r sl 'pp �a aeor oaoa000 i� oaacuoo��oa000c uf�uuuu�o JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT ATTACHMENT 9 PARK air l PARK I N G LOT MASTER PLAN 9 f n n F BSI AY -- 141Rooms and Suites - Entrance - Three sided courtyard - Hotel shop - Simple arrangement - Gym and yoga - Generous terraces - Spa - Ballroom - Breakout rooms - Offices a XE) I? - Roof terrace - Wedding lawn - 12 high end shops IR sx I - 7 restaurants - 6 `hole in the wall' snacks - 2 grocery stores - 20 deli stalls - 300+ seated capacity 30H - Plant - Storage - Delivery -Laundry r J MASTER PLAN LEGEND 0 La Quinta Club Hotel Courtyard OCVS G3 La Quinta Club House Hotel �4 Jefferson Square Food Market ORetail shops 3 M Jz W JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT 1 feature bar e.g. oyster bar, craft beer, fine wine s- IFFT71_ 7 walk-in stores e.g. homewares, oils, bath products 4J. [ LA QUINTA FOOD MARKET ENTRANCE JEFFERSON SQUARE FOOD MARKET MAIN ENTRANCE 16 deli counters e.g. butchers, fish, ramen, cheese LA QUINTA FOOD MARKET BAR or 7 restaurants e.g. pizza, tacos, sushi, tapas TRANCE 6 hole -in -walls e.g. ice cream, coffee, salads JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT The JS Hotel & Resort and Festival Market Place J ikw m NOR #Rffi& - i�:'ii:r�u,ni �;:.'; ��:�; �snxisS•sz���; «�.Y.`;;ta X1i�,3�Y,�E# :sax�E. .�,r�:xs:., .;x.ryrksa •,�g.:s%'r:rswx..nYR.. ';g,3SrRlM�#�::S:,�r %Y�'S C,. �l • �.r.•'lt�.;f%�1>�y:.`SsFSlF.3;%taa:`[F�.v:';'.'`r:�;{RY.L°'.�•`.F�3;�Sr',�Ny s,ie:'.i�.:i�r:..:i:5:'.::ii.:.:�;.. • � •]�i�itF17)•�T+ Y� n _ ,x;•:;x. � '.a�84 51G '•1 %zt hyxY 'sr:^a s >r.z;:aa .g°.[3R; �?K"8R°wY.S3?'YIng R:'�3'SRL7�,C,Cfl s:rem�'w,rozs:�%>;� a>'e:xxxr xasP:,y�;?k:s:s;e�r:• !}'N�}SHSFlSR#7A.4�S%R •1[.�[:: ': S:SA111 mac.:'. �!�':���� �i �Y tr•YNAFiir rYr'h?3Yk�t !f e: r?Y,� P.i4i4�p'rf. f.1i'i!Y iY4f.�� ►i►TI 1•iF: �I S7 �� �i Y'I PI �: L+: A i HOTEL ENTRANCE JUXTAPOSITION ISOMETRIC DRAWING Festival market Place ENTRANCE i �flr 4�j JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT JEFFERSON STREET ENTRANCE u f� 1' .1'30'Vision Facade screening Cross wind ventilation 1 MONTICELLO PARK VISUALISATION Defusing external & Internal lighting The JS Hotel & Resort and Festival Market Place VISUALISATION r 4 a..., 4-1,..;?+' , +'s'+� +}��+i�r►il►hl�rti if iE' nrai,,�J ,,,`++�}+h'r,fl ��y+�+Lilyr��►r�I+Ji IL 1ti ,,ar hid+,5'4+�+�i5r►il►�1 �y>l .�•�^�s�i-�R?�ia'+h������+11 r1 i►�Ij rlTf ����+PP��i '► jl ► r► +; 1 SH"5��5'►�11 fLy1 I�r` ll+15 fLI " _ _ _ ;,nl► rt++r+art �. 7 _ - - �'in+f111�1 +�11i11T r�y�►r►, ....- - ,rru+h 11 fL�SJ►Jll' .. --- . .. ............... : �1' S �++ ti {4+ it i► r{y r�l }�1 : ; � . �''r :++Ir1V11511 f5J►fLl " ....-. uLl1lLJlI►11JL!' , : `!, {i 1�1 �it�i�+► tit r�1 � ; � ptil�1 [ .yla►{gli4�'e�T 1w FACADE CONCEPT MODEL JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT The JS Hotel & Resort and Festival Market Place JEFFERSON SQUARE ARIEL VISUALISATION JEFFERSON SQUARE PERSPECTIVE ! ' J rJ 7,• i JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT The JS Hotel & Resort and Festival Market Place 4 JEFFERSON SQUARE INSIDE VISUALLSATION ....... ..... .,Foul JEFFERSON SQUARE BALCONY VISUALLSATION 7,• .. I... ':: •..{.: �.���: �.� off•~j JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT LANOSC.4PE {iETENTION AREA 0 -------------------- ------ --- a defy --- ---- JEFFERSON SQUARE PLANS r +0 +2 PROGRAM LEGEND STANDARD ROOM SOCIAL FAMILY SUITE SPA/I'REATMENT CABANA SUITES FITNESS ■ PRESIDENTIAL SUITE BALLROOM ■ MARKET ENTRANCE MARKET HALL LOUNGE ROOF TOP GARDEN BAR RESTAURANTS II©1I L IC=71 I 1 -16 1 LI®� ILIIII • �aLla;�xri tii7l:�I oil E � I III I I I � I I I I I I I I I II 1I I 1 ' I I I I I d I I i � I I I I I I I i I i 1 I I; �I I I I I , I I , I I I I I' li� F I�r IC I r IC Ir.�trr is Y.iii �IYi .t+i i••x S:iCi! E.: Ili :S:i3.. S � E s it-;• S".. r TI'i is l * Tr.r.... I .id e�lEt•� ROOF ' IN��ar+E.R •RR,O CfA'�Ri@R MIYRC PE W0.5rY rw. xa�.tu[wx� xf x4llEGW4W.TY rIPCC�M.' '96.4AA JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT f 02 08 R�exxvxie:c��CCxxx � xxbxe!��%Y6:r: ' . g 3c�`,".9C8C:EyCyy BC Y. �58siY, B; . k�9txs¢Ys=:e A'sea �t8 a4s:s. •..'. .. . �S:x$�'�r �xat _. a:ens:s:�:4:cs'.��rx�xicy,a�ksAkr•:a, �:w�,�.:, I'��579CLc.,wV.4 JG9�E8L8[ �A'�429iP::kR9P82PV S $'A.$E9j9Ei4 iC9C2:9C3i'8�A , . kpo -T law 01. NORTH EXTERNAL ELEVATION Sift 1 ft ioll 02.EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATION 02. EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATION METAL PORTECOCHERE FINISH. BRASS ELEVATIONS 35ft 0 26'l 01 06 12 �11 �11ft o0ft Festival Market Place HOTEL 35ft 0 09 11 HOTEL 06 01 07 10 411ft 17 StY.RYs J ,; , ,:,...... 26ft .:;:..; r pppp,,yy . , tie'knXxs�I PINK xxq .�a p� . ::.: ...:.ff��L%�z'cMnk�4%Xf{�K![Kx+PY�f'<4w:.: _ .:':;:::'.::5::;::.::..�.:xaxr.:•.:.::sxxK:'.:.:i�r�x��ex�y�x�r�x%xk�!��xw::r.::.;,;:; .:.:... :'�:":` ''.: •' �;'%'}�rrrh arF.�'r.xx C 1 PROPOSED I EXISRNG � ay _ a a abM��:�Pa 4�a n '� as s r aw HOTEL y6R 28ft Festival Market Place 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 —'` ■� ry irk 1#/ 4d,I1 _ . '. PAINTPISTBIG} PAINT(EOSTINGI PANW(E%ISTING) PAWTIEXISTM) FINE METAL BALUSMIDE STONE(EXISTING) TILE(EXISTING) - �vt `♦#' CO -OK CR=RCA!)6 COLOR: MESATAR90EC718 COLOkPORWSTONE COLOR :DECEMBERSKY COLOR: BROWN POLISHED CONCRETE ALUMINUM PLATE ALUMINUM SHUTTER HOLLOW BRICK SDEMS NDE8220 70EB352 FINISH. P'YMRCOATEO COLOR:BROWN COLOR:GREY COLOR:YELLOW CANOPY(EXITING) COLOR:GREY COLOR:WHITE COLOR:BLACK MATERIA L BOARD JEFFERSON SQUARE A NEW GEM OF THE DESERT ELEVATIONS (:4(: 06 01 ... .. ..... ....... . �.... ......:...:.:.�...... .::::-.::�:.. f38i8',..:::. M1:N F'.:::� :. '�: :�:.- '-.. ::. :. - _ - - - - :%/.:.:.':.. r..�:.:'/. is i.: :::::::�• .. W '�:� ...l�� .X..�.]i •�XX !!v:. ,..:.. "'R..::YS:�•' .: •: CX% Y 4 RSR X1W. 865: �.'.: .:'. '-'.:::': i::!]..,:'. li'_S. d25 !P S_l W�.—.�..W-�Xl 'R � f.':,: 1���>cx�� a:: •:tea �_..::'.::,x�� " e:'�:�. I ooft HOTEL 01. SOUTH EXTERNAL ELEVATION 35ft 0 e'N yI :Hffix :. �u. 9.,: :NNi :sae x�xn M$P$ 4%%I % 1%xl Yx� 0. . �$ p� �+�yy%RS �%%�%% $8 eFe88%: L9$BNi $73HI g8g�x� GS$E . ... •::Y.S :i Y:� i�'.xi YYR 5mp %%R yy RRR: SOAi g AAA iAffii ggxx 10 gg IN; p 6Affi gg 8Rffi] . ... .. .. :�k [..: kix: 1.SP 5%, i= :%$X "K. R1 gel 112 N%% M% XER Rum:%ki%f�� ma ININ..... . .1:�5 [Y.x] ev i ltxk %YA i%�]gg•: ei$i :�%%{2xY%]%g :fr%R i Ri % .0 Cx4P1 ....... c :16, x N: ;53ua Y8lC. AW subi $%$ ixs, Y1183: xau x%R xxx: R$%: &ux %::Y. 6xSC: ::l :l .. ...... y ...... .. . [kY] gsxa 'tIN 3% xxx 'mr, iCtif 'xx. exy! %%% :xRx NO %=}•f ;ce%f nx. 'xx] -AX: '300 f83%W xax S" Sk%: cxz: M:: %Stl xxx Ux d%%: Yxx: Yeex: ]$•.%% xxx X" �hY1 rxx� a1.2 02. WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATION w, Festival Market Place 02. WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATION METALPORTECOCHERE FINISH. BRASS PAINT(EXISTING) FAINT(EXGTINGI PAW (DUSTING) COLORCROSSROAOS COLOR: MESATAH9O)C718 COLMPORWSTONE SDEMS NOE£220 MATERIA L BOARD I PAINT IEXISIRN3} COLOR: DECEMBER SKY ME8352 031 ft .. .. .. ... ..... .. r, �.v.vr r�.. .i .. �...v� wxrc.Rn•?Yxnsr•r•rr. ,a..wY. d./nr f.A't<a.e; %RSA. SYxF Sxe(7 .i Y.NY.'::. ... .... t!yr' ::5:.: . x.R%�: RxSF ;xx: ;K81Y x;, x: x Yx: R:�Y.• iY kF 4r:i. ?Y.�: 111 1 "J1 �47 . n 1 1 HOTEL 10 km NN Ml 55 1" ON IN 191 IN 11 IN HOTEL 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 1■ 4d,■ 1 FINE METAL BALUSTRADE STONE(EXISTING) TILE(EXISTING) � � ��� `♦#' CDEOR: BROWN POLISHED CONCRETE ALUMINUM PLATE ALUMINUM SHUTTER HOLLOW BRICK FINISH. PQMRCGWTEO COLOR:BROWN COLOR:GREY COLOR:YELLOW CANOPY(EXITING) COLOR:GREY COLOR:WHITE COLOR:BLACK ATTACHMENT 10 THE JS HOTEL AND RESORT AND FESTIVAL MARKET PLACE Specific Plan Amendment October 2018 CONTENTS INTRa * 006-017 traJE�T sErrlN • 018-029 RC7 ECT MASTER PLAi�i • 0,10-049 EVEL�PMEIVT REGULATIGN • 050-053 ESIGN GLIIDII INES ■ 054-087 PERAT1a1tAL GUIDE LIMES • 088-091 �Tk • 0%-007 l'L -1 INTRO Introduction A. AUTHORITY AND SCOPE Section 65450 of the California Government Code grants local agencies the authority to prepare a specific plan of development over a given piece of property. Consistent with this authority and in accordance with La Quinta General Plan, General land use Policy 4, the city is requiring that a Specific Plan be prepared for the proposed commercial center. In order to approve the project, the City must make the findings required by La Quinta Zoning Code, Chapter 9.240: Specific Plans. B PURPOSE AND INTENT The purpose of this Specific Plan document is to address the land use issues associated with development of Jefferson Square in sufficient detail to ensure that the subject site develops in a manner which is consistent with the General Plan; protects the public health, safety and general welfare; is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties and is suitable and appropriate for the subject property ( Zoning Code 9.240.010.E). Ultimately the project seeks to provide the surrounding residential neighborhoods with a high quality and convenient commercial/retail and hospitality center. In both text and illustration, this document depicts the character and configuration of the various components comprising the Specific Plan and establishes a foundation document that will govern further development of the site. In this way, the Specific Plan will serve to implement the City of La Quinta General Plan by specifying appropriate land uses, intensity of use, and development standards which are consistent with General Plan goals, objectives and policies. The specific plan is a flexible document, which allows minor modifications to accommodate minor changes to floor areas or tenant uses Minor modifications to the specific plan are within the Community Development Director' s power to approve, and do not require further consideration at public hearings. C. DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION The Jefferson Square Specific Plan is organized into six sections. Section I provides a regulatory context for the project and an overview of key project elements. Section II, provides a context for project planning and design by briefly describing the project's existing setting in terms of regulatory land use designations and surrounding land uses. Against this background, Section III presents the primary master plan components of the Specific Plan. Section IV describes the development standards to which the project must adhere. Section V contains design guidelines with respect to landscaping and architecture to ensure that the project is of a high quality and is well integrated into the community character, and Section VI discusses key operational guidelines for the project The majority of the document remains as approved as the Amended Specific Plan, No 2. New proposed amendments to the Amended Specific Plan No.s are shown in red bold italic print. Bold italic prints refer to the amendments made to the Amended Specific Plan No. 2. New figures are provided as necessary to illustrate the current design. Strike -though text are no longer relevant to the specific plan No.s. D. PROJECT LOCATION From a regional perspective, the Jefferson Square Specific Plan is located in the Coachella Valley within the incorporated City of La Quinta as shown in Figure 1, Regional Location Map. Locally, the project site is bounded by Fred Waring Drive and a residential development on the north; residential along the west; and single family residential exists along the southern periphery of the site. As shown in Figure 2, Vicinity Map, the project area consists of a rectangular 10.79 acre parcel of land, containing Assessor Parcel 604- 521- 004. East of Jefferson Street recently completed a retail centre within the City oflndio. The current Specific Plan area is divided into 7 distinct land parcels comprising 10.27 acres in total (as shown in Figure s). Within the 7 land parcels 4 of7have been developed. I 7" R 4 • 008 - 009 The following existingparcel contains. Parcel 1 (1.467 acres) CVS Pharmacy with drive-thru and associated parking Parcel2 (0.818 acres) 8 commercial/retail units and associated parking Parcel 8 (1.859 acres) Former Fresh & Easy retail store and associated parking Parcel 4 (0.575 acres) Undeveloped Parcel (0.451 acres) 8 commercial/retail units and associated parking Parcel 6 (4.088 acres) Undeveloped Parcel 7 (1.018 acres) Undeveloped Regional Location Map ASSOCIATES NOT TO SCALE INTRO • 010- 011 BERMUDA DUNES w FRED WARING Ln DPIVE f 0 1ND€O co C ur Lu w P&,.: - N�cvr �I w !A QUINTA z o_ AD..L.- s s 3 sue. a.�rw A Assccan Vicinity Map &ASS¢CIATES Fl .lq 1q JEFFERSON NOT TO SCALE IN 7K CITY Or LA QUINIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE. �' • a 7 Hors STATE OF CALIFORNIA PARCEL MAP NO. 36241 BEND A 9A1dA901 d A PCR a M l *VW WIRIIT CIE TIK MOIItIfAS7 DOmT a DECTIIX m TDww S mk RA.% 7 CAST. S BE7NA Ii1E01NL GKWR7 T. MARIIAVI1. PLS 67N DRC Dowxitm' w DATE OF SVI WI )W W. lOID FR£D WARING DRIVE !fL TI'l TAI.a tl S TIN .1 4 �1 rrxrs bfY blm i b 111rd tlrvY W -NA -f. ; Yl � I. b A J � ♦ I _ S I oAR= Aalb1 mAY Ir..alla Sy � � b . ♦ARCFL 3 rbVs wb .rtrse's - eer.ac7 \\ -roar rrrm Im ss�� 42 y rr 4 ~ -IJI'fl'7 Ivip K N A z nARCEL5 X naY C ImcPARM 4I F, I' sP a jII « Irvsr7 k bi � I w PARCEL B ?� PARCEL 7 b' W 1 an p. 4p SM 9 t 2 FOR UBDO,T I M $ 9 ] EEA sel 170BYE)Ir wm TL1vC trAlc vM -b n SQ f1Q7 7 PA L A OAK DA. T.W 1�I Existing Parcels on Jefferson Square 'y EICVRF. XO. Parcel Map No. 36241 (Jan, 2070) Not to scMc �� • 012-013 1otteF's in Square 8s Fic . ,7 Surrounding Context 4 Itit roduct-1011 E. PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Summary: The project proposes development of a neighborhood commercial/retail center on an approximate 10.79 acre site. The project will result m creation a single site area. Future submittal may be made to create individual parcels, but that subdivision is not requested at this time. The development will include the following uses. .Market .Drug Store .Retail/service shops .Rank .Restaurant Hotel In addition to the proposed buildings, the project will include associated parking, street improvements, pedestrian sidewalks, landscaping, an above ground retention basins as well as underground retention facilities and utilities. The existing above ground retention basin adjacent to Monticello Park (west) will be converted to an underground retain basin. For the most part, the Specific Plan will be consistent with the allowable uses and development standards of the site's neighborhood commercial general plan and zoning designations. The adoption of the Specific Plan would allow drive-thru windows at the proposed drug store and bank building. A reduction in landscape setbacks from the City's standard of 15 feet to I foot minimum along the project's western boundary is also being pursued (refer to Figure 10). The Specific Plan would provide a total of —861 parking spaces on site, meeting Parking Standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and would implement a reciprocal parking agreement among all uses on site which will be made part of the conditions of the Building Management Association. A comparison of the Site Plan with development standards from the La Quinta Zoning Code is shown in Table 1 Site Plan Compliance. Requested Entitlements: To facilitate this project, the developer is seeking the City of La Quinta' s approval of an amended Specific Plan, and a Site Development Permit to develop the Specific Plan area. The existing parcels 9 & 6 will be reintroduced as a year- round, indoor organic food and beverage market (with dine in facilities). The undeveloped parcel6 will be an upscale hotel with 141 guest rooms, a restaurant and pool bar. gym and spa, and a ballroom together with a new retail entrance hall which will connect with the indoor market. INTRO a 014-Ot5 Table 1 Site Plan Compliance DeNelopment Standard CN Zone Specific Plan Min -Max Bldg Site (acres) 1-20 10.79 Max Structure Height (ft) 35 35(1) Max Structure Height (ft) 150 feet from Arterial Hwy, 22 22(2) Max Number of Stories 2 + 3 Max Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.25 9.25 0.30(3) Min Building Setback - Primary linage Corridor (it) 30 30 Min Building Setback from OS and Park District (ft) 30 M6 "31(4) Min Building Setback from residential Districts (ft) 30 M 61 Min Landscape Setback Primary Image Corrdior (ft) 20 20 Min Landscape Setback from OS and Park District (ft) 15 5(5) 1(5) Min Landscape Setback from Residential Districts (it) 15 15 Min Setback from interior propery line 0 0 Building Landscape 5%n 5% Interior Parking Lot Landscape 5% 5% Parking Spaces 0 space per 2.50 300 sq. ft.) 361358 (6) 363 358 (7) 1. Not including architectural appendages, such as a roofparapet or tower, up to 41 feet 2. Not including up to 10% of the building mass, which will extend up to s6feet. 3. Building size may be slightly reduced or enlarged during final design. However, the maximum FAR ofo.50 will not be exceeded for the entire site, or at any individual lot. 4. The development standard is so feet; however, the current site plan setback is 51 feet. 5. The projects western property line along Monticello Park averages 11 feet, with a minimum of 7.5 feet and maximum of24.7 feet. The development standard is for 5 feet minimum; however the current site plan minimum setback is 1 feet. 6. Current parking lot total on the Jefferson Square site is 364 7. Updated parking requirements request a total ofs19 parking lots. The proposed site plan will provide a total of561 parking lots. Introduction F. REQUIRED FINDINGS According to the La Quinta Zoning Code, Chapter 9.240.010.E, the City Council must make four specific findings in order to approve the project. Each finding is listed below followed by a discussion of how each is satisfied by this project. The project's success in meeting the required findings is supported by the facts presented throughout the Specific Plan document. 