Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2001 09 19 CC
o • tit INCORPORATED C� OF 9ti City Council Agendas are now Available on the City's Web Page @ www./a-quinta.org City Council Agenda City Council Chambers 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 Special Meeting to be held jointly with The La Quinta Planning Commission September 19, 2001 - 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER I. ROLL CALL Council Members: Planning Commissioners: II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC COMMENT Beginning Res. No. 2001-NA Ord. No. -NA Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, Chairman Abels, At this time, members of the public may address the City Council and Commission on any matter not listed on the agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Please watch the timing device on the podium. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENTATIONS - NONE PUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may address the City Council and Commission on any matter listed on the, agenda. Please complete a "request to speak" form and present it to the City Clerk prior to the start of City Council consideration of that item. The Mayor will invite individuals, who have requested the opportunity to speak, to come forward at the appropriate time. PUBLIC HEARING 1. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING ON THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council will be held at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 2, 2001, in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. The next regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission will be held at 7:00 p.m. on October 9, 2001, in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, California, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the Adjourned Special City Council meeting, to be held jointly with the Planning Commission, on September 19, 2001 was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and on the bulletin board at the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce and at Stater Bros., 78-630 Highway 1 1 1, on Friday, September 14, 2001. DATED: September 14, 2001 JUNE S. GREEK, CIVIC City Clerk, City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICE The La Quinta City Council Chamber is handicapped accessible. If special equipment is needed for the hearing impaired, please call the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025, 24-hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. Page 2 •�Qul�rw COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: September 19, 2001 Joint City Council Planning Commission Public Hearing on the General Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: Review the Draft General Plan Update, Draft Master Environmental Assessment, and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and move to continue the Planning Commission Public Hearing to October 23, 2001; and move to continue the City Council Public Hearing to November 20, 2001. Neither the City Council nor the Planning Commission will take action at tonight's hearing. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None. CITY CHARTER IMPLICATIONS: None. = j ia• ► s • Adopted in 1992, the City's General Plan is outdated as a result of the City's growth and expansion, changes in State law, and City Council goals. Some portions of the plan have been updated periodically, but no comprehensive update has been undertaken since 1992. On October 26, 1999, a Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission initiated the General Plan Update process. On November 2, 1999 the City Council held its first Public Hearing to take public comment and to review Land Use Alternatives for the General Plan Update including potential annexations areas. AACC and PC GP staff rpt. 9-19-01.wpd General Plan Update Public Hearings were continued monthly through the year 2000; several meetings focused on specific issues of community interest such as multi- purpose trails and the potential for street legal golf carts. On December 19, 2000 City Council closed the Public Hearing and directed staff and its planning consultant, Terra Nova Planning and Research, to prepare the General Plan Update documents (Draft General Plan Update), Draft Master Environmental Assessment, and Draft Environmental Impact Report) for public review, and upon completion advertise the General Plan Update Public Hearing. These documents have been available for public review since July 13, 2001. Prior to receiving public comment at the Joint Public Hearing, a presentation will be given focusing on the following four areas: 1. Significant Changes in the General Plan The proposed Land Use Map has been reviewed and revised over the course of the last two years. Attachment 1 outlines the "Significant Changes in the General Plan". These changes include removing a number of development standards for incorporation into the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or other City Policies; the addition of new land use categories to the General Plan Land Use Map; and the addition of Planning Areas to the north and to the east of the current City corporate limits in order to consider the long term potential for growth. These areas are defined as follows and geographically identified on maps within the proposed Update documents. City of La Quinta (local government agency): The properties within these boundary lines are subject to the La Quinta Charter and Municipal Code. Planning Area: Any land outside a local government agency boundary which, in the planning agency's judgement, bears relation to its planning. Sphere of Influence Area: The physical boundary and service area that a local governmental agency is expected to serve in the future. Potential Annexation area: The potential inclusion, attachment, addition, or annexation of territory to the City. A summary table, derived from the proposed General Plan Update documents, identifying the estimated population and dwelling units expected to occur at "build - out" of the recommended land uses in the proposed Update for each of these areas will available at the hearing. AACC and PC GP staff rpt. 9-19-01.wpd 2. Agricultural and Equestrian Land Use Assessment of agricultural and equestrian uses have been the focus of public discussions at many of the General Plan Public Hearings and community meetings with the proposed annexation area interests. Attachment 2 provides a revised General Plan definition for Agricultural and Equestrian Overlay (pg. 11 of the Draft General Plan Update) that includes equestrian uses within the proposed overlay. Also included for review and discussion, is a concept for a proposed new Low Density/Agricultural/ Equestrian/ Residential Zoning District. This proposed district will serve as an essential component of the pre -zoning for the proposed annexation area. 3. Land Use Map Amendments Requested by Land Owners Over the course of the monthly public hearings, starting in October 1999, staff has received written requests from property owners, located in both the City and in the Planning area, asking consideration of land use changes to the proposed Land Use Map. Attached is copy of each letter and a map identifying the location of the property (Attachment 3) . An assessment of each request will be presented at the individual City Council and Planning Commission hearings. 4. Other requested changes to the proposed General Plan Staff has received written requests from interested parties regarding a variety of potential issues and policies to be addressed in the proposed General Plan Update. A staff summary of these requests and a copy of each letter is provided (Attachment 4). An analysis of these requests will be provided at the individual City Council and Planning Commission hearings. Public Hearing Schedule for the Draft General Plan Update, Draft Master Environmental Assessment, and Draft Environmental Impact Report The Planning Commission is scheduled to hold a continued Public Hearing on October 23, 2001 at 7:00 PM to review the Draft General Plan Update, Draft Master Environmental Assessment, and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and to make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council is scheduled to hold a continued Public Hearing on November 20, 2001 to consider certification of the Environmental Impact Report, and to consider adoption of the General Plan and Master Environmental Assessment. A:\CC and PC GP staff rpt. 9-19-01.wpd 003 A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the EIR was advertised on July 17, 2001 with comments due on August 27, 2001. This comment period was extended by the City until September 10, 2001. The comments on the Draft EIR and a Response to Comments will be transmitted to all parties who commented on the Draft EIR, and will be available prior to the October 23rd Planning Commission Public Hearing, and the November 20th City Council Public Hearing as required by California law. When adopted, the General Plan update, Master Environmental Assessment, and Environmental Impact Report will be printed with corrected typographical errors, consistent nomenclature, and current titles and names of people and places. QhilIJ-1' �0, The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Review the Draft General Plan Update, Draft Master Environmental Assessment, and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and move to continue the Planning Commission Public Hearing to October 23, 2001; and move to continue the City Council Public Hearing to November 20, 2001. Neither the City Council or the Planning Commission will take action at tonight's hearing; or 2. Review the Draft General Plan Update, Draft Master Environmental Assessment, and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and do not continue the Planning Commission Public Hearing to October 23, 2001; and do not continue the City Council Public Hearing to November 20, 2001. Neither the City Council or the Planning Commission will take action at tonight's hearing; or 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, rry Hermon mmunity Development Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager A:\CC and PC GP staff rpt. 9-19-01.wpd 004 Attachments: 1. Significant Changes in the General Plan 2. Agricultural and Equestrian Land Use 3. Land Use Map Amendments Requested by Land Owners 4. Other requested changes to the proposed General Plan AACC and PC GP staff rpt. 9-19-01.wpd ATTACHMENT #1 CITY OF LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE GENERAL PLAN Throughout the Document ➢ The existing General Plan includes a number of standards which should be in the Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code or other policies of the City. These have been removed. For example, the Floor Area Ratios, building heights, and access requirements in the Land Use Element are not included in this Update. ➢ Planning Areas to the north and east have been included to facilitate analysis of potential future Sphere of Influence Amendments or Annexation efforts. Land Use Map Please note: General Plan Land Use Map amendments approved by the City Council in the last 18 months will be reflected in the final land use map after approval of the General Plan. ➢ Major changes to the Land Use Map: o The addition of the northern and eastern Planning Areas. In the northern Planning Area, land uses parallel those assigned in the County. In the eastern Planning Area, the land use designations have been changed from Agriculture to either Low or Very Low Density Residential with an Agricultural Overlay, which preserves the owners right to farm. The County approved Coral Mountain and Kohl Ranch Specific Plans have been assigned equivalent land use designations. o City land at Miles and Washington: The designation has been changed from High Density Residential to Tourist Commercial, Park and Medium Density Residential, to reflect the City's master planning efforts for the parcel. o The non-residential overlay in the Regional Commercial designation has been removed. It has been replaced by Program 2.1. o Land on the east side of Washington, from 47th to 48th, has been changed from Regional Commercial to Community Commercial, to reflect the type of development actually occurring in this