Loading...
2002 03 20 CC4 U - ' 9w5 City Council Agendas are OF available on the City's web page @www.la-quinta.org City Council Agenda CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 78-495 Calle Tampico - La Quinta, California 92253 SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, March 20, 2002 - 7 p.m. Beginning Res. No. 2002-38 Ord. No. 367 I. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Council Members: Adolph, Henderson, Perkins, Sniff, Mayor Pena II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, members of the public may address the City Council 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. IV. CLOSED SESSION- - NONE V. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA VI. PRESENTATIONS T.?0 City Council Agenda (Special Meeting) Page 1 March 20, 2002 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS For all Public Hearings on the agenda, a completed "request to speak" form must be filed with 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. Any person may submit written comments to the La Quinta City Council/ Redevelopment Agency before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of, or in opposition to, the approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the projects(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-071, TO A.) REVIEW AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 9.220, 9.230, AND 9.240 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR ZONE CODE AMENDMENTS, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS; AND B.) REVIEW AN AMENDMENT OF SECTION 9. 140.070 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. A. READ BY TITLE ONLY AND WAIVE FURTHER READING B. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN, ANNEXATION NO. 12 AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (SCH #2000091023) AND ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE. A. RESOLUTION ORDER Vill. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting, commencing with closed session at 2:00 P.M. and open session at 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 2, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA 92253. City Council Agenda (Special Meeting) Page 2 March 20, 2002 DECLARATION OF POSTING I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing agenda for the La Quinta City Council meeting of Tuesday, March, 20, 2002, 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 111, on Friday, March 15, 2002. DATED: March 15, 2002 JUNE . G EK, CIVIC City Clerk, City of La Quinta, California PUBLIC NOTICES 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 If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the City Council, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's Office at 777-7025. A one 11► week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the City Council, during a City Council Meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the City Clerk. It is requested that this take place prior to the 7:00 p.m session for distribution. City Council Agenda (Special Meeting) Page 3 March 20, 2002 AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 20, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Public Hearing on Amending Chapters 9.220, 9.230 PUBLIC HEARING: and 9.240 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, Amending Procedures for Zone Changes and Code Amendments, General Plan Amendments, and Specific Plans; and Adding Section 9.140.070 Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Move to take up Ordinance No. by title and number only and waive further reading. Move to introduce Ordinance No. adopting changes to Chapters 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240 of the Municipal Code; and 2. Move to take up Ordinance No. by title and number only and waive further reading. Move to introduce Ordinance No. adding Chapter 9.140.070, Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District to the Municipal Code. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: A. Chapters 9.220, 9.230, 9.240 Historically, planning staff has submitted recommended changes to the Zoning Map, Zoning Text, General Plan and adopted Specific Plans. However, pursuant to the existing text in the Municipal Code, the only method of changing is by the applicant, Planning Commission, or City Council. Therefore, staff is requesting an Amendment to permit staff to submit recommended changes for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. 004 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\ZCA071.wpd B. Section 9.140.070 A number of persons have expressed concerns about the lack of Zoning Ordinance text relating to agricultural and equestrian activities, especially as it relates to the City's General Plan Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay. In September 2001, the City Council and Planning Commission held a public hearing for the General Plan. At that time, staff submitted text for such an addition to the Zoning Code, to address these concerns. The text attached to the Resolution as Exhibit A parallels the County Zoning Ordinance for Zone A-1 (Light Agriculture), which is typically the zoning in Planning Area No. 1 and Planning Area No. 2. Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses: Land uses which are permitted, or conditionally permitted under the County's standards will receive the same consideration in the City text. These uses include, but are not limited to, single family homes, stables (both private and commercial), field crops, orchards, the raising of cattle and other farm animals, golf courses, farmworker housing and mobile home parks. Some uses not listed in the County text have been included in the City text, including: guest ranches and bed & breakfasts, child day care, polo grounds and veterinary facilities. Two land uses included in the County text have not been included in the City's text: mining operations and oil production. Neither use is believed to be germane within either Planning Area No. 1 or Planning Area No. 2. Please see Exhibit A to the text of the Zoning section, for a complete listing of permitted and conditionally permitted uses. Additional Provisions: In addition to refinements to the land uses, two additions have been made to the text since its first presentation in September: 1 . The Riverside County Right -to -Farm Ordinance text has been adapted for the City and included as item "D." of the text. 2. A specific reference has been added as item "F." to the City's Transfer of Development Rights provisions. The first item was added as a result of considerable public comment regarding the protection of the equestrian and agricultural land uses from potential future urban land uses, including residences. The right -to -farm provisions protect the land owners from nuisance claims. G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\ZCA071.wpd 002,001 The second item was also included as a result of public comment. A number of people have stated that the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay does not provide sufficient protection against urbanization. The Transfer of Development Rights provisions in the Code allows a land owner who wishes to preserve his land use in perpetuity to sell, trade, or give his density allowance, and permanently restrict the land use on his parcel, thereby ensuring its preservation. For example, if a property owner had 100 acres of land which was used for field crops and his house, and he wished to preserve the land in farming forever, he could subdivide the land on which his house occurs, and sell, trade, or otherwise convey the remaining density (100 acres X 4 units per acre, minus his house = 399 units) to a developer who would use it on another parcel. The transfer would be recorded, and no residential development could ever occur on the farm parcel. Attachment 2 is a map that depicts the Low Density/Agricultural Equestrian Residential District. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the text at its regularly scheduled meeting of March 12, 2002. As a result of comments made by the public, the Planning Commission requested a modification of the definition of "Commercial Stables" to include a provision that the boarding of fewer than five horses would not be considered a commercial stable. This was added due to concerns by owners who may have horses of their own, and board one or two additional horses for friends or neighbors. The change is reflected in the attached Ordinance. Other minor typographical changes were made to the text. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The findings necessary to approve this request can be made, and are included in the attached Resolutions. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Move to take up Ordinance No. by title and number only and waive further reading. Move to introduce Ordinance No. adopting changes to Chapters 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240 of the Municipal Code; and Move to take up Ordinance No. by title and number only and waive further reading. Move to introduce Ordinance No. adding Chapter 9.140.070, Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District to the Municipal Code; or 2. Do not adopt the above Ordinances; or 3. Remand the requests to the Planning Commission for further consideration; or 000 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\ZCA071 .wpd 003 4. Continue the request and provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, Hermon munity Development Director A ov for Submissi , Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission minutes of March 12, 2002 2. Map Exhibit of the Low Density/Agricultural Equestrian Residential District 0 0 '7 004 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AMENDING CHAPTERS 9.220, 9.230 AND 9.240 OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PROCEDURES FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, GENERAL PLAN AND SPECIFIC PLANS CASE NO.: ZONE CODE AMENDMENT 2002-071 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 20th day of MARCH, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of amendments to the Municipal Code, Sections 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240, allowing the Community Development Director to initiate Amendments to the General Plan, Zone Changes, or approved Specific Plans; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zone Code Amendment: 1 . The proposed Amendments are consistent with the General Plan, in that they provide flexibility for the City in implementing land use and General Plan amendments. 2. The Zone Code Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, as it only applies to procedural functions of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Zone Code Amendment is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it allows flexibility in its implementation. 4. The Zone Code amendment supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California that it does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. To amend Sections 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240 of the Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A, attached to this Resolution. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL. This Zoning Code Amendment has complied with the requirements of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended) and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the _ 005 G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 A.WPD Ordinance No. Amending Chapters 9.220, 9.230 and 9.240 Adopted: March 20, 2002 amendments are found to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Chapter 2.6. Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code, and Section 15268, Ministerial Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 4: POSTING. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be posted in at least three public places designated by Resolution of the City Council, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on this 20th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 A.WPD 006 Ordinance No. Chapters 9.220, 9.230, 9.240 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 9.220 ZONE CHANGES AND CODE AMENDMENTS Section 9.220.010.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: 1. The owner of the property or by the owner's agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner) for a Zone 6hange-. 2. The City Council by a majority vote may initiate consideration of a Zone Chang; 3. The Planning Commission by a majority vote may recommend that the City Council initiate consoderatmon of a Zone .; or 4. The Community Development Director. Section 9.220.010.D.3. Review Procedures. Amend to read: 3. If the Council contemplates a modification to the application not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the proposed modification shalt may be referred to the Planning Commission for report back to Council. A public hearing shall not be required for such Planning Commission review. Section 9.220.020.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: A Code Amendment may be initiated by: the 6ity Council. In addition, the Plannirtg 6ornmosswon, b. Mrity vote, may recommend that the City Council 1. The City Council; 2. The Planning Commission by a majority vote; or 3. The Community Development Director; Chapter 9.230 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Section 9.230.010.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: 1. The owner of the property or by the owner's agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner) 0 10 G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhA.WPD 007 Ordinance No. Chapters 9.220, 9.230, 9.240 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" 2. The City Council by a majority vote may initiate consideration of a Genera' PI 3. The Planning Commission by a majority vote, may recommend that the City Council ffinotmate consideration of a Genera' Plan .; or 4. The Community Development Director Section 9.230.010.E.1. Frequency of General Plan Amendment. Modify to read: 1. General Plan elements specified as mandatory in the State Government Code shall may be amended no more than four tirnla,-s during each calendar year pursuant to City Council Resolution 2000-77. Each amendment may include more than one change to the General Plan. Section 9.230.020.A.3. Review Procedures and Findings. Modify to read: 3. If the Council contemplates a modification to the application not previously considered by the Planning Commission, the proposed modification shall may be referred to the Commission for report back to the Council. A public hearing shall not be required for such Commission review. Chapter 9.240 SPECIFIC PLANS Section 9.240.010.C. Who May Apply. Amend to read: (withC. Who May Apply. A Specific Plan or Specific Plan Amendment application may be initiated by: the eity eouncil, by the owner of property proposed for amendment or by the owners's agent written• the owner). In addition, the Planilmig Com i i . by majority vote, may recommendCouncilHOC Plan Of • plan Amend 1. The City Council; 2. The owner of the property or by the owner's agent (with written notarized authorization from the owner); 3. The Planning Commission by a majority vote; or 4. The Community Development Director 1 008 G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhA.WPD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA ADDING SECTION 9.140.070, LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 2002-071-A CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 20th day of March, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review the addition of Section 9.140.070 of the Municipal Code, adding the Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District to the Development Code; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said Zoning Code Amendment: 1 . The proposed Amendments are consistent with the General Plan, in that they allow for uses specifically discussed in the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay of the General Plan. 2. The Zoning Code Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, in that it provides standards for the future development of agricultural, equestrian and residential uses in the City. 3. The Zoning Code Amendment is compatible with the City's Zoning Ordinance in that it establishes residential and non-residential development standards which are compatible with those already in effect in the Development Code. 4. The Zoning Code Amendment supports the orderly development of the City. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California that it does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. PURPOSE. To add Section 9.140.070 of the Municipal Code as provided in Exhibit A, attached to this resolution. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL. This Zoning Code Amendment has complied with the requirements of the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended) and adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the City Council certified Environmental Impact Report SCH#2000091023, which addressed agricultural and equestrian land uses and standards. G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 EgAg.WPD Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 4: POSTING. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, and shall cause the same to be posted in at least three public places designated by Resolution of the City Council, and shall cause this Ordinance and its certification, together with proof of posting, to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of this City. The foregoing Ordinance was approved and adopted at a meeting of the City Council held on this 20th day of March, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California oto G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 EgAg.WPD Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" SECTION 9.140.070 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TABLE PERMITTED USES IN THE AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE Resmdent*al Uses 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' residence P Open Space and Recreational Uses Publoc parks, playfoelds and open space 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 Golf course and country club, with or without driving range P Driving Range with or without lights C Accessory Uses and Structures Fences and walls., subaect to Section 9,60.0.30 A Satellite dishes and other antennas subject to Section 9.60.080 A Swimming pools, spas and cabanas, subject to Section 9.60.070 A G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD O 1 l Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" Guest houses, submect to Section 9,60.010 M Second units, "granny flats" and employee quarters, subject to Section 9.60.090 M Garages and carports, subaect to Section 9,60,060 A EQuestrRan and Agrocultural Uses Stables, Private P Stables., Commercial or riding academy C a ncludong stables, clubhouse Polo grounds C , Veterinary offices and hospitals C The grazing and breeding of cattle, horses, llamas, 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, frogs, chinchilla or other small animals P Nurseries, greenhouses.. orchards, avearies, apiaries P Tree crop farming P Field Crop or Turf Farming P Winery and incidental uses with established P Produce stands., sub2ect to 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 raising of hogs, not to exceed two per acre P Community Auctions and Sales Yards (2 acre minimum) C Feed Stores C Kennels and Catteries, 10 to 25 animals on 1 acre minimum C Commercial compostung facilities C Other Uses Guest Ranches and Bed and Breakfasts C vI J GAWPD0CS\0rdinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD 012 Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" Communication towers and equipment subject to Section 9.170 1 C G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD 013 Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 A. Residential Development Standards EXHIBIT "A" 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. G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD 014 Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" 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 3. Fencing: 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. Parking Parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150. 5. Lighting All lighting shall comply with Sections 9.60.160 and 9.100.150. 6. 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. 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. "Agricultural Activity, Operation, or Facility, or Appurtenances thereof." The phrase "agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof" shall include all uses allowed under the Agricultural Overlay District, including, but be limited to, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural commodity, including timber viticulture, apiculture, or horticulture, the raising of livestock, fur bearing animals, fish, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market. 0113 w G AWPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" "Land Zoned For Primarily Agricultural Purposes." The phrase "land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes" means any land lying within the Agricultural Overlay District. "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. "Cattery" means any building, structure, enclosure or premises within which five or more cats are kept or maintained primarily for financial profit for the purpose of boarding, breeding, training, marketing, hire or any other similar purpose. "Commercial stable" means any facility specifically designed or used for the stabling of more than 5 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. "Community auction and sales yard" means a facility which periodically holds auctions of farm equipment, fixtures and other related materials in an enclosed building. "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. "Kennel" means any building, structure, enclosure or premises within which five or more dogs are kept or maintained primarily for financial profit for the purpose of boarding, breeding, training, marketing, hire or any other similar purpose. "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. G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD 016 Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" "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. D. "Right to Farm" Intent and Policies Intent It is the intent of the City of La Quinta to conserve, protect and encourage the development, improvement, and continued viability of its agricultural land and industries for the long-term production of food and other agricultural products, and for the economic well-being of the City's residents. It is also the intent of the City to balance the rights of farmers to produce food and other agricultural products with the rights of non -farmers who own, occupy, or use land within or adjacent to agricultural areas. It is the intent of this ordinance to reduce the loss to the area of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed to constitute a nuisance. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to limit the right of any owner of real property to request that the City consider a change in the zoning classification of his property in accordance with the procedures set forth in the La Quinta Development Code. Policies 1. No agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a GAWPD0CS\0rdinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPDoil Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after the same has been in operation for more than three (3) years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began. 2. This section shall not invalidate any provision contained in the Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agricultural Code, or Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code of the State of California, if the agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, constitutes a nuisance, public or private, as specifically defined or described in any such provision. 3. This section is not to be construed so as to modify abridge the state law set out in the California Civil Code relative to nuisances, but rather it is only to be utilized in the interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of county ordinances and regulations. E. Notice to Buyers of Land 1. The Director of Community Development shall cause the following notice to be included on all tentative land division proposed that lies partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of any land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes: Lot(s) No. , as shown on this map, is (are) located partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes by the County of Riverside and the City of La Quinta. It is the declared policy of the City of La Quinta that no agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes in the City, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after the same has been in operation for more than three (3) years, if it was not a nuisance at the time it began. The term "agriculture activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof" includes all uses permitted in the Agricultural Overlay District, and includes but is not limited to, equestrian activities, the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural commodity, including timber, viticulture, apiculture, or horticulture, the raising of livestock, for bearing animals, fish, or poultry, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD 0 IS Ordinance No. Adding Section 9.140.070 Adopted: March 20, 2002 EXHIBIT "A" incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market. 2. The City Engineer shall cause the notice described in subsection (1) to be included on any final land division proposed for recordation that lies partly or wholly within, or within 300 feet of, any land zoned for primarily agricultural purposes. F. Preservation of Agricultural Land Uses in Perpetuity Any land owner wishing to continue a land use listed in Table , Permitted Uses in the Agricultural/Equestrian Residential District, may, at any time, exercise his or her rights under Chapter 9.190: Transfer of Development Rights. 09 019 G:\WPDOCS\Ordinances\ZCA071 ExhB.WPD ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 A. Site Development Permit 2001-729; a request of Michael S vlin for Ross Dress for Less for review of development plans for a 30, 87 square foot commercial building to be located on the north side of 'ghway 1 1 1, east of Washington Street within the One Eleven La Q#ta Shopping Center. 4. Chairman Abels asked if the a licant would like to address the Commission. Mr. Michael Sh vlin 5. Chairman Abels asked there were any questions of the applicant. Commissione 6. There being no furth public participation, the public comment portion of the public earing was closed and open for Commission discussion. ner / 8. It was move and seconded by Commissioners Robbins/Tyler to adopt Plann' g Commission Resolution 2002-031 approving Site Leve opm t Permit 2001-729, subject to the findings and Gondtio as amended: A. , Condition ROLL CA�: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN. None. B. Zonina Code Amendment 2002-071; a request of the City for review of an Amendment to Chapters 9.220, 9.230, and 9.240 of the La Quinta Municipal Code amending procedures for Zone Changes and Code Amendments, General Plan Amendments, and Specific Plans; and review of an addition of Section 9.140.070 Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District 0�1 0 ti G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 2 Planning Commission Minutes February 26, 2002 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Crist and Community Development Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner 3. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment on this item. There being no further public participation, the public comment portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 4. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-032, recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendment 2002-071, as submitted ROLL CALL: AYES: Chairrr None. VII. BUSINESSVTEM review ildinc to ezu ler, '° Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and ne. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: -609; a request of Coronel Enterprises/Sign-A- planned sign program for 51-105 Avenida Villa ited on the west side of Avenida Villa, north of Chairman Abels asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa prese ed the information contained in the staff report, a copy of whic is on file in the Community Development Department. Chairman Abels askellif there were any questions of staff. Commissioner 3. Chairman Abels asked if the a licant would like to address the Commission. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. There being no further public comment, the public participation 9 ' portion was closed and open for Commission discussion. �`"'� G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\3-12-02.wpd 3 022 A�AH..�ENT 2 city ouinta r. ,9s L yli I gal ,fill 111411 MIT• 1 N ------- --- �-- ------i- � i :Alt I 1 1 �• 1 � 1 ' 4a. _ '•• I r {I .•; 1 � t � et Fw il�q • � A.L.• 1 —II C ♦.� �.'���'}�. �'_�� � - r .�' •`' •— _ ice• ,•.1 ,' _ � _ sw-. . �� • � \ t � �,\; 1- 16, +i� rl•iI-.r 11, •• .•�� (1 t%■��, 1 T ♦. ft 111 : JIM PL i 1 � U 9 _1 ,(.. t j AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: COUNCIL/RDA MEETING DATE: March 20, 2002 CONSENT CALENDAR: ITEM TITLE: STUDY SESSION: Public Hearing to Certification an Environmental Impact p act Report for the Comprehensive General Plan, PUBLIC HEARING: Annexation No. 12 and Sphere of Influence Amendment, (SCH#2000091023), and Adoption of the General Plan Update RECOMMENDATION: 1 . Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Certifying Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000091023) and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations. 2. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council adopting the General Plan Update. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost benefit analysis associated with the General Plan Update is included in Section III of the EIR, under Socio-Economic Resources. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The General Plan was last updated in 1992. Since that time, the City has experienced rapid growth. The General Plan Update process began in 1999. Since that time, a number of public workshops, hearings and meetings have been held to review different aspects of the Plan. The General Plan Update includes all elements mandated by law, with the exception of the Housing Element, which will be processed separately. The General Plan includes analysis of the City limits, the City's Sphere of Influence, and two Planning Areas, No. 1 and No. 2. Both Planning Areas represent lands to the east and south of the current City limits. The acreage within the Planning Areas is shown on Table 1. G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd TABLE Statistical Summary of Land Uses Recommended Alternative City Limits Sphere of Influence Planning Area #1 Planning Area #2 TOTAL Developed Undeveloped TOTAL Developed Undeveloped TOTAL Developed I Undeveloped TOTAL Developed I Undeveloped TOTAL Residential Land Uses VLDR u to 2 du/ac 294.3 200.9 495.1 - 64.4 64.4 559.5 LDR u to 4 du/ac 3 164.2 3,127.1 6,291.3 536.0 274.9 810.9 2,488.9 551.2 3,040.1 5,213.5 846.9 6 060.4 16 202.7 MDR u to 8 du/ac 1121.6 363.6 1.485.2 119.8 98.1 217.9 358.8 100.5 459.3 2 162.4 MHDR (up to 12 du/ac 14.5 69.0 83.4 1.2 1.2 305.2 1 89.6 394.8 479.5 HDR (up to 16 du/ac 1.9 92.1 94.0 - - 93.7 71.4 165.1 259.1 Total Residential Acreage 4,596.4 3,852.7 9,449.1 657.0 373.0 1,030.0 2 794.1 640.9 3 434.9 5 730.3 1 018.8 6 749.1 19 663.1 Commercial Land Uses M/RC Mixed Comm. 87.9 309.0 396.9 39.9 39.9 69.3 14.3 83.6 520.4 CC Community Comm. 31.3 124.2 155.5 - 219.7 33.1 252.8 408.3 NC Neighborhood Comm. 76.6 55.3 131.8 10.1 10.1 26.6 2.5 29.1 171.0 CP Commercial Park 64.0 64.0 - 64'0 O Office 39.9 39.9 - 43.7 43.7 83.6 TC Tourist Comm. 329.3 178.6 506.9 - 506.9 VC Village Comm. 1 62.21 5.8 128.0 - - 128.0 Total Commercial Acreage 596.3 936.8 1 423.1 50.0 - 50.0 26.61 2.51 29.1 332.71 47.4 380.1 1,882.2 ther Land Uses IIndustrial - - 319.7 60.6 380.3 380.3 MC Ma'or Comm. Facilities 178.1 13.1 191.2 2.7 2.7 29.0 29.0 36.7 36.7 259.6 P Park Facilities 600.1 128.0 728.1 - - 728.1 OS open S ace 1.215.2 4.234.6, 5 449.8 44.5 44.5 496.2 149.4 645.6 6,139.9 G Golf Course Open Space 3.228.0 1,015.51 4.243.5 43.8 5.7 49.5 153.2 49.0 -202.2 4,495.2 W Watercourse/Flood Control 468.9 132.8 601.7 - - - 601.7 Total Other Acreage 5,690.21 5,524.0 11 214.2 46.6 5.7 52.3 182.2 93.5 275.7 815.9 246.7 106Z.5 126047 Total Acreage 1 10 972.9 1 10 213.5 21 086.'A 1 753.61 378.7 1 1 132.3 3,002.9 736.91 3,739.71 6,978.91 1,312.9 1 8191.7 34 150.0 0 C January, 2002 ' The buildout of the General Plan will result in the following residential buildout: Table 2 Anticipated Buildout Conditions in the Planning Area Buildout Dwelling Buildout Planning Area #2* 18,064 51,666 TOTAL 55,365 1 146,191 *Assumes 90% of land in agriculture redeveloped to single family residential. Assumes future residential development occurs at 75% of the maximum permitted densities. And the following commercial land use buildout: Table 3 Commercial Development Potential at General Plan Buildout Potential Total Developed Vacant Existing Future Sq. Buildout Area Acres Acres Total Sq. Ft. Ft. Sq. Ft. Acres City 586.3 836.8 1,423.1 5,667,156 8,019,221 13,637,851 Sphere 50.0 0.0 50.0 479,160 0 479,160 Planning Area #1 26.6 2.5 29.1 254,913 23,958 278,871 Planning Area #2 332.7 47.4 380.1 3,188,330 454,243 3,642,574 TOTAL 995.6 886.7 1,882.3 9,541,033 8,497,422 18,038,456 Note: Square footage estimates assume 22% lot coverage G L 003 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPIanUpd.wpd In addition, the General Plan proposed industrial land uses, primarily in Planning Area No. 2, near the Desert Resorts Regional Airport. This land use totals 380.3 acres, of which 60.6 acres are currently vacant. Assuming a 34% building coverage on all industrial lands, the City has a capacity for 5,632,395 square feet of industrial space at buildout of the General Plan. There are 11,964.9 acres of open space and recreation lands in the Planning Area, including 11,023.1 in the City, 49.5 in the Sphere -of -Influence, 246.7 in Planning Area No. 1, and 645.6 in Planning Area No. 2. This represents 35 % of the total acreage available. A Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the completed draft General Plan. Following the close of the comment period, a number of comments were received. These have been addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report, which was released on February 14, 2002. The EIR found that all impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan could be mitigated, with the exception of impacts associated with agricultural resources, traffic and circulation, and air quality. A Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared and is included in the Resolution. The General Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council at joint meetings held in September, November and December of 2001. A number of changes were requested, including a reduction in the Planning Area being considered in the Plan. The modifications requested by the Planning Commission and City Council have been made, with one exception. The request was made that graphics (photos, sketches, etc.) be added to the Plan. This modification will be made to the final document, and has not been incorporated into the draft hearing document under review at this time. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the General Plan at a public hearing held on February 27, 2002. At that time, staff presented a number of potential amendments resulting from written requests made throughout the General Plan Update process. These requests are enumerated below, along with the staff analysis. The Planning Commission recommended approval of staff's recommendation in two motions. The first for all items listed under Land Use Map Amendments, and the second for all items listed under General Plan Text Amendment Requests. Both these sections are included below. The letters received are included in Attachments 2 and 3. Land Use Map Amendment Requests (Attachment 2) The following requests have been made by private parties for changes in the Land Use Map. The corresponding number has been placed on the written requests, all of which are part of Attachment 2. The descriptions below include staff's analysis and recommendation. cL. oo4 0 +.