1.Consistency with the General Plan. The plan or amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. -The project proposes development of a commercial/retail center that will serve the surrounding neighborhoods, which is consistent with the allowable uses under the site's Neighborhood Commercial (NC) General Plan Land use designation. The project also proposes hotel uses which are not allowed under the Neighborhood Commercial Zone but are allowed in the General Commercial (GC) General Plan designation. The proposed hotel uses can be accommodated through this Specific Plan. 2. Public Welfare. Approval of the plan or amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. -The site plan for this project is consistent with City development standards which are established to protect the public health and safety. -In accordance with the City's General Plan, the proposed commercial development is consistent with the sites NC land use designation, which envisions commercial land uses such as: food and drug stores; personal services; small restaurants; and financial institutions, Retail units and recreational facilities operated by the hotel, which will serve the daily needs of adjacent neighborhoods. 3. Land Use Compatibility. The specific plan is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. -The subject property is general planned and zoned Neighborhood Commercial. The commercial property is physically separated and buffered from planned residential uses along the north by intervening roadways and landscape/ sidewalk easements. Residential development to the west is buffered from the site by an existing 6' high block wall, a city park, well -site, and retention basin. An existing 6' high block wall located atop a 2' berm, separates the site and existing residential to the south, as shown in Figure 5. -The Specific Plan would be compatible with planned land use on the City of Indio property to the east. The parcel of land immediately east of the site and Jefferson Street has been developed for commercial use and lies within the City of Indio. -Hours of operation will be consistent with adjacent land uses. -The proposed uses will not generate excessive noise or other nuisances. -The proposed hotel's hours of operation will extend beyond commercial/retail operating hours and will be host to recreational events that may extend into the evening. The effect of this noise to the neighbouring sites will be mitigated by the position of events spaces away from the south of the subject site. 4. Property Suitability: The specific plan is suitable and appropriate for the subject properly. -Consistent with the CN land use designation for the site, the Specific Plan area is appropriately located at the intersection of two primary and major arterial roadways. Also nearby is the I-10 highway interchange onto Jefferson Street. -The project is being proposed in a location that will allow convenient access to commercial and retail uses by the surrounding residential communities, and access to the hotel. -The site will require minimal grading, and all utilities are readily available, and can be routinely extended to serve the proposed uses. -The site plan complies with City development standards, and implements General Plan Goals and Policies. IEiT • 016-017 MW Existing dense landscape buffer against residential F1CVR4 YO. zone to south of site IM _.a Monticello Park OR zone) serves as a valuable community asset to the west of the site: The project will use the eximmg connect between Monticollo park and Jefferson Square. PROJECT 5ETT11riG • 018-019 111M PROJECT SETTING Project Setting A. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING The 10.79 acre project site located at the southwest comer of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street is designated as Neighborhood Commercial (NC) in the City's General Plan. As stated in Table 2.1 of the City's General Plan, the NC land use designation supports: "The development of commercial land uses which serve the daily needs of the adjacent neighborhood on parcels of 10 to 20 acres. Typical land uses include food and drug stores, personal services, small restaurants, and financial institutions. This designation generally occurs at arterial and major arterial Consistent with the City' s General Plan designation, the subject property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The City of La Quinta Zoning Code, Section 9.70.060 states that the purpose and intent of the CN Zone is: "To provide for the development and regulation of small-scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the General Plan. The CN district is intended to provide for the sale of food, drugs, sundries, and personal services to meet the daily needs of a neighborhood area." Existing General Plan and zoning designations for the site and surrounding properties are shown in Figure 3-6 Existing Land Use Designations. The Jefferson Square Specific Plan would result in development of commercial and service oriented land uses on an approximate 10.79 acre site located at the intersection of two major arterial roadways, which is consistent with the city' s existing General Plan and zoning designations for the site. The intent of the Jefferson Square Specific Plan is to establish a site plan, design standards, and specific allowable land uses that will facilitate development of a commercial/retail/hotel center that will cater to the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and complement the City and surrounding community through the use of decorative architectural and landscaping themes. CIRCULATION ELEMENT The Jefferson Square Specific Plan area is bordered by Fred Waring Drive on the north, and Jefferson Street on the east. The City' s General Plan designates Fred Waring Drive as a Primary Arterial, and Jefferson Street as a Major Arterial. Both roadways are also designated as Primary Image Corridors in the General Plan. The development of the property is consistent with policies and programs outlined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Policy CIR-2.1: "Encourage and cooperate with SunLine Transit Agency on the expansion of routes, facilities, services and ridership especially in congested areas and those with high levels of employment and commercial services, and encourage the use of most energy efficient and least polluting transportation technologies" The project includes the provision for a bus stop on Jefferson Street. The project will identify a Transportation Demand Coordinator in accordance with City Ordinance (Section 9.180.030), who will be responsible for coordinating ride sharing, bus ridership, flexible work schedules, and other Transportation Demand Management program among employees. Policy CIR-1.12: "As a means of reducing vehicular traffic on major roadways and to reduce vehicle miles travelled by traffic originated in the City, the City shall pursue development of land use pattern that maximizes interactions between adjacent or near by land uses" Policy CIR-2.3: "Develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient pedestrain and bicycle route and multi -use path to place of employment, recreation, shopping schools and other high activity areas with potential for increased pedestrain, bicycle, golf car/NEV modes of travel." PROJECT SETTING • 020-021 LDR MI J A IN I E _ r Cf I WEtt 5RE a + I Q � E U c GC @m a as CITY PARK LDR on � o z "a _ c RETENTION O BASIN m p — I z ND !� MEMORIAL PLACE GENERAL PLAN ZONING CC Cenral commercial (W Neighbahood Commercial LDR Low Density ResidenW 4 DU/Ac Ra Low Density Residential P Park Facilities PW Parks & Recreation tin... moo... Existing Land Use DesignationsS�.:`.6..� Project Setting The project includes meandering pedestrian sidewalks and "on road" bicycle lanes fronting the development along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. A functional network of internal pedestrian walkways and bicycle racks will also be provided on site. The hotel will provide rental bicycles to encourage hotel guest not to use automobiles. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The site has not been defined in the General Plan as an area that includes outstanding and significant natural or manmade features, there are no steep topographical or geotechnical constrains, nor does the site fall under any of the criteria for Open Space designation. Thus, development of the site is not in conflict with any of the City's Open Space policies, goals and programs. The hotel's central courtyard will be open to the public during operational hours. PARK AND RECREATION ELEMENT The site is not identified in the General Plan as an existing or proposed city park and/or recreational facility. Development of the Specific Plan area would not result in an increase in population generating a need for additional parkland or recreational facilities. The City's General Plan identifies Monticello Park as being located immediately adjacent to the site's western boundary. The project will include the development of pedestrian sidewalks and "on road" bicycle lanes along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, which would facilitate pedestrian movement between the site and the adjacent parkland. A functional network of internal pedestrian walkways and bicycle racks will also be provided on site. Thus, development of the site is not in conflict with any of the City's Parks and Recreation policies, goals and programs. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT Development of the site will not degrade any aspects of the natural and man-made environment which are of aesthetic, environmental or cultural value to the City. Development of the Jefferson Square Amended Specific Plan No.3 will be consistent with many of the policies and programs outlined in the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. Air Quality Policies - Policy AO-1.2: "Work to reduce emissions from residential and commercial energy use by encouraging decreased consumption and increased efficiency" The project will result in the development of a neighborhood commercial/retail center on site, which would provide the local community with a convenient location for buying goods/services, which they would otherwise have to travel out of the area to obtain. The year-round organic food market will also serve as a useful resource for residents of La Quinta. Policy AO-1.5: "Ensure all construction activities minimize emissions of all air quality pollutants. The prefabricated building elements such as wall panels and bathroom pods will reduce the amount of noise and air pollution during construction. Policy AO-1.3: "Work to reduce emissions from mobile sources by encouraging a decrease in the number of vehicle trips and vehicle miles travelled" The existing site infrastructure includes alternative transportation amenities including; a bus stop along Jefferson Street, and "on road" bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks fronting Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street (both primary and major arterial roads in the General Plan). The recently opened I-10 interchange will also bring more traffic around the site. Energy and Mineral Resource Policies - Policy EM-1.2: "Support the use of alternative energy and conversation of traditional energy sources to alternative energy." The proposed project shall comply with the City's energy conservation plans as identified in the City's General Plan. The City shall review all project related design and building plans to ensure compliance with energy saving techniques and policies, including compliance with Title 24 building standards of the California Administrative Code 1604(f). The hotel proposal will provide solar panels to support the use of alternative energy usage. Biological Resource Policies - PRoJEci SEi7INC + 022-023 Policy BIO-1.2: "Where appropriate, site -specific, species -specific surveys shall be required for the seven species mp covered by the MSHCP" Policy BIO-1.6: "Native desert plant materials should be incorporated into new development projects to the greatest extent possible. Invasive, non native species shall be discouraged" Prior to the mass grading activities, the project site was intensively surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of sensitive biological resources. The associated survey concluded that there were no sensitive biological resources within the site. The City's required design and environmental review and conditioning process will ensure that the project does not adversely affect any identified sensitive species. The project's proposed landscaping palette incorporates the use of native drought -tolerant plants (see Landscape Guidelines below). The view from western hotel Bedrooms over Monticello Park Project Setting Palaeontological Resource Policies. Policy CUL-1.1: "All reasonable efforts should made to identify archaeological and historical resources in the City." According to Exhibit 6.8 of the City's General Plan, the project site is located within an area of "low" paleontologic sensitivity, and therefore would require no further studies or conflict with any relevant General Plan policies and programs. WATER RESOURCE POLICIES - Policy WR-1.1: "Support the Coachella Valley Water District in its efforts to supply adequate domestic water to residents and businesses." Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall secure the necessary commitments from CVWD for the project's domestic water needs. Policy VTR.-1.4: "Protect storm water from pollution and encourage its use to recharge the aquifer" Policy WR-1.6: "Encourage the use of permeable pavement in residential and commercial development projects" In accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, the project will be subject to the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The construction contractor, in consultation with the lead agency, shall be responsible for filing all required notices with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), preparing the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing required Best Management Practices (BMPs). The City's required design and environmental review And conditioning process will ensure compliance with the City's applicable stormwater drainage standards. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENTS Development of the site will not be in conflict with the policies and programs of the Infrastructure and Public Service Element. The necessary public utility infrastructure is readily available to the project site from the surrounding development, and the associated extensions are anticipated to be routine once construction begins. The project will incrementally increase the need for public services within the City, and therefore the developer will contribute the appropriate development fees to help fund the expansion of these services within the City. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT The site is not identified in the Environmental Hazards Element as being located within an area that is susceptible to a significant risk from seismic, liquefaction or flood related hazards. Consistent with policy 5 of the Geologic and Seismic Hazards section, all structures on site will be built in accordance with the latest version of the California Building Code (CBC). The City's standard protocols for tentative tract map review, conditioning and approval, will ensure compliance with the relevant goals, policies and programs of the Environmental Hazards Element. CULTURAL RESOURCE ELEMENT According to Exhibit 9.1 of the City's General Plan, the project site does not contain any identified cultural or historic resources on site or in the immediate vicinity. Development of the property will be consistent with policies and programs outlined in the Cultural Resource Element of the General Plan. Policy CUL-1.1: "All Reasonable efforts should be made to identify archaeological and historic resources in the City." Policy CUL-1.2: "Assure that significant identified archaeological and historic resources are protected." Prior to the mass grading activities, the project site was intensively surveyed by a qualified archaeologist for the presence of cultural resources. The associated survey concluded that there were no archaeological resources within the site Construction specifications will be included, which require the contractor to immediately halt grading or any other construction activity, if a buried cultural resource artifact/site is accidentally uncovered during grading operations The specifications will require that the developer or contractor notify the City and summon a qualified specialist in order to determine the appropriate action for documenting and preserving a find. B. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS Existing site conditions are shown in Figure 8 Existing Site Plan. Parcel 6 is vacant and contains sparse areas of desert scrub vegetation. The site has been mass graded and generally slopes to the east at an approximate 1%grade. Ground elevations on parcels 3 and 5 range from approximately 50 feet above sea level (asl) along the west to approximately 40 feet asl at the eastern boundary: existing building elevations reach up to 80 feet (asl). There are no unique physical or topographic features on site. Off -site improvements include a traffic signal, and existing curb and gutter (with handicapped access) at the northeast comer of the site ( Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street intersection), and four electrical transmission line poles, which flank the northern periphery of the site. The site is also bordered by 6' high masonry walls on the southern and western boundaries. Curb, gutter and deceleration lane improvements have been completed on Jefferson past the northern entry drive to the site. PRDJECT SETTING • 024-025 The former Fresh & Easy building (figure 7) has remained empty since construction, and the building requires renovation to reinstate essential HVAC systems and to function as a commercial property. The proposed re - purposing of the building into an organic food and beverage market will require modifications to the building's fabric, without major structural changes to the existing foundations, walls or roof. The Former Fresh &r Easy bu ildL np, Hl tt NO. TOTAL 5ITC ARFA= 111 79 AC 1,170.001 Sit* TOTAL BUILT S1PE COVERAGE: 29..1 SQUARE PARRINC REQUIREDPRUPOSE111 VSE TDOTACE RATE PAR F.IYG PARRI+I r- l=S-t l% sl I+SYALLSI Oslo* 2,.5u0 Sf- 4.0?1,0Q05 F 170 fxrs+r a 1-.Isr fi,928 sr 4.001,006SF 16 01I CVS 11,0f 1 Sf- 4,011.0005F 32 zllors•• 6.500 sE .o)1.LpP5 Y,a PAOS'- I,Soo sr ,Bl1,llpaS F 111 TO 1 A 1 rp,611 Sf• ]62 ,1.2 LA)YOSCAPL PRUVIDII WIFIIIV PARIOI II.Y71 $1' 16 7tiI PER I mt jr& gVILDING AR.EA'S12c,IMc%F �11. 