area. o Land on the northeast corner of Adams and 48th has been redesignated from Regional Commercial to High Density Residential. o Golf Course designations have been added to all the approved master planned communities in the City. o Tourist Commercial and Golf Course has been assigned to the property known as "The Ranch." The land was previously Low Density Residential. o Neighborhood Commercial has been assigned to the northeastern corner of 52°d and Jefferson. The land was previously Low Density Residential. City of La Quinta General Plan Update o The Open Space designation has been assigned to the Bureau of Reclamation levee at the south end of the City. o Airport and Industrial land use designations have been added to reflect those land uses within the Planning Area. Land Use Element ➢ The requirement for Specific Plans has been more narrowly defined (Policy 4). Program 4.3 (page 17) has been added to encourage the involvement of adjacent property owners. ➢ Policy 9 (page 18) has been added to support and encourage agricultural land uses in the Planning Area. ➢ Policy 7 (page 19) has been added to establish the Agricultural Overlay in the Zoning Ordinance. ➢ Airport and Industrial related policies and programs have been added to pages 19 and 20. Circulation Element ➢ The intersection spacing on Major Arterials and Primary Arterials has been reduced to 1,060 feet (Program 2.3, 2.4, page 38). ➢ Program 2.9 (page 38) has been added which requires the preparation of a Corridor Signal Plan for Calle Tampico, between Eisenhower and Washington, and Eisenhower, between Calle Tampico and Avenida Bermudas, to address specific signalization issues in this area. ➢ Traffic calming programs will be established by the City Engineer (Program 2.12, page 39). ➢ Golf cart routes are established in two phases (Exhibits 3.8 and 3.9, pages 34 and 35; Program 7.4, page 40). ➢ Image Corridors have been extended into the eastern Planning Area (Programs 13.1 through 13.3, page 40). ➢ The policies and programs associated with multi -use trails have been expanded (Policy 7, Programs 7.1 through 7.5. page 39 and 40). Open Space Element No significant changes to the goals, policies and programs. Page 2 008 City of La Quinta General Plan Update Parks and Recreation Element ➢ A policy and programs relating to park safety have been added (Policy 7, Program 7.1 & 7.2, page 48). Natural Resources Element (previously Environmental Conservation Element) ➢ Archaeological resources have been removed. A Cultural Resources Element has been added separately as Chapter 9 (page 92). ➢ The previously freestanding Air Quality Element has been integrated into Natural Resources. ➢ Paleontologic Resources have been added (page 64) to reflect the Ancient Lake Cahuilla deposits in the City and Planning Area (page 64 ff.). ➢ Energy conservation policies and programs have been expanded (page 53). ➢ Policies and programs relating to biological resources have been updated to reflect the currently identified sensitive species in the City and Planning Area. Previously erroneously identified species of concern have been removed from the Plan. Infrastructure and Public Services Element No significant changes to the goals, policies and programs. Environmental Hazards Element ➢ The Hazardous Materials section has been expanded (page 75 and 76), particularly as relates to septic systems and their potential to pollute groundwater. ➢ An Emergency Preparedness section has been added (pages 77 and 78). ➢ The mapping of geologic hazards has been expanded (Exhibits 8.1 through 8.4). ➢ Policies and programs relating to geologic hazards have been expanded, particularly to require that geologic studies be completed for projects proposed in unstable, seismically active, or liquefaction hazard areas. ➢ The Noise standard for sensitive receptors (houses, hotels, nursing homes) has been changed from 60 dBA CNEL to 65 dBA CNEL, which is the state-wide standard. Cultural Resources Element ➢ This Element is new. It reflects the City's recent focus on cultural resources, and meets the standards required of the State for Certified Local Governments. Page 3 A ACHMENT 2 High Density Residential, HDR (Up to 16 dwelling units per acre) Agricultural and Equestrian Overlay Mixed Regional Commercial (M/RC) This designation allows for attached single and multi -family dwellings. This designation is also most suitable for planned communities and affordable and senior housing where smaller units and higher densities may be appropriate. Duplex and multiplex development is the most common. Mobile home parks or subdivisions with common area amenities and open space may also be allowed under this designation, with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This overlay has been applied to underlying residential designations in the southern planning area. It recognizes the importance of the agricultural and equestrian community in this part of the Coachella Valley, and demonstrates the City's commitment to maintaining existing agricultural and equestrian land uses. Any agricultural and equestrian land use within this overlay area shall be allowed to continue until such time as the land owner chooses to develop. Agricultural and equestrian land uses within this overlay area are never to be considered non- conforming land uses. Commercial Land Uses This land use designation supports major commercial land uses. Parcels assigned this designation in the future shall be 20 acres or more. These land uses serve not only the City, but neighboring jurisdictions as well. Land uses typical of this designation include corporate offices, non -laboratory research and development facilities, major department and specialty stores, supermarkets and drug stores, medical offices, hospitals and clinics, hotels and motels, automobile sales and commercial recreational and entertainment facilities. Smaller commercial retail facilities which support and are complementary to the primary land uses in this category are also permitted. These would include but not be limited to restaurants, services and some automobile service related land uses. High density residential land uses with an affordable housing component are permitted only if they are more than 600 feet south of Highway 111. A Specific Plan is required for all lands under this designation. 010 SECTION 9.140.060 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TABLE ? PERMITTED USES IN THE AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE Residential Uses Single Family hed dwellings P F rmw rk r Housina Mobile Home Parks Mobile Home Subdivisions and manufactured homes on individual lots P Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 8 or fewer children, subject to Section 9.60.190 A Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 9-14 children, subject to Section 9.60.190 M Caretaker's residence P en Space and Recreational s s Public arks, playfields and open space P Bicycle, equestrian n hiking trails P Tennis Court or other game court as an accessory use associated with a private residence P Tennis Court or other game court for public use M If course ando n r I with or without rivin range P Drivina Ranae with or without li h Accessory Uses and Structures Home occupations, ct to Section 9.60.110 H Patio covers, deck n zebos, subJect to 9.60.040 A Fences and walls, subject to Section 9.60.0.30 A Satellite dishesand other antennas subJect to Section A Swimming pools, and cabanas, ub'e to Section A Guest houses, s to Section 9.60.010 M Second units, "granny flats" and employee quarters, subject to Section 9.60.090 M Garagesn carports, s b'e t to Section 9.60.060 A 011. G:\WPDOCS\GPAaEauesHDRMRC.WPD Equestrian and Agricultural Uses Stables. Private P Stables, mm r ial or ridina academy Polo ro n includina stables,clubhouse Veterinary offices n hospitals The grazing and breeding of cattle, horses, llamas, sheep, goats or other farm stock or animals, not including hogs, not to exceed five animals per acre of all the land available P The grazing and breeding of sheep or goats, not to exceed 15 animals per acre of all land available P Farms for rabbits, fish froas. chinchilla or other small P Nurseries, ar enh us orchards, aviaries, apiaries P Tree cropfarming P Field ro or Turf Farmina P Produce stands, u o Section 9.100.100 P The drying, packing, canning, freezing and processing of produce resulting from permitted uses when such activity is conducted within permanent buildings and structures P Non-commercial raisina of hoas, not to exceed two per P Feed StoresC Menaaeries Commercial composting facilities Other Uses Guest Ranches and Bed and Breakfasts C Restaurants Fraternal lodae halls P Churches, m i s and other places of worship C Schools C Libraries C Public ili facilities P 012 G:\WPDOCS\GPAaEauesHDRMRC.WPD A. Residential Development Standards TABLE 501 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD E/A R Min. Lot Size for Single Family Dwelling (sq. ft.) 10,000 Min. Project Size for Multifamily Projects (sq. ft.) 20,000 Min. Lot Frontage for Single Family Dwelling or Multifamily Projects (ft.) 100 Max. Structure Height (ft.) 28 Max. No. of Stories 2 Min. Front Yard Setback (ft.) 30 Min. Garage Setback (ft.) 30 Min. Side Yard Setback (ft.) 20 Min. Rear Yard Setback (ft.) 30 Max. Lot Coverage (% of net lot area) 40 Min. Livable Area Excluding Garage (sq. ft.) 1,400 Min. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks (ft.) 20 Max. No. of Horses for Private Use (per acre) 5 Parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150. B. Development Standards, All Non -Residential Uses 1. All buildings shall be limited to two stories in height and a maximum of 35 feet, measured from the finished grade of the pad. 2. Setbacks: The following minimum setbacks shall apply from the property line: Pasture: 0 feet Accessory buildings: 20 feet Accessory structures: 20 feet Manure storage: 25 feet 013 G:\WPDOCS\GPAgEquesHDRMRC.WPD 3. Fence All properties containing one or more uses shall be fenced to a minimum height of 5 feet and a maximum of 6 feet. Permitted fencing materials include chain link, cement block, wood, wrought iron or tubular steel. Razor wire or concertina wire is permitted for those uses listed under "Equestrian and Agriculture Uses" in Table ?. 4. Manure Collection: Any use involving the storage, spreading or use of manure, or the keeping of animals, shall be required to file a plan for its use and disposal with the Public Works Department. 5. Parking: Parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150. 6. Lighter All lighting shall comply with Sections 9.60.160 and 9.100.150. 7. Loudspeakers: Loudspeaker systems or other amplified sound are limited to operation or use between 8 a.m. And 10 p.m. Unless otherwise specified by an approved conditional use permit. 8. Dust Control: A Dust Control Plan shall be maintained on file with the Public Works Department at all times. C. Definitions "Accessory building" means any building subordinate to a permitted or conditionally permitted use, including but not limited to hay and tack barns, storage sheds and other structures and uses customarily appurtenant to the primary permitted use. "Accessory structure" means any structure subordinate to a permitted or conditionally permitted use, including but not limited to exercise rings, arenas, corrals, and other structures associated with the permitted or conditionally permitted use. Fences are not considered structures for the purposes of this Section. "Arena" -- see Corral. "Caretaker Residence" means a residential unit not exceeding 1,000 square feet, which is not the principal use on the property, to be occupied by a caretaker or watchman who is responsible for the security of the principal use of the property. "Commercial stable" means any facility specifically designed or used for the stabling of horses not owned by the residents of the property on which the stable is located, and for which the residents or land owner receives compensation. Services provided by a commercial stable including boarding, breeding, training, riding or other recreational use of the horse. 014 GAWPDOCS\GPAgEquesHDRMRC.WPD "Corral" means an enclosure designed for use as an open holding area for horses for the purpose of confinement within that area for an indeterminate period of time. "Farm" means a parcel of land devoted to agricultural uses where the principal use is the propagation, care and maintenance of viable plant and animal products for commercial purposes. "Farmworker housing" means any building or group of buildings where six or more farm employees are housed. "Menagerie" means a lot on which more than one wild, non -domestic reptile (not including turtles or tortoises), bird (not including poultry) or mammal is kept. A tamed or trained wild animal shall not be considered a domestic animal. "Pasture" means an enclosed holding area consisting of grass or similar vegetation, specifically used for purposes of grazing or feeding of animals. "Guest Ranch" means any property of five acres or more operated as a ranch which offers guest rooms for rent and which has outdoor recreational facilities such as horseback riding, swimming or hiking. "Riding Academy" means a facility designed and used primarily for recreational riding, training and instruction, and allowing both on -site boarding or trailering of horses to the facility. "Stable" means a building or structure containing multiple stalls for the purposes of sheltering, feeding, boarding, accommodating or otherwise caring for horses. "Stall" means a division of a stable accommodating one horse into an adequately sized enclosure for the purposes of confining individual horses within a sheltered environment as may be necessary for security, safety or other reasons pertinent to the health, welfare and daily care of each animal. 015 G:\WPDOCS\GPAgEquesHDRMRC.WPD ATTACHMENT #3 City of La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map Amendments Requested by Land Owners Throughout the General Plan preparation process, staff has received letters from property owners both in the City and in the Planning Area. These letters request that the City consider changes in the Land Use Map as part of its hearing process for the General Plan. Listed below are the parcels involved, the existing and requested land use designation, and the reason given by the property owner, if any. A map showing each property location is attached, as are copies of the letters. Analysis of the requests will be provided individually to the Planning Commission and City Council during their public hearings on the General Plan. The summaries below are for information purposes only at this time. 1. Avenida Buena Ventura: south side, between Desert Club Drive and the Senior Center. Parcel size: Approximately 12,000 s.f. 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: High Density Residential or Village Commercial. Reason Given: Adjacent land uses include a 4-plex and the Verizon Building. Single family development would be unlikely. 2. Monroe Street and Avenue 55: west side, south side of Avenue 55, bordered by PGA West on the west and south. Parcel size: 4.19 acres 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Very Low Density Residential Requested Designation: Medium Density Residential. Reason Given: None given. 3. Monroe Street and Avenue 59: northeast corner, total of 4 parcels. Parcel size: 40 acres 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: Commercial (no particular commercial designation specified) or High Density Residential. Reason Given: Owners have been approached by developers inquiring about the site for commercial development. 4. Westward Ho and Dune Palms: south side of Westward Ho, east side of Dune Palms, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Parcel size: 28.09 acres, in a total of 11 parcels 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: High Density Residential. Reason Given: Land is adjacent to La Quinta High School; mobile home park on Dune Palms has much higher density (mobile home park lot is part of this request); change in density would "promote the development" of the land. 018 G:\WPDOCS\GPLand Use changes.doc City of La Quinta General Plan Update 5. Madison Avenue and Avenue 58: northwest corner. Parcel size: 5 acres 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: Commercial (no particular commercial designation specified) Reason Given: Owner is considering a strip mall for the site. oil GAWPDOCS\GPLand Use changes.doc OG O Z cA CY C o tv W •°v 3 9 �-° O CL V � c a j C � € _ $ � E s '� � � � Eg � � fti/i •��- it n o 9� � � p�0 E 'u .tee o � �Y+ � V�f Off+ p Q u a• p �� -10 i� V i ul V w y e (I MUM " a HAA 2 T z S � I Y > IY a ' ;�.A � -_ - NOSIUtlYH �j�} k' Y V �� � \/ ✓ V V I I `r Y �/ / V ! Y Y ✓ � � V x ,�,�jj�� p J I � /� ✓ V V 1�` •g o I> 3 l Y 0 f i i J O I D D 1 < O O 9 D G 12 D i ` \ OSW 43 NOSN3ii3f D o 0 9 u3 og e 1 rway n V • .ff f . g i21... g . 5 q V • NOIONIHSWA'g - t .� `J c 'S�jtl� PTOl NINSVM t 1 I I I The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 May 15, 2001 Attn: Fred Baker, Planning Dept. RE: General Plan Review, Residential Lot on Buena Ventura Dear Fred, �a01Nrq RE�E�vED ool1 20A� Z I am writing this letter on behalf of and at the request of William Howard, the owner of APN. 770-124-003, (see attached parcel map), a vacant lot located on Avenida Buena Ventura between Desert Club Dr. and the Senior Center. It is -our understanding that the City of La Quinta staff is currently performing a General Plan Review of this area and is open to consider input from concerned citizens and property owners. Mr. Howard is a local builder who has owned this property for several years now and I am the Owner / Broker of La Quinta Palms Realty. Mr. Howard and I have on several occasions discussed what to do on this lot. Its current zoning allows for only one single family residence to be constructed upon the site. Adjacent to the west of this lot is a rather shabby 4-plex (grand -fathered multifamily) and adjacent to the south is the telephone company building (grand -fathered commercial). Due to the general location and surrounding influences, we feel that it is unlikely that a homebuyer would want to purchase and occupy a home on this site. Having given this situation a considerable amount of thought, it appears to us that either a multifamily designation that would allow two, three, or four units to be built on this lot, or a "Village Commercial" designation would be a more appropriate General Plan / Zoning for this area. Please consider this our formal request of you to investigate the possibility of changing the General Plan for this area for your recommendations to the City Council in your General Plan Review. If you have any .questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact either of us. Thank you. Respectfully submitted, , q 44g� Bruce Y. Cathcart, Broker La Quinta Palms Realty 019 51-001 Eisenhower Drive • La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 564-4104 • Fax (760) 564-0344 N go N rr• - O ,1 a� O i 0 000 Q �y ` ►- '' 31 OC ti1 I A � tiV' frd a S2'[11 I EVEEI GG'rEl 1r'Srl I I n I I "'Dal BB •Gil UL'611 I 1a'r:;.l Uj < I O I O I I COe 1 o O O N I EE•911 I8•521 n , E!'SSI M1I 10 os 1 d 1 2t'9►t I tr•rC1 Ei O 1 ` !9'tEl !r•LEI tit � U2'!nl O n N _N -�& ao Oz0 v& e �� .� i3S3ck: - U n — — — — — — — CL- N 1 m r ua as of n — — I — — — — C9D-Oi0 YdL I — — .► I �„ Y I 1 I I X out J n Ch 1 r,r N I I Y I cn I— — — — —-� I �---- .t--- -— �N OR — I W W = I �- -----I------ i-- I N N Be as oa O BE--- • W N N P r •t •7•� ■ r11 11 \Wu INN \ 1 N r 1 Q m Ol Cn %I JL L Li V 1 1 V - L tJ Lr 1 L y UT Llawu l lis cL u0mm - tiev -Dept I D= 750 777 1233 DECDvMER 12, 2000 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEP'i P O ]SOX 1504 .� . LA QUINTA, CA 92253-1504 ° `� top - AM: JER.RY" HERMAN, DIRECTOR DEAR MR HERMAN, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MERE IS A GENERAL PL_A T REVISNG ZONING ETC. I 't OULD LII�E TO HAVE MY PROPERTY C1HAUiGED FROM R--I TO R-2. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FROM. T OF MY PROPERTY AND THEY ARE BOTH INTERESTED IN THE SA_ My PROPERTY ADDRESS IS: 55075 MONROE ST IT IS BORDERED ON THE WEST & SOUTH 13Y KSL GREG NORMAN GOLF COURSE, ON THE NORTH BY MERV iGRI.FFINS RANCH. PLEASE ADVISE ME. THANK YOU, VERY TRULY YOURS, BARBARA J WOLLgN P Q .BOX 1253 LA QLTIIVTA, CA 92253-1253 (760) 398-8250 02]. William J. Hammer PO Box 278 Palm Desert, CA 92261 (760)346-6624 (760)568-4653 FAX City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico PO Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 attn. Jerry Herman F(OmVE SEP 11 20M' CIT1'OFLAQLIINTA �� ��PARTMENT September 11, 2000 RE: Parcel #761-310-013, 761-310-014, 761-310-015, 761-310-016 Dear Jerry, As you know, I have written in the past of my full support for the annexation of my properties into the city of La Quinta. The above referenced parcels represent four contiguous ten acre parcels (a total of forty acres) that I would like the City Council to consider zoning for commercial and/or commercial high density residential (apartments). My wife and I have been approached by developers for this to be a potential commercial site and our own plans for this property that I have worked with the county of Riverside on in a very preliminary basis is to build apartment complexes on one or all of these parcels. If you have any questions, please call me at the above number. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter. Sincerely, William J. Hammer 022 761-31 THIS MAP ;z rm N1/2 SEC 26 T 6 S R 7 E TRA. 058-0.95- . . 25-33 ASSESSMENT RWq%s Oh& y (30 23 24 271 25 lot po D, It -11 c n %it 32 (2 0) 1, 42 1. R Ig r13 L-r 4 ft! I SAN AZ "It i 2-.W &U. UD 'k., at -lugs FM 3I,18 PARCEL MAP 7188 Wilt ASSESSOWS mW Br. '61 PC. 31 PM :71/38-39 253% Usai— REV MAP —TUH fli—ed. C�,W. C.1 PAA ;r. PPM:73/78-7? 26A81 im 196719S3 0 023 July 12, 2000 Mr. Jerry Herman Community Development Director CITY of LA QUINTA Post Office Box 15.04 La Quinta, CA 92253 Bar xxl Properties RE: August 15`h Meeting Suggested change to General Plan for 28.09 Acres on the SEC of Westward Ho & Dune Palms Road from LDR to HDR. APN's 649-04-001; 002; 003; 004; 005; 006; 007; 011; 012 013 and 014 Based on our meeting I respectfully request that the General Plan designation for the above -referenced parcels be changed from LDR (2-4DU/Ac) to HDR (12-16DU/Ac) and the zoning to be changed accordingly from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential. The requested change to the General Plan is based on the following rationale: 1. The parcels are adjacent to La Quinta High School as well as the proposed new school on the NEC of Wesward Ho and Dune Palms Road. 2. The existing density of the mobile home park on the NEC of Dune Palms Road and the Whitewater Channel is much higher than the existing General Plan designation of 2-4 units/acre . 3. The land is currently vacant or mostly vacant and is therefore suitable for a change. 4. A large depression exists on the eastem-most parcel of 7.7 Acres. 5. A change of density will promote the development of these parcels. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please call me at (760) 773-3310 if I can be of help. Thank you. Sincerely, BAXLEY PROPERTIES 01 A'; 6094v— Bill Cover BC/sh 4.1.8.6.5 Enclosed: Exhibit A- Adjacent Land Uses BOARDWALK Exhibit B- Parcel Maps & Owners SUITE 2 0 6 Exhibit C- Summary of Land Uses PALM DESERT C A L I F O R N I A 9- 2- 2 1 1 X760.773.3013 www.baxleyproperties.com 0 24 a773-3310 Exhibit A 07/12/00 Mr. Jerry Herman ADJACENT LAND USES Subject Property: Approximately Acres of mostly vacant land. APN's: Please refer to attached copy of General Plan. 1. Golf Driving Range 2. Proposed new school in La Quints 3. La Quints High School 4. Existing mobile home park 5. New Indian Springs development 025 W i) W o W LL 0 Ir U Q O Q N a J 7 a Z Q W }QQ Q J W p J P N J J a U Q t W z Q Cl)fr zui W U J W a a C N} W w o (n p0 W i ahe U a 0 w u }= t� W Q = U U cc LL a J = Z W rx LL w mw z Z a O o a w w a N ' U) O o 0 .aj C w C7 0 J O >- O Q O 0 W 2 C w y a J 30 z 0 2 z W J w t m U U U 0 x O U Q cr c O Lu Q W Q J w p J Q-, = m W W fn w ZOM W U Q a O U 3 0 o x a U W x v I Q a o Y z W p w w a w m x p w 0 UU.. p g p -J m< Q a 0~ a W> J x¢ W u z U o F- > z mim a 0 a 3 OJZ V5 aQ U z of p UJ I a�oUt- a>U ®oF=- oao I. cc w sU.) W ii.. .._... ....... ........ ...I I.. .. _ _.._... u.1 <_ W t 11. 026 r�cri 0� O 1IRV /0 b 1 O O t oe 0 0 ;. 7 , t I I I u 0 o n -AV " �XH�EtT C3 v t0 e co N o• N t0 co ' m ^1 • 4 a � n. O a^n � 1 a�._� o 4) ��f� QG Utc` �_ C N C O c11 CCU C � C 00)E O 0 ai w „ � n r x � � n w � 0 w „ w B w �a 0 'i 027 0 Exhibit C July 12, 2000 Mr. Jerry Herman SummarU of Land Uses APN Use Acres SQFt Total 649-040-001 Vacant 24,829 649-040-002 House 7,045 649-040-003 House 7,045 649-040-004 House 1.56 649-040-005 Vacant 39,204 649-040-006 House 39,204 649-040-007 Vacant 7.77 649-040-011 House 2.21 649-040-012 House 7,840 649-040-013 Vacant 2.39 649-040-014 Mobile Home Park 11.29 25.22 Ac 125,167 SF 28.09 Ac Summary Houses (6) 5.17 Ac Vacant 11.63 Ac Mobile Home Park 11.29 Ac TOTAL: 28.09 Ac 028 GH�R LES PHYLE PRC>PERT I ES July 14, 2000 City of La Quinta Zoning Department P . 0. Box 1504 La Quinta CA 92253 Attn: FRED BAKER Gentlemen: In connection with updating of La Quinta General Plan, please consider the following: Property owned by Charles Phyle (under Charles Phyle Properties) One - 5 acre parcel N.W. corner of Madison Avenue and 58th Street in La Quinta (adjacent to PGA properties) Current zoning: residential. We are asking this parcel to be rezoned to: commercial. We are considering a strip mall at this location. Thank you,for your consideration to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you. Yours truly, -412 WM. K. SCHMID General Manager 78-490 Cal 1e Orense 564-6219 WKS/at ozs C:\WS2000\DOCUMENT\AT\CITYBAKE ATTACHMENT#4 City of La Quinta General Plan Other Requested Changes to the Proposed General Plan Staff has received letters from third parties regarding potential issues to be included in the General Plan. These letters are summarized below, and attached to this report. Analysis of the requests will be provided individually to the Planning Commission and City Council during their public hearings on the General Plan. The summaries below are for information purposes only at this time. Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter: ■ Requests inclusion of all existing trails, and development of new trails in the General Plan. ■ Requests equestrian trail easement on Madison Avenue. ■ Requests trails and trail loops as a tourist amenity. ■ Designate mountain trails, if compatible with bighorn sheep recovery, including trail from La Quinta to Palm Desert. KSL Development Corporation: ■ Requests that the minimum intersection spacing between Major Arterials be reduced from the existing 2,600 feet to 1,200 feet. Planning Commissioner Robert Tyler: Please note that all of Commissioner Tyler's comments will be addressed in the materials submitted to the Planning Commission. Those listed below are only those which are policy -related. ■ Requests that the northern Planning Area (Bermuda Dunes area) be deleted (first item #1, third page). ■ Suggests the creation of a Rural Living land use category, with 5 to 10 acre minimums (second item #1, third page). ■ Requests that all street with 25 mile per hour speed limits and all streets in residential and business districts be designated Class III golf cart routes (item #12, page 5). ■ Requests that a street naming policy be included, requiring that new streets which are extensions of existing streets carry the same name for their entire length (item # 13, page 5) . ■ Industrial Goals, Policies and Programs (page 19 of General Plan): Reevaluate Goal 2 and Policies 4, 4.1, 5 and 5.1 (sic; shown as Policy 4, Program 4.1, Policy 5 and Program 5.1) "in view of the deletion of the Bermuda Dunes Planning Area." (item #6, page 10) .4030 GAWPDOCS\GPOther changes.doc ■ Suggests that Program 6.2, Traffic and Circulation Element, should not include the 10/4 work week (item "page 36, Program 6.2"). ■ Requests that the Open Space Element have a Policy which reads: is The City shall encourage CVWD to landscape their various existing, barren future well sites within La Quinta, to convert these into mini -neighborhood parks for the enjoyment of nearby residents." (item "Page 44" on page 12) ■ Requests deletion of Program 1.3, Biological Resources (item "Page 53, Program 1.31" page 13) ■ Emergency Services, now Program 2.1: Requests that the program read "The City shall expedite the siting and construction of a new fire station in north La Quinta, to satisfy the existing needs in that portion of the City. Coordination with the Riverside County Fire Department shall continue to evaluate needs generated by future development." (item "Page 60, Program 1 .2.1, page 13) ■ Education Facilities, now Policy 4 and Program 4.1: Requests the use of a term other than post graduate, to identify all types of education, from high school through post graduate. (items "Page 62, Program 2.4.1 and Page 62, Program 2.5.1" page 14) ■ Solid Waste Management, now Program 2.2: Requests that the word Thermal be deleted, and replace with "areas of the Eastern Planning area are annexed..." (item "Page 63, Program 4.2.2) ■ Flooding and Hydrology, Policy 2 and Program 2.1: Requests that language be modified to require evacuation routes in all areas of the City. (item "Page 78, Policy 2 and Program 2.1, page 15) 03]. GAWPDOCS\GPOther changes.doc .0 SIERRA CLUB f0V-%4QE131R12 --- r.W1 P-CK2 SAN GORGONI[o CHAPTER 4079 Mission Inn Av=ue, Riverside_ CA 92jA1 1%,mbership/Outings (909) 686-6112 FaX (90) 909)2U.1 y 174 Hr0107 at E'" +Ps •Yc�in� Ri�►rrsodr urAd , t Sr�s119Yllao �lotatWiy�r, .'L pyK .e �a ! rrnarea �Cy j'al%,'�r� 3rkPpR7r .+Ii7Y+s1E�7GGrt� vfIe�L' _wsl i.iiu�nyr4i City Council, city of." QuizIYa 78-495 iCalle Ta Vico La QWnta, CA 9=52 Re: Gencyal plan Recre,tionW 'rails .Mayor and Members of be Council: April 4, 2OM BY FAX - HARD COPY MAILED Regarding'he La Qtunta's Gc=al Plan for tide City apd pr Club urges the City to prepare for the future b °F° aanexatic�n areas, the Sierra and trails access to its General plIm, Y presetviog g trails and addin,4 new trail R+egardiag retain the 8 equestrian trail dewgaatioa aloa8 l�isdison, we belizve that �n eases for a trail along this thoroughfm would he v trail easement or a multi -use trail � � for the fiitur, whether it is as *cam served to have such CU am a The Ciiy's residems and tourists would be r of the City 'sty' whether to s the Boo Hro ff Trod, or just to tour that provide ty by � n-motorised means. We would urge the City to Wand im t parson many such access trails aid bogs for the growing numbers of system to bicycle for hem and refr =t. people who ride. Mice or SiWa Club also urges the City to dcaignatie mountainaus UARS anthill its coardirn 'with the trails plan to be embodied in theF$.liczic�a in There are many abort Chella �iatley Muhi�e Spies Plan 8kw trails south of the Sbo Hoff T.0 whit Swta Rosa Wllderaess- Thew should be deli access that P°rdi of the bighorn sheep recovery. We WoWd bc '� on the Geaer4 pb a if oompap� wig regard. Additio spy ro provide more defiled infornaion to staffia this Wetly, if compatible with bighorn reoovery�, it Would be bene�rW to desi oouneGtor trail from L.a Quite to Falrrt Dtse d to retain game a and Traverse projects to the nwun access through the proposed Greer tainvus� trails bid them. Phase make this letter part of the hearingartd the rw mailing list for future notices and en`riararnnental doe M t& mutter, and Aso prat us on the at the address below. Very truly yours, loan Taylor, co: Chakman Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Chub 7Boo S- S=Hse Way, Palm Spris;Ss, CA 92204 lyin d on RcL dcd Papir. —To expkwo- rnao, and pmwmv lk rnuiaw'x Pomas. ,,. wddhQ, ;ind wd Waidw Aa—A4._gg I3:33 1RECEIVED FROM: P.02 032 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TM October 18, 1999 Jerry Herman Director, Community Development Department City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Request For General Plan Amendment Modifying Distance Between Full Movement Intersections On Major Arterials Dear Jerry: The purpose of this letter is to respectfully request that the City of La Quinta amend its General Plan to reduce the minimum intersection spacing on major arterials when those intersections serve major resort or commercial projects. The City needs flexibility to approve full movement intersections at distances less than 2,600 feet on major arterials. Major developments cannot always plan their entry to coincide with the typical half mile spacing for major intersections. This issue is further complicated by the fact that most of La Quinta is already planned on a grid system for major arterials and the intersections are fixed without any accommodation for physical constraints or problems created by piecemeal ownership of land. An example is the constraint imposed on KSL by the Coachella Canal crossing KSL property between Avenue 52 and Avenue 54. Other properties have constraints created by the Whitewater River Storm Channel or other significant natural or man-made features. LIerefore, we respectfully request that the City reduce its minimum full movement rsection spacing to 1,200 feet or less when the new intersection is serving a major w resort or commercial development in La Quinta. Your consideration of this request is sincerely appreciated. Very kindest regards, KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION N. Way,44 Hancock Vice P/freident, Development 033 55-920 PGA Boulevard • La Quinta, CA 92253 0 (760) 564-7166 • Fax (760) 564-7131 44-215. Villeta Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 May 31, 2001 Mr. Jerry Herman, Director Community Development Department City of La Quinta Subject: Comments on Draft General Plan Documents Enclosures: Comments on Draft Comprehensive General Plan, dated March 2001 Comments on Draft Master Environmental Assessment, dated March 2001 Dear Jerry - Pursuant to your recent memo, I am submitting herewith my comments, notes, and suggestions. relative to the two Terra Nova documents pertaining to the current update of the La Quinta General Plan. This submittal supercedes my previous partial submittal given to you at the joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting on the General Plan Update. For the convenience of future reviewers, I have prepared a separate set of comments for each volume. As is my nature, I have tried to be as thorough and in-depth as possible. After having completed this review, I've had some reflective thoughts on the general nature of this material, as follows: 1. There is a lot of duplicated material within the two volumes. Perhaps this is as it should be. However, it makes for a lot of repetitive reading. A couple of the chapters (8 & 9) of the General Plan document have minimized the amount of duplicated material, and merely include a reference to the EA, for further detail. This seems to make sense, although I suspect that more people will keep copies of the General Plan available for quick reference than those with the EA. This would suggest that the General Plan should contain more - not less - material. There doesn't seem to be an easy solution. 2. The heavy focus on Planning Areas - particularly the Southeast Planning Area - frequently tends to overshadow the main event, which should be the General Plan for the existing City of La Quinta! Although our City Council steadfastly maintains that La Quinta is not actively seeking areas to annex, and we are merely passively responding to nearby property owners who want to be annexed, the extensive annexation -related verbiage in these documents could easily lead a reader to a different conclusion. I guess it's the Council's (and Staffs) call, but it seems to me that it's a lot overdone. 3. Much of the data contained in these documents is not current. A forward -looking plan should be based on the most current data available - i.e. 2000 or later. 034 4. I am disappointed by the number of errors I encountered as I read these two documents. Not typos, but just plain errors that tend to reflect a basic lack of intimate knowledge of our City. All the ones that caught my attention have been documented in my notes, but I suspect that there may be others that I missed. I fully realize that the current General Plan Update adventure has had its trials and tribulations, but I guess I expected better at this point in time. As usual, I have intended my input to be constructive in all respects, without intending to be critical of the authors. If appropriate, I would be happy to meet with or entertain telephone calls with Staff and/or Consultants to review or explain any of my comments. Very trey yours, r� Robert T. Tyler Planning Commissioner 035 a COMMENTS ON DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ROBERT TYLER, PLANNING COMMISSIONER MAY 31, 2001 GENERAL ISSUES - DRAFT MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, DATED 3/2001: (SAME ISSUES AS THOSE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN) l . Why does this Draft perpetuate the possibility of future Annexation of the Bermuda. Dunes area north of La Quinta? The residents of this area have already shown a strong preference NOT to annexed by La Quinta, and this area, is currently in the process with LAFCO of being.placed under the Palm Desert Sphere, of Influence. To include this area in the La Quinta General Plan Update is misleading and confusing, and serves no rational purpose for planning the future of our city. The potential ramifications of this issue are reflected throughout this Draft. 2. Is the Southeastern Planning Area reflected throughout this Draft geographically the same as the area designated at the last City Council Public Hearing on this matter (12/19/00??) 3. I fail to understand why this Update is apparently limited to data'available in 1999 and 2000! This is a Planning Document for the future, and should certainly contain the latest and greatest data available - right up to the moment of final approval. It should certainly reflect the 2000 Census. data which is currently available. Also,_ student enrollment. figures from CVUSD and DSUSD should certainly be available by now. 4. There is no Avenue 44 in our portion of the Coachella. Valley. More than a decade ago, Avenue 44 was renamed Fred Waring Drive:from.Highway 111 to Indio Boulevard. 5. Be consistent - the correct name of the airport located in the Thermal area is: "Desert Resorts Regional Airport." 6. The main flood control channel through the Coachella Valley is NOT called the WHITEWA TER. RIVER! Find out and use the correct name. 7. All.La Quinta City maps and Exhibits need to be updated to show the most recent annexation area at the NWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: l . Page 6, Table 1.1: Suggest a possible new Land Use Designation of RURAL LIVING, which would define small (5 to 10 acres) family residential farms. This might placate current residents of the Southeastern Planning Area., .(Contact the City of Hesperia for further information) 2. Page 9, 3' para under Industrial I: 1" line, change will to must. 3. Page 12, para 1.2.1 Specific Plans: This is sort of a hodge podge of various Specific Plans, arranged in random order. It doesn't appear to be complete, and includes at least one (The Ranch Specific Plan) that was never even formally presented for City Approval, 036. 3 and now appears to be a dead issue. If this section is to serve any useful purpose, it should be all-inclusive and should be arranged in some logical order - chronological, alphabetical, or whatever. Should also indicate if the SP is within the current City Limits, within our Sphere of Influence, or within a Planning Area. 4. Page 13, Buildout: The L.Q. population data in this paragraph is woefully out of date. Suggest use of the 2000 Census figure of 23,694(?). 5. Page 17, Traffic Section: Include reference to Traffic Calming concepts. 6. Page 23, para 2.2.2: 2n1 para - Data from a 1995 CVAG traffic study must be hopelessly out of date. It could not possibly have predicted the traffic increase due to the Valley's population explosion or the increased traffic due to the multitude of Casinos operating or planned for the valley. 7. Page 25, U.S. Interstate-10: I-10 is not 8-lanes in our area of the Valley. It narrows from 8-lanes to 6 lanes at the Monterey Avenue Interchange. Also - suggest deletion of the reference to from diamond intersections spaced a minimum of one mile apart. Although this interchange spacing was an early CALTRANS goal, it has never been rigidly adhere -to, and really has little or nothing to do with our G.P. 8. Page 26, Table 2.4: • Delete (or correct) the many non -applicable street references, as follows: Washington St I-10 to Country Club Country Club. to Avenue 42 Change: Avenue 42 to Fred Waring Drive to Darby Road to Fred Waring Jefferson Street Country Club to Avenue 44 (or change Ave. 44 to Fred Waring Drive) Country Club Drive Oasis Street to Washington St. (This is in Palm Desert) Fred Waring Drive Oasis Club to Washington (This is in Palm Desert (north half) and Indian Wells (South half) Upgrade the Designation of the entire length of Fred Waring to Major, as currently designated in the 1992 GP. Miles Avenue Hwy 111 to Washington (This is in Indian Wells) Add: Washington to Jefferson. (North side of Miles is in La Quinta all along this stretch. South side of Miles is in La Quinta to Dune Palms). ADD: Dune Palms Drive & Adams Street to the table. These are both currently designated as Primary Arterials between Highway 111 and Avenue 48. Consider making both of these Primary all the way from Fred Waring Drive to Ave. 48 ??? 07 4 9. Page 2.8, Table 2.5: Intersections Washington Street at: Delete: Country Club Dr. (Palm Desert/Bermuda Dunes) Delete: :Hovley Ln. ( Palm Desert/Bermuda Dunes) Jefferson Street at: Change: Ave. 44 to Fred Waring Drive. 10. Page 29, Secondary Image Corridors: Last bullet. Eisenhower Drive.& Avenida Bermudas run parallel to each other, and thus do not intersect! 11. Page 32,.Golf Cart Route System: I believe the proper title should be Golf Carte Transportation Program (a la Palm Desert). 12. Page 33, top LH paragraph: add: All streets with 25MPHspeed limits and all streets in residence and business districts are Class III golf cart routes. 13. Page 33 or other appropriate page: Introduce a Street Naming policy - to wit: New streets which connect to and continue existing streets shall carry the same name. as -the old street, for their full.length. 14. Page 33 or other. appropriate page: Discuss the City's preferences for allowed -turning movements - i.e. Left Turn vs. IT -turns, etc. 15. Page 36ff, Exhibits 2.5, 2.6 & 2.7: Add the phrase from Item 12 above to eachn of these Exhibits, as a NOTE. Otherwise, the Phase I (2005) Golf Cart Route map is totally unsatisfactory, in that it provides virtually NO golf cart capability for the. North,part of our city which is essentially all residential. 16. Page 37, Public Transportation: 1st para, 4' line. Delete the word new. Many of our CNG busses are several years old. 17. Page 37, Sundial Service: I believe this service is restricted to only those with ADA- qualified disabilities. 18. Page 37, Railway Facilities: I don't quite understand the next -to -last: sentence: While there is neither direct planning area passenger or freight access, to -these facilities, the Indio platform allows passenger boarding and rail sidings in Indio and Coachella current facilitate freight access. What is this trying to say? As a minimum "or" should be changed to "nor". 19. Page 38, para 2.10, Aircraft Traffic: Palm Springs International Airport.The passenger data are woefully out of.date (1994) and terribly incorrect. PSP has handled over one -million passengers every year since 1996. For 2000, this airport handled 1,281,073 passengers. I'm not quite sure what the current projections are for 2015, but a number twice;the stated 809,256 (X2 = 1,618,256) wouldn't be too far off. Desert Resorts Regional _Airport Delete the sentence Currently, most operations involve smaller aircraft with wingspans less than 79 feet. I don't know who was trying to convey what, but the wingspan of arriving/departing aircraft is not a 038 recorded bit of data, and has absolutely no significance to anyone (except perhaps the pilot and/or ground crew)! There are a number of gliders that operate at Desert Resorts that have much longer wingspans. Delete this useless bit of trivia. 20. Page 38, para 2.11, Major Utility Corridors: Just where in our City or even nearby are there easements ranging to hundreds of feet in width?? 21. Page 44, top para: FORGET THIS PREVIOUS COMMENT - I FOUND THE PARK!! (Just where in the world is the listed Desert Pride Park, a 3-acre neighborhood park south of Miles Avenue, between Washington Street and Adams Street?) 22. Page .45, Table 4.1: Footnote: I don't feel it is appropriate to name specific City Staff members in the General Plan. This reference properly belongs in the list of references at the back of the volume. 23. Page 46, para 4.1.6: Delete the references to Bermuda Dunes area. Correct the name of Thermal Airport. 24. Page 47, Table 4.3: Add the newly approved 5-acre park to be provided by Century Homes in their new development west of Jefferson St., between Fred Waring Drive and Miles Avenue. Also, delete the reference (in the Table) and the paragraph that talk about the Bermuda Dunes park 25. Page 48, para 4.2.1: Delete reference to Monroe School - it's in Bermuda Dunes: 26.' Page 49, Table 4A Delete Monroe Elementary & associated data. Also, delete the personal references at the bottom of Tables 4..4 & 4.5. Aren't enrollment data available for 2000 -2001 ? 27. Page 50, para 4.2.5: Update to show that these two schools are under construction and due to open in September 2001. Also, modify the paragraph concerning the proposed CVUSD 3-School complex at Avenue 66 and Tyler Street. There's no way that this complex will become operational in 2001 ! Get the latest data from CVUSD. 28. Page 50, para 4.2.7: Add reference that the new Cal State University SB Campus is under construction on Cook Street, between Frank Sinatra and Gerry Ford. 29. Page 51, para 4.2.8: 1" paragraph. Change to reflect that the City has plans to construct a new Library on the Civic Center Campus - not in the City Hall Building. Also, update the La Quinta population to the current 2000 Census number - 26,XXX. 30. EXHIBIT 4.1, Version 5, dated 7-10-2000: Update per above comments: Delete the Bermuda Dunes Planning Area. Add new schools on Dune Palms. Delete(?) Fire Station #319 which is no longer professionally staffed by CFD. (Now manned(?) by on -call volunteers only) I 31. Page 53, para 4.3.2, Fire Protection: Totally revise the paragraph that starts out "Station #31 ". Functionallythdtv station was relocated north of I-10,' to. better. serve the Sun City complex. Station 31 no longer has any CFD personnel assigned to it - the station is only supported by volunteer fire personnel. 'As a consequence, the northern part of La Quinta is currently under -served, and will remain so until a new Station is built and professionally manned in the northern part. of the City. 32. Page.55, Myoma Dunes Water Company: Unless this utility is going to.provide water to the newly annexed parcel at the NWC of Jefferson Street and Fred-Waring.Drive, suggest this entire write-up be deleted as being non -germane. 33. EXHIBITS 4.2 & , 4.3: Delete the .Bermuda Dunes Planning Area. Delete well site markers in that area. 34. Page 59: Top LH paragraph. Rewrite to reflect the fact that the new streets, curbs and gutters in :the Downtown village area are now essentially complete.. 2nd paragraph: New bridges on Jefferson Street are currently under construction as part of the La Quinta/Indio/CVAG:"Ultimate Design" of Jefferson. Street, Phase I. 35. Page 62, 5.1.1, last paragraph in RH column: Is the Coachella Valley still awaiting the EPA opinion? Why not fold the PM10 discussion on this page into the more extensive PM10 discussions on the next couple of pages? 36. Page 66, Table 5.2: Why is the Indio data included?? Suggest it be deleted. This is the La Quinta Environmental Assessment. 37. Page 67, Table 5.3: Ditto the above. 38. Page 68, 5.2,1" line of 2' paragraph: Don't understand. the.. statement: Relatively high energy costs .. La Quinta and the eastern planning area enjoy. some of the lowest electrical energy rates, thanks to IID. 39. Page 68, 5.2.1: The initial paragraph - in particular - needs to be re -written in the context of California's current out -of -control electrical energy situation! The rest of the section seems reasonably OK, although much of the information was previously stated in Section 4.5.5. 40. Page 69, paragraph 5.2.4: Suggest that both the IID and the Gas Company paragraphs merely state that each Utility offers frequent incentive and rebate programs for the benefit of its customers. Don't try to list the specific programs, since they change from time to time. OK to keep the references to programs for low-income users, but delete the others. 41. Page 75, para 5.4.5: Suggest deletion of the 2nd sentence. Who sponsored the Bill is not germane to the Environmental Assessment. 42. Page 85, 5.6 Water Resources: If it isn't already in conformance, this section needs to be brought into line with the current CVWD water conservation/replenishment plan recently presented to a joint meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission on April 4d'. 040 Also, delete the top RH paragraph pertaining to the Myoma Water district . 43. Page 89, 90 91, & 94, Geotechnical & Seismic Hazards: Does all this EARTHQUAKE 101 textbook stuff really belong in an Environmental Assessment? Suggest the discussion be limited to basically what's in 6.3.4, and delete the rest. 44. Page 95, paragraph 6.3.7: One of the largest sources (not mentioned) is :soil that has been disturbed by grading - for construction or whatever - and then not properly stabilized. Or soil that has been stabilized .but the stabilization: has. been corrupted by careless `residents riding off -road vehicles. 45. Page 99, paragraph 6.4.1: 2nd para. Many of the tropical storms that impact the Coachella Valley originate in the Gulf of California, as well as those that originate in the Pacific Ocean. Also, para 6.4.2, last paragraph: Aren't there any newer FEMA Flood maps than 1991 ? 46. Page 101: 4th LH paragraph - The Indian Springs Country Club is now in Indio. 47. Page 104, paragraph 6.5.6: Delete all'references -to the Bermuda Dunes Airport. Use the correct name for the Thermal airport. 48. Exhibits 6.7 & 6.8: Delete. 49. Page 110: Delete 1). For 3), the correct site name should be Washington SUVia Sevilla. (La Quinta del Oro is the name of the Development, not the name of the street.) 50. Page 117 & following, Cultural Resources: Although all this historical data is very interesting, is it really appropriate to an Environmental Assessment? Why not just start at 7.3? 51. Page 123, paragraph 7.6: 3rd. RH paragraph. Suggest delete allexcept the last sentence. What exists "just outside" the planning area is of little consequence to our Environmental Assessment. �041. COMMENTS ON DRAFT GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ROBERT TYLER, PLANNING COMMISSIONER MAY 319 2001 GENERAL ISSUES - DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN, DATED 3/2001: (SAME ISSUES AS THOSE FOR THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT) 1. Why does. this Draft perpetuate the possibility of future Annexation of the Bermuda Dunes area north of La Quinta? The residents of this area have already shown a strong preference NOT to annexed by La Quinta, and this area is currently in the LAFCO process of being placed under the Palm Desert Sphere of Influence. To include this area in the La Quinta: General Plan Update is misleading and confusing, and serves no rational purpose for planning the future of our city. The potential ramifications of this issue are reflected throughout this Draft. 2. Is the Southeastern Planning Area reflected throughout this Draft geographically the same as the area designated at the last City Council Public Hearing on this matter (12/ 19/00??) 3. I fail to understand why this Update is apparently limited to data available in ' 1999 and 2000! This is a Planning Document for the future, and should certainly contain the latest and greatest data available - right.. up to .the .moment of final approval. It should certainly reflect the 2000 Census data which is currently available. Also, student enrollment figures from CVUSD and DSUSD for 2000-2001 should certainly be. available by now 4. There is no Avenue 44 in our portion of the Coachella Valley. More,than a decade ago, Avenue 44 was renamed Fred Waring Drive from Highway 111 to' -Indio Boulevard. 5. Be consistent - the correct name of the airport located in the Thermal ,area is: "Desert Resorts Regional Airport.". 6. The main flood control channel through the Coachella Valley is NOT called the WHITEWATER RIVER! Find out and use the correct name. 7. All La Quinta City Maps and Exhibits need to be updated to show the most recently annexed area at the NWC of Jefferson Street and Fred Waring Drive. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 1. Page 8:. l" Paragraph in RH column.- If the example given, "Airport", pertains to the Bermuda Dunes airport, suggest it be replaced with something more germane. 2. Page 9, Table 2.1: Suggest a possible new Land Use Designation of RURAL LIVING, which would define small (5 to 10 acres) family residential farms. This might placate current residents of the Southeastern Planning Area. (Contact the City of Hesperia for further information) 1 042 3. Page 12: Delete the second Industrial I (Continued) heading in the LH column. 4. Page 13: Airport AP -Delete Bermuda Dunes and 5. Page 14: Table 2.2. Don't understand the phrase Recommended Alternative in the title. If this Table includes data from the Bermuda Dunes Planning Area, re -do to delete, that data. 6. Pages 18 & 19: As written, this seems to be directed to the annexation of Bermuda Dunes and its Airport. I don't recall if the 'Desert Resorts Airport is still in the Southeast Planning Area, or merely contiguous to. it. At any rate, Goal 2 and Policies 4, 4.1, 5, and 5.1 need to be re-evaluated, in view of the deletion of the Bermuda Dunes Planning Area. 7. Page 20: Top RH paragraph. Aren't there any available data later than 1-999? 8. Exhibit 3.1: Change Avenue 44 (in Inset A) to Fred Waring Drive, 9. Page 22, Table 3.1: • Delete (or correct) the many non -applicable street references, as follows: Washington St: Delete: I-10 to Country Club (Palm Desert & Bermuda Dunes) Delete: Country Club`to Avenue 42 (Palm Desert & Bermuda Dunes) Changer Avenue 42 to Fred Waring Drive to Darby Road to Fred Waring Drive. Jefferson Street Delete: Country Club to Avenue 44 (or change Avenue 44 to Fred Waring Drive.) Country Club Drive Delete: Oasis Street to Washington St. (Palm Desert) Fred Waring Drive Delete: Oasis Club to Washington (Palm Desert & Indian Wells) Upgrade the Designation of the entire length of Fred' Waring to Major, as currently designated in the 1992 GP. Miles Avenue Delete: Hwy III to Washington (Indian Wells) Add: Washington to Jefferson. (North side of Miles is in La Quinta all along this stretch. South side of Miles is in La Quinta to Dune Palms). ADD: Dune Palms Drive & Adams Street to the table. These are both currently designated as Primary Arterials between Highway l 11 and Avenue 48. Consider making both of these Primary all the way from Fred Waring Drive to Ave. 48 ??? 043 W Page 27, Table 3.2::Intersections Washington Street at: Delete: Country Club. Dr. (Palm Desert/Bermuda Dunes) Delete: Hovley Ln. (Palm Desert/Bermuda Dunes) Jefferson .Street at: Delete: Country Club Dr. (Bermuda Dunes) Change: Ave. 44 to Fred Waring Drive. Page 28: I believe the correct name of a golf cart program is. Golf Cart Transportation Program. Exhibit 3.3: The roadway classification markings on this Exhibit completely overwhelm the background map. This makes it virtually impossible to tell what's going on. For example, Highway 111 through La Quinta doesn't show up at all. The comparable exhibit on page 3-9 of the 1992 GP is much easier to read and comprehend. Also, it appears that on the new Exhibit, both Adams St. and Dune Palms Road have been downgraded from Primary Arterials to Secondary Arterials, between. Highway 111 and Avenue 48. Also, Eisenhower has been downgraded from a Primary Arterial to a Secondary Arterial. Were these changes intentional? Page 28 and Exhibit 3.4, 3.5 & 3.6: Suggest the following Note from the Palm Desert Golf Transportation Plan appear on all these pages: "NOTE: All streets with 25 MPH speed limits and all streets in residence and business districts are Class III golf cart routes. " Without this proviso, the Phase 1. and Phase II Plans are totally .inadequate, . because neither provide adequate Golf Cart access to the bulk of our residents. Page 28,.Traffic Calming: How about. mentioning the modem round -about under. construction, ; at Jefferson Street and Avenue 52? Also, why restrict traffic calming techniques to new developments only? Many effective calming techniques can be applied retroactively to developed neighborhoods. Exhibit 3.7, Multi -Purpose Trails: The text (page 36, Policy 7) talks to using golf carts on the multi -purpose trails. Shouldn't this be reflected on Exhibit 3.7? Page 35, Program 2.2: Why are only a few streets ( Washington St., Adams. St., and Hiway l l ,l included in this Plan? The practice of Limiting Access continues to be applied to virtually all major and primary streets in our city. Page 35, Program 2.3 through 2.8: These paragraphs seem to put into text what was previously shown graphically in Table CIR-2 of the old GP. The old way was clearer, more concise, and easier to refer to. Page 36, Program 6.2: Who's idea was this? Generally, the 10/4 work week is not very efficient in terms of employee productivity. ME Page 36, Program 7A See previous note above for Page 28 & Exhibit 3.4. Why single out residents of The Cove for special Golf Cart privileges? The General Plan applies to alna Quinta Residents. Also, the Specific street crossings for golf carts onto collectors and arterials citywide are spelled out in the approved Golf Cart Transportation Plan. Page 37, Program 7.5: Delete. This will be part of the approved Golf Cart Transportation Plan. Page 37, Policy 10: The airport in Palm Springs is the Palm Springs International Airport. Page 37, Policy 11: I don't understand the l' sentence Streets within planned residential areas. All of our residential areas are "planned" - they just don't just grow like Topsy! I presume this . Policy is intended to apply to Private residential communities (gated or otherwise). Re -word, please. Page 37, Program 13.1: The correct street name is Fred Waring Drive. Page 37, Policy 14: Suggest the word minimum be inserted between streets and landscape Page 41: 1st paragraph in the RH column. GREAT! I like this approach to directing the reader to where the applicable information already exists, thereby avoiding repetition and duplication. This approach should be used in virtually all elements. Page 44: Add new Policy The City shall encourage CVWD to landscape their various existing, barren future well sites within La-Quinta, to convert these into mini -neighborhood parks for the enjoyment of nearby residents. Page 46, Policy 1: Our City doesn't have any industrial facilities! So why 'is this #1 on the hit - parade? Page 46, Policy/Program Statements 1.2, 2, and 3.1: Why the emphasis on Industrial Developments, when La Quinta has none? Page 46, Program 5.1: Add Golf Cart Transportation Plan. Page 47, Program 5A This is the City's General Plan, not Sunline's. The City shall continue to have the Sunl ine Transit Agency to review .... Page 48, Energy Resources: Are the data in the last sentence the projected totals or the projected additions to current demands? Need to clarify. Page 49, Program 1.2.2: Change the first word vehicles to fleet in the second line. Converting existing vehicles is not as cost effective as replacing the entire fleet with alternative fuel vehicles, on an attrition basis. 04.9 1PL Page 49, Policy 1.3: Add the. Golf Cart Transportation Plan to the mix of conservation alternatives. Page 49, Goal 2: The previous page just got through saying that La Quinta has virtually no mineral resources to speak of. Why this big Goal to preserve what doesn't exist? Exhibit 6.1: What happened to the Peninsular Big Horn Sheep? Page 53, Program 1.3: Where did this concept come from?? Please delete it quickly! Page 53, Policy 4: Does La Quinta have any such areas? Page 54, Program 5.3: It's a little late to start doing this for The Cove! Why just the Cove? How about the new, as -yet -undeveloped areas in the southeastern portions of the City;: such.as The Green and Travertine, that border the hillsides? Page 55, Program 1.2: Insert the words all future between for and Spec f c Page 57, Program 1.1.1: La Quinta's Water Conservation/Efficiency Ordinance has: been the subject of discussion at the last several meetings of the Planning Commission. The current Ordinance was loosely adapted from an all-purpose Ordinance intended for use throughout the State. Few, people can understand and/or implement it in its present form. On a priority basis, this Ordinance needs to be drastically updated to fit La Quinta's needs and objectives, and submitted for approval. Page 57, Program 1.1.4: Delete and/or the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, and substitute and other appropriate water purveyors Page 58, Program 1.2.3: Last line treater should be treated. Page 59, Future Buildout Needs: Delete the reference to Bermuda Dunes, and delete their population. data from the figures presented. Page 60, Potable Water: Delete the last sentence pertaining to the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water District. Page 60, Surface Water & Storm Drainage: 2' paragraph- Widening of the Washington Street bridge over the Evacuation Channel was completed at least one year ago. Page .60, Program 1.2.1: Modify to read: The City shall coordinate with the Riverside County Fire Department to expedite the siting and construction of a new fire station in north .La Quints,. to satisfy the existing needs in that portion of the City. Coordination with the Riverside County Fire Department shall continue to evaluate needs generated by future development. 046 �3 Page 62, Program 2.4.1: Why is this restricted to only post -graduate institutions? "Post Graduate" generally implies after graduation from a 4-year Institution of Higher Learning. If this was intended to apply to after High School graduation, some other term should be used. The City should be encouraging continuing education at all levels, from High School (GED programs) on through Post Graduate (as defined above). Page 62, Program 2.5.1: Again - why so restrictive. The City should promote these programs for all its residents. Page 63, Program 4.2.2: As written, this paragraph is likely to inflame those residents of Thermal who do not wish to be annexed to La Quinta! Why not broaden to state that as areas of the Eastern Planning area are annexed, the city will ......, (without specifically mentioning Thermal). Page 63, Programs 5.1.1 & 5.1.2: Delete references to the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water District. Page 64, Programs 6.2.1 & 6.2.2: Substitute Verizon for GTE. Page 64, 1' full LH paragraph: Delete and Bermuda Dunes Page 66, Policy 4: Don't understand the term encourage. All new development in the existing city of La Quinta must hook-up to the CVWD sewer system. Was this intended to refer to newly annexed areas? Page 68, Future Buildout Needs: Clarify whether the 183, 730 additional residents pertains only to the planning area(s), or the buildout of the existing city lLus the planning area(s) Also, delete the reference to the Bermuda Dunes airport. Page 70, Future Buildout Needs: If these projections include the Bermuda Dunes P� Area, back out their numbers. Exhibit 8.1 Geological Map and Engineering Properties: Don't understand the words "and Engineering Properties" in the title. Better title might be Geological Properties Map. Exhibits 8.1, 8.29 8.3, 8.4 & 85.: I did not note citations in the text for any of these Exhibits. Exhibit 8.4 Wind Hazard Map: What is the purpose of including this map? What is it based on? Wind in the Coachella Valley is a fact of life. When did it become a HAZARD? As Ben Franklin once said " Everyone talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it" - or words to that effect. Perhaps another more descriptive word could be substituted for "hazard" in the title of this Exhibit - such as Wind Characteristics Map or simply Wind Map. 047 VV 0 t Page 78, Policy 2 & Program 2.1: Evacuation routes should be established for the entire City, not just the Cove. This should be part of the Multi -Hazard Functional Plan and/or the Emergency Operations Plan. Page 78, Program 7.1: Adams Street terminates at Avenue 48 and does not exist South of the La Quinta Evacuation Channel. It's not obvious what was intended in this paragraph. Page 79, Future Buildout Needs: Citation for Table 8.1 should be for Table 8.2 Page 81, Table 8.2: Delete Washington St., north of Avenue 42 (Palm Desert/Bermuda Dunes) Change Avenue 44 to Fred Waring Drive (2 places) Page 83, Cultural Resources Element: For whatever reason, Chapter 9 is currently devoid of any references to Planning areas and/or annexation! How refreshing. Suggest some sort of blanket statement be added to the effect that as additional properties are annexed to the City, the on going Historic Preservation Goals, Policies and Programs will be expanded to include the new portions of the City. General Plan Map (Recommended): • Needs extensive renovations, per all of the above! • At least it shows Fred Waring Drive, instead of Avenue 44! • Does this Map reflect the City Council's current thinking about SOI and potential Annexation areas? • What is P Floating Park Designation, some sort of new water feature?? s SEP-17-01 MON 12:02 PM KSL RECREATION CORP FAX NO. 912319385494 P. 02 0 September 17, 2001 Christine Dilorio Planning Manager Fred Baker Principal Planner DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Community ]development City of La QUinla 75-495 C.alle 'Tampico La Quinta CA 92253 lac: Gencral Plan Update Dear Christine and Fred: Thanks for the opportunity to provide input into the Gencrej Plan update for the City of La Quinta. We \Nvould like to ,lake the following recommendations for change in land•use to some of our property that would rest align the properties with their highest and best uses, provide for proactive market flexibility in plaruiing and design and support the active developmem of the properties: • Ranch — Change in land use to Resort Mixed Use; This is a land use designation recommended to us by you and your staff for properties that may have a N1,ariety of resort based uses including hotel, timeshare, fractional and single fan -lily residential with supporting amenities and commercial. Grove Commercial Site (NE corner of Ave 52 and Jefferson) -- Change. in land use designation to Neighborbood Commercial. • Villa La Quinta (North of La Quinta Resort; 1'erenando/Eisenhower/Coachella Drive) — Change in land use to Resort Mixed Use for the same bcnefiirs as noted on the Ranch. We would appreciate your consideration of these changes in land use and would hope that you could recon-imend same to the Plain}ing Commission and City Council. KSL;is encouraged by this proactive planning effort, by the City of La Quinta and look forward to continuing the development of our properties within the City. OLr� S. Chevis Hosca V.P., Land Development Cc: Tarry Lichliter Bill Dodds Scott Dalecio DoLig Yavaninn Forrest Haag, ASLA Chris Bergh, MIdS Consulting Rick Deihl 5.5-920 PGA Boulevard • La Quinta, CA 92253 0 (760) 564.7166 • 1~ax (760) 564-7131 09-17-01 12:50 RECEIVED FROM:912319385494 P•02 Q9;1,� 2QQ1 15:07 FAX 7603694002 ARCHAEO ADV CRP N ItAXrch ae of o i cal Advisory Group P.O. Box 491 P Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491 Tel: 760.228.1 l42 • Fax: 760.369.4002 • E-mail: archadvgrp@aol_com September 18, 2001 UI MT. Jerry Herman Director, Community Development Agency 2 018 20 City of La Quints T 78-495 Calle Tampico V :� La Quints, CA 92253 Comments on Cuharal Resources Portion s of the City's "Comprehensive General Plan/Draft EM" and "Draft General Plan/Cultural Resourta Element" Dear Mr. Herman: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents. I have two areas of concern. My main concern, which applies to both of these documents, is that they fail to point out that the great majority of the archaeological sites in La Quinta have been destroyed or severely impacted by development projects in the last 20 years. There are only a handful of well-preserved sites left within the current City boundaries and, as far as I can see, these are under threat of destruction as the City completes its build out The remaining sites are potentially significant as the surviving examples of classes of sites that have been largely destroyed and may fit the criterion of "unique archaeological resource" as defined under CEQA (Pub Res C §21083.2(g)). As you know, archaeological sites are non-renewable resources. Once they are gone the information they contain is lost forever. This is particularly regrettable in the La Quints situation because archaeological research into Ancient Lake Cahuilla shoreline occupation is still in its infancy_ l woold recommend the General Plan Policy 2.1 specifically state that every effort be made to identify and preserve the remaining potentially significant archaeological sites within the City. My other comment pertains to a statement on Page III-124 of the "Comprehensive General Plan/Draft EIR," Paragraph F: "A qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative shall provide on - site monitoring during ground -disturbing activities in areas of high sensitivity_" The "and/or" implies that it is acceptable for only a Native American to be present during monitoring_ The contradicts the City's personnel requirements for archaeological monitors. It would be acceptable for only a Native American to be present provided they met the archaeological education and experience requirements necessary for an archaeological monitor. Sincerely, James Brock mA, RPA President A�i-iR-R1 ]5:00 RECEIVED FROM:7603694002 P-e2 Hotmail Page 1 of 1 H otma i I® jsgates86@hotmaii.com From : "john gates" <jsgates86@hotmail.com> . To: jsgates86@hotmaii.com Date : Sat, 08 Sep 2001 22:20:39 -0700 :V4 V.v� I 1 Previous Page 4:P 1�D W \MM Dear planning commission, I am writing to express my concern and interest in the La Quinta general plan. The item that I most want to address is the residential zoning for future parcels. La Quinta is currently loaded with condos and 5000 square foot lots. I urge you to require future residential zoning to be very low density, with homes on large lots. This will allow for a good tax base for the city, while maintaining our property values. At the same time it will not over burden the cities infrastructure. ie... water, sewer, streets. Also at risk is our quality of life. Any high to mid density development allowed will have negative impacts to our city in the forms of TRAFFIC, NOISE, and POLLUTION. Please work hard to keep La Quinta the beautiful city that it is. sincerely, John Gates ------------ © 2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE TRUSTe Approved PrivacyStatement 5 r bttp://lw8fd.law8.botmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=FOOOOOOOOI &a=6c4f5dc4b.... 09/08/2001 FROM : COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CON PHONE NO. : 760 776 9698 Sep. 19 2001 02:29PM P2' � H VALLEY MOUNTAINS State of California CONSERVANCY jr) partnership to protect our mountain heritage September 18, 2001 Got►c 109 soctra OiU of Gagrdral C1R� ow Of [ksca"or SPIMS Pry Of kJ acrn ►*LB c-rd of La Qtdnto Honorable Mayor John Pena City c►j Palm Desert M embers of the City Council Qw ar Pain SW City 01Rarxilo MkW City of La Qui xAa `,""X"°eS Appantm 78-495 Calle Tampico arc sawk .,pPC4►,rrx La (Uinta CA 92253 Q $tole ASSO7".j APPOlrlrCf , Rrumlae aw"y Supervisor Dwrkl In Riveowe county superve." Dear Mayor Pena and Members of the City Council: �� AQua C t7Band Thank for the opportunity to conunent on the Draft Environmental Impact pe rks and necrmlon you Report (DEIR) for the proposed General Plan. As you know, the Coachella Valley aut.an ruMt7rk]�emcnl Mountains Conservancy is working with the Coachella Valley Association of C•!,S_ Foceyl ScIutGC wlldufctrx,servar0n B."rd Governments (CVAC) to develop a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan �,; (XW',Ka Of (C VMSHCP) for the Coachella Valley. In addition to CVAC and its rnei mber LrrwucicrcygjCawomta jurisdictions, this planning effort involves the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Div&i0ei QfA{Jrl UKKC c»dNaru'Wlksoorcw as well as state and federal wildlife agencies. As one part of the CVMS14CP, a trails plan is being developed for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Over the last several years, staff from the Conservancy and BLM have been working with a Trails and Bighorn Sheep Working Group, which includes staff members and residents from the City of La Quinta, to develop a series of trail use alternatives. The focus of this effort is to develop a trails plan that provides for a reasonable level of trail use while minimizing impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep. This Santa Rosa and San. Jacinto Mountains trails plan is intended to serve local trail needs, including within. the City of La Quinta, as well as to address regional trails and trail access. One option that the Trails and Bighorn ,Sheep Working Group has been evaluating is the potential for new trails that would be located around the perimeter of the Santa Rosa Mountains. We would like to request that the City consider the creation of. a General Flan policy to allow the City to assess the potential for development of perimeter trails in the La Quinta area. Although we do not at this time have any final proposals for the :location of these perimeter trails, there are several areas that have been discussed by the Trails and Bighorn Sheep Forking Croup. These potential perimeter trails are in the La Quinta Cove. area, including the Coral Reef Mountains, and along the slopes of the Santa Rosa Mountains, generally south of Lake Cahuilla. The Bureau of Land Management ,%ill be addressing the potential for these trailson 45-480 Porlola Ave. • Palm Desert, CA 92260 • 760-776-5026 • Fax 760-776.9698 09-19-01 14:49 RECEIVED FROM:760 776 9698 P.92 F� i11 : i= OACHELLA UALLEY MOUNTAINS CON PHONE IN10. : 760 776 9698 i = F• 19 2001 02: 29P M P.7 BLM lands in this area. We would lil:e the City to give consideration to potential perirneter trails as well. According to info:rrnation frorra City Planning staff, the Proposed General flan does not Currently Provide planning and evaluation process will certainl continue opportunity The trails residents, and any affected landowners. A Public Review Drafto City staff, Valley Multiple Species l�lan, including the draft Santa losa an of the Coachella Mountains trails plan, is now planned for release in Jana a San Jacinto �Y I would be happy to discuss this matter further with City staff_ I can 776-5026. Thank you for your consideration. be reached at Sincerely, . 1 Katie Barrows -Associate Director _ t cc: Fred Baker, City of La Qtunta .Jim Foote, Bureau of Land. Management Jerry Herman, City of La Quinta Jim Kenna, Bureau of Land Management Jim Sullivan, CVAG Trails and Bighorn Sheep- Working Grqup k 09-19-01 14:5g RECEIVED FROM:750 ?76 9698 --- P 0 3 SeN 19 01 03:24p City of Coachella 760 398-5421 p.2 1515 SIXTH STREET • COACHELLA, CA 92236 Fax: (760) 398-8117 —■ram..- -LV-X.7ED -- Hon. Mayor John Pena Members of the City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Administration ............... 398-3502 Grants ........... ...... ......... 39B-5110 Anirnal Control .............. 398-4978 Housintl ......................... 398 5110 Building.........................396-3002 Personnel ...................... 398-3502 City Clork ...................... 398-;3502 Manning ........................ 398-3102 City Council ................ ..391-5009 Public works ................398-5744 Code Bnforcernent........ 396-4978 i+:creation ..................... 398.3502 Economic Develop. ...... 398-5110 Riverside Sheriffs office 853-8990 Engineering ...................398-5744 Sanitat............ ............... 391-5008 .................... Finance .....398-3502 . ._...... :;..nicer t3v ...39f3-0104 ........ Rm ............................... 398-8895 tltilitict........................... 398-2702 September 19, 2001 Re: La Quinta General Plan update, La Quinta JN& 12 Annexation, Proposed La Quinta Sphere of Influence and Draft Environmental Impact Report Honorable Mayor Pena and Members of the City Council: I am sending the following comments on behalf of the City Council of the City of Coachella. This letter describes those areas of concern that the Coachella City Council has with respect to the La Quinta General Plan Update, the proposed La Quinta Annexation No. 12, the proposed La Quinta Sphere of Influence and the potential expansion beyond those limits within your 1' lanning Area. This letter supplements the comments previously submitted to La Quinta's Principal Planner Fred Baker by Coachella's Director of Community Development Susan E. Williams, dated September 10, 2001. The proposed La Quinta Annexation No. 12 includes territory situated within Coachella's current Sphere of Influence. That particular area extends from Avenue 50 to Airport Boulevard and from Monroe Street to Van Buren Street. The Coachella City Council is adamantly opposed to the proposed annexation (by any neighboring city) of any territory situated within Coachella's existing Sphere of Influence. This particular area consists of a variety of land uses: low density residential, very low density residential, and is subject to an agricultural to urban transitional overlay zone. The subject area which also includes a public cemetery, a school and scattered general corrrn icrcial uses has been identified in Coachella's General Plan as an integral component of Coachella's future growth. In light of the above, the Coachella City Council respectfully requests that the subject area be excluded from La Quinta Annexation No. 12. The Coachella City Council also objects to the proposal to include in La. Quinta'.s Sphere of Influence any property located east of Van Buren Street and south of Coachella's city limits. It has become clear to many local planners and policy makers that the Thermal Airport has the potential to become a major transportation hub which can effectively meet the future needs ol' not only the growing tourist/resort based industry throughout the entire Coachella Valley, but also the growing manufacturing and industrial needs of the east end of the Coachella Valley and fast growing Imperial County. There is no doubt that the transformation of the "Thermal Airport into a. major transportation hub will create a bonanza of opportunities for those local jurisdictions which have control over land use and development of the area near the Thermal Airport and are the beneficiaries of general fund Sep 19 01 03:24p City of Coachella 760 398-5421 p,3 revenue derived from the property taxes, sales tax, business license taxes, transient occupancy taxes, produced by the business activities that will surely take place in the subject area in the very near future. Since Coachella is in the very unique situation of having a relatively large number of very - low to low income households it is imperative that Coachella look to the fiiture for all possible opportunities for economic growth and prosperity, and the future growth of the area in the vicinity of the Thermal Airport is one such opportunity that Coachella's policy makers must keep their eyes on. Notwithstanding the above, the Coachella City Council sincerely believes that the fiiture of the Thermal Airport will create sufficient opportunities that can provide mutual benefits to both Coachella and La Quinta. As such. the Coachella City Council is encouraged that.. with restrained ambition, both cities can work together on developing a. long term plan for the future annexation of the area in the vicinity of the Thermal Airport that will result in the orderly devel.opmcnt of the area in a manner that fairly distributes between the two jurisdictions both the burdens of such development and the many benefits such development will likely create. In light of the above, the Coachella City Council respectfully requests that the La Quinta City Council direct its staff to eliminate from its Sphere of Influence proposal any plan to include any territory located east of Van Buren Street and south of Coachella's city limits, The Coachella City Council, however, would not oppose a proposal that extends La Quinta's Sphere of Influence to include that area bounded to the east by Van Buren, the north by Airport Boulevard and the south by A venue 66. With respect to the Draft EIR's analysis of traffic impacts, the Coachella City Council has grave concerns about how the increased traffic will disproportionally impact many of Coachella's roadways and intersections. Coachella is specifically concerned that the mitigation measures related to the traffic impacts are wholly inadequate to non-existent and the suggestion that formulation of traffic mitigation measures be deferred to a. later time is in complete violation of the California Environmental. Quality Act ("CEQA"). No matter which alternative La Quinta chooses to proceed with, it is imperative that mitigation measures be imposed that will effectively mitigate all significant traffic impacts to levels of insignificance. In this regard, the Draft EIR needs to be amended to include traffic mitigation measures that, for instance, require financial contributions to be made toward necessary road improvements such as additional signalization, road widening, grade separations, and bridges along streets such as Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, tend Polk. Two other additional concerns raised by the Coachella City Council relate to water. In recognition of the increase demands that will be placed on the arca's water supply, the Draft F,IR. should include a mitigation measure that requires the development of a water reclamation facility. In addition, with respect to the severe drainage problems throughout the east end of the Coachella Valley, it is important that the Draft EIR include a mitigation measure that requires certain residential subdivisions to include the installation of retention basins and/or requires financial contributions to be made toward necessary drainage improvements. Without such mitigations measures in place, it is certain that number of children who will be exposed to the health and safety threats Dissociated with the presence of stagnant water in residential areas will increase at an alarming and unacceptable rate. Sep 19 01 03:25p City of Coachella 760 398-5421 p.4 In addition, *the Coachella City Council believes that the Draft EIR must include a mitigation measure that prohibits large scale resorts from planting nuisance grasses and other types of vegetation which aggravate allergies and other respiratory ailments suffered by many local residents. The current energy crisis also needs to be discussed in the Draft EIR from the perspective of the status of current electrical and natural gas supplies. flow will the future development of the area affect the availability of such supplies to current residents and businesses and how will the increased demand on such supplies be met? This is an impact that cannot be ignored. In sum, the Draft EIR needs to identify the specific impacts to the City of Coachella and must include mitigation measures that reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. The Draft EIR as written does not include mitigation measures that can be quantified with a projected schedule and identified responsible party. Also, the deferred mitigation which is suggested throughout the Draft EIR is not appropriate under CEQA. Coachella also respectfully submits that the concerns raised in the September 10, 2001 letter have still not been properly addressed and, as such, must be reasserted Herein as though set forth at length. In closing, please note once again that the Coachella City Council would not oppose a La Quinta annexation or sphere of influence proposal that extends easterly to Van Buren bounded by Airport Boulevard to the north and Avenue 56 to the south. Such a proposal would not intrude on Coachella's current Sphere of Influence wid it will provide both cities with the opportunity to meet with the intent to cooperate on developing a long term plan for annexation and development of the area in the immediate vicinity of the Thermal Airport. Due to the potential tax revenue associated with the future growth of the Thermal Airport, the City Council of the City of Coachella wishes to ensure that it is able to participate with the City of La Quinta in benefntting i-Torn the eventual development of the area. On behalf of the City Council of the City of Coachella, I thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your growth proposals and we look forward to working with the City of La Quinta on this and many other issues and concerns that our two communities share. Very truly yours, Lupe . Donninguez, Mayor City of Coachella cc: Tom Genovese, La Quinta City Manager Fred Baker, La Quinta Principal Planner