� G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd 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. Owner's Reason Given: Adjacent land uses include a 4-plex and the Verizon Building. Single family development would be unlikely. Staff Analysis: The parcel of land is located in the middle of a block of Low Density Residential lands. To designate it for either High Density Residential or Village Commercial would not represent compatible land uses. Designating the entire block east of Desert Club, from Avenida La Fonda to Calle Tampico, and east to the existing Major Community Facilities lands (City Hall and the Senior Center), does represent a logical extension of the Village Commercial land use designation. Since the designation allows for the development of single and multiple family residential units, the existing land uses in this block would remain as permitted conforming uses. Recommendation: change to Village Commercial for the area bounded by Desert Club, from Avenida La Fonda to Calle Tampico, and east to the existing Major Community Facilities lands 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. Staff Analysis: The property is located in an area which has experienced considerable development pressure in recent years. The surrounding land use designations at PGA West would support the designation of this property as Low Density Residential, but not as Medium Density Residential. Recommendation: change to Low Density Residential 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. c o05� G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPIanUpd.wpd Staff Analysis: The property is located less than one half mile south of proposed Neighborhood Commercial designations, in an area which is generally undeveloped. Surrounding designations are either Low Density Residential, or Medium Density Residential within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. The requested designation for 40 acres would fall under the Regional Commercial land use designation, in an area where such a designation is unwarranted and unlikely to be supported for a considerable number of years, if at all. Recommendation: maintain Low Density Residential 4. Westward Ho Drive and Dune Palms Road: south side of Westward Ho Drive, east side of Dune Palms Road, 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 Road has much higher density (mobile home park lot is part of this request); change in density would "promote the development" of the land. Staff Analysis: The property is across the street from the High School, with Low Density and golf course development on the north (in the City of Indio) and east sides. The Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel forms the southern boundary. An increase in density to Medium Density Residential would appear warranted to buffer the low density to the east. Recommendation: change to Medium Density Residential 5. Madison Street 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. Staff Analysis: The property is located one mile west of lands designated Neighborhood Commercial, totaling 50 acres. The surrounding land uses are existing and planned Low Density Residential and Golf Course. The area,. although currently developing, does not appear to support additional commercial lands. Recommendation: maintain Low Density Residential 03 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlan Upd.wpd 6. Avenue 52 and Jefferson Street: southwest corner. Parcel size: 14 acres 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Golf Course Requested Designation: Neighborhood Commercial Reason Given: Feasibility analysis supports short term development of Neighborhood Commercial Shopping Center. Staff Analysis: Neighborhood Commercial designations are proposed for the other three corners of this intersection. The Planning Commission recently recommended approval of a shopping center at the southeast corner, and at the northeast corner of Avenue 54 and Jefferson Street. The owner of the property in question has a Tourist Commercial designation assigned immediately south of the proposed land use change request. There appears to be sufficient commercially designated land in this area at this time. Recommendation: maintain Golf Course 7. Jackson Street and Avenue 58: southeast corner. Parcel size: 40 acres 'Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: Commercial (no particular commercial designation specified) Reason Given: None. Staff Analysis: The property is located in Planning Area No. 2, in a primarily rural area. The requested designation for 40 acres would fall under the Regional Commercial land use designation in an area where such a designation is unwarranted and unlikely to be supported for a considerable number of years, if at all. Recommendation: maintain Low Density Residential with Agricultural Overlay General Plan Text Amendment Requests (Attachment 3) Several letters have been received which address differing issues within the General Plan. These letters are discussed individually below, in the order received, and are included as Attachment 3. Each letter has been assigned a number, which is reflected below and in the attachment. 1. KSL Development Corporation, letter dated October 18, 1999 The letter requests the reduction of intersection spacing on Major Arterials. This change is currently incorporated into the General Plan (Circulation Element, Program 2.3, page 40) at a distance of 1,060, which addresses the writer's concern.11 U.3 007 Recommendation: no change necessary G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\Gen Plan Upd.wpd 2. San Gorgonio Chapter of Sierra Club, letter dated April 4, 2000 This letter requests the expansion of trails into the planning areas outside the City, the maintenance of the Madison Street Trail, and the inclusion of mountain trails to the south and west of the City. These items are all included in the Multi -Purpose Trails Exhibit, 3.10, on Page 38 of the General Plan. Recommendation: no change necessary 3. Mr. John Gates, e-mail dated September 8, 2001 The e-mail requests that all undeveloped residential lands be designated for Very Low Density Residential to lower impacts associated with traffic, noise and air quality. Staff Analysis: The Low Density Alternative of the General Plan addressed a primarily Very Low Density land use pattern for the City. The alternative results in a positive cash flow for the City, but represents considerable urban sprawl, with limited potential for commercial opportunities. The Low Density Alternative was not the preferred alternative in the EI R. Recommendation: Since the writer proposes that all vacant residential lands be designated Very Low Density Residential, without specific areas of concern, the recommendation is that no change be made. 4. Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, letter dated September 18, 2001 This letter requests the addition of a policy in the General Plan to address a potential perimeter trail in the Mountains west and south of the City. The writer requests the addition of this policy to participate in the process being undertaken as part of the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Recommendation: Add the following policy, immediately following Program 6.4 of the Circulation Element, Page 42, and renumber the subsequent policies: Policy 7: The City will continue to participate in the assessment of the potential for development of perimeter trails in the La Quinta area through the Coachella Valley Trails and Bighorn Sheep Working Group. 5. Archaeological Advisory Group, letter dated September 18, 2001 The letter requests that Policy 2.1 of the Cultural Resources Element be changed to specifically require the preservation of remaining archaeological sites in the City (Page 100 of the General Plan). 034 C 008 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPIanUpd.wpd Staff Analysis: The policy states that the "City shall make all reasonable efforts to protect cultural resources under its regulatory authority." The Policy is worded to provide maximum flexibility in how the City deals with cultural resources. In some cases, in situ preservation is appropriate and recommended by the consulting archaeologist. In others, however, excavation and off -site preservation is the recommended alternative. The writer's request, therefore, would limit the options available to professional archaeologists in their reports to the City. Recommendation: the Policy remain as currently written. The second comment made addresses a mitigation measure in the EIR, regarding the potential lack of qualifications of Native American monitors (the letter was received after closing of the comment period for the EIR). The writer's comment is noted, and staff concurs that the City's requirements for professional qualifications shall apply. 6. Desert Sands Unified School District, letter dated September 19, 2001 The writer requests that the City and District work cooperatively to locate future schools to accommodate growth. Staff Analysis: The writer's concern is addressed in the Infrastructure and Public Services Element, where Policy 1, Program 1.1 and Program 1.2 specifically address this issue. Recommendation: no change is necessary. 7. City of Coachella, letter dated September 19, 2001 The letter addresses several issues, which are addressed individually below. The City of Coachella objects to the inclusion of lands currently in Coachella's Sphere of Influence in La Quinta's Planning Areas No. 1 and No. 2. Specifically, these lands occur south of Avenue 50, north of Airport Boulevard, east of Monroe, and west of Van Buren. Staff Analysis: The areas to be analyzed by the General Plan were developed and directed by the City Council in early 2000, and reviewed and modified during the hearings held in September, November and December before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Since the Sphere of Influence would require modification at the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Planning Commission and City Council have directed the location of the Planning Areas, and the City's Planning Areas are for planning purposes only. 0q Recommendation: the boundaries remain as mapped. J 009 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd The City of Coachella also objects to La Quinta's inclusion of any lands adjacent to the Desert Resorts Regional Airport (east of Van Buren) within La Quinta's Planning Area, and south of Coachella City limits. Staff Analysis: The areas to be analyzed by the General Plan were developed and directed by the City Council in early 2000, and reviewed and modified during the hearings held in September, November and December before both the Planning Commission and City Council. The modified Planning Area No. 2 includes lands adjacent to the airport on the west and south. The Planning Commission and City Council have directed the location of the Planning Areas, and the City's Planning Areas are for planning purposes only. Recommendation: the boundaries remain as mapped. The balance of the comments in the letter, received well after the close of the comment period, relate to the Draft EIR. The City of Coachella submitted a detailed letter commenting on the Draft EIR, which is included in the Final EIR currently under review. The comments are responded to in that document. 8. Best, Best & Krieger, letter dated September 28, 2001 Two issues are discussed in the letter: groundwater and agricultural designations. These are discussed individually below. The letter requests that the City include a policy in the General Plan which prohibits development unless it can be demonstrated that the development will not use any more water than is currently being used on the property ("no -net -impact groundwater policy). Staff Analysis: The City has clearly demonstrated its concern regarding groundwater usage for new projects. The General Plan includes policies and programs which require the City to cooperate with the Coachella Valley Water District in conserving water and implementing the District Water Management Plan. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The letter requests the General Plan include a policy which proactively preserves existing equestrian uses and "an appropriate portion" of agricultural uses. Staff Analysis: The City's Agricultural and Equestrian Overlay preserves the rights of existing uses which are either equestrian or agricultural. Further, the Development Code text includes uses currently permitted and conditionally permitted under the County Zoning Ordinance, Right to Farm provisions, and 03 allows the creation of new agricultural and equestrian uses, and has been U C` 010 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlan Upd.wpd modified to encourage the exercise of Transfer of Development Rights for those land owners who wish to preserve their lands in perpetuity. This text has been scheduled for public hearing on March 12th before the Planning Commission, and on March 20th before the City Council. Recommendation: no change is recommended. 9. The Vista Santa Rosa Association, letter dated September 29, 2001 The letter deals with a number of issues, which are discussed individually below. Please note that only requests for amendments are listed here. Additional text in the letter which states the writer's opinions or asks for implementation of items not under the purview of the General Plan are not addressed below. The letter requests the City make it a policy to hold public workshops prior to any annexation effort in any area. Staff Analysis: The City has made it a policy to meet with potentially affected property owners prior to annexations, and will continue to do so. Further, the City is governed by the requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which has requirements for public notifications as part of the annexation process. Ultimately, the registered voters of any area have the ability to approve or reject any annexation efforts. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The letter requests that public participation policies be added to the Administration Element. Staff Analysis: The requested policy is already in the General Plan, Land Use Element General Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs, Policy 8, Programs 8.1 and 8.2 on Page 18. Recommendation: No change is recommended. The letter requests the creation of a "Vista Santa Rosa Zone," and the addition of the Agricultural Overlay on all lands in Planning Area No. 1 and No. 2. The letter further states that the standards in the zone should reflect the uses currently in operation in the area. Staff Analysis: The Agricultural Overlay has been placed on all residentially designated lands not in a Specific Plan in the Planning Areas. Lands designated Commercial or Industrial do not have the Agricultural Overlay. Staff does not 0 3 ' �. Oil G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\Gen Plan Upd.wpd recommend the addition of the overlay to industrially and commercially designated lands (which occur primarily on the west side of Harrison Street across from the airport, and on the south side of Airport Boulevard at Harrison Street) insofar as 679 of the 789 acres are already developed (see Table 2.2 of the General Plan, Page 15). Recommendation: no change is recommended. The letter requests amendment of Program 4.3 (Page 18) to protect owners who do not wish to participate. Staff Analysis: The Program encourages the participation of adjacent land owners. The City has no jurisdiction to require such participation. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The letter requests a new program 8._ to require public participation prior to annexation efforts. Staff Analysis: The requested policy is already in the General Plan, Land Use Element General Land Use Goals, Policies and Programs, Policy 8, Programs 8.1 and 8.2 on Page 18. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The letter requests that Policy 9 be modified to include equestrian land uses, and that it include lands in the City. The writer also requests addition of a program to require adoption of zoning standards. Staff Analysis: The requested development standards for the new zoning district are included in that text, and include the provisions requested by the writer. The program requested to be added is already in the General Plan, Policy 7 and Program 7.1 on Page 20. Recommendation: the Policy be changed to read: Policy 9: Agricultural and equestrian land uses in . and Planning Area No--9- are encouraged. The letter requests that Policy 10 (Page 19) be reevaluated and that a program be added which requires the study of light levels for commercial projects. � 3 " ` Oln G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPIanUpd.wpd 4 Staff Analysis: The City's Dark Sky Ordinance is modeled after several such ordinances adopted in the Valley, and significantly limits the potential for on -site lighting. The lighting permitted on new projects must be shielded, must be pointed down, and cannot illuminate any area outside the property line on which it occurs. The City has more stringent standards than most jurisdictions in the Valley. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that program 5.2 (Page 19) be added to require public hearings for changes to development standards. The writer further states that the City does not have standards for berm height. Staff Analysis: Public hearings are already required for amendments to development standards, whether in a specific plan or other application. The berm referenced by the writer was reviewed at public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council. As regards the berm height, Program 2.1 1, on Page 41 of the Circulation Element, requires that the City adopt standards for berm height in its Development Code. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that Program 3.3 on Page 21 be changed from "encourage" to "require." Staff Analysis: The City has implemented standards for water efficient landscaping, and is working with CVAG and CVWD to develop more stringent requirements for landscaping and golf courses. The General Plan also requires that the City prepare a list of prohibited plant materials. For the City to impose "links" golf course design on all future development significantly limits the ability of golf course architects to design economically viable courses. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests the City prohibit development until CVWD "has proven" that it can recharge the aquifer, secure sufficient imported water, and implement its Master Plan. Staff Analysis: The City would have to declare a moratorium on development in order to prohibit development. Findings must be made to support development. In this case, the findings would need to say that CVWD cannot serve development. However, CVWD is asked to comment on all new development proposals. The District indicates that it has the ability to serve new projects. Therefore, the City cannot make a finding for a moratorium. Finally, the City cannot require that an independent Lead Agency "prove" its ability to serve. 