1-•1 RL P.ti PI ON All IK. A 111 SV I TAl -. 775 SI- IIN'1 11 f 0 1 A! •Il0 jf.'I, t) Nm 'TN+ 0-11 •l Iad If pa 1. r) al IIvr. 94a It. 0.41 .1. v7)nprd ie8 kid. arr+1 :Pf}')Y fI $he p411 i2 r•r11 Il r, f)>IX .Ills )N'? r•J. du nfNll propol Af (40 f II111fe, iIr)+l Arri mff A4."f 04,1I1 LA•ip 1. Prd A fW1 eirrr xna�Vrl 411 �l lal 1M1• ja.I Ij PYd1/ an.r n1IN ]L• IervlJp ld III •fll. f+ PMECT MANE 01RAWDIS TITLE SHEET WOM REll"Wom DATE SCALE CLMR 1/20'=11-01 B A3 CCD HOTEL & RESORTS l�aa•=� -Dr e Al s r1 w;9`R W i4}% I I I PNA PMr1 AiN r r 1.e C u-a, a..c. fFepr. t+ trtt)o X 1 •I ru )RI M11 Project Setting C. SURROUNDING LAND USE In order to provide a context for project planning, surrounding land use is shown in e4Figure 9. The subject property is bordered on the north by Fred Waring Drive, which is a six lane primary arterial roadway with a 120 foot wide right-of-way. The Esplanade single family residential subdivision is located directly across Fred Waring Drive, north of the project site. The project site is bordered on the east by Jefferson Street, a major arterial with 120 foot wide right-of-way. Property to the east of Jefferson Street is within the City of Indio's jurisdictional boundaries and it has been developed as a retail center The Heritage Palms Golf Resort is located across Jefferson Street to the southeast. Land use immediately west of the site includes an existing well site, City park, and an existing retention basin associated with the recently developed residential subdivision (Monticello) further to the west. The rear yards of approximately seven single family residences of the Monticello, neighborhood exist along the southern periphery of the site. These homes are separated from the project site by an elevated berm with a six foot high masonry block perimeter wall and a dense planted landscape buffer. PROJECT SETTING • 028-029 SJNGLI; FAMILY R5SIDENTIAL FA 1 E n Izr w W W IS 2 -- —� - �"6 58'47E 1 �. N 1 `25' WELL SITE �. o -F; f Cr CITY PARK i cant hough I w I Graded F t u J O. Z REIEN110N BASIN SIN ti�LN / ' �-- -- Ill . -L \ MEMORIAL PLACE PW�FNrxeM Existing Site Conditions.�ssncinrrs �YM1M•M�� • � � 1 • n� FIGCRk>'n. MASTER PLAN s 030-031 03 MASTER PLAN MASTER PLAN A. SITE PLAN PARKING the Specific Plan No.2 would result in development of The project provides landscape parking areas a Market, Drug Store (with a drive-thru), assorted containing a total of 361 spaces. retail and service oriented shops, possible restaurant uses, and one bank (refer to Table 2, Land Use The required number of spaces for the Summary). The building areas of the seven potential Jefferson Square site is 319. this figure has building footprints are illustrated in Figure 10 Land been calculated using 1 space per 300 sq ft of Use Plan. The proposed footprints may be modified retail space and 1.1 spaces per hotel room (as (enlarged or reduced) during final design, however, a per code 9.150.070). maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.30 will not be exceeded over the entire site. For the most part, the If the square footage of any of the buildings Specific Plan complies with the development changes, the number of required spaces also standards of the site's Neighborhood Commercial changes. The site plan will accommodate this (CN) zoning designation Since drive-thru change by providing the correct amount of establishments are generally not allowed within the spaces using the 1 space per 300 sq ft ratio for City's CN zoning district, the Specific Plan seeks the general retail uses that are 100,000 sq ft or City's discretionary approval to allow drive-thru greater. If restaurant uses are included on the windows at the proposed drug store and bank site, the number of spaces required would be buildings. calculated using the 1 space per 125 sq.ft ratio. The City Ordinance provides for restaurant As shown in Figure 10, the Amended Specific Plan uses that are part of shopping centers that are No.3 would result in development of a food market not in excess of 20% of the shopping center (housed in the former Fresh & Easy store and the gross floor area to be allowed to use the adjoining retail units), assorted retail and service- parking ratio for the shopping center instead oriented shops, possible restaurant uses and a 141- of using a separate restaurant parking ratio room hotel associated with parcels 3,5 and 6. (1) Parcels 4 & 7 are currently undeveloped, but still SITEACCESS retains the Amended specific plan No.2 proposal, of assorted retail and service -oriented shops on parcel 7. Ingress/egress for the site will be taken from And a Bank building (drive-thru) within parcel 4. two locations along Fred Waring Drive, and two locations from Jefferson Street. Left turn Other Parcel within Jefferson Square site have been lanes from these roadways will be provided developed into retail shops (Parcel 2) and a drive-thru at the western access along Fred Waring Drug store (Parcel 1). Drive, and the southern access on Jefferson Street. Deceleration lanes will be provided at Figure 11 shows the proposed Site plan with the two entrances on Jefferson Street, and the description in the variations on parcel 3,5 &6 eastern entrance on Fred Waring Drive. The project will also provide a dedicated right FLOOR AREA RATIO turn lane for eastbound traffic using Fred Waring Drive turning south onto Jefferson This Amended Specific Plan No.3 seeks the City's Street. discretionary approval to increase the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 0.25 (as per code WATER SUPPLY 9.90.040) to 0.30 Domestic water services will be extended to the proposed hotel and retail site from an existing 18 inch water line at the northwest corner of the site along Fred Waring Drive, and an existing 12 inch water line near the southeast corner of the site at Jefferson Street. There is an existing connection to the former Fresh & Easy building which will be reinstated for use in the organic market. Sewer services will be extended from an existing 10 inch sewer line in Jefferson Street to the proposed hotel and retail site: there is an existing sewer connection to the former Fresh & Easy building. DRAINAGE On site drainage is currently conveyed to above ground retention basins, located on the south-east and north- west sides of the site, as well as to an underground retention system. The proposed additional automobile parking to the north west of the site will replace the above ground landscape retention area with a larger, underground retention basin that will connect to the existing retention system. TRASH Trash enclosures will be located at various points within the project site, and will be screened from view, to the extent feasible, by landscaping. The landscape plan maintains and enhances existing MASTER Pi,AAi • 032-033 landscaped areas along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street, and will accent the project's architectural theme within the site (see Section III C for additional discussion of landscaping). Table 2 Land Use Summary Use SF Area (1) Building use (1) No. of Stories Floor Area Ratio Hotel 85,458 Hotel 3 Food Market 13,750 Market 1 New Retail 1,375 Retail Entrance Hal 1 CVS 13,013 Drug Store 1 Shop 1 5,000 Retail Shops 1 Shop 2 4,500 Retail Shops 1 Shop 3 7,000 Retail Shops 1 Pad A 4,500 Bank 1 TOTAL 134,596(2) SITE AREA 470,060 26.90 1. Land use and building size maybe modified, and/or slightly reduced or enlarged during final design However, the maximum FAR of nor 0.30 will not be exceeded for the entire site, or at any individual lot. 2. Maximum floor area allowed within the Specific Plan is 141,018 Square feet. To rA L. BITE AREA: 1D.79 AC [I70, 000 5F) IFICORe f I+ TOTAL BUJI-T SITS COVFRAGE:.36.21% N9 A-1011firelle ParkQ LAND USE PLAN 1� r� I li } I1SE PARKING REO IJIRE i�A�t7lYV RATra PARKING f:STALEST 3 Under gr and 1107-EL 747RfN cucsrnpsl. 155 —_— —__— NEW FCJ CID FNTRACIVE 7375 5E g 1- _ _ L ❑ TIT] a :::: [::: _ �1- 4.,r'; TT,,;, [ 1 , " . FOOD MARFC6T 15,5li sF 1.0I101sr 52 - ... .. I. SHOP 1 5,000 SP 1,01300sF 17 SHOPS 7,060 SF 7.0•'300EF li PAD A 4,5o6 1.51300sF IS DRUG CVS I),017 7.0Ia00SF id 9f 0use EBi-112,325 SFl, i m Ih TOTAL 3+2 � ,lops i LANDSCAPE PROVIDED: _ ? � _ r� � a s � 1 Faod Adali:eF• r i 1 M I 7AW tiF11 I I 1 WITHIN PA RNIIhC ALiD - l 1 u fA C7 It Sr PERIMETER 1. BLILDINC AREAS: 56.53i 1l3"s4%j 6 �-• [NTE RNAL COURTYARD, :i5,2E7 SF M111%} F y • R I • • t TQTALI 95,121 5F f21.i341 a ■ _ 1 - — -- --- .•11d j;%cent - - I I h Naa • Food .11ar I11 ■rra sar171drs IAr "ek P� lk"s* Residences - �` fy Ll all u l! • �' r:.' a',—. , ILI i•1 ti� :I „qr ��qd`n, �y PlS!]JICMMIE GRIIWIN T1[LE 8mm NOTE: Rlf11E10l1 DATE SOLE CLIENT JEPPERIMA 4'4UA01 I Arl11 U: E f'LI'.N i0 2SR-AMENDED SIP 10.0418 1/2I1'=V-01 a A3 v CCD HOTEL L RESORTS 1/-0fl'=1'-Q' E AE s�rr na�ao v.�ia�e w rews a.r..1 see. L 13-3. ff o Wr , CA JaM . 1 •1 M 718 1111 CAR PARKING AN[] LOAI7lNG I Reconfigured parking [at zone to the south of the ' site proposed for the hotel and retail use. Trash bits moved slightly south to allow for fire truck tum6W radius. 1 Proposed parking lot zone to the north west of the site will provide an additional23 parking lots. r Me existing abode landscape retention area will be replaced by art underground catch basin that connects to the existing retention system. Reconfigured varrltruck loading trays forthe hotel and food market Bark of house 3 Additional trash bins added far hotel. The existing road extended from 28ft is sufficient for truck Adjaecnt fire access. Residence � 30ft bard surfacad road retained for firetruck cc access. 194 existing parking system are retainer[ including alf DFA spaces to the north o fthe site. i Proposed Hntet drop off zone. CHANGES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES The fanner Fresh and easy arid 'shop, 2' n fmildhfgs will he re-lnrrposed to hold a ��..JJ food market. 1 The fbnner F&E's existing walls will beretained to ]0 haf"e the rnarket's Back of House i ] I Retain existing fncode of 'shop 2' PROPOSED STRUCTURES i {" Monticello Park a PROPOSED CHANGES ii- v1 r !11l11li11111111!!!Il11111{!1! R°� ' ,_ �"" 1111111illrlllllll milliEI I111; jamID y t+lk >ti i> o 1I1111111! .- •l :111t�111E1i1! jj� iuln NUNN ii•.•iaillk�:�1171iIL 1l:ioii�.r r■�■1■�■r ■1■1 I��w+•��f�f�rr■® .. �j-y.•:.::L:i.i .. :tllldlli�fiii.;� .. �•�r-'s ���� .• .,I ,w M� I �.n,®�..�wn-■�.awHa.r� CLJ r ._-�• 1 �i3'fdAL.. - I a� � ■a� "laiBonn �2 �i ��. Q �.. � � , aids. •�_ � - .;.�aY - - 7.'S■r �i 'tie � �R r �r � i T V y 1 I I t I I { I I I l III R � I I iG � I � � I p I I II V{ I r 1 I Hotel froutofhouse, including iobbybarl - - _ _-- __-- -- ------ --- - - �� 12 restourant and events roonn.-- n I Hotel rooms arranged around a courtyard Retail units to lease -- - - 1 I - - - - v - j FFElti5Qk STREft- l i Hotei Back of house - - - - _ Z PIMAM NA14 DRAWNG TT" 8"Wr WM, REVOM DALE sCALS CLIENT JEF=ER'A)N %WL ,VF PR:1P:l:E" CKANGCS JSe-PARTI-iISURE it .1Sq-:.MEUpEt7 S-P ID0518 1120'=k'-0' 2 A3 v CCD kOTEL S RESORTS 1/40'=L'-D' 2 Al s w c ;' �:ou.:I YOU MASTER PLAN B. PHASING PLAN The project will be developed in one phase. C. LANDSCAPE PLAN The purpose of the landscape plan is to establish standards that will contribute to the thematic development of the proposed project. Important to the development of a coordinated project image and identity are the project -wide enhancement of major streets, entries and internal spaces. These elements are designed to establish levels of hierarchy that will provide a varied and high quality experience at the pedestrian and vehicular level within and surrounding the project. The landscape concept and the proposed plant palette for the project are shown in figure 12 Conceptual Plan. In general, Landscaping associated with the project consists of two basic types: project perimeter and streetscape; and project site and building landscaping The project's relationships with residential properties and Monticello Park will be negotiated with a careful planting palette. Landscaping associated with the project will form a buffer zone with the residential properties to the south and create a relationship with the western edge of Monticello Park. The existing 5ft landscaped buffer condition with the Park was approved in the previous Specific Plan No.2 and this proposal will retain this minimum buffer zone. The hotel will also provide a publicly accessible landscaped courtyard with a range of plants outlined in the Landscape Plan. Conceptual landscape plan approval of streetscapes along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street is being pursued with this Specific Plan. The landscape concept for the project perimeter and streetscape will incorporate limited turf areas, along with a colorful mix of water efficient groundcovers and accent shrubs. In order to integrate the project into the surrounding community and create a harmonious street frontage, the streets aping along Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson will maintain a plant palette and design concept which is compatible with surrounding street frontages and will conform to City Design Guidelines. The retail buildings will have a residential feeling, using plentiful ornamental material in order to provide a temperate environment. Uncovered parking areas will be shaded with a combination of Palo Verde, and Desert Museum trees. Palm trees will be used to provide vertical scale and aesthetic contrasts. Tipu Trees, Acacia, and Chitalpa Trees may be used to help screen views from adjacent residential areas. Species in addition to those listed are to be considered in order to provide diversity. The associated plant materials have been chosen for their adaptability to the desert climate of La Quinta, their relationship to the existing surrounding developments, and the intended use and function with the project. Shrubs along the street perimeters shall be minimum 5 to 15 gallon size. FIGUREI2,PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN D. CIRCULATION PLAN As shown in Figure 13, the project Circulation Plan is typical of a commercial center, with an internal system of sidewalks, walkways, and access aisles serving the various building locations, parking areas, and patio locations. On site circulation provides for both vehicular and pedestrian movement throughout the site. VEHICULAR External access to the various uses on site is from two locations along Fred Waring Drive, and two locations along Jefferson Street. Deceleration lanes are provided at the two entrances on Jefferson Street, and the eastern entrance on Fred Waring Drive. The southernmost access on Jefferson Street and the westernmost access on Fred Waring Drive provides left turning lanes into the site from these peripheral roadways. The remaining two ingress/egress locations provide restricted, right turn in - right turn out access only. There is also a dedicated right turn lane for eastbound traffic using Fred Waring Drive turning south onto Jefferson Street. On Jefferson Street, the left turning lane into the project is 650 feet south of the intersection with Fred Waring Drive. On Fred Waring Drive the left turning lane is 540 feet west of the intersection with Jefferson Street. Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive are designated in the general plan as major arterial roads. The half -width of a major arterial is 60 feet of right of way and 51 feet of pavement. The current half -width right of way for both streets received an additional 5 feet of dedicated right of way under the amended Specific Plan No.2 dedicated an additional 9 foot wide and 100 foot long right of way to accommodate the dedicated right turn lane at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. The 12 foot wide and 50 foot long standard Sunline bus turnout on Jefferson Street has also been completed. The Amended Specific Plan No.3 would provide a total of 361 parking spaces on site, and would implement a reciprocal parking agreement among all uses on site which will be made part of the conditions of the Building Management Association. Direct access to the drugstore drive through lanes would be taken from the easternmost accessway location along Fred Waring Drive. A right turn would be provided approximately 50 feet from the right-of-way, into two 12 foot wide drive-thru lanes located on the north side of the drug store building. Each lane would provide enough stacking to accommodate up to seven automobiles (-120 feet) per lane, without obstructing the accessway. Drive- thru traffic would exit the property at the northern most ingress/egress location along Jefferson Street. The western most accessway 9A5 Pi,AAi + 0,38-039 along Fred Waring Drive will provide access into the interior parcels via a 30-foot wide lane located between Fresh & Easy and Shops 3. The westernmost entry will serve as the primary truck access for Fresh & Easy, with those trucks then continuing out the perimeter drive to exit at the southern accessway on Jefferson. Bank A will also have drive-thru lanes. Direct access to the drive-thru at Bank A will be from the southern accessway along Jefferson Street. To screen views of waiting cars from the street, each drive-thru will have a 4 foot wall or a combination of a wall and berm totaling 4 feet. The primary internal circulation corridors extend from all access points on Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. Delivery trucks will access the loading docks at the side of the food market and hotel loading bay this is done by entering the north east accessway on Fred Waring Drive, they would exit the same way the delivery trucks came in.(Figure 13). PEDESTRIAN Pedestrian sidewalks and on -street bicycle lanes are provided along both the Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street frontages (see Figure 13). Sidewalks will be designed 8 feet wide and on street bicycle lanes will be 4 feet wide. A functional network of sidewalks and walkways are provided within the site to link individual building sites, and facilitate safe pedestrian movement throughout the development. A bus stop will be provided along Jefferson Street which will be linked to the internal pedestrian system.. PRELIMINARY LaBD _ ALGLL•GENV waulwcov[R ■ sor ea r enar :wwa ■ rre.'w.cwn. rnwle .• .[. ruc, weer. 0 • �[.xMrti Ida 1!R � ,e4 * ,.o...... raw R �a� TREE- .--- — rr�N .e. n y • lYa, o ,.Y PRINECT NAM TM MU Nam DATE SCALE CUmt !l- P ON SOUARE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE J1O-PART1-FjCURE 12 JSQ-AMENDED SP 14.013.18 1/20'=V-0' @ A3 v CCD H17TEL 8 RESORTS FL AN 1/40r=I'-0' @ Al s<�-a :riae�i b��.a r.w. I.. x..s. � E v-3. rr.rya Fapr, a ago LFQFN-D 0 unsignnlixed Intersection Restricted Access- Etighlturn/Turn out . Bus slop 0 signalized Intersection — — — Vehicular circulation Food Merkel Truck Loading — — — Drug Store Truck Loading CIRCULATION �;�: ��!�_....II � •~��z y T f"itrl.. Isar w�'•` s�'�F�s a a� t Tnirllnlri`•i 1giY If111111A1�(� �}r�l �•. � s��IF� iiY' 1 111tirii ,,R :,ua: r�ric vev li � r �rw�r�wrrwrr® .A � a � ■ 1 >c� u it �.,�� • All +�-tree ■ � �� _- �. a- .1'•.r!.17. � �Lt`:/* w�.`JEi.:.�T t 1 PROJECT MAME DRAWNID TFTL.E SHM NOTE: RE1Rfr1ON DATE $HALE CLIENT ��-F VEP, _Gu •wE CIRCIJLATION PLAN Gt1RE 13 JSD-AMENDED P 100919 1/2t!'=1'-0' R A3 v 1CI7 HEITEL b RESORTS 1/40'=1'-0' P Al S M �p� {�� �•�1 r �r Mr 0-3, � l ,,, a Inn Ir-Aw i .t rn wo moo MASTER PLAN E. GRADING PLAN The developer will submit a PM10 Plan (dust control plan) for the project in accordance with the applicable City and Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) standards and codes, prior to the issuance of any grading permits. The project Grading and Drainage Plan is shown in Figure 14. The subject property has already been mass graded to an average elevation of 45 feet above sea level. Precise grading of the site will result in development of seven building pads, an above and underground retention system, and associated parking areas designed to convey surface drainage flows to appropriate catch basins on site. The proposed parking on top of the existing North East landscape retention area will be serviced by a catch basin attached to the existing underground system. The associated earthwork will be fairly evenly distributed throughout the site with an average of less than one to two feet being added or removed at most locations. Final grading will match finished elevations on surrounding properties and will not result in significant manufactured cut/fill slopes. Precise Grading Plans are subject to review and approval by the City according to standard engineering protocols. F. DRAINAGE PLAN The project's construction contractor, in consultation with the City of La Quinta, shall be responsible for filing all required notices with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), preparing the Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and implementing required Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project. The project drainage plan proposes to direct surface runoff into a number of catch basins located throughout the site (see Figure 14). Stormwater will be conveyed from the individual catch basins into an underground storm drain system, and ultimately to an underground retention system located near the center of the site and above ground retention basins, located on the west and south sides of the site. All stormwater will be retained on site. The exact size and design of the proposed storm drain facilities will be determined by the final engineering design and will be reviewed by the City via standard plan check protocols to ensure that the drainage is adequately addressed. G. SEWER PLAN Sewer service to the project is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) via an existing 10 inch sewer line within the right of way of Jefferson Street along the site's eastern property line. As shown on conceptual sewer & water plan, the project will construct 2 -8" on site sewer main (Private). One 8" main will run south east corner of project from front side of Hotel/retail shop and will be connected to existing 10" sewer main in Jefferson Street. This line will pick up sewer laterals for OSH—Hotellretail shop & Shop 1. Another 8" sewer main will be constructed in northeast side of project which will start from existing manhole located in Jefferson Street. This will extend westward into the central portion of the site, where a proposed manhole would be located and then ninety degrees south and north long the front of the Market where it would terminate at a manhole near shops 2. Sewer laterals for Shops 2, Food Market , Shops 3, Drug Store and Pad A will be connected to this sewer main. FIGURE 14, CONCEPTUAL GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN H. WATER PLAN Water Service will also be provided to the site by CVWD and is available to the property from an existing 18 inch water line located within Fred Waring Drive at the northwest corner of the site and existing 12 inch line in Jefferson Street at the southeast corner of the site as shown on conceptual sewer & water plan. Domestic, irrigation and fire flow water will be taken from these water lines. The project will include off site extensions to these existing water lines to facilitate the necessary on site extensions. New on site waterlines will consists of 12 inch main lines extending from CVWD's offsite service lines at two points, one along Fred waring drive and another at Jefferson Street using 12" double detector check assembly. 1.5 inch to 3 inch service lines will be used for lateral extensions to individual building pads. The internal system would result in a looped network of water lines designed to serve individual building pads, fire hydrants and the project' s landscape irrigation infrastructure. I. OTHER UTILITY PLANS Natural Gas - Natural gas service is provided to the site by The Gas Company, which currently maintains a 4 inch gas line within the right of way for Fred Waring Drive, at the project's northwest corner. The required extensions to facilitate service to the site would be routine, and would be coordinated with The Gas Company through their design review and approval process prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. Electric Electric service is provided to the site by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID), which currently maintains existing above ground 92 kV and 12.5 kV transmission lines within the right of way for Fred Waring Drive along the project's northern property line. The project will extend lines from IID's existing 12.5 kV line onto the site. All on site transmission lines will be placed underground. III) anticipates service for this project to be routine. Telephone Telephone service is provided to the site by Verizon, which maintains existing telephone lines within the right of way for Fred Waring Drive approximately 400 feet west of the project limits. Verizon serves the Monticello residential development area to the west of the property from a terminal located at the intersection of Monticello Avenue and Fred Waring Drive. Verizon engineering staff do not anticipate any difficulty extending services along Fred Waring Drive or Jefferson Street and connecting to the project. 9A5� • 044-045 Service for this project would be routine. Cable Television Cable Television service is provided to the site by Time Warner Cable and is available to the property from existing cable within the right of way for Fred Waring Drive along the project's northern property line. Installation of cable television would be coordinated with the extension of electrical service so that a single trench containing both facilities would be constructed. Time Warner Cable considers service for this project to be routine. PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 1"14 PRELIMINARY GR ADING PLAN SWC OF JEFFERSON AVE AND FRED WARING DR. sir LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA EILLe� SpIC _ PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK --- - - - aaw a wio� arcin.n vuiv rwu mna� [,W afsni � •,rn as n. u< alr, �"°` samne. rrne.. um. r�i m� nl "'""'nmi xw w .1� n�-xa��Aw�o a mm vQ,c sw�c o-a � "`i' 120o cr � ,. � ��. o •'- ,ram eraear�alal� ee.11[x"c��n in �1� 1'i,00 c+ ru ,r ^," m.wx fa, u,aan .oar m avo¢ town f.x.l lu-eex. �V W�Oes �Mf�x +4 fML fa[ su.kx fMAad� (xb1 ],tr,f,x pflmaY VICINITY MAP xrs 1 I 14 Earl. ..i� .'�` �:'- •";'�: Ohl FAST, WL- D]Si, yW1� L i �x.: is 51 l f�. E��w:://wAiER 19 1 LG .). -, �N 3 '.�',I1',� Yam• a T O ; I alas ru+ 3 Q 10L c«wrr a raoa _ gWRCf . I� }� 1 !I- SHOPS 3 I 1 : 1 ;4 I I PARCEL 2 1 48..50 FF I c I I I I 85 N Q El Lt , - �$oryyrn' •� • 1 C-D RARCEL 3 I es� PARCEL 6 CEL 5I rim u�E .':� r A C7TCICTIOIi NCiT6$ STORY ORAJI CONSTRUCTION NOIESc ....oR w' vn u• w � ow wa m�nm aa..0 �.suli � m sm Psw �,E�+c P1L Pr C oae m., oa rnd u 0al 5Tl /IAIr pq s K.WL 11'[ eTXn n.w v µy.e�nw lu ]n 91 P r f smim � nnl.c rn •6WL 11' �E 5�.1 Yw ��J n r � eee� amu ecmi le• � atta now Ex GET. �Y� P/� �•-----�����-----��, S!'N Mkmg Ex R[i. ar tXeYEwA I101a — n fw sr .G1xt n• �p1E SrfIB1 nbw Pwr su NonL Ee rafr- _ a,00 exn,rc Ir.,u. ,m.$ 9.rr m rcr rs � .� vAwls IIwL a xwloi unc rw,n .aou uooeAuw s� awew smlr. Icwov rf ,w. Ic m�\\ Pwr awnxe aw lue .r w+E Mnmo.aic s1A.w,iuE wmo-rrtwr.nw vn RIM 1 CUTTER - 9fdAfE %YT r rn�,m.n rwee i ie.ml.luws ee,.c u..nw oxvmsl wwnle >d Pam. W \` t .rimAnoK sA41 EffiT- suaEAC£ Lom- airr,�c[ xi o-KSWL YNWq]AK C1IYHII IFI[EY IPE aZ� SE- CIlQN hG N B C _�m���.1 p w w w �saarr Norte HOT TO SCALE HOi T[I SCALE NOT TO SCALE i m a .vum ru m.s orafmi ew,L m�l�. i.r w�,e neKfm RN0f6 [rbYlm �0 M tln' V N 0.M• M1 .e n.'Asa"si '«.m..e b •aO1reme ea`mr.`inu. e°'N0u taeuac sc,,.F r-arc WQMP EXHIBIT 11,GU- NO- 15 WQMP EXHIBIT SWC OF . E"MON AVE AID FM WMM M LA QIIITA, CALFORMA � I xiiL I I I � ktE1'?TT!OM I I rs: r i'f U.G- kE'fe71nON 7 I ' I +4 2 T7P------_ I 44 f ziwi us ncr,� } I o:I r----- aPA•v�;M �ti �L I .roi onra is a K�ie�iv°i - - _ _ 4 } L E � I r a 'a mw vAs�wi TILL y —i �� mwrr � - ■ I i I QA••8 .v:�rslT PARCEL 2 � 1 •� I I roDL 3.7[I r I F00? rcErwKBu[ ' I I aaw Ru000� .a.5a Ff .`Y-* I .a.w Ff I nroa �c A `T-7 CPARCEL 3 T .1PARCEt G :PARCEL dI I EX ]EFFERSOF S ARE I { y 1 4 PARCEL I `:A.P_SHDn , imS 0< Sm1.fJ I ` I f I [ I P { .- - - PARCEL _ 4liff-61 I ad. uuun sweci l _7,I --------------- - ---------- TO A 28' C.&-LOCAiEL71 - 42. 5 FL-APPRtM S 1 ME I VICINJrY MAP R.rs LEGEND- pN� TW-ATMEHT AREA DESVOiaN kaEFCE 1. J — FLDW PATH [Av05(APE ARU ® CONLRQE LFA55 PAVER 7-7 AC PMMDCNI (3.5 ACRES) TOTAL PROJECT AREA - 6.4 ACRES [PARCELS 3, 5, AND 6] STRUCTURAL SOURCE CONTROL BMPS: ❑j STOW MAN NLIT SI(N('unO mft SCN+C£ ILiYYDSAPE A PRICdTI(NI 4(S m OLRICr: ❑S TWM STUWa AREA LDkDM DOG( DRUG rII i 44' O' W b' Ito' . GAwrnC SCµE: 'I-Q' � I CCD HOTEL & RESORTS - LA RLIINTA --- ----------- WQMP EXHIM LA OUINTA, CA -- — 150 5, Old 4;i qs 4.; _ _ — _- - Engineering. Inc. Suite 210 8n0eh Hi$, C " EIFiI E�glnerringJt�ni SrrrerinplLrad rlrrrirl �1�_�85.6860 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS • 050-05I 04 DEVEL- OPMENT BEGS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS The development regulations contained herein provide specific standards relative to permitted land uses in addition to site design and construction regulations to be applied within the Specific Plan area. They are intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to create a harmonious relationship with surrounding land. hi general, this Specific Plan is consistent with the CN Zone of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code unless a different standard is identified below. The proposed land uses are consistent with the NC land use designation in the City's General Plan. Should a development standard contained in this Specific Plan conflict with an equivalent standard contained in the City of La Quinta Zoning Code, the provisions of the Specific Plan shall take precedence. In instances where the Specific Plan does not address a particular regulation, the applicable portion of the City of La Quinta Zoning Code shall govern. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to approve minor adjustments during development permit review, so long as he determines such adjustments are consistent with the Specific Plan Land Use Plan. A. PRINCIPAL USES PERMITTED This Specific Plan shall allow all uses identified as Permitted as a principal use, permitted as an accessory to the principal use, Permitted as a principal or accessory use if a Conditional Use Permit is approved, Permitted if a minor use permit is approved, and Permitted as a temporary use as identified in and subject to the provisions of the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Zoning District described in Section 9.80.040 of the La Quinta Zoning Code. This Specific Plan shall also allow Hotels and Motels as permitted uses. B. PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -Maximum structure height: 35 feet (2) -Max Structure Height within 150 feet of Arterial Hwy: 22 feet (3) -Maximum number of stories:4-3 -Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 8:25 0.30 -Building Setbacks (4) -from Jefferson Street: 30 feet (3) -from Fred Waring Drive: 30 feet (3) -from common property line: 30 feet 40 feet -from OS and Park Districts: 20 feet -Landscape Setback (5) -from Jefferson Street: 20 feet (3) -from Fred Waring Drive: 20 feet (3) -from Open Space/Park Districts: 5-1 feet minimum -from residential areas: 15 feet 2. Not including architectural appendages, such as a roof parapet or tower, up to 41 feet. 3. Not including up to 10% of the building mass, which may extend up to 36feet. This does not affect the area of the proposed project but applies to other parcels contained within the previous Specific Plan Not. 4. Number given is minimum building setback from the Street right-of-way. In addition to the required landscape setback, the building setback may contain parking, driveways and similar facilities. 5. Landscape setback shall consist of landscaped area within the building setback. Number given is minimum landscaped area from the street right-of-way. 6. The previous Specific Plan No.2 proposed general retail development above 100,000 sq ft and thus required 1 space per 250 sq ft GFA. Forgeneral retail uses under 100,000 sq ft (as proposed in this Amendment No.3) the minimum parking requirement is 1 space per 300 sq ft GFA, as per Code 9.150.070 7. The minimum hotel parking requirement is 1.1 spaces per guest room, as per Code 9.150.070 DEVELOPMENT REGLFLATIO • - -Interior Landscape (6) -parking areas: 5 % of project area -non parking areas: 5 % of project area -Required Parking -Retail Stores: One space per 2-59-300 square feet (s)) Gross Floor Area (GFA) (6) -Restaurant: One space per 250 sf of GFA, when restaurant is not more than 20 % of shopping center floor area. -A facility to accommodate a minimum of five bicycles shall be provided for any restaurant use. -Other Uses: The parking provisions of the La Quinta Zoning Code Section 9.150 shall apply. - Hotel: 1.1 spaces per guest room (7) DESIGN GUIDELINES • 0%-055 DESIGN GUIDE- LINES DESIGN GUIDELINES The Design Guidelines for the Specific Plan have been developed as a method of achieving a high quality, cohesive design character for the development of the proposed project in La Quinta. They provide specific design criteria for the development of the project, as well as encouraging creativity, imagination and a high level of harmony and consistency within the surrounding community. Adherence to the Design Guidelines will create a desirable asset to the community and enhance the projects overall value. These guidelines will govern the design quality of the project for application in the following ways: -To provide the City of La Quinta with the necessary assurance that the Specific Plan area will develop in accordance with the quality and character proposed; -To provide guidance to developers, builders, engineers, architects, landscape architects and other professionals in order to maintain the desired design quality; -To provide guidance to City staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council in the review of construction plans for the Specific Plan area. A. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES. The building design theme of this commercial complex strives to achieve a Mediterranean style architecture. In utilizing elements from this vernacular the complex achieves a massing and scale that is comforting and pleasing. Textured plaster, deep canopies, and trellises allow for contrast and shade, while simplified cornice detailing and the use of color unifies the different building elements within the complex. Figures 12» 1 13 134 1n 1,5 1 16.1,17 17.1, 18, 19 illustrate the typical building elevations and use of the vernacular to unify and provide a sense of scale for the in -line tenants. The figures also illustrate the use of the vernacular for a typical outlying pad building and how the architectural style is continuous around the exterior of the pad building. Figure46-20, 21, 21.1, 21.2 shows cross sections of the site taken from various locations on the site The elevations used for the specific plan provide a basis for acceptable materials and usage for the various buildings and do not deem to illustrate specific examples of tenants, or building occupants. Through the use of extensive canopies, trellises, landscaping, patterned sidewalks and patios, the complex achieves a campus like environment, suitable for pedestrian movement between the various elements of the complex. (Amended Specific Plan No.2) Many of the qualities of the Mediterranean inspired architecture will be employed in the modern 'desert -style' facades of the hotel building. Light shade play, color and pattern will be used to add detail and create similarities between the styles. MASSING & SCALE -Varied proportions are encouraged. Elements in facades should be spaced at regular intervals to create a visual rhythm, colonnade effect. Plaster pop -outs on the building sides, where not beneath an arcade, shall be 3'-5' in depth, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. -Each building will incorporate a continuity of mass, scale and architectural features and similar detailing. -The facade of in -line retail stores shall be offset to help break up building mass and give the Appearance of multiple buildings. -Accent features such as medallions, awnings and color banding should be utilized/encouraged, for continuity of scale between the elements/ buildings. ROOF TREATMENTS - Appropriate use of flat, hip, shed, and pitched gable roof forms are encouraged. -Flat roofs may be used with a parapet alone, or in combination with other roof forms. -The use of variable ridge lines on a single structure is encouraged. -Roof pitch may vary between buildings in the complex. -Mechanical equipment may be placed only on flat portions of roofs provided that they are screened from public view and that the screening is incorporated into building design. -Roof pitch on any one structure should be consistent within the limitations of the material being used. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND DETAILS -All mechanical equipment including fuse boxes, heating and cooling devices and satellite dishes shall be screened from public view. The building parapet heights shall be adjusted so that roof elements are screened from view. -The use of curtain walls is not allowed. Separate screening walls, shall only be used as an exception, and shall be designed to utilize building materials and colors. -Exterior walls should emphasize shadow relief using recesses, medallions, covered walkways, trellises, and landscaping where appropriate. -Building entryways should be visually emphasized, and try to keep sense of pedestrian scale. -Shaded walkways are encouraged in areas with high levels of pedestrian traffic. -Conversion of first floor windows to exterior tenant entries is allowed subject to Staff approval of architectural details. -Accent at comers of pad buildings by using small tower features is encouraged. WALLS AND FENCES -Walls are encouraged to use materials and colors which match or compliment associated/ adjacent buildings and context. -Walls that create long, unbroken straight lines should be avoided when possible by DE5IGN GUIDELII�TE • 0%-057 varying the parapets or with use of color and Accents Buildings in the desert -modern style may use straight unbroken lines but care should be taken to combine this with materials of interest and quality to ensure a visually exciting facade. LIGHTING -Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining/related landscape -Lighting standards and buildings fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent areas. Exposed wall packs should be avoided. -Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness (night glow) avoided. -Standard design techniques should be employed to shield parking light fixtures and control direct glare and spill light emanating from these fixtures. Parking lot light poles should be equipped with a fixture and lamping that is compatible with adjacent properties, and a flush lens and should not exceed a maximum height of 18 feet above parking lot surface. 01. NORTH EXTERNAL ELEVATION (DD G) 44ft 35ft 31ft v aft IL -T! M-41IMM"MIm, 1!F�1rd,30 :'B —M UZ 2-M-2 MIMI 1 0119, MEM1711M lift ........... f. F - Oft HOI E FOGs-i 02. EAST EXTERNAL ELEVATION plac& PROJECT NAME DRAVOM ITTLE SHE [NOTE: REWOM DATE SCALE CLIENT -HO-i EL/ J-Q-PARTI-Filuur-�� J-, -01 F A-9 v ELEvATKIN� I/eo,zr M HOTEL L RESORTS :HELP V F120D MARKET 1/40'=I'-B' C Sa. - n-� � �a 0, -k M3 nee ELEVATIONS- HOTEL/ SHOP 2/ FOOD MARKET [1611 34ft ai 21 ft M, OR -::i N, :V :1. HOTEL 01. SOUTH EXTERNAL ELEVATION 102 ' LO6 31fl - ----- ....... --- --- 31ft lift: lu a .9 1 1E a__,2ift lift. Ott R HOTEL pk ok 02. WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATION k" man Market Place HOTFI 02 WEST EXTERNAL ELEVATION PROJECT NAME CRAVInNo TFTLE $MET NOTE: REVISION DATE SCALE CLIENT v ATIGN - HULL,J.--PARU-FIUO-L lbi 1121'=I'-0' @ A3 vCCD iUTEL & RESORTS .;HOP 21 FCOD MARKET 1140'--1'-0' @ A' s ,- E a-& ft� PIPW. CA gn" "k -IMi mg ELEVATIONS- HOTEL/ SHOP 21 FOOD MARKET 111"ki"'I 16.1 01 Q2 03 05 0B 07 08 09 1❑ i1 12) 1L111lII ■I'q/"1 - 1 16 i ►■� a••1 �Erq� Akk*tMZMj vurtv r4? wm,uwrR6, vr�MEN N-�:—'ws'r+�, ���r isax5�r�tt ST4NE[Ex15TiidG} riLElEX1571MGj No 0 m Z s¢i a♦< 1 "AN suet nce r m coon WSA TAN omcla Corm aom.LR OW OWN ouxNw.w POLISHED ALUMINUM PLATE ALUMINUM SHUTTER HOLLOW BRICK ODEMN immu 9uc2 "M11 PuVw cyan COLOR:BROWN COLOR:GR€Y CONCRETE CANQPY�ExIT1NGj COLOR GREY COL6R.WiiITE COLOR:YELLOW COLOR13LACK MATERIA L BOARD PROJECT NAME DRAWING TITLE SHEET ROTE: REVISION GATE SCALE CLIENT 1/20'=i'-G' 2 43 w CCU HOTEL L RESORTS .. - 1/40'=1'-Q' INF-1- AI S mN = r Y N IIY r 0-]. h— IF�. G itt]d r i 1 213 i16 ]Bl0 "Refer to Figure 16,16.1 for updated proposed elevation EAST ELEVAMN SCALE-v17 C'tI - ' — -T T f I � mwm:� y I � `•:hr5 AMENDED 3.24.08 *Refer to Figure 16,16.7 for updated proposed elevation I SOUTH ELEVATION iCAi6u 1 n �': f'p' WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION S A[-1116': 1'W IN 21 _rg 1� lirai:rr �II�'i �L . �� I _ == �- i �s _ _ L a✓• =i■i,.a�f'_. s'i �1i ��i r��11 .■ �!i'•fi_iCi �!At 1'f_i �jl� _� %�7 E�i i i %ii �+�:f �..ti _. _ �_ AMENDED 3.24.08 Elevations - OSH 1 Shops 211Fresh & Easy _.... _ !�CEAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Elevations - Shops 1 PARTIAL PLAN r3 n SC.T.,�,6 „� L ,a •�,i wwr WEST ELEVATION AMENDED 3.24.08 NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION scufl�,ne•:,w• SCALE . t 1, 6'- v W- " PARTIAL PLAN L� n l 1 ■ Elevations - Shops 3JEFFERSON " SQUARE b 16' 6.t' ITCL'RE HO. RA1EtJPEP 1P3: 0, �• SCALE kii1 r- !� r �i�•�• � NORTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION Elevations - CVS 9CAAAr 1/1S a-w 5CAtr—I11c• -.-0- AMIWEu 1931.07 t PARTIAL PLAN r� n WEST ELEVATION yCA�e:.71l6': 7'4 AMENDED 3.24.08 C IB dT "Yg 37 'BCME. 11d': ! W f a ., 1 Tit il i- .- SCALP. I I I a':,'a - 71-m� ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATIONSOUTH Elevations - Pad A PARTIAL PLAN r'+ SCA12-1.16• tW L AMENDED 3,24.08 1 -9 UP h r rrn •.may u tew lcu, R 3? SC/iE.1r6"�t d' 1iclvr fir hgrcre 27, 21.1, 21.2far uddiiitm xilr serlions Site Sections Ilk IL0,32101d Dom KEYPLAN _ WE SITE SECTION 2 i PA K SITE SECTION 3 SITE SECTION 4 AMENDED 3.24.09 d 16 6F Ili:r��xl ��I R1r�IpEfl 1D31.Dr � � erxs.rnr:+'�o� 6� SITE SECTIONS RESIDENTIAL �7i I „ram oRwunal � _ roraaswus ' iFZ9WZKYARDVMscFro3t74s RDC )l' IMWAEr 10 LOTBl0.Or1O LOT 259AC1O'ARO LAiWAK 7PSET 15ROWV FAM=LOTN N L"P ANO LOT 25MMARD LMQ= OFFSET 1T ROAOx 01.LOT 23 SECTION -A 02.L0T 23 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 04.LOT 23 SECTION-B 05.LOT 23 PLAN-B LEVEL 3 07LOT 24 SECTION -A QS.LOT 24 PLAN -A LEVEL 3 aewu� 'iweaglaTlr� 03.LOT 23 VISUALIZATION VIEW 01 OG.i-[JT 23 VTSUMZATlQN VIEW 02 A.4.L0T_24_VISIIALIZA'UON WEST pAnd1swLEuur-A LOT 2d SECTION -A LOT 25 SECTION -A LOT 24 SEC TION-A LOT 23 SELTIOSi-B LOT 23 SEMON-A - - - PROJECT NAME DRAWNG TIRE SHEET NOTE: REVISION DATE SCALE CLIENT JEEFERSCN SOUARE S:TE_SECIICvS-RESiD A sire DEVELENIENT PERMIT 23.032oIR 1/16'=1'-O' 2 Al v CCD HOTEL & RESORTS 1I32'=1'-V P A3 S'ON .1�R.�Kr�w L.. vel... m.l s e o-LRgdqm1w.u+um LIIlOxI�vtYAlL WIGAATAx •. LOi76lI OG — LOT3IIIAP XV L11[Xf01WW SCAM PHi7 url! . [�P�11�1i�-7��•�•I�1�1 03.LOT 25 VISUALIZATION lll I SITE SECTIONS RESIDENTIAL IF2I.ill I 11ti901R1 Yell. T11L'UAMN • tOT36ll�Al6 ~LOT 3Sl1P(Y1A0 11V46GJEOII�ErZI' -- -I�R7R——WOBCI�!% -- EIy-gRit"KIM Wzam7ml(mLim 06.LOT 26 VISUALIZATION 'BEST PAT10/9ALC0tiY-A LOT 0 5ECTION-A LOT 25 SECTION -A LOT 24 SECTION -A =-- LOT 23 SECTRIEY-B LOT 23 SECTION -A rr PROAECTNAM ORHWINOTmE SNEET NOTE: REVISM DATE SCALE CLIENT JEFFERSOhI SQUARE SITE_SECT[pNS-RESIO n SITE OEVEL9PP[N7 pEftrlIT 23.032018 I/Ifi'=1'-O' P AI CCD HOTEL & RESORTS I/32'=I'-O' P A3 r tr E o-a. x..rno Wep., cn tetra DESIGN GUIDELINES MATERIALS & COLORS -The facade plays an integral role in building appearance and should use a continuous palette of similar materials and colors. -Restraint should be exercised in the number of materials and colors selected for a given structure. -Acceptable construction materials are steel, wood, stucco, concrete, plaster, ceramic tile, natural stone, aluminium and glass. -Architectural details should be painted to match the facade. -The following identifies the general colors and materials which will serve as a working palette to provide a basis of establishing architectural cohesiveness for the project (changes may occur at time of Architectural review) -Trellis structures shall be color finished metal tube structures. Paint Colors: ( Manufacturer: Dunn Edwards Paint Company or equal) Main Building Colors These colors would be used on large wall surfaces, but could also be used as accents Paint I. Crossroads # DE5359 2. Mesa Tan #DEC718 3.Porus Stone #DE6220 4.December Sky #DE6352 Stone Eldorado Stone Bouquet/ Flintstone Roo Tile Monier Lifetile Type: Slate Color. Cherrywood Wall Brick Hollow Brick Type: Hollow Color. White Shutter Door in Balconu Type: Shutter Color. White Metal Awnings Berridge Double Rib Panel Colors: Hartford Green & Colonial Red Windows Material: Steel or Aluminium Frames with true divided lights Color: Ral #5021 Glazing: Clear [Light to Medium Bronze Tint with prior written approval] Hardscape Color Accents Chromix& #C-26 Antique Cork #C-27Westwood Brown These conditions are applied to Parcels 4 & 7 which are currently undeveloped. The following 'Main building colors' refers to the material proposal of Parcels 3,5 and 6. DESIGN GUIDELINE * 082-083 Main Building Colors (Parcel3,5,6) -The facade materials for the hotel, retail parade Tiles and back of house have been carefully chosen to Terracotta sit harmoniously alongside the Mediterranean Roof vernacular popular in La Quinta, while being 1.Hote1: Thermoplastic Polyolefin (Tpo) iconic, contemporary and environmentally 2.Retail: Polyurethane spray £a painted to match intelligent. retail facade. -The following identifies the general colors and 3.Roof Patio: Timber Decking (Spotted Gum) materials which will serve as a working palette to provide a basis of establishing architectural cohesiveness for the project Paint (Existing) Color: 1.Crossroads #DE5359 2.Mesa Tan #DEC718 3.Porus Stone #DE6220 4.December Sky #DE6352 Paint Color: 1.Crossroads # DE5359 2. Mesa Tan #DEC718 3.Porus Stone #DE6220 4.December Sky #DE6352 Concrete Perforated stacked blocks Color: White Metal Screen Finish: Dark Brown Metal Window Frame Finish: Powder Coated Color: Black Fine Metal Balustrade Finish: Powder coated Colour: Brown Exterior Courtyard Balcony Plantation Shutter Color. Pastels of White, Yellow and Blue Portecochere Color: Mahogany coloured timber lattice to match screen blocks DESIGN GUIDELINES SUSTAINABILITY Sustainable design adopts passive, low energy strategies to operate the building. The project will priorities passive methods of cooling, ventilation and shading which have governed the design of low -energy, sustainable desert buildings for centuries, including; -natural wind ventilation -solar panels for electricity production - materials with high thermal mass for heat retention and release - low energy water pumps and water recycling Units The project will harness natural ventilation driven by the prevailing wind. Differential temperatures created by a building fabric with high thermal mass also drives natural ventilation, and complements an efficient distribution of cooling vents across the building. By utilising natural ventilation and producing efficient on -site energy through solar panels the project will become an exemplar of global sustainable design in the heart of La Quinta. These low energy production and conservation strategies will supplement existing utilities infrastructure at Jefferson Square: a strategy for their integration into the existing utilities plan will be developed with civil and environmental engineers. LIGHT AND SHADE The project will adopt a thorough solar shading strategy, which will be essential to mitigate overheating and will augment the environmental performance of the buildings' materials. Precedents of successful desert shading strategies around the world range from filigree timber shading slats, to adjustable metal louvres which adapt to the changing sun position throughout the day. The project's approach to modulate natural light and prevent overheating will be defined by the solar path across the site. The project's south facing facade will combat the high midday sun whilst the east and western facades will block low -oncoming rays from the morning or late afternoon sun. The project's precise shading strategy will be developed with environmental consultants and approved by the City Council during design reviews. ICONIC DESIGN Iconic design will complement the sophisticated environmental and material strategies to elevate the project to become a gem in the desert; and located just beyond the Jefferson Square I-10 interchange, the proposed development will announce the gateway to La Quinta. The project will create a unique atmosphere, memorable photo opportunities and become a landmark development to celebrate La Quinta's heritage. The project will employ architecture with a distinctive, playful character that will embrace the creative design ideas that have made hospitality and retail developments successful in Palm Springs. The strength of hospitality and retail development at Jefferson Square will be reinforced by iconic design: the project will seize the opportunity to setglobal design trends within the heart of La Quinta. EXPERIENTIAL DESIGN Allied with the broader environmental and architectural guidelines is the project's strategy for the more intimate pedestrian scale. The project will choreograph unique experiences through framed views, material accents and sensitivity to the human experience of the site. This attention to the architectural detail will ensure the project is coherent in quality and ambition across all scales of the development. DESIGN GUIDELINE • 084-085 DESIGN GUIDELINES B. SIGN GUIDELINES A detailed sign program for the Specific Plan area will be submitted under a separate sign permit subsequent to Specific Plan approval. The developer shall secure the sign permit from the City of La Quinta Building and Safety Department by submitting three (3) copies of the fully dimensioned scaled drawings as follows: a) A site plan showing the location of the occupant space on the site. b) An elevation of the occupant space drawing to scale and showing sign placement and occupant space width. c) A detailed elevation of the sign drawn to scale and showing all colors, materials, dimensions and copy. d) Fabrication and installation details, including structural and engineering data, UL electrical specification, and type and intensity of illumination (for electrical signs). e) Any other drawing, details and information as required by the City of La Quinta. Since the Jefferson Square Specific Plan site is located at a secondary gateway into the City of La Quinta, the project will provide an approximate 468 square foot area at the northeast comer of the site for a City monument sign. The design and ultimate construction of the City's monument sign will be the City's responsibility, and will be completed subsequent to development of the Specific Plan at the City's discretion. Landscaping and continued landscape maintenance within the sign area shall be the responsibility of the project's Building Management Association. C. LIGHTING GUIDELINES -Exterior lighting, when used, should enhance the building design and the adjoining landscape. -Lighting standards and building fixtures should be of a design and size compatible with the building and adjacent areas. -Lighting shall be restrained in design and excessive brightness (night glow) avoided. -Standard design techniques will be employed to shield parking light fixtures from adjacent land uses and control direct glare and spill light emanating from these fixtures. -Parking lot light poles will be equipped with a recessed lamp and a flush lens and not exceed a maximum height of 18 feet throughout the site. -The average foot candles (fc) for the project site would be 1.8 fc, with a maximum of 4.9 fc and a minimum of 0.7 fc. D. LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES The guidelines presented herein are not intended to discourage creative design or individuality. Rather, they are intended to assist in providing the continuity and desired image which will make the proposed project a unique and special commercial community center. General Guidelines -Groundcovers should be used to enhance the appearance of the project and protect soil from erosion. Acceptable groundcover includes gravel, rocks or living plant materials. Tree bark and shredded wood products, which are lightweight and subject to wind and water erosion, are prohibited. -Water efficient landscape materials, including native plants, with drip irrigation should be used wherever possible as a means of conserving scarce water resources and minimizing maintenance costs. -Landscaping should be designed to screen above ground utility equipment, service areas and trash containers. Homogenous, visually subtle plant materials should be selected for use in these areas in order not to focus attention on the objectionable items. Entryways -Areas which serve as a focus of vehicular traffic, such as project entries, should be accented by the use of colorful shrubs and ground covers for DESIGN GUIDELIhiE * 086-087 enhanced visual interest. These shrubs and ground covers may include Bougainvillea, Purple and gold Lantana, Verbina, and Angelita Daisy. -Project entries should utilize vertical accents such as palm trees to provide a sense of arrival to the facility with California Fan Palms of varying heights. -Plant materials at project entries should be located so as to avoid interfering with motorist sight lines. Plant combinations shall leave an area from 30 inches above grade open to allow for unobstructed vision of approaching vehicles and pedestrians. Buildings -Plant materials should be used to soften long stretches of blank wall surface.. -Landscape materials shall be selected with colors and textures which enhance architectural elements. Streetscapes -Streetscapes should incorporate informal masses of trees and shrubs. -Streetscapes fronting the project should maintain a plant palette and design concept which is compatible with surrounding finished street frontages Parking Lots -Plant material will consist of Lantana groundcover, Palo Verde and Desert Museum trees, and Desert Cassia and Regal Mist, shrubs which will allow sight line over shrubs yet provide islands that are green. -The design of parking lots should include provisions for canopy trees to provide shade for parked vehicles. -Parking areas should be screened from adjacent roadways by the use of low walls, landscaping, or berms. OPERATIONAL GUIDELINE • 088-089 ris OPERA— TIONS OPERATIONAL GUIDEL]NES A. HOURS OF OPERATION The retail uses on site will operate from 6:00 AM to 12: 00 AM, Monday through Sunday. The Drug Store would also be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The hotel will also operate for public use during the same hours. Hotel guest will be able to check in 24 hours seven days a week after check -in hotel guest can move freely with the same time constraints. B. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT According to the guidelines contained in the City' s Transportation Demand Ordinance (Section 9. 180.030), this project is required to make provisions for transportation demand management. In response to this requirement, the project shall incorporate the following measures: -The project shall make provisions for bicycle racks in accordance with City Zoning Code Section 9.150.050.D.3.c. -The project shall identify a Transportation Demand Coordinator to promote participation in TDM programs among employees. -The TDM Coordinator shall encourage ride sharing, bus ridership, telecommuting, flexible work schedules, and other TDM programs as feasible and appropriate. C. MAINTENANCE Maintenance of buildings, parking facilities, common walkways and landscaped areas, sewers, drainage facilities, utilities, and any other improvements not dedicated to public use shall be maintained by the projects Building Management Association. On site facilities and landscaping shall be maintained in a clean, attractive and safe condition in accordance with City regulations. PERATIDfliAL GUIDELINE " 090-091 ATTACHMENT 11 CHAIR Steve Manos Lake EWnore VICE CHAIR Russell Betts Desert Hot Springs COMMISSIONERS Arthur Butler Riverside John Lyon Riverside Steven Stewart Palm Springs Richard Stewart Moreno Valley Gary Youmans Temecula STAFF Director Simon A. Housman John Guerin Paul Rull Barbara Santos Cuu*AdnrnWralke Center 4 Nt.ernunSU4thFIw Riverside, CA925U1 (951) W.5132 www.rcaluc.org AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY July 26, 2018 Ms. Cheri Flores, Project Planner City of La Quinta Planning Division 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 Cr" OF LA gUINTA COMMUNIW DEVELOPMENT RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW File No.: ZAP1074BD18 Related File Nos.: SPA2018-001 (Specific Plan Amendment), SDP2018-001 (Site Development Permit) APNs: 604-521-013 (Site Development Permit); 604-521-007, 604-521- 009, and 604-521-011 through 604-521-014 (Specific Plan Amendment) Dear Ms. Flores: On July 12, 2018, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City of La Quinta Case No. SPA2018-001(Specific Plan Amendment), a proposal to amend the 10.79-acre Jefferson Square Specific Plan located on the southwest comer of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive to increase the allowable floor area ratio, amend the land uses to include the development of a 160-room hotel, a food market, and assorted retail and service -oriented shops, enhance circulation design, refine design guidelines and development standards, and provide new landscape guidelines, CONSISTENT with the 2004 Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. On July 12, 2018, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found City of La Quinta Case No. SDP2018-001 (Site Development Permit), a proposal to constructa three-story 160 room hotel resort building totaling 68,021 square feet which includes swimming pools, spas, bars, and restaurants, and to convert the existing adjacent 28,893 square foot Fresh and Easy building into an indoor organic food and beverage market with dine -in facilities on 6.4 acres within the 10.79-acre Jefferson Square development as referenced above, CONSISTENT with the 2004 Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1*1*]►]9k1lL9TF" Any outdoor lighting that is installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. 2. The following uses/activities are not included in the proposed project and shall be prohibited at this site: (a) Any use or activity which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA - approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. (b) Any use or activity which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. (c) Any use or activity which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, composting operations, production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.) (d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 3. The attached notice shall be provided to all potential purchasers of the project site, lessees, concessionaries, and long-term tenants (over 30 days). 4. Any new detention basin(s) on the site shall be designed so as to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the conclusion of the storm event for the design storm (may be less, but not more), and to remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the detention basin(s) that would provide food or cover for bird species that would be incompatible with airport operations shall not be utilized in project landscaping. If you have any questions, please contact Paul Rull, ALUC Urban Regional Planner IV, at (951) 955-6893 or John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION Simon A. Housman, ALUC Director Attachments: Notice of Airport in Vicinity cc: Caleb Ro, CCD Hotels and Resorts, LLC—Rancho Mirage (applicant/local representative) Paul Mercer, CCD Hotels and Resorts, LLC — Redding (fee -payer) Regency Marinita La Quinta (San Antonio) (listed property owner) PARTI (architect) (London) Ann Goodwyn, Airport Manager, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport ALUC Case File Y:IAIRPORT CASE FILES1Bermuda DuneslZAP1074BD181ZAP1074BD18.LTR.doc 2 ATTACHMENT 12 From: Wanda Wise -Latta To: Cheri Flores Cc: Gabriel Perez; Danny Castro Subject: FW: Fred Waring/Jefferson Development Date: Monday, October 01, 2018 12:37:33 PM Forwarding the email below. Thank you. Wanda Wise -Latta lExecutive Assistant City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico - La Quinta, CA 92253 760.777.7118 -----Original Message ----- From: Tyler Ingle <tylerjingle@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:33 AM To: Community Development Webmail <CommunityDevelopmentWebmail@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Fred Waring/Jefferson Development Good Morning, I am writing with regard to the proposed hotel development on the corner of Fred Waring and Jefferson. We have lived in the Monticello sub division since 2007; we are opposed to the development of a hotel. The other improvements to the center sound great, but not with the addition of the hotel. The hotel is unsightly, especially looking over the neighborhood park and some of our neighbors' yards. Please don't allow the zoning change. Thank you, Tyler Ingle 79858Independence Way La Quinta CA 92253 From: Wanda Wise -Latta To: Cheri Flores Cc: Gabriel Perez; Danny Castro Subject: FW: Jefferson Square Project Date: Monday, October 01, 2018 12:40:43 PM Forwarding the email below. Wanda Wise -Latta lExecutive Assistant City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico - La Quinta, CA 92253 760.777.7118 -----Original Message ----- From: mattkotz@gmail.com <mattkotz@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 8:54 PM To: Community Development Webmail <CommunityDevelopmentWebmail@laquintaca.gov> Subject: Jefferson Square Project Dear City of La Quinta Planning Commissioners- I am writing in regards the proposed project at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring. I know that there has been some recent dialog and meetings regarding a proposed hotel project on the vacant land. I am a resident of the Monticello neighborhood and I feel that a project, possibly a hotel, would be a good fit for Jefferson Square. Maybe the 3 story hotel proposed is not the best fit but I feel that some type of long term tax producing business; for example, a hotel is. I believe La Quinta needs tax producing businesses to help drive the city's finances for the future. Thus benefiting the current businesses and future businesses of the square. Please consider a tax producing businesses for this property to supplement La Quinta's finances for the future. Thank you for your time, Matthew Kotz 79917 Hancock Court La Quinta, Ca. 92253 Sent from my iPhone SHH11fle IAANS/I ,10EN6Y APubficAgency August 21, 2018 Cheri Flores, Senior Planner City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 ATTACHMENT 13 MEMBERS: N5ertH0t5Pdn9s Palm5prings Cathedral City RaruhaMirage Palm Desert Indian Wens La Winta Indio Coachella Rlverslde County RE: Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment Dear Ms. Cheri Flores: R@��419RD AUG 2 4 2919 CITY Ur LAqUXhTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This letter responds to your request for comments regarding the proposed Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment located southwest comer of Fred Waring and Jefferson Street within the City of La Quinta, The SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) staff has reviewed the project and offers the following comments. SunLine currently provides service within close proximity to the project site, with the closest bus stop # 248 located .1 mile from the project served by Line 54 at Fred Waring and Jefferson Street. Since SunLine currently operates fixed route service along Fred Waring, we are recommending transit - friendly pedestrian access on Fred Waring Drive. Please note internal transit -friendly pedestrian access can be accomplished by following the guiding principles listed below: a Pedestrian walkways to bus stops should be designed to meet the needs of all passengers, including the disabled, seniors and children. All pedestrian walkways should be designed to be direct from the street network to the main entrance of buildings. o Pedestrian walkways should be designed to provide convenient connections between destinations, including residential areas, schools, shopping centers, public services and institutions, recreation, and transit. o Provide a dedicated sidewalk and/or bicycle paths through new development that are direct to the nearest bus stop or transit facilities. o Provide shorter distance between building and the bus stop by including transit friendly policies that address transit accessibility concerns to encourage transit -oriented development. These policies can be achieved through zoning policies, setback guidelines, building orientation guidelines, and parking requirements. 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-1986 www.szintine.org I11� III' f N R N N! T R G E N C Y MEWER5 QesertNatSprings Palm Springs CalhedralGty Rancho Mirage Palm Desert Indian Wells La Quin to Indio Coachella Riverslde County A Public Agency Cheri Flores, Senior Planner Page Two o Limit the use of elements that impede pedestrian movement such as meandering sidewalks, walled communities, and expansive parking lots. o Eliminate barriers to pedestrian activities, including sound walls, berms, fences, and landscaping which obstructs pedestrian access or visibility. Gates should be provided at restricted areas to provided access to those using transit services. o Pedestrian pathways should be paved to ensure that they are accessible to everyone. Accessible circulation and routes should include curb cuts, ramps, visual guides and railing where necessary. ADA compliant ramps should be placed at each corner of an intersection. o A minimum horizontal clearance of 48 inches (preferable 60 inches) should be maintained along the entire pathway. o A vertical clearance of 84 inches (preferable 96 inches) should also be maintained along the pathway. Should you have questions or concems regarding this letter, please contact me at 760-343-3456, ext. 1603. Sincerel flits M Petke Transit Communications Service Specialist cc: Lauren Skiver, CEO/General Manager Stephanie Buriel, Chief of Administration 32-505 Harty O11ver Troll Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-1966 www.sunilne.org 11D raweR century o f servicc. September 5, 2018 Ms. Cheri Flores Senior Planner Design & Development Department City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 www.ild.com Since 1911 SUBJECT: NOI to Adopt a MND for the Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment & Site Development Permit in La Quinta, CA Dear Ms. Flores: On August 15, 2018 the Imperial Irrigation District received from City of La Quinta Design & Development Department, the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment & Site Development Permit. In 2004, the Jefferson Square Specific Plan was approved for mixed -commercial use on 10.7 acres of land and consisted of seven building areas. Currently, the applicant, CCD Hotel & Resorts, LLC: is proposing an amendment that would result in the repurposing an existing store involving retrofitting the building. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing construction of a three-story, 160- room hotel building, associated facilities and retail shops in the southern portion of the site located at the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street in La Quinta, CA. A Site Development Permit is also being requested for the landscaping and architectural design of the hotel and retail components of the project. The Imperial Irrigation District has reviewed the information and has the following comments: 1. IID will not begin any engineering or estimate costs to provide electrical service for the project until the owner submits an application, detailed loading information, project schedule and estimated in-service date. The IID customer project application is available at htt :llwww.ild.com/home/showdocument?id=12923. 2. Once the applicant provides the district with the required information, IID can carry out a thorough assessment to determine the specific requirements to supply electrical service to the project including but not limited to new backbone distribution line extensions and reconfigurations to existing IID facilities. Likewise, IID will determine the availability of temporary construction power from existing power lines based on construction schedules and or phasing. 3. For additional information regarding electrical service for the project, the applicant should be advised to contact the IID Energy - La Quinta Division Customer Operations, 81-600 Avenue 58 La Quinta, CA 92253, at (760) 398-5841 and speak with the area's project manager, Travis Maston, for guidance and to initiate the customer service application IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT . RO BOX 937 - IMPERIAL, CA 92251 Cheri Flores September 5, 2018 Page 2 process. Mr. Maston can also be reached (760) 398-5871 or by email at tnmaston@IID.com. 4. It is important to note that IID's policy is to extend its electrical facilities only to those developments that have obtained the approval of a city or county planning commission and such other governmental authority or decision -making body having jurisdiction over said developments. 5. The applicant will be required to provide rights -of -way and easements for any power line extensions needed to serve the project. 6. Line extensions to serve the project will be made in accordance with IID Regulations: No.2 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2540), No. 13 (http://www.iid-com/home/showdocument?id=25.53), No. 15 (http://www.iid.comlhomelshowdocument?id=2555) and No.20 (http://www.iid.com/home/showdocument?id=2560. 7. Any construction or operation on IID property or within its existing and proposed right of way or easements including but not limited to: surface improvements such as proposed new streets, driveways, parking lots, landscape; and all water, sewer, storm water, or any other above ground or underground utilities; will require an encroachment permit, or encroachment agreement (depending on the circumstances). A copy of the IID encroachment permit application and instructions for its completion are available at http://www.iid.com/departments/real-estate. The lID Real Estate Section should be contacted at (760) 339-9239 for additional information regarding encroachment permits or agreements. 8. Relocation of existing lID facilities to accommodate the project and/or to accommodate street widening improvements imposed by the City will be deemed developer -driven and all costs, as well as securing of rights of way and easements for relocated facilities, shall be bome by the applicant. 9. Any new, relocated, modified or reconstructed IID facilities required for and by the project (which can include but is not limited to electrical utility substations, electrical transmission and distribution lines, etc.) need to be included as part of the project's CEQA and/or NEPA documentation, environmental impact analysis and mitigation. Failure to do so will result in postponement of any construction and/or modification of IID facilities until such time as the environmental documentation is amended and environmental impacts are fully mitigated. Any mitigation necessary as a result of the construction, relocation and/or upgrade of IID facilities is the responsibility of the project proponent. 10. Dividing a project into two or more pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document (Piecemealing or Segmenting), rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document, is explicitly forbidden by CEQA, because dividing a project into a number of pieces would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating individual pieces separately, each of which may have a less -than -significant impact on the environment, but which Cheri Flores September 5, 2018 Page 3 together may result in a significant impact. Segmenting a project may also hinder developing comprehensive mitigation strategies. In general, if an activity or facility (e.g. offsite electrical infrastructure) is necessary for the operation of a project, or necessary to achieve the project objectives, or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of approving the project, then it should be considered an integral project component that should be analyzed within the environmental analysis. The project description should include all project components, including those that will have to be approved by responsible agencies. The State CEQA Guidelines define a project under CEQA as "the whole of the action' that may result either directly or indirectly in physical changes to the environment. This broad definition is intended to provide the maximum protection of the environment. CEQA case law has established general principles on project segmentation for different project types. For a project requiring construction of offsite infrastructure, the offsite infrastructure must be included in the project description. See San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App. 4th 713. 11. Applicant should be advised that landscaping can be dangerous if items are planted too close to IID's electrical equipment. In the event of an outage, or equipment failure, it is vital that IID personnel have immediate and safe access to its equipment to make the needed repairs. For public safety, and that of the electrical workers, it is important to adhere to standards that limit landscaping around electrical facilities. ll❑ landscaping guidelines are available at hftr):/Iwww.iid.com/energy/safetv/landscapg:guidelines. Should you have any questions, please d❑ not hesitate to contact me at (760) 482-3609 or at dvargas@iid.com. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. Res tfully, 2 D nald Vargas Compliance Administrator II Kevin Kelley — General Manager Mike Pacheco — Manager, Water Dept Ennque B Martinez— Manager. Energy Dept. Jamie Asbury — Deputy Manager, Energy Dept., operations Vance Taylor — Asst. Genera! Counsel Robert Laurie — Asst General Counsel Enrique De Leon —Asst. Mgr. Energy Dept, Distr, , Ptanning, Eng & Customer Service Michael P Kemp — Superintendent, Regulatory & Environmental Compliance Randy Gray — ROW Agent II. Real Estate September 14, 2018 Development Services Department City of La Quinta Design & Development Department Attn: Cheri Flores, Senior Planner 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: Environmental Initial Study for Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment & Site Development Permit. Dear Cheri Flores, Thank you for providing the City of Indio the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Initial Study of the Jefferson Square Specific Plan Amendment & Site Development Permit. The proposed project will be located on the southwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Jefferson Street. It is our understanding that the proposed project consists of a food market, assorted retail and service -oriented shop, and a 160 room hotel. After reviewing the information provided, comments pertaining to the following sections of the Environmental Initial Study are being provided for consideration: I. Aesthetics Currently the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning allows for a maximum 2 stories buildings at a height of 35 feet. The development of the project would result in the construction of a 3 stories hotel at 38 feet high exceeding the maximum development standard of the zoning. It is requested that Visualization Views be incorporate into the Environmental Notice of Intent from the east side of the project to ensure neighboring Indio residents will not have their views negatively impacted by the proposed hotel. CITY OF INDIO • 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL. INDIO, CA 92201 PHONE (760) 391-4120 • FAX (760) 391-4027 Page 1 of 2 X. Land Use and Planning The Project site is located in an area of the City designated for Neighborhood Commercial (CN) which currently prohibits hotels and motels. The proposed Amendment to the Specific Plan would allow a 160 room hotel in the Neighborhood Commercial zone, due to its "relatively small size ...and its location in close proximity to major roadways and the interstate". It is requested that further analysis be made based on previous, similarly entitled hotel projects in the city to ensure that the proposed use is appropriate at this location and will not be a detriment to the quality of life experienced by the surrounding residents in La Quinta and Indio. The City's, Traffic Engineer has reviewed the Traffic Assessment and Parking Evaluation prepared by Urban Crossroads, and has no comments on the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at (760) 391-4016 or at ggomez@indio.org. Thanks, Gustavo Gomez Planning Technician I CITY OF INDIO. 100 CIVIC CENTER MALL • INDIO, CA 92201 PHONE (760) 391-4120 • FAX (760) 391-4027 Page 2 of 2 HANDOUTS PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2018 #1 - DENY SP 2018-0001 SDP 2018-0001 (160-ROOM HOTEL) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 68,021 square -foot hotel, 25,778 square -foot food and beverage market and 8,849 square feet of retail shops, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan [Amendment] 2018--0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and concerns of Planning Commission to justify recommending to the City Council denial of said Specific Plan: Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in the development of a hotel, which is not a permitted use within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow a three-story building which is not permitted within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Site De►elopment Permit 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code concerns of Planning Commission to justify denial of said Site Development Permit: 1. Information available on the architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, materials, colors, architectural details, and other architectural elements is not sufficient to determine compatibility with surrounding development and the quality of design prevalent in the City. 2. Building massing appears to be a solid mass and would be incompatible with surrounding development. 3. The positioning of hotel balconies facing west and south is incompatible with surrounding development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council denial of Specific Plan 2018-0001 and Site Development Permit Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED. APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23th day of October 20181 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California #2 - APPROVE EA 2018-0001 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 68,021 square -foot hotel, 25,778 square -foot food and beverage market and 8,849 square feet of retail shops, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 50❑ feet of the site, and Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.250.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Environmental Assessment [Exhibit A]: 1. As conditioned, proposed application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2018-0001. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 4. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. Impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable can be mitigated to be less than significant. S. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. Impacts associated with noise and air quality can be mitigated to be less than significant. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23t" day of October 2018, by the following vote: Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California #3 - APPROVE SP 2018-0001, AMENDMENT SDP 2018-0001 (160-ROOM HOTEL) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 201$ - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS', LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-room, three-story, 68,021 square -foot hotel, 25,778 square -foot food and beverage market and 8,849 square feet of retail shops, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-0101 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the ❑esign and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan Amendment 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that it will result in the Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Speclfic Plan 2018-OG01 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 7 development of an approximate 125,000 sq. ft. shopping center which is permitted in the General Commercial land use designation. The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals and Policies: • Goal LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. • Policy LU-2.2 which requires Specific Plans for projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance. • Program PR-1.8.c: to promote and improve public access to farmers markets and grocery stores that sell fresh produce and healthy foods with the establishment of a supermarket at the site. • Policy AQ-1.6 which states that proposed development air quality emissions of criteria pollutants shall be analyzed under CEQA. The project's MN❑ analyzed these and determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. • Policy BIO-1.2 which states that site -specific, species -specific surveys shall be required for species not covered by the MSHCP. The project's MND includes mitigation that requires pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl, which is not a covered species under the MSHCP. • GOAL CUL-1 which supports protection of significant archaeological, historic and paleontological resources which occur in the City. The project"s MND includes mitigation measures to include a tribal monitor during ground disturbing activities. • GOAL N-1 which supports a healthful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character. The Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - 5peciflc Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 7 project's WIND includes mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. • GOAL GEO-1 which supports the protection of the residents' health and safety, and ❑f their property, from geologic and seismic hazards. The project's MND determined that with implementation of required building and seismic code standards, the project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources. ■ Policy FH-1.3 which states that the City shall continue to implement development standards that provide for a reduction in runoff from developed lands and are consistent with local and regional stormwater management plans. The project is consistent with this policy since underground retention will be provided that will contain the 100 year storm for the site. • Policy PF-1.3 which states that the City shall identify all viable financing mechanisms for the funding of construction, maintenance and operation of municipal facilities. The project will be required to pay development impact fees which is a funding mechanism for municipal facilities and public services. • The project conceptual landscape design is consistent with Goal WR-1 and Policy UTL-1.2 as it will result in the efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 7 agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 3. Land Use Compatibility The proposed Specific Plan incorporates a land use that is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The property will continue to be zoned as Neighborhood Commercial which is intended to provide for the development and regulation of small- scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the General Plan which provide for the sale of food, drugs, sundries and personal services to meet the daily needs of a neighborhood area. The proposed food market, retail shops, personal service and recreational uses within the hotel would provide for the needs of visitors to the area as well as surrounding neighborhoods. The scope of the project is of relatively low intensity, particularly as it relates to traffic generation, when compared to currently approved retail commercial uses, and will result in a reduction of trips on area roadways. 4. Property Suitability The uses permitted in the Specific Plan are suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the site is relatively flat, vacant, and the area can be served by all necessary public services and utilities. The proposed project is located at the intersection of arterial streets and provides convenience to goods and services to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. Additionally, the hotel's location near major roadways and the Interstate result in compatibility of the site with the use. Site Development Permit 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The City's General Plan policies relating to General Commercial encourage shopping centers in the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. The proposed project is consistent with Goal ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial District as well as the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and Jefferson Square Specific Plan in terms of architectural style and landscaping. The project satisfies the District's intent to provide for the development and regulation of small-scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the general plan. The project is generally consistent with the Non- residential development standards and permitted use table, except for the inclusion of hotel uses as a permitted use, an increase in total building height and increased floor area ratio. These land use exceptions may be approved with the Specific Plan Amendment per the General Plan. I Compliance with CEQA The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 6 of 7 architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design The site design of the project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Landscape Design Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to enhance the building architecture. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2018-0001, and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Speciflc Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 7 of 7 PASSED,, APPROVED. and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23th day of October 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTPO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California #4 - APPROVE EA 2018-0001 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2018-0001 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 141-room, three-story, 86,833 square -foot hotel and 20,172 square -foot food and beverage market, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.250.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Environmental Assessment [Exhibit A]: 1. The City prepared an Initial Study for the project and circulated it for public review. The Initial Study analyzed the project as a 160- room hotel, the rehabilitation of the existing grocery store building, and the addition of 8,849 square feet of retail space adjacent to the hotel. The revisions proposed represent a reduction in the amount Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 4 of retail space (8,849 square feet), and a reduction in the number of hotel rooms (19 fewer rooms). The hotel will be reduced in height from 38 feet to 35 feet, consistent with the zone in which it occurs. The changes to the project represent a reduction in impacts associated with traffic, air quality, greenhouse gases, water resources, noise and public facilities and utilities because of the reduction in the size of the project. Other environmental impacts analyzed would be consistent and equivalent, and would result in the need for the same mitigation measures as those identified in the Initial Study. The revised project will not result in any greater impact than that which was analyzed in the Initial Study. Conditions on the site and its surroundings have not changed, nor will the revised project change conditions in the area. The mitigation measures included in the Initial Study will be applied to the revised project, and will result in the lowering of applicable impacts to less than significant levels, consistent with the findings of the Initial Study. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate CEQA determination for the revised project, as it was for the original project proposed. 2. As conditioned, proposed application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2018-0001. 3. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources of the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5, The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 4 planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. Impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable can be mitigated to be less than significant. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. Impacts associated with noise and air quality can be mitigated to be less than significant. NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED,, APPROVED. and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23th day of October 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California Planning Commission Resolution 2018 Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 4 ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California r- #5 - APPROVE SP 2018-0001, AMENDMENT SDP 2018-0012 (141-ROOM HOTEL) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 141-room, three-story, 86,833 square -foot hotel and 20,172 square -foot food and beverage market, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property ❑wners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2018--0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code to justify recommending to the City Council approval of said Specific Plan Amendment: 1. Consistency with General Plan The proposed Specific Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the La Quinta General Plan in that it will result in the Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 7 development of an approximate 135,000 sq. ft. shopping center which is permitted in the General Commercial land use designation. The proposed project is consistent with the following Goals and Policies: Goal LU-6 and ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. • Policy LU-2.2 which requires Specific Plans for projects proposing flexible development standards that differ from the Zoning Ordinance. ■ Program PR-1.8.c: to promote and improve public access to farmers markets and grocery stores that sell fresh produce and healthy foods with the establishment of a supermarket at the site. • Policy AQ-1.6 which states that proposed development air quality emissions of criteria pollutants shall be analyzed under CEQA. The project's MND analyzed these and determined that mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less than significant levels, • Policy BIO-1.2 which states that site -specific, species -specific surveys shall be required for species not covered by the NISHCP. The project's MND includes mitigation that requires pre -construction surveys for burrowing owl, which is not a covered species under the MSHCP. • GOAL CUL-1 which supports protection of significant archaeological, historic and paleontological resources which occur in the City. The project's MND includes mitigation measures to include a tribal monitor- during ground disturbing activities. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 7 • GOAL N-1 which supports a healthful noise environment which complements the City's residential and resort character. The projects MND includes mitigation measures to reduce noise impacts to less than significant levels. ■ GOAL GEO-1 which supports the protection of the residents' health and safety, and of their property, from geologic and seismic hazards. The project's MND determined that with implementation of required building and seismic code standards, the project would have a less than significant impact on geological resources. • Policy FH-1.3 which states that the City shall continue to implement development standards that provide for a reduction in runoff from developed lands and are consistent with local and regional stormwater management plans. The project is consistent with this policy since underground retention will be provided that will contain the 100 year storm for the site. • Policy PF-1.3 which states that the City shall identify all viable financing mechanisms for the funding of construction, maintenance and operation of municipal facilities. The project will be required to pay development impact fees which is a funding mechanism for municipal facilities and public services. • The project conceptual landscape design is consistent with Goal WR-1 and Policy UTL-1.2 as it will result in the efficient use and conservation of the City's water resources. 2. Public Welfare Approval of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to public health, safety and general welfare. The Design and Development Department: has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 4 of 7 effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 3. Land Use Coml2atibility The proposed Specific Plan incorporates a land use that is compatible with zoning on adjacent properties. The property will continue to be zoned as Neighborhood Commercial which is intended to provide for the development and regulation of small- scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the General Plan which provide for the sale of food, drugs, sundries and personal services to meet the daily needs of a neighborhood area. The proposed food market, personal service and recreational uses within the hotel would provide for the needs of visitors to the area as well as surrounding neighborhoods. The scope of the project is of relatively low intensity, particularly as it relates to traffic generation, when compared to currently approved retail commercial uses, and will result in a reduction of trips on area roadways. 4. Prolaerty Suitability The uses permitted in the Specific Plan are suitable and appropriate for the subject property in that the site is relatively flat, vacant, and the area can be served by all necessary public services and utilities. The proposed project is located at the intersection of arterial streets and provides convenience to goods and services to residential neighborhoods in the vicinity. Additionally, the hotel's location near and within an existing commercial center, near major roadways and the Interstate result in compatibility of the site with the use. Site Development Permit 2018-0012 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code to justify approval of said Site Development Permit: 1. Consistency with General Plan Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 5 of 7 The proposed development is consistent with the General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. The City's General Plan policies relating to General Commercial encourage shopping centers in the City, and the proposed use maintains those policies. The proposed project is consistent with Goal ED-1 as it will contribute to a balanced and varied economic base which provides fiscal stability to the City and a broad range of goods and services to its residents and the region. The hotel will generate Transient Occupancy Tax and retail uses will generate retail sales tax. 2. Consistency with Zoning Code The proposed development, as conditioned, is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Commercial District as well as the development standards of the City's Zoning Code and Jefferson Square Specific Plan in terms of architectural style and landscaping. The project satisfies the District's intent to provide for the development and regulation of small-scale commercial areas located at the intersections of arterial highways as shown on the general plan. The project is generally consistent with the Non- residential development standards and permitted use table, except for the inclusion of hotel uses as a permitted use, an increase in total building height and increased floor area ratio. These land use exceptions may be approved with the Specific Plan Amendment per the General Plan. 3. Compliance with CEOA The Design and Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 for this project, in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Design and Development Director has determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent and mitigation measures have been incorporated. 4. Architectural Design The architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, building mass, materials, colors, Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 6 of 7 architectural details, roof style and other architectural elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 5. Site Design The site design of the project including, but not limited to, project entries, interior circulation, pedestrian and bicycle access, pedestrian amenities, screening of equipment and trash enclosures, exterior lighting, and other site design elements are compatible with surrounding development and with the quality of design prevalent in the City. 6. Landscape Design Project landscaping, including, but not limited to, the location, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials, has been designed so as to provide visual relief, complement buildings, visually emphasize prominent design elements and vistas, screen undesirable views, provide a harmonious transition between adjacent land uses and between development and open space, and provide an overall unifying influence to enhance the visual continuity of the project. The proposed project is consistent with the landscaping standards and plant palette and implements the standards for landscaping and aesthetics established in the General Plan and Zoning Code. The permanent overall site landscaping utilizes various tree and shrub species to enhance the building architecture. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council approval of Specific Plan 2018-0001, and Site Development Permit 2018-0012 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 7 of 7 PASSED! APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23th day of October 2018, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California #0 - DENY SP 2018-0001 SDP 2018-0012 ( 1 G0-ROOM HOTEL) PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL DENIAL OF A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE JEFFERSON SQUARE HOTEL AND MARKET LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF JEFFERSON STREET AND FRED WARING DRIVE CASE NUMBERS: SPECIFIC PLAN 2018-0001 SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2018-0012 APPLICANT: CCD HOTEL AND RESORTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California did, on the 23rd day of October, 2018, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider a request by CCD Hotel and Resorts, LLC for approval of a 160-roam, three-story, 86,833 square -foot hotel and 20,172 square -foot food and beverage market, generally located at the southwest corner of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive, more particularly described as: APN 604-521-010, 604-521-012, 604-521-013 WHEREAS, the Design and Development Department published a public hearing notice in The Desert Sun newspaper on October 13, 2018 as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and Specific Plan (Amendment) 2018-0001 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.240.010 of the La Quinta Municipal Code and concerns of Planning Commission to justify recommending to the City Council denial of said Specific Plan: 1. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would result in the development of a hotel, which is not a permitted use within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 2 of 3 2. The proposed Specific Plan Amendment would allow a three-story building which is not permitted within the existing Specific Plan or underlying Neighborhood Commercial zone. Site Development Permit 2018-0012 WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings pursuant to Section 9.210.010 of the Municipal Code concerns of Planning Commission to justify denial of said Site Development Permit: 1. Information available on the architectural design of the project, including, but not limited to, the architectural style, scale, materials, colors, architectural details, and other architectural elements is not sufficient to determine compatibility with surrounding development and the quality of design prevalent in the City. 2. Building massing appears to be a solid mass and would be incompatible with surrounding development. NOW,, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: SECTION 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the Findings of the Planning Commission in this case; SECTION 2. That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council denial of Specific Plan 2018-0001 and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City of La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this the 23th day of October 2018, by the following vote: Planning Commission Resolution 2018 - Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Specific Plan 2018-0001 Site Development Permit 2018-0012 Jefferson Square Hotel and Market October 23, 2018 Page 3 of 3 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: KEVIN MCCUNE, Chairperson City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DANNY CASTRO, Design and Development Director City of La Quinta, California POWER POINTS PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meetin October 23,, 2018 PHI - SDP 2018-0008 Andalusia Lot 191 X, 'A 0 -M Vicinity Map Site Photo Background • Andalusia approved in December 2003 — GPA 2003-093, Zc 2003-116, SP 2003- 007, SDP 2003-787 and EA 2003-483 Modifications to floor plans were approved in 2013 Proposal • SDP 2018-0008 (Amendment No. 1 to SDP 2003-787) to allow for 45% floor plan modification of Plan 25 on Lot 191 Site Development Permit • Increase square footage from 4,301 to 6,228 square feet (45% increase) • Meets lot coverage requirements of Specific Plan 10/26/2018 II IIId91yL:.i4 Frvni flnmliuq Crwrtymd E�ecwrim+ pWrEfcvrim 10/26/2018 I Higf�r Efrtwrinn Lo Reek! f:rn•�rinrr �Prenwspr 9 -1 Proposed Elevations Materials Plan 25 Photos Recommendation Adopt a resolution recommending that the city council approve Site Development Permit 2018-0008 subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval and find the project consistent with Environmental Assessment 2003-483 CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Meeting October 23, 2018 PH 2 - sP 2018-0001, SDP 2018-0001, EA2018-0001 -- Jefferson Square Hotel and Market Vicinity Maps M1 ■ r *Vft a to 2 1 Mv r `+ � Site Photos Site Photos Im Background • January 2004 SP 2002-062, SDP 2002-754 approved —113,173 sq. ft. shopping center • November 2005 SP Amendment No 1 and TPM approved — 111,470 sq. ft. shopping center Background • May 2008 SP Amendment No. 2, SDP 2007-898 approved — 91,441 sq. ft. shopping center • Fresh and Easy, CVS and multi - tenant retail built in 2009 Background • SDP 2016-0001, CUP 2016-0002 — 37,776 sq. ft. fitness center approved September 2016 — Permits expired September 2018 * "Fresh and Easy" building unoccupied • Three pads remain vacant Proposal • SP 2018-0001 (Amendment No. 3 to SP 2002-062), SDP 2018-0001, EA 2018-0001 to allow for construction of a 160-room hotel, indoor food market, and retail shops Specific Plan • Add hotels as a permitted use • Increase floor area ratio to 0.30 • Increase allowed stories from 2 to 3 without amending building height standard • Amend design guidelines and development standards Site Development Permit • Construct 160-room hotel (68,021 sq. ft.) • Renovate 25,778 sq. ft. "Fresh and Easy" Building for a food market • Construct 8,849 sq. ft. retail shops 10/26/2018 Toed `. r •� E i IhhII I t � 11 10/26/2018 10/26/2018 Parking • 362 spaces currently provided • 358 spaces required 1/300 sq. ft. for retail - 1.1/hotel room for hotel • 19 spaces on south end to be removed -To be replaced at back of "Fresh and Easy" building Architecture • Food market maintains existing fagade • Hotel incorporates mid-century modern style fagade • Retail shops incorporate architectural elements of shopping center East Elevation Facing Fred Jefferson Street Landscaping • Existing landscape palette maintained • Courtyard contains new landscaping — Oasis/beach theme — Pindo and Mexican Palms, Lantanas 10/26/2018 4 &:1 W:l 9 111 Is Q 11 Light Public Agency Review • Reviewed by Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) • Consistent with Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Public Outreach • January 2018 community mailer • September 2018 open house at "Fresh and Easy" building • Concerns included construction noise and View obstruction Public Hearing Concerns • Noise • View obstruction • Safety • Traffic and Parking • Height - number of stories • Materials • Hotel hours of operation • Retail Viability • Occupancy rates • Wedding deck • West facing balconies 10/26/2018 ?P►vlsP-d slap- F _-ry.: �c I I IFTMJ 14 10/26/2018 gpvl-qpe lift maps l L, U an I.y0rfdy�{Eyn �!�u slLAtl.l. E.lsunu ,g¢vRT+Lq s'7 IMF W. EAjT E%1ERM RIEVARON I .f`111` �� a III■ �1��� t• *�I ALE451. Ex MAL ENEVATM 4ev15a[i E1avaric Ir Ikl of ran S,a .• a rc - .a 7E 1 1 :i 1• a it a L r At IF MA O1 SOUTH ETERNAL ELEVATION ID o[ 12 00. 18 No W g: ai �*II on �11 x 1ry: W • j�ry � r n s i � i t a ii '.� � - - Ana 02 NEST EkLP.S.LELEVAMM ■ ■ :I 11 I1 l: !. � FSYAd�iahn+'la.. .. nam Q M81 EXTERN& ELEYA11Or+ a 15 10/26/2018 Revises Floor F a iv 16 10/26/2018 w a 4pvmipa Finer F own . .i it ■ i- Lam••=:.:!, .,L; :[:i ;;I; s==L = 1- 17 10/26/2018 ■ i i, {oi) U3y r{1i'I OS1 pb LiJ �OB Q9j 111 i t? 0� .Iasr�i '!70%rl imKi ooa +n r. .l•K. wn• Fr'±�n L,• ^,•� •}� •,..,,i+.>e •; ti�� RTlIMEIug OrZ 'N%IW IMN--"� :GIi�AJ:51cfxLRr�• '3,TCIiiGIiERiI 111K1fQ5,Mlpl . .x. .r •.�. .27 :V [[aOG lROwR COLOv cKfY MDC-EjE Al1gAl l ✓t{YEIM✓AIpiIEIFfxR FbLLUWBPIE[ rt CEWHSWW CANDRY(EXIT—IEMITBIGI COLOR GREY COLDFitlHITF COLOR BV.CK IMMNCl C6 " I-Jrm A6 f101E- OSNUTTEJ WINDOW AROWMWODDfk4ME,Gl ,J1.Llryfpyl l-fRlHRk yR W VH Ophnf[E Al'J AMNUM BLACK FMMf AND AAPWM19M"MrnMK AND BLUE—SW—MAK BLUEGl _ME 18 Environmental Review • Revised project —Impacts would not be greater than analyzed in the EA for proposed project —Impacts would require the same mitigation measures as identified for the proposed project Recommendations • 160-Room Hotel with Food Market and Retail Shops —Approve-Recommendations 2 and 3 — Deny -Recommendation 1 • 141-Room Hotel with Food Market —Approve-Recommendations 4 and 5 — Deny -Recommendation 6 Recommendation 1 Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council deny Specific Plan 2018-0001, Amendment No. 3 to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP 2002-062) and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 Recommendation 2 Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council certify Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Recommendation 3 Adopt a resolution recommending that the city Council approve Specific Plan 2018-0001, Amendment No. 3 to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan and Site Development Permit 2018-0001 subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval Recommendation 4 Adopt a resolution recommending that the city council certify Environmental Assessment 2018-0001 Recommendation 5 Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve Specific Plan 2018-0001, Amendment No. 3 to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan and Site Development Permit 2018-0012 subject to the attached Findings and Conditions of Approval Recommendation 6 Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council deny a Specific Plan Amendment to the Jefferson Square Specific Plan (SP 2002-062), and Site Development Permit 2018-0012 ' . 1-7 r- - CALIFORNIA: I M-- SDP 2007-898 10/26/2018 11 !"14 1119 190 -wo m- mamiMimmonam �. p 24 10/26/2018 s d- rr- ...■ ONE - ■[a - ��ww-��-■■ 1111 "Wgm � � o 25 10/26/2018 26 10/26/2018 Will r.:nn• ' 27 10/26/2018 MOTE 00 �51 CIS B! A g'Hib" y w � NZ z 1� yr All 111mm- 28 10/26/2018 0 I k TOM- Sri— =a. VF. I dwMGMISOO.-1 vmm 29 10/26/2018 PFmr F mh Sri[r N 105.91 F—M fd.nr: C,,I,— Aod Suilrx fJFJ0sky 0 Tripe Sink • 5b.,,-, b? Cla:et cl Rac d] F.,a prt ., }I.d I] CQ e= f:an; a aogemm] nq. . l mw: x.,.,e I I —r — — — — — _ —"j'—�--_ I� - f�----i- ------------ --- - TV T �]➢nub!�:in6: tub end eber. •e b i Cro:. t rr Rar � b•,fE,r d5 n.e:s.ny ei ..•e �nr iti !1 `+�pri Ring a; Ce�r ga h17,t :•ate t�.,�w 30 10/26/2018 R—a phm: ow &dpo". 'Witv (QasftT .� D—bl. eiA� WC and Sh.—, 6 D., A., I. — di H'et bar a} 4q or irng OL... Fit. OIL F~ p1mv fl,sUojtw iNke M%P) 31 10/26/2018 32