0311) Recommendation: no change is recommended. L • 0113 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd The writer requests that for Program 4.2, park fee credits be limited for private facilities, or they should be required to be accessible to the public. Staff Analysis: The program refers specifically to public golf courses, which would, by definition, be open to the public. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that development in Agrarian Corridors reflect Agrarian standards, referencing the berming on Avenue 54 as not conforming to this standard. Staff Analysis: The project referenced has been reviewed. under the current General Plan. The standards for Agrarian Corridors included in the Draft General Plan can only be implemented once it has been adopted. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer wishes the City to further consider multi -use trails, and suggests the City consider the interior paths proposed within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. Staff Analysis: The City has included multi -use trails in Exhibit 3.10 on Page 38. The planning of interior trails within projects will occur on a case by case basis, as development occurs. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that "Policy 3 needs to be given more 'strength' and detail." (Page 45) Staff Analysis: The writer does not provide direction as to how the policy could be strengthened. The detail is included in Program 3.1, which supports the policy. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer states that Policy 5 on Page 45 is inconsistent with the Land Use Map,. since Planning Area No. 1 is subject to liquefaction in its entirety. Staff Analysis: The policy states "where appropriate." Mitigation measures are available for liquefaction areas. In certain cases, however, mitigation may not be possible, in which case the Open Space designation would be appropriate.' Recommendation: no change is needed. ) G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlan Upd.wpd The writer requests that a time frame be attached to Program 4.2, Page 50, regarding regional trails planning. Staff Analysis: The City is participating in a project which is being led by CVAG and the Bureau of Land Management, and cannot control the completion of the project. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that Program 2.2, Air Quality on Page 52 be "given more emphasis." Staff Analysis: No specific direction is given regarding the type of emphasis the writer wishes to give the program. The City has been developing in a generally orderly fashion, and will continue to encourage infill development where it is possible. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that Programs 6.2 and 6.4 on Page 53 be given "more force and effect." Staff Analysis: The City implements all possible means to limit the fugitive dust generated, as required by SCAQMD standards, and in cooperation with CVAG. The programs mandate the City's continued enforcement of these standards. Recommendation: no change is recommended. The writer requests that a program be added to the Domestic Water section, Policy 1 on Page 76, which requires developers of 20 units or more to identify water sources prior to development approval. Staff Analysis: CVWD is asked to comment on all new development proposals. The District indicates that it has the ability to serve new projects. The City cannot require an independent Lead Agency "prove" its ability to serve. Recommendation: no change is recommended. 10. Tracey Darroll, letter dated October 5, 2001 The issues in this letter are numbered. The discussion below follows this numbering. Please note that only requests for amendments are listed here. Additional text in the letter which states the writer's opinions or asks for implementation of items not under the purview of the General Plan are not addressed. 04 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\Gen Plan Upd.wpd Item 2: The writer states that equestrian trails provided in the Plan are inadequate. Staff Analysis: Multi -purpose trails are shown on Exhibit 3.10, Page 38. In order to provide more inter -connectivity in the trail system, Multi -use trails could be designated on Avenue 62, Avenue 54 and Van Buren Street. At the Planning Commission public hearing, staff recommended all even numbered streets from Avenue 50 to Avenue 60 be designated for multi -purpose trails. Recommendation: Avenues 50, 52, 54, 56 (Airport Boulevard), 58, 60, and 62, and Monroe and Van Buren Streets be designated for Multi -Purpose Trails. Item 3: The writer believes the equestrian zoning proposed is unacceptable. Staff Analysis: The zoning text proposed for the Development Code was taken directly from County Ordinance 348. The uses permitted and conditionally permitted are generally consistent with those currently allowed under the County's jurisdiction. Recommendation: no change is recommended. Item 4: The writer states that buffer areas are not adequately planned in the General Plan. Staff Analysis: Buffer areas will be considered on a case by case basis, as development is proposed. Establishing these areas in the General Plan without knowing what development will occur is premature. Recommendation: no change is recommended. 11. Diamantina LLC, letter dated October 5, 2001 The issues in this letter are numbered. The discussion below follows this numbering. Please note that only requests for amendments are listed here. Additional text in the letter which states the writer's opinions or asks for implementation of items not under the purview of the General Plan are not addressed. Land Use Element - Items 2 and 3: The writer requests that the zoning for the Agricultural Overlay incorporate uses currently operating in the area, and that they cannot be amended without public hearings. Staff Analysis: The zoning text proposed for the Development Code was taken ' directly from County Ordinance 348. The uses permitted and conditionally permitted are generally consistent with those currently allowed under the County's jurisdiction. Further, all Zoning Code Amendments require public hearings. 0 4 2 Recommendation: no change is recommended. l., 1) I G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd Item 4: The writer requests that commercial stables be made a permitted use rather than a Conditional Use Permit in the zoning text, with a limitation on the number of horses per acre. Staff Analysis: The zoning text was heard by the Planning Commission on March 12, and is proposed to the City Council immediately following the General Plan public hearing on March 20, 2002. The current County Zoning Ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for commercial stables of any size. The City's text also reflects the need for a CUP. Some review should be afforded such a use, to ensure land use compatibility. Recommendation: this item pertains to the Zoning Text Amendment which will be reviewed immediately following this hearing. No change is necessary at this time. Item 5: The writer requests that a stronger statement be made in Table 2.1, Page 10, regarding equestrian uses being encouraged in the Low Density Residential description. Staff Analysis: The definition of Low Density Residential applies to all Low Density Residential lands, whether in the City or the Planning Areas. Encouraging equestrian land uses on small lots in tracts would not be appropriate. Recommendation: no change is recommended. Item 7: The reader requests that Policy 9, on Page 19 include equestrian land uses. Staff Analysis: The policy has been recommended for amendment based on comments made by the Vista Santa Rosa Association. Recommendation the Policy be changed to read: Policy 9: Agricultural and equestrian land uses On Planning Area No. 1 and Planning Area No-.-2 are encouraged. Item 8: The writer requests that Policy 7 on Page 20 be amended to include equestrian. Recommendation: That the policy be amended to read (and consistent wording used wherever the Agricultural Overlay term is used): Policy 7: The City shall establish an Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay District in the Development Code. 040 C y 017 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPIanUpd.wpd Item 9: The writer requests the inclusion of a policy which requires a buffer of more than 100 feet for development occurring adjacent to agricultural or equestrian land uses. Staff Analysis: The buffer proposed is a mitigation measure in the EIR, and is proposed as a minimum mitigation measure. Staff believes that the addition of a policy which requires a certain buffer would not provide the City with the flexibility of modifying the buffer based on project -specific analysis. Recommendation: no change is recommended. Traffic and Circulation Element - Item 1: The writer requests that the multi -purpose trails be expanded. Staff Analysis: See discussion above. Item 2, 3, 4 and 5: The writer requests that a discussion of Agrarian Image Corridors and multi -purpose trails be added to Page 32. The writer also requests that all streets in Planning Area No. 1 and No. 2 be designated as Agrarian Image Corridors in Program 12.3, Page 43, and that odd numbered streets be considered for the designation. The writer also requests that additional provisions be added to the General Plan which ensure that public access is available to Agrarian Image Corridors and multi -purpose trails. Staff Analysis: As regards the Image Corridor and multi -purpose trails discussions, they are included in the Master Environmental Assessment, Pages 32 and 41, respectively. As regards the designation, please see the discussion above. Finally, as regards ensuring access to Agrarian Image Corridors and multi -purpose trails, since both these provisions occur only in the public right of way, access will always be available to the public. Recommendation: no change is recommended. Item 6 and 7: The writer requests that the footing on multi -purpose trails be softer, and that a Policy be added to preserve all existing equestrian trails. Staff Analysis: As regards the footing on trails, the materials used should be included in the development code or public works standards, not in the General Plan. As regards existing equestrian trails, the General Plan includes all public trails currently shown on County and City trails maps. Recommendation: no change is recommended. 04,i L ' '� 1 G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlan Upd.wpd 12. Sun Country Ranch, letter dated October 5, 2001 The letter deals with a number of statements and not issues. The only issue raised is stated below. The writer requests the addition of multi -purpose trails which connect the system. Staff Analysis: See discussion above. Letters Received at the Planning Commission Hearing The following letters (attached to this staff report as Attachment 4) were received at the Planning Commission Hearing: 1. A&M Construction, February 27, 2002 2. La Quinta Cove Neighborhood Association, February 26, 2002 3. Southern California Association of Governments, February 27, 2002 4. Sierra Club, February 27, 2002 5. Iris Capital Group, February 26, 2002 The letter from AM Construction requested that 20 acres located on the west side of the Cove, at the mid -point, be designated Low Density Residential. The property is currently designated Park which is reflected in the proposed plan. The letter from the La Quinta Cove Neighborhood Association opposed the request. The Planning Commission recommends that the Park designation be maintained. The other letters received did not require action. Additional Staff Requests: As staff completes the final changes to the Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan policy document, grammatical and typographic errors will be found. Staff respectfully requests that the City Council's motion for approval, if made, include the provision that staff may make grammatical, land use clarification, and typographic corrections to both texts as necessary. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: The findings necessary to approve this request can be made, and are included in the attached Resolutions. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1 . Adopt a Resolution of the City Council Certifying Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000091023) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council adopting the General Plan Update. 040 2. Do not adopt the above Resolutions; or G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd 3. Remand the applications to the Planning Commission for further consideration. 4. Continue the request and provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, J r "Hermain om unity Development Director Approved for Submission, Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Minutes of February 27, 2002. 2. Land Use Map Amendment Requests 3. General Plan Text Amendment Requests 4. Letters Received at the Planning Commission Hearing 5. General Plan Document (distributed previously) 7. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (distributed previously) 0 4 ()no G:\WPDOCS\CC Stf Rpts\GenPlanUpd.wpd RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE 2002 LA QUINTA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IS RECOGNIZED AS ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE; RECOGNIZING THE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS; AND, RECOGNIZING THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED, BUT CAN BE REASONABLY AND SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED, IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65302, the 2002 La Quinta General Plan Update has been prepared; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter "EIR") has been prepared and circulated, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of La Quinta, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (hereinafter "CEQA"), as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.), and the State Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA, as amended (14 Cal. Code of Regs. Sections 15000 et. seq.), that the City shall not approve a project unless there is no feasible way to lessen or avoid significant effects; meaning all impacts have been avoided to the extent feasible or substantially lessened and any remaining unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable based on CEQA, Section 15093; and WHEREAS, it is the policy of the State of California and the City of La Quinta, in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA, as amended (Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et. seq.) and the State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA, as amended (14 Cal. Code of Regs., Sections 15000 et. seq.) that the City shall balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks prior to project approval; meaning that if the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects are outweighed by the project benefits; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the EIR, has found that the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and O 4 r is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA; and 021 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and adopted certain overriding considerations to adverse environmental impacts, and specified CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts; and WHEREAS, prior to action on the project, the City Council has considered all significant impacts, mitigation measures, and project alternatives identified in the EIR, and has found that all potentially significant impacts on the project have been lessened or avoided to the extent feasible; and WHEREAS, Section 15093(b) requires, where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrences of significant effects which are identified in the EIR, but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR and/or other information in the record; and WHEREAS, the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines provide that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed and which identifies one or more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a statement of facts supporting each finding. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Quinta does hereby certify the EIR for the 2002 La Quinta General Plan Update as adequate and complete. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Quinta makes the Statement of Overriding Considerations as shown on attached Exhibit "A" entitled "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which is incorporated herein as though set forth at length. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of La Quinta adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached "Exhibit B" entitled "CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein as though set forth at length. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this 20th day of March, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: 043 i, 022 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: KATHY JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California 043 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc C 023 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "A" STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City hereby adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations concerning the project's unavoidable significant impacts to explain why the project's benefits override and outweigh its unavoidable impacts. This project will create substantial benefits including enhancing the quality of life necessary to attract new residents, businesses and visitors to the City, resulting in increased investment within the City. The City finds that the project's unavoidable impacts are acceptable in light of these and other project benefits. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project, independent of other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable impact. Each overriding consideration identified below applies independently to each unavoidable impact. 1 . Adoption of the General Plan update will provide the City with a comprehensive and cohesive statement of goals, policies, and programs upon which decisions relating to the City's current and anticipated needs shall be based. 2. Implementation of the General Plan update will further enhance the quality of life necessary to attract new residents, businesses and visitors to the City, and will generally promote increased investment and development, jobs associated with new and/or expanded construction, and the provision of public services and facilities for a larger population base, and further economic development within the City. 3. The orderly and coordinated expansion of public services and facilities, as provided for by the proposed General Plan update, will provide for improved public health, safety and welfare and will help avoid the undesirable impacts of uncontrolled, noncontiguous development. 4. Impacts identified as significant are generally associated with normal growth and progress and would be much more severe without implementation of the proposed General Plan update. %J 024 GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 RESOLUTION 2002- EXHIBIT "B" CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS A. INTRODUCTION The City of La Quinta proposes to adopt the 2002 La Quinta General Plan Update. Because the proposed action constitutes a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and the State Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA, as amended, the City has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR identifies certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project, or which may occur on a cumulative basis in conjunction with the project and other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA and the State Guidelines require that no public agency approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed and which identifies one of more significant effects of the project unless the public agency makes one of more of the following written findings for each of the significant effects, accompanied by a Statement of Facts supporting each finding. The possible findings include the following: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. The City has determined that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines. The City proposes to approve the proposed project, and the findings set forth herein are made. 05 . GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlan ElR.doc 025 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 B. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT As part of the Initial Study process, the Environmental Checklist Form suggested by the CEQA Guidelines and utilized by the City of La Quinta was reviewed to assure that all environmental issues required to be addressed by CEQA would be addressed in the EIR. It was determined that the proposed project would have no impact on the following environmental areas of concern: 1) federally protected wetlands, 2) local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, 3) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, 4) safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area, in the vicinity of a private airstrip, 5) physical division of an established community, 6) displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, 7) displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, 8) change in air traffic patterns, 9) substantial increase in hazards to a design feature or incompatible uses. C. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGATABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Land Use Impacts General Plan Buildout of the General Plan planning area (as illustrated in the Program EIR) will allow for an estimated buildout population of approximately 207,970. Under the proposed General Plan, residential acreage will decrease from an existing 35,753 acres to approximately 32,951 acres, but the number of dwelling units projected at buildout will increase from an existing 12,141 units to 78,952 units. This is largely due to the anticipated long-term conversion of agricultural land to low -density residential development. Under the proposed General Plan, commercial acreage will increase from 1,624 existing acres to 1,997 acres, and industrial acreage will increase from 1,360 acres to 1,947 acres. The majority of the increase in commercial lands will occur adjacent to the Desert Resorts Regional Airport, and the increase in industrial lands will occur in the vicinity of Interstate-10 and the Bermuda Dunes Airport, and east of Highway 111 in Thermal. Public and quasi -public lands will increase slightly from 2,404 existing acres to 2,483 acres. The amount of land area dedicated as Open Space will increase from 12,357 existing acres to 14,120 acres. This increase is primarily due to the dedication of additional golf courses in the central portion of the planning area. Should the boundaries of the planning area be modified as illustrated in the Draft 026 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 General Plan and Master Environmental Assessment, substantial reductions in buildout population and development potential will be realized. Under this scenario, the entire planning area contains a total of 34,150 acres, including 19,663 residential acres, 1,882 commercial acres, 380 industrial acres, 260 public and quasi -public acres, and 11,965 open space acres. At buildout, there will be approximately 55,365 dwelling units and a population of about 146,191. Annexation No. 12 Implementation of Annexation No. 12 will add approximately 5,420 acres to the City limits. Proposed land use designations in the annexation area include 4,669 residential acres, 99 commercial acres, 42 acres of community facilities development, and 610 acres of open space. An Agricultural Overlay will be applied to 3,279 acres which are designated for low -density residential development. At buildout, the number of dwelling units in the annexation area is projected to increase from approximately 232 existing units to an estimated 12,225 units, and the population is projected to increase from approximately 639 residents to 33,619. These increases are largely due to the projected conversion of agricultural land to low -density residential development. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment Implementation of the Sphere -of -Influence (SOI) Amendment will expand the City's SOI by 8,205 acres. The amendment is an administrative action that will provide the City with a greater degree of involvement in urban development occurring in the area. Lands within the SOI will remain under the jurisdiction of Riverside County, and current County land use designations will remain in effect. However, should the SOI be annexed into the City in the future, the area would be under the City's jurisdiction. Proposed General Plan land use designations include 6,772 residential acres, 371 commercial acres, 384 industrial acres, 37 acres of community facility development, and 641 acres of open space. An Agricultural Overlay will be applied to 5,719 acres designated for low and very low density residential development. At buildout, the number of dwelling units in the SOI is projected to increase from an existing 837 units to 19,243 units, and the population is projected to increase from an existing 2,304 residents to 52,918. These increases are associated with the projected conversion of agricultural lands to low -density residential development. Findings. T 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to the extent feasible. a. Individual project proposals, especially those involving a mix of residential 05 i G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc 027 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 land uses and those in close proximity to sensitive land uses, shall be fully assessed during the project review process to assure that all land use compatibility issues are addressed and mitigated, as necessary. b. An "Agricultural Overlay" shall be applied to lands currently utilized or identified as agricultural to allow agricultural uses to continue until such time as the landowner chooses to develop and to preserve the low - density character of these lands. c. Where residential development is proposed immediately adjacent to lands used for agricultural purposes, a minimum 100-foot buffer zone shall be provided between the shared property line and new residential structures. d. The City will continue to provide a variety of housing opportunities and commercial uses to adequately serve the needs of the local and regional population. e. Sensitive biological and environmental lands will be protected and preserved as Open Space. A "Hillside Overlay" will be applied to lands occurring above the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to protect these valuable resources from impacts of urban development. Soils and Geology Impacts General Plan Although the General Plan planning area does not contain any known active or potentially active faults, it is located in close proximity to the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zones, and buildout of the planning area may be significantly impacted by strong seismic ground shaking. Given the composition of local soils, strong ground motions could induce liquefaction in the eastern portion of the planning area, and slope instability within and adjacent to the slopes of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains. Alluvial fan and blowing sand deposits may be susceptible to collapse and/or hydrocompaction, and lacustrine deposits associated with ancient Lake Cahuilla may be moderately to highly expansive, thereby resulting in damage to structures and foundations built upon them. Increased development and ground surface disruption in the northern planning area may be significantly impacted by wind erosion. Continued regional groundwater overdraft could result in subsidence at valley margins and associated damage to structures sensitive to changes in elevation, such as canals and sewers. 0 L � 028 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 Annexation No. 12 Implementation of the proposed annexation action will not, in and of itself, result in adverse geologic impacts. However, given the proximity of the annexation area to the San Andreas and San Jacinto Fault Zones, future buildout of the annexation area will expose additional people and structures to strong ground shaking. Development will also be susceptible to liquefaction, collapsible and expansive soils, and seismically induced settlement. Portions of the area are designated as moderate to extreme wind hazard areas, and development will be highly impacted by wind erosion. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action, which will not, in and of itself, result in adverse geologic impacts. However, future development that occurs in the SOI area will be adversely impacted by strong seismic ground shaking and other geologic hazards. Due to the presence of loose, sandy, unsaturated soils and a relatively shallow depth to groundwater, the area is highly susceptible to liquefaction, collapsible soils, and seismically induced settlement. The lacustrine and alluvial fan deposits that comprise the underlying soils are moderately to highly expansive, and given their ability to shrink and swell, can result in structural damage to buildings and other structures built upon them. Moderate to extreme wind erosion poses an additional threat to development. Findings: 1 . Changes, alterations, and other measures have been incorporated into the project, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance. Among these are the following: a. Proper structural engineering, which takes into account the forces that will be applied by anticipated ground motions, shall provide mitigation for ground shaking hazards. Seismic design shall be in accordance with the most recently adopted editions of the Uniform Building Code and/or International Building Code and the seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers' Association of California. b. The City's Emergency Preparedness staff shall undertake and maintain a seismic hazard reduction program which should consist of the identification and mapping of geologic and seismic hazards, the expedient retrofitting and rehabilitation of weak or damaged structures, and the enforcement of fire and building codes. c. Proposals for development on wind or stream -deposited sediment on the valley floor shall include site -specific subsurface geotechnical 0 5 .) G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc t , 02-9 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 investigations that address settlement, liquefaction, and collapsible soils. These hazards can generally be mitigated by proper excavation, compaction, and foundation design techniques. d. The City shall continue to require expansive soils testing as part of its grading and building codes, and shall assure the implementation of site - specific mitigation measures which minimize these hazards, such as the use of reinforcing steel in foundations, drainage control devices, overexcavation and backfilling with non -expansive soils. e. All grading permit requests shall include a soil erosion prevention plan. Blowing dust and sand during grading operations shall be mitigated by adequate watering of soils prior to and during grading, and limiting the area of dry, exposed soils during grading. f. Where development is proposed adjacent to or in close proximity to steep slopes, site -specific geotechnical studies shall be conducted to evaluate the potential for rock fall and/or landslides, and to establish appropriate mitigation measures which minimize these hazards on a site -specific basis. g. Hillside areas shall continue to be protected under the City's Hillside Conservation Zone Ordinance. h. The City shall continue to support and encourage local and regional groundwater conservation measures in an effort to mitigate potential subsidence resulting from groundwater overdraft. Hydrology Impacts General Plan Continued urbanization of undeveloped sites and the intensification of land uses throughout the planning area could result in significant hydrological impacts. Such impacts may include increased run-off from parking lots, roadways, sidewalks, and other impervious surfaces, alterations in existing drainage patterns, the accumulation of debris during large storms, and the contamination of surface and ground waters associated with pollution runoff. Annexation No. 12 Approximately 300 acres within the annexation area are contained within the 500-year 013 GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 floodplain. Otherwise, the flood hazard potential in the area is minimal. The proposed annexation action is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, result in adverse hydrological impacts. However, future development facilitated by the annexation action will generate increased runoff, and the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses will result in a reduction in permeable soils, thereby altering existing drainage patterns and volumes. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment Flooding in the SOI amendment area is associated with the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel and adjacent lands. The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, result in adverse hydrological impacts. However, future development occurring in the SOI area will contribute to increased runoff and the increased potential for pollution of surface and ground waters. The conversion of agricultural lands to residential development will further contribute to potential flooding hazards. Findings: 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise required for subsequent environmental review, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures include the following: a. Floodways, stormwater channels, and major drainage facilities shall be designated as Open Space -Watercourse in the General Plan land use plan. b. The City shall assure that adequate evacuation routes, as well as ingress and egress access for emergency response vehicles and personnel, are clearly marked and available to residents of the Cove during a major flood event. c. All projects within the City limits shall construct storm drainage and hydrologic improvements to conform to the City's master hydrology and storm drain improvement program, where applicable. d. The City shall continue to require the construction of on -site stormwater retention basins to reduce the need for an costs of stormwater conveyance facilities, and to provide enhanced opportunities for. groundwater recharge. Development adjacent to the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel shall continue to have the option of discharging directly into the channel, if approved by the Coachella Valley Water 05 District. C 3 GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 e. Development encompassing acreage, and that with the potential to generate significant runoff, shall be required to prepare and submit a hydrology study and mitigation plan which implements regional and local requirements, policies, and programs. Water Resources Impacts General Plan Buildout of the General Plan planning area is projected to result in a demand for 114.3 million gallons of water per day, or approximately 350 acre-feet per day. If not adequately mitigated, such demand will result in significant impacts to water resources. Continued development in the planning area will also increase the potential for groundwater contamination. Annexation No. 12 Future development facilitated by the proposed annexation action will increase the demand for water in the annexation area. At buildout, the demand is projected to be approximately 18.5 million gallons of water per day. This represents a substantial increase over existing demand and is largely due to a significant population increase projected at buildout. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, result in significant impacts to water resources. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, development in the SOI area is projected to demand about 29.1 million gallons of water per day at buildout. Future development will also increase the potential for surface and ground water contamination. Findings: 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise required for subsequent environmental review, which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures applied include the following: a. All future development projects shall be carefully analyzed by the City, Coachella Valley Water District, and/or Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company to determine the potential impacts of such activities on local groundwater resources. G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 b. The City shall support and cooperate with the Coachella Valley Water District in the development of a permanent groundwater recharge facility within the planning area. c. The City shall continue to implement its Water Conservation Ordinance to encourage the use of drought -tolerant landscaping in public and private development as a means of reducing water consumption. All development plans shall adhere to the City's ordinance. d. The City shall support and cooperate with the Coachella Valley Water District's efforts to expand tertiary wastewater treatment capacities and to encourage the use of tertiary treated water in the planning area. e. The City shall encourage and/or require that new and existing development connect to the existing sewage system, to the greatest extent practical, to minimize the potential risks of groundwater contamination associated with the use of septic tanks and seepage pits. f. The City shall promote and encourage the protection and wise utilization of the Valley's domestic water supplies to assure the long-term viability and availability of clean and healthful water resources. Biological Impacts General Plan Continued development in the planning area will have significant impacts on native wildlife and plant species. Direct impacts will include habitat loss, fragmentation and degradation, the removal of breeding and foraging habitat, and the loss of native species. Indirect impacts will include increased predation by domestic pets, increased noise and glare, increased disturbances from foot and vehicular traffic, and increased competition from non-native plant species. Annexation No. 12 Although much of the annexation area has been disturbed by cultivation, plowing, grading, and other land surface disturbances, vacant land in the annexation area may still contain suitable nesting and foraging habitat for a variety of endemic wildlife species. Buildout of the annexation area will contribute to continued habitat loss and degradation, as well as indirect impacts associated with human activities, ranging from increased foot traffic and off -highway vehicle use to increased light and glare. () 5 GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc 033 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The SOI amendment area is not known to contain critical or essential habitat for sensitive biological species. Much of the land in the SOI area has already been disturbed by grading, disking, plowing, cultivation, and similar activities, and therefore the region provides marginal habitat for native plant and wildlife species. Nonetheless, continued development in the SOI area will contribute to further impacts to biological species, particularly indirect impacts, such as increased noise, traffic, and predation from domestic pets. Findings: 1 . Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance. Among the mitigation measures are the following: a. The Land Use Element of the General Plan shall designate all areas above the toe of slope of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains as Open Space for the protection of the Peninsular bighorn sheep and other species occurring in these habitats. b. The Land Use Element shall designate Sections 25 and 30, Township 30 South, Range 6 East, which occur within the Santa Rosa Mountains Wilderness Study Area, as Open Space. c. Development occurring within the mitigation fee boundaries of the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan shall pay the mitigation fee in effect prior to the issuance of building permits. d. Where new development is proposed on lands with the potential to harbor sensitive species, focused species surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate season to detect the presence of sensitive species and appropriate, site -specific mitigation measures. e. The City shall continue to participate in the development of the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan. f. The City shall support and promote the integration of biological resource and open space/conservation principles into the design and development of roadways and highways, stormwater detention/retention basins, and public parks and private open space areas. 060 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc 034 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 Cultural Resources Impacts General Plan Continued disturbance and development of undeveloped lands can be expected to result in damage and/or destruction of archaeological and/or historic resources, some of which may be of important cultural significance. Considering the high number of known archaeological and historic sites within the planning area, no undeveloped lands should be considered free of cultural resources prior to being investigated. Mountainous slopes, canyons, and alluvial fans may be particularly sensitive for cultural resources. Buildout of the area will also contribute to the long-term loss of the community's historic agrarian sites, including farmland, date palm groves and citrus orchards. Annexation No. 12 Given its proximity to the shoreline of Ancient Lake Cahuilla, the annexation area has a high sensitivity for archaeological and historic resources. Continued development in the annexation area will increase the potential for disturbance and/or destruction of important cultural artifacts. Buildout will also remove elements of the region's agricultural past and will change its rural character to a more urban environment. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment Implementation of the proposed SOI amendment will not, in and of itself, adversely impact cultural resources. However, should the SOI area be annexed by the City in the future, its buildout will contribute to the disturbance and/or destruction of sensitive archaeological and historic resources. Buildout of the SOI will transform the existing rural character of the region to a low -density residential environment and will remove elements of its agrarian past. Findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which will mitigate this impact to the extent feasible. a. The City shall maintain and update on a regular basis its existing historic resources inventory to reflect the current status of historic resources, identify potential historic resources, and include non-traditional property types. The City shall develop a strategy for surveying currently unsurveyed areas of the planning area, and shall assure that newly identified resources are incorporated into the historic resources inventory. b. The City shall develop a system of incentives and regulations that encourage the preservation, maintenance, and/or rehabilitation of G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc ( 035 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 historical resources by property owners, local citizens, and private developers, through the continuation and expansion of federal and state programs that provide tax and other incentives for the rehabilitation of historically and/or architecturally significant structures and other mechanisms. c. All development projects that require discretionary city action shall be reviewed by a qualified archaeologist, historian, and/or architectural historian prior to final approval in order to identify potential impacts to historical resources and appropriate mitigation measures. All such sites shall be surveyed, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that a survey is unnecessary. d. A qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative shall provide on -site monitoring during ground -disturbing activities in areas of high sensitivity. e. The City shall adopt a proactive approach in code enforcement to prevent deterioration of historic buildings, structures, and districts and shall consider incorporating historic preservation into the City's zoning ordinance to create historic zoning districts and/or overlays, where appropriate. Noise Impacts General Plan At buildout of the planning area, noise impacts will be generated primarily by two sources: 1) increases in vehicular traffic on local and regional roadways, and 2) construction activity. Noise generated by traffic represents a long-term noise impact. Construction noise will typically result in short-term, but occasionally intrusive impacts. Other noise sources will include lawn care machinery, household appliances, and outdoor mechanical equipment, such as heating, cooling and ventilation equipment. Development in close proximity to the Union Pacific Railroad, Bermuda Dunes Airport, and Desert Resorts Regional Airport may be exposed to short-term noise impacts associated with rail and air traffic. Given that noise from vehicular traffic will represent a long-term and potentially excessive impact, this impact could be considered significant if not adequately mitigated. Annexation No. 12 At buildout of the annexation area, noise impacts will be primarily associated with increasing traffic volumes and construction activity. Although construction activity will 0 6' represent a temporary, short-term impact, traffic noise will be long-term. Less significant impacts will be generated by outdoor mechanical equipment, house ..old appliances, and other site -specific sources. In the overall, the existing rural n iseS GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan ElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 environment will be replaced by that of a more urban community. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, result in significant adverse noise impacts. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, its buildout will result in significant noise level increases generated by vehicular traffic, construction activity, and on -site mechanical equipment. Development in close proximity to the Desert Resorts Regional Airport will be exposed to occasional, but intrusive noise impacts associated with air traffic. Findings: 1 . Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise required for subsequent environmental review which will mitigate this impact to the extent feasible. a. The City shall continue to enforce its noise control ordinance to assure acceptable exterior noise levels are maintained. b. All construction equipment operating in the planning area shall be fitted with well -maintained, functional mufflers to limit noise emissions. To the greatest extent feasible, earth moving and hauling routes shall be located away from nearby existing residences. Any development project involving blasting or pile driving operations shall have a focused acoustical study conducted to establish the level and duration of off -site noise and vibration impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. c. Where necessary, silencers and/or barriers shall be required around outdoor equipment, such as ventilation systems and air compressors. Appropriate sound barriers shall be provided surrounding any and all public facilities capable of generating disturbing noise levels, such as water pumping stations. d. Potential noise impacts shall be considered in final site plans for all proposed projects within the planning area. Factors to be considered shall include the strategic arrangement of housing to provide necessary shielding of outdoor living areas and the incorporation of additional setbacks from roadways or construction of additional noise barriers. e. All commercial and industrial projects, which are to be located adjacent to residential land uses and land use designations, shall be required to 0 6 1-1 prepare a noise impact analysis which assesses the potential impacts of the project and provides for adequate mitigation measures to assure that City noise standards for residential land uses are maintained. C ,, 037 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 f. The City shall encourage a city-wide circulation pattern that places primary traffic loads on major arterials and preserves local neighborhood noise environments by limiting roadways to local traffic to the greatest extent practical. Visual Impacts General Plan Buildout of the planning area will result in the development of new structures, signage, lighting, utility infrastructure, and other elements of the built environment. Improper or hasty development could obstruct scenic views of the nearby Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains and/or more distant views of the valley landscape and may detract from the existing natural and built aesthetics of the area. Annexation No. 12 Continued development in the annexation area will result in adverse impacts to visual and aesthetic resources, particularly the transformation of the existing rural environment to a developed urban community. Elements of the built environment, such as structure, signs, fences, lighting, and utility infrastructure, will diminish existing viewsheds. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, adversely impact the region's visual resources. However, should the SOI be annexed by the City in the future, its buildout will transform the existing environment, which is largely rural and agrarian in character, to a more urbanized landscape, characterized by new structures, signage, lighting, roadways, and other elements of the built environment. Findings: 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise required for subsequent environmental review which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures include those listed below. a. New development shall incorporate landscape designs and materials that complement the native desert environment. b. Overhead utility lines shall be undergrounded to the greatest extent possible through the establishment of an undergrounding program and 0 f Ll guidelines. c. The City shall coordinate with utility providers to assure that utility G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPIanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 infrastructure, including wells, substations, and switching/control facilities, are effectively screened to preserve scenic viewsheds and limit visual clutter. d. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to the minimum height, number of fixtures, and intensity needed to provide sufficient security and identification in each development, making every reasonable effort to protect the community's night skies. e. The General Plan Land Use Map shall designate the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains as Open Space with a Hillside Overlay. f. Should agricultural lands be converted to urban land uses, elements of the past agricultural uses, such as date palm groves and citrus orchards, shall be incorporated into on -site open spaces, streetscapes and landscape designs. g. Planning and design of residential neighborhoods and street corridors shall provide distinctive and characteristic design elements, such as entry monumentation and landscaping, which preserve and enhance the viewsheds enjoyed from these areas. h. Development proposed along scenic highways, roadways and corridors shall be reviewed for compatibility with the natural and built environments to assure maximum viewshed protection and pedestrian and vehicular activity. Public Services and Facilities Impacts General Plan Buildout of the General Plan planning area is projected to generate a student population of approximately 33,268 students, which will place additional demands on the Coachella Valley and Desert Sands Unified School Districts. The City will require approximately 103,985 square feet of library space and 415,940 volumes, as well as 208 law enforcement personnel. Additional fire department personnel will also be required to adequately protect life and property from fire hazards. The buildout population will also increase the demand for local and regional medical services and facilities. At buildout, development in the City is projected to generate an estimated 234,238 tons of solid waste per year and is projected to consume approximately 1 14.3 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water, 1.04 billion kilowatt-hours per year of electricity, and 708 million cubic feet per month of natural gas. Buildout will 06,7 also increase the demand for telephone, cable television, and sanitary sewer services C 039 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 and infrastructure. Annexation No. 12 Buildout of the annexation area is projected to result in a student population of approximately 5,029, which will impact facilities and services provided by the Coachella Valley Unified School District. The buildout population will require an estimated 33 law enforcement personnel, additional fire department personnel, and health services. At buildout, approximately 26,069 tons of solid waste are projected to be generated per year. Other resources to be demanded include 18.5 million gallons of water per day, 85.5 million kilowatt-hours per year of electricity, and 80.8 million cubic feet per month of natural gas. Sanitary sewer, cable, and telephone services and facilities will need to be extended to adequately serve the area. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, adversely impact the provision of public services. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, its buildout is projected to generate a student population of 8,189, which will place additional demands on the Coachella Valley Unified School District. The buildout population will require about 53 law enforcement personnel, as well as additional firefighters and heath care professionals. An estimated 53,272 tons of solid waste per year are anticipated at buildout, which will increase the demand for landfill space. The buildout population is expected to demand approximately 29.1 million gallons of water per day, 222.2 million kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, and 163.8 million cubic feet of natural gas per month. Additional sewer, cable, and telephone services and facilities will also be required. Findings: 1. Changes of alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project, which substantially lessen significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. a. The City shall cooperate in the collection of statutory school mitigation fees from developers to fund the construction and reconstruction of public schools. The City shall coordinate with the Desert Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts to provide high quality education facilities and services to serve the buildout population. b. The City shall continue to coordinate with the Riverside County Library System to assure that adequate library facilities and services are provided to meet the needs of the buildout population. C 040 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 C. The City shall coordinate with the Riverside County Fire Department and Sheriff Department to provide high levels of fire protection and law enforcement within the City. The Fire and Sheriff Departments shall review new development proposals to assure adequate emergency access, signage, and internal circulation are provided. d. The City shall continue to promote solid waste source reduction and recycling programs and shall ensure that all household materials are handled, stored, and/or disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and standards. With the impending closure of the Edom Hill Landfill, the City shall coordinate with Waste Management of the Desert to evaluate and select a viable alternative landfill site(s). e. The City shall coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District and Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company, as appropriate, to assure a long-term, high -quality supply of potable water for City residents. The City shall support future groundwater recharge efforts and the expanded use of recycled water in the planning area. f. The City shall work closely with Imperial Irrigation District, Southern California Gas Company, Verizon, and Time Warner to assure the timely and coordinated expansion of electricity, natural gas, telephone, and cable services and facilities throughout the City. g. The City shall encourage and/or require, where appropriate, the utilization of energy -efficient appliances, lighting fixtures, and mechanical equipment in new development, and shall encourage the use of alternative energy sources and other energy conservation measures. h. The City shall coordinate with the Coachella Valley Water District to assure that all development is connected to a city-wide sanitary sewer system, to the greatest extent possible, and to assure that adequate wastewater collection and treatment facilities are provided to serve the long-term needs of the City. Socio-Economic Impacts General Plan Buildout of the General Plan planning area is projected to have a net positive effect on the City's economy. Major revenue sources will include property taxes, sales taxes, and transient occupancy taxes, while additional revenue sources will be generated 06 i' p Y from developer impacts fees, building permits, business licenses, and other .: 04 G AWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan ElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 development -related fees. New development will also generate additional costs associated with the provision of general government administration and other public services provided by the City. Annexation No. 12 The economy of the annexation area is not expected to be self-sustaining at buildout, as its annual costs are expected to outweigh its annual revenues. This is largely due to the fact that the majority of land in the annexation area will be designated for residential development, and the costs associated with providing municipal services to residential lands are typically greater than any property tax or other revenues they may generate. When considered as part of the larger General Plan planning area (described above), these costs will be offset by other City revenues. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, impact the City's economy. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, at buildout, the costs associated with the provision of municipal services are projected to exceed the revenues generated by development. This is primarily because the vast majority of lands in the SOI area will be designated for residential uses, which typically have limited revenue -generating capabilities. Revenues will be further constrained due to limited commercial and industrial acreage and a lack of hotel/motel acreage. Nonetheless, development in other parts of the City is expected to offset these costs. Findings: 1 . Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise required for subsequent environmental review which will mitigate this impact to a level of insignificance. Mitigation measures include those identified below. a. The City shall continue to identify potential public and private revenue sources to finance infrastructure improvements in the Village and along the Highway 1 1 1 commercial corridor. Where appropriate, the City shall enter into agreements with developers that lead to their shared participation in financing such improvements. b. Evaluate the demand for a new regional shopping mall in the eastern Coachella Valley and determine the feasibility of attracting such a facility to La Quinta. rev c. Continue to support the development of new golf and/or luxury hotel/resort facilities within the City. Cy`42 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan EIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 d. Promote in -fill development in existing commercial centers, particularly along the Highway 1 1 1 corridor. e. Continue to fast -track the development permitting process and assist in the design of on- and off -site improvements for project proposals expected to substantially enhance the City's economic base. f. Promote and consider further investments in art, theater, and related development proposals that preserve or enhance the City's cultural resources and expand the City's economic base. D. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED Agricultural Resources Impacts General Plan Under the currently adopted General Plan, 19,938 acres in the planning area are designated for agricultural uses, many of which are classified as prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. The proposed General Plan designates 17,615 of these acres for low and very low -density residential development with an Agricultural Overlay. Such a designation provides for the continuation of existing agricultural activities until the landowner chooses to develop, at which time any Williamson Act contracts in effect would be terminated. The proposed General Plan designates the remaining 2,323 acres for low -density residential development, with. no Agricultural Overlay. Implementation of the proposed Plan would result in the complete conversion of these acres from agriculture to residential uses and would require the cancellation of any Williamson Act contracts currently in effect. Indirect impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural lands will include 1) noise, air quality, and odor incompatibilities where agricultural and residential uses are adjacent or in close proximity to one another, 2) the long-term transformation of the easterly portion of the planning area from a rural, agrarian region to a low -density urban environment, 3) increased traffic volumes and associated light and glare, 4) and the replacement of permeable soils with impervious surfaces, which may alter existing drainage patterns. Annexation No. 12 Approximately 3,782 acres in the annexation area are currently designated for agricultural uses by the Riverside County General Plan. Should the area be annexed into the City, 3,280 acres will be designated for low -density residential development with an Agricultural Overlay, which will allow landowners to continue to farm until they choose to develop. The remaining 502 acres, located west of Monroe Street (J 1 between 581h and 601h Avenues, will be designated for low -density residential G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPIanEIR.doc 1, 041 City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 development with no Agricultural Overlay, and all opportunities to farm these lands would be lost. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment Approximately 5,651 acres in the SOI area are currently designated for agricultural uses by the Riverside County General Plan. The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, impact agricultural resources. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, approximately 5,651 acres will be designated for low -density residential development (up to 4 du/ac) with an Agricultural Overlay, and an additional 68 acres will be designated for very low - density residential development (up to 2 du/ac) with an Agricultural Overlay. Landowners will have an opportunity to farm these lands until they choose to develop. This represents a 68-acre increase in agricultural acreage compared to existing conditions. Findings: 1. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to the extent feasible. a. An "Agricultural Overlay" land use designation shall indicate those lands on which agricultural activities may continue until such time as the landowner chooses to develop. b. Where residential development is proposed immediately adjacent to land used for agricultural purposes, a minimum 100-foot buffer shall be provided between the shared property line and new residential structures. Such a zone may consist of open space, but may also include landscaping treatments, earthen berms, or other appropriate design features, as approved by the City. c. The City shall cooperate with government and other appropriate agencies to assure that environmentally sound agricultural practices, which are in compliance with local, state and federal agricultural codes, are utilized on all agricultural lands within the City boundaries. d. Should agricultural lands be converted to urban land uses, elements of past agricultural uses, such as date palms or citrus orchards, shall be incorporated into on -site open space areas, streetscapes, and landscape designs, to the greatest extent practical. e. All surface or subsurface disturbances, which may aggravate !wind 044 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan EIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 erosion in the planning area, shall comply with the City's Dust Control Plan requirements, air quality mitigation measures set forth the Final EIR, and other applicable air quality regulations. 2. Most significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been reduced by virtue of mitigation measures in the Final EIR or otherwise incorporated into the Plan as set forth in "1 " above. 3. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the remaining unavoidable significant effect, and in view of the following fact: a. Impacts identified from the proposed General Plan are considered significant only on a cumulative basis in association with other projects occurring on a local and regional scale. Traffic/Circulation Impacts General Plan At General Plan buildout, development in the planning area is projected to generate 1,200,150 daily trip -ends (28% more than expected upon buildout of the currently adopted General Plan). Twenty major intersections in the planning area are expected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service (LOS D or better) at project buildout, assuming optimized signal timing and adequate timing for pedestrian crossings. Although most of the roadway segments in the planning area will continue to operate at acceptable level -of -service (LOS) D, fifteen segments have been identified as exceeding typical average daily traffic (ADT) capacities. Among these are two segments along Washington Street and five segments along Highway 1 1 1. Most of the identified impacts are associated with projected growth in background traffic through the 2020 period. Due to the physical constraints of mountain topography and existing development patterns in the City, opportunities for construction of new roadways to augment the existing circulation system and relieve congestion on existing arterials is limited. Where capacities will be exceeded, intersection improvements and the widening of existing roadways may allow the roadway segments to operate at acceptable levels. Annexation No. 12 At buildout, all roadway segments within the annexation area are projected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service (LOS D or better) without mitigation. The major, ,7� 045 G AWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan EIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 intersection modeled in this area, Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard, is also projected to operate at LOS D at buildout. Nonetheless, continued development will contribute to increased traffic volumes throughout the annexation area, and small-scale roadway and intersection improvements may be required over the long-term. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, impact traffic and circulation. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, its buildout will contribute to increased traffic volumes and congestion on area roadways. Nevertheless, at buildout, all roadway segments in the SOI area are projected to operate at acceptable levels -of -service (LOS D or better) without mitigation. The area's two major intersections, Jackson Street at Airport Boulevard and Harrison Street at Airport Boulevard, are also projected to operate at LOS D. Findings: 4. Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact to the extent feasible. a. An upgraded and functional roadway classification system shall be implemented which includes Augmented Majors, Major Arterials, Primary Arterials (A), Primary Arterials (B), Secondary Arterials, Modified Secondaries, Collector Streets, and Local Streets. b. Intersection improvements shall be implemented and intersection monitoring locations shall be established at appropriate locations to optimize roadway levels -of -service. c. The City shall establish and maintain a master plan of roads, which sets forth detailed improvement plans and priority schedules for implementation. The goals of the plan shall be the operation of roadway segments and intersections at a minimum V/C ratio of 0.90 and LOS D without further mitigation. d. The City shall continue to coordinate and cooperate with Caltrans, CVAG, Riverside County, and adjoining cities with regard to the phasing of highway improvements that assure acceptable operating levels along Interstate-10 and its interchanges, Highway 1 1 1, Highway 86, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, and other major roadways serving } 106 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanEIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 intercity traffic. e. The City shall encourage the utilization of mass/public transit. Prior to the approval of development proposals, the City and developers shall confer with the Sunline Transit Agency to determine whether and where bus turnouts and covered bus shelters shall be placed within the project and project vicinity. f. To minimize the number and length of vehicle trips traveled within and in the vicinity of the City, the General Plan Land Use Map shall be maintained to provide for a balanced mix of employment and housing opportunities. In support of same, the City shall encourage the use of multi -occupant modes of transportation and shall encourage employers to utilize telecommuting opportunities, home -based employment, and part-time or non -peak hour work schedules. g. The City shall prepare and adopt a comprehensive Trails Master Plan of continuous, convenient multi -use trails and bicycle routes that connect residential, commercial, schools, parks, and other community activity centers. h. The City shall incrementally implement the comprehensive Circulation Element Golf Cart Plan, and shall consult and coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions regarding the use of uniform signage and symbols. 5. Most significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been reduced by virtue of mitigation measures in the Final EIR or otherwise incorporated into the Plan as set forth in "1 " above. 6. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the remaining unavoidable significant effect, and in view of the following fact: a. Impacts identified from the proposed General Plan are considered significant only on a cumulative basis in association with other projects occurring on a local and regional scale. Air Quality Impacts 047 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan EIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 General Plan The proposed project will generate short- and long-term mobile emissions from increased motor vehicle activity, as well as short- and long-term stationary source emissions from the operation of construction equipment, the consumption of natural gas, and the generation of electricity. Fugitive dust emissions will also increase as new development occurs and undeveloped sites are disturbed and graded. Annexation No. 12 Buildout of the annexation area will contribute to short- and long-term pollutant emissions associated with increased vehicle trips, increased construction activity, and increased consumption of natural gas and electricity. Fugitive dust emissions will increase as vacant parcels are graded and land surfaces are disturbed. While these impacts are not expected to be as significant as those generated by General Plan buildout (described above), they will, nonetheless, contribute to the long-term degradation of local and regional air quality. Sphere -of -Influence Amendment The proposed SOI amendment is an administrative action that will not, in and of itself, impact air quality. However, should the area be annexed by the City in the future, its buildout will contribute to regional air quality degradation. Short- and long-term impacts will be generated as a result of increased vehicle emissions, grading of vacant parcels, construction activity, and increased consumption of natural gas and electricity. Findings: 1. Changes and other measures have been made in or incorporated into the plan, or are otherwise required for subsequent environmental review, which will partially mitigate to the extent feasible this significant impact, including the following: a. Development and grading permits shall be reviewed and conditioned to require the provision of all available methods of assuring minimal pollutant emissions from the proposed project. b. The Land Use Element of the General Plan shall be developed and routinely updated to locate air pollution point sources, such as industrial facilities, away from residential areas and other sensitive receptors. c. The City shall encourage the phasing and staging of development 04%'10 . 'I G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 projects to assure the lowest construction -related pollutant emission levels practical, and shall require the use of water trucks, temporary irrigation systems, and other measures which will limit fugitive dust emissions during site disturbance and construction. d. The City shall initiate and encourage the use of alternative, clean energy sources for transportation, heating, and cooling. Pilot studies and/or demonstration programs shall be initiated to promote these uses. e. The City shall promote the development of pedestrian -oriented retail centers, community -wide trails, and dedicated bike lanes to encourage alternatives to motor vehicle travel. These components shall be integrated and periodically updated in the General Plan Circulation Element. f. The City shall strive to maintain a balance between housing, commercial, and industrial growth, and shall encourage mixed -use development within the planning area to reduce the length of vehicle trips and associated moving vehicle emissions. g. The City shall conduct an initial study for all projects which exceed any of the SCAQMD pollutant emission threshold criteria, and shall require detailed air quality analyses for all applications which have the potential to adversely impact air quality. h. Encourage developers to adopt ride -share, vanpool, flex -time, and telecommuter programs to reduce peak hour vehicular traffic. i. A PM 10 Management Plan for construction operations shall be submitted with all development proposals and shall include detailed descriptions of dust management controls to be implemented. 2. Most significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been substantially reduced by virtue of mitigation measures in the Final EIR or otherwise incorporated into the plan as described in "1 " above. 3. The remaining unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the remaining unavoidable significant effect, and in view of the following fact: 049 G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\Gen Plan EIR.doc City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan EIR Adopted: March 20, 2002 a. Impacts identified from the proposed General Plan are considered significant only on a cumulative basis in association with other projects occurring on a local and regional scale. GAWPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlanElR.doc RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN POLICY DOCUMENT ( GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - 2002 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 20th of March 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a comprehensive update to the Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Policy Document, together comprising the Comprehensive General Plan Update; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 27th day of February, 2002, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a comprehensive update to the Master Environmental Assessment and General Plan Policy Document, together comprising the Comprehensive General Plan Update, and recommended approval under Resolution 2002-030; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following mandatory findings approving said General Plan Update: 1 . The Elements of the General Plan, as proposed are internally consistent, and reflect updated statistics and information regarding the City's current conditions and anticipated future growth. 2. The proposed Update will not negatively impact the public welfare, insofar as policies and programs address Geologic Hazards, Noise, Air Quality, Flooding and Hydrology and other environmental and manmade hazards to reduce these hazards for the residents and visitors of the community. 3. The proposed General Plan Update is compatible with the historic and anticipated land use patterns in the City, and will continue to support the orderly development of the City in the future. 4. The land uses proposed on the Land Use Map are suitable for the lands on which they are proposed, insofar as the majority of the City's developable lands are generally flat, and those lands with significant slope are proposed for preservation as Open Space. " "-" j G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlan.WPD f 0rx-). City Council Resolution 2002- General Plan Update Adopted: March 20, 2002 5. Change in Circumstances. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of current conditions, and this General Plan Update reflects these conditions and accommodates changes in development patterns which have occurred since 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required in Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2000091023). 3. That it does adopt the Comprehensive General Plan Update for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on the 20th day of March 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JOHN J. PENA, Mayor City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: 0 '7 J M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney 052 City of La Quinta, California G:\WPDOCS\CCReso-COA\GenPlan.WPD ATTACHMENT #1 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A Special meeting of the Planning Commission held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California February 27, 2002 I. CALL TO ORDER A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Chairman Abels who asked Commissioner Tyler to lead the flag salute. B. Present: Commissioners Richard Butler, Steve Robbins, Robert Tyler, and Chairman Jacques Abels. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Robbins to excuse Commissioner Kirk. Unanimously approved. C. Staff present: Communit Attorney Kathy Jenson, Consultant Nicole Criste, Secretary Betty Sawyer. PUBLIC COMMENT: None. y Development Director Jerry Herman, City Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Planning Principal Planner Fred Baker, and Executive CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed. CONSENT ITEMS: None PUBLIC HEARING A. Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Annexation No 12 and Sphere of Influence Amendment (Sch#2000091023), and General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment; a request of the City for Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive General Plan, Annexation No. 12 and Sphere of Influence Amendment, and for adoption of the General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment. 1. Chairman Abels opened the public hearing and requested the staff report. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file , in the Community Development Department. , 0514 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 1 2. Chairman Abels asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler asked the location of the property referred to by A&M in their letter of request. Community Development Director Jerry Herman noted the area on the map. 3. Commissioner Butler asked if any of the property owners wanted to come back at a later date to request a Zone Change would they be able to do so? Staff stated yes. 4. Chairman Abels asked if there was any other public comment. Pomelos Ranch, LLC, 201 Ocean Avenue, Apartment #1009B, Santa Monica, stated he supported the annexation. 5. Mrs. Gayle Cady, 82-831 Avenue 54, Vista Santa Rosa, stated she would like the Vision Statement of the Annexation Plan regarding the current Land Use Map to keep the continuity of their rural agricultural life style. On Page 17, the buildout dwelling units and population totals, for Planning Areas No. 1 and 2 are dramatically out of context for what the residents of their community would like to see. She requested this be reduced. On Map 3.6 referring to the Agrarian Corridor, there is no Agrarian Corridor provision for Madison Street or Avenue 58 to Lake Cahuilla. She requested this be added. Additionally, she requested a provision be added for the connection of trails to include Avenue 52. Also on Map 3.10 Multi -purpose trails are not included on Avenue 52, Avenue 54 east and west, or on Madison Street to Avenue 64. These need to be added before any decision is made. Program 12.3 indicates the Agrarian Image Corridor shall include Madison Street, Jackson Street, Harrison Avenue, Avenue 54, Avenue 58, Avenue 62 and Avenue 66. She would like this to also include Avenue 52, which is the heart and center of the equestrian living and activity. 6. Mr. Jesse McKeever, 82-550 Avenue 60, stated he does not support annexation. His concern is the amount of water that is being wasted and the drop in the water table. 7. Mr. Jeff Harrison, 54-102 Avenida Bermudas, representing the La Quinta Cove Neighborhood Organization, gave a presentation on their desire to preserve the quality of life in the Cove and throughout the City of La Quinta. 8. Mr. Joe Hammer, 74-757 North Cove Area, Indian Wells, stated he and/or his family own three parcels of property. On the 40 acre parcel at Avenue 65 and Tyler, in Planning Area No. 2, his concern -�- G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 2 is that the Coachella Valley Unified School District will be building a new school facility consisting of 80 acres at Avenue 66 and Tyler which has generated a lot of interest in their property. He noted that all the land to the south of Avenue 65 is within the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation. At a public meeting, one of the Tribal members included his 40 acre parcel on Avenue 65 as part of their land and it is not. He requested the Commission consider annexing the non -Reservation lands. The second parcel is between Avenue 62 and Avenue 63 on Jackson Street. This parcel is also surrounded by Tribal Land. Their request is to ask that this parcel be included in the Annexation. The third parcel is 40 acres located at Avenue 59 and Monroe Street. This parcel they would like to develop as Neighborhood Commercial and/or High Density Residential to develop apartments. 9. Mr. Don Recktor, 46-450 Cameo Palms, requested the Dark Sky Ordinance be included as part of the General Plan Policy. His concern is to retain the open space and preserving Point Happy Ranch as a wildlife preserve or open space. 10. Ms. Judy Schenkman, 53-540 Avenida Villa, stated she was interested seeing that a Golf Cart Transportation Plan was implemented for the residents in the Cove. 1 1. Mr. Brent Lance, Diamantina LLC, 84-401 Avenue 61, stated he owns 40 acres at 84-041 Avenue 61, stated he would like to request a change to the Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay to be more meaningful. He would like a change to Exhibit 2.1, the Legend which still only refers to a Agricultural Overlay, to refer also to Equestrian and Agricultural. This would clarify that the changes made on Page 11 to incorporate reference to equestrian uses were intended to apply to the entire area in Planning area 1 and 2. 12. Mr. Robert Kull, 54-721 Monroe Street, stated he owns 40 acres east of Monroe Street and supports the annexation and asks they maintain the ranch style. 13. Mrs. Kay Wolff, 77-227 Calle Ensenada, member of Cove Neighborhood Group, stated she agrees with Mr. McKeevor and Mr. Harrison. One of their issues was to allow golf course privileges for all residents to the existing golf courses. The residents do not want another golf course, they would either like privileges to the existing golf courses or have the City assume one after it is no longer viable. Her own concerns are that the U G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 3 anticipated population growth for the Planning Areas is too large. The EIR makes no reference to the total cost of services to maintain Planning Areas 1 or 2. The Draft EIR gave these figures and stated the deficient was to be balanced out by the businesses, assessments and taxes of the residents of the current City boundaries. This is unacceptable. She would also request that the request of A & M Construction to rezone the park area along the Bear Creek Storm Channel be denied. She would like to request a philosophy of slow growth, very very low density, and high quality commercial development be adopted. The City needs to be "picky", charming and small. Mitigate the negative effects of water, noise, and traffic and keep La Quinta small and charming. 14. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing is closed and open for Commission discussion. 15. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste reviewed the comments that were made. Regarding Ms. Cady's request for Agrarian Image Corridors and Trails to General Plan maps and on Page 16 of staff report, it is suggested that multi -use trails be designated on Avenue 62, Avenue 54 and Van Buren Street in addition to those already designated. On Page 19 of the staff report, it is suggested Agrarian Image Corridors be placed on Airport Boulevard, Avenue 60, Monroe Street, and Van Buren Street and that the program be amended. Mr. Hammer's first two properties were included in the Planning Areas; now they are both out of the area. The third property is Item A.3 of the staff report along with the analysis. Mr. Rector referred to the Dark Sky principals. There were discussions between the Commission and Council recommending that it not be added. However, Policy #10 of the General Plan states the City will maintain the Dark Sky Ordinance. Mr. Lance's suggestion regarding the Agricultural Overlay being changed to Agricultural/Equestrian and on Page 18 of staff report it is recommended the term Agricultural Overlay be changed to Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay. Ms. Wolff's question regarding the cost revenue analysis for Planning Area No. 1 and No. 2, Planning Area No. 1 was analyzed in the EIR under the heading of Annex No. 12 and Planning Area No. 2 under the Sphere of Influence. The Tables regarding cost revenue analysis are located on Page 3-206 of Draft EIR Table 47 and Table 48 on Page 3-207. Ms. Criste went over the revisions that had been made. 0 057 G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 4 Chairman Abels recessed the meeting at 8:16 p.m. and reconvened at 8:25 16. Planning Consultant Nicole Criste stated there were two approvals that needed to be made. Attachment "A" which dealt with Land Use changes and Attachment "B" which dealt with the other Text Changes that had been requested. In addition, staff is recommending a designation of Multi -purpose Trails on the even numbered streets on Avenues 50 through 60 in addition to the trails recommended in the staff report. 17. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Robbins to accept Attachment "A" as recommended by staff. Unanimously approved. 18. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Tyler to accept Attachment "B" as recommended by staff including the Multi -purpose Trails on the even numbered streets on Avenues 50 through 60. Unanimously approved. 19. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Butler/Robbins to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002-032 recommending to the City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Annexation No. 12, and Sphere of Influence Amendment and amend the General Plan by adopting an Updated General Plan and Master Environmental Assessment, as recommended. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Butler, Kirk, Robbins, Tyler, and Chairman Abels. NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. VI. ADJOURNMENT: It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Butler to adjourn this special meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting of the Planing Commission on March 12, 2002. This special meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary U Ll 11w;l G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\2-27-09 GenPI.WPD 5 The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 2.1 May 15, 2001 Attn: Fred Baker, Planning Dept. RE: General Plan Review, Residential Lot on Buena Ventura Dear Fred, P4vINrA RECE1V ED Y o11►a�112�1W 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, Bruce Y. Cathcart, Broker La Quinta Palms Realty U� 060 51-001 Eisenhower Drive - La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 564-4104 - Fax (760) 564-0344 CV 8o O � 11 N t-I N r— off ui fig !n cn " 6 CID Vb N 1 I r�• O ^v 01 'ri w ` —to ez 7 coo a w� ck: tx i. m iL 0 WellLLI is'tLl ' Ir'irt tv I LL'—� I '_ � O N O$ _ r O sz s• � O _ f I 1 II'RI 95•611 04•611 I IZ't-9 LJ 1 1 - 1 ` « LL'ill li'!il r ri [!'iil fz O ^ s ,• O � � 1 � � 8 s: I nIr li•!i 1 It'rEl - 6 1 f•. ,• I sz sa N _N —go-o va�3s3 - CA- 1 — — — — c9o-ozo vat --- J of I I I i I 1 ecn Q 1 rn 1 I I— — — — — , 1 1 'tr —r. I on to co IR , .. N C Cilia al R I 1 I [g iz q iJ tiI N tV LLIV Ln /19I — 1 " 4 cr ���•' �N3 01-15-01 15:18 City of Laeuinta Comm.Dev.Dept ID= 750 777r1233 P-01 2.2 DECEMBER 12, 2000 - CITY OF LA QUINTA � - CO DEVELOPMENT DEP17 r P O BOX 1504 -� .=� LA QUINTA, CA 92253-1504 6����CF~�`"� AM: JERRY HERMAN, DIRECTOR DEAR MR HERMAN, IT IS My UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS A GENERAL PLk\T REVISING ZONING ETC. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE My PROPERTY CHANGED FROtii R-1 TO R-2. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FROM. T OF %iY PROPERTY AND THEY ARE BOTH INTERESTED IN THE SAME. My PROPERTY ADDRESS IS: 55075 MONROE ST IT IS BORDERED ON THE WEST & SOUTH BY KSL GREG NORMAN GOLF COURSE, ON THE NORTH BY MERV GRIFFIN'S ,RANCH. PLEASE ADVISE ME. THANK YOU. VERY TRULY YOURS, BARBARA J WOLLAN P O BOX 1253 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-1253 (760) 398-8250 7 �8j 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 2.3 E01MVE SEP 11 2gM' CITY OF Lgp(11AI7A a�G 0£PAfi'rMENT September 11, 2000 RE: Parcel #761-310-013, 761-310-0143, 761-310-0152 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 0� 0G T. R.A. 858-0.9' , 761-3125-31 THIS MW :S FM N1/2 SEC 26 T6S R7E �30 23 24 4 271 25 MI I wr V Alm, 02.1 mp 4 2 1.14 r Kc -0 i 1—3' till" LW -C tl I,— *A PLO PM 11/8 PAIL MAP 7IE46 F" :711*38-39 2533E mat"Ilms ASSESSM'S MAP Or- 161 PG. 31 • AAA PM:79i7e-7? 2618I REV MAP 1%3 JAN 1967 R.�,;d. C�r-w. Cd ;r- 064 FBaxleQy 2.4 July ,z.2000 Properties Mr. Jerry Herman { , : _ -• Community Development Director CITY of LA QUINTA r Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: August 15' 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 eastern -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 Bill Cover BC/sh 4.1.8.6.5 Enclosed: Exhibit A- Adjacent Land Uses BOARDWALK Exhibit B- Parcel Maps & Owners S U I T E 2 0 6 Exhibit C- Summary of Land Uses PALM DESERT C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 2 2 1 1 x760.773.3013 V J www.baxleyproperties.com 065 7 773-3310 Exhibit A 07/12/00 Mr. Jerry Herman ADJACENT LAND USES Subiect 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 Quinta High School 4. Existing mobile home park 5. New Indian Springs development f- w Cn w I (•r I � 1 I I; 1 • �, L J i _ ... T z 0. mQ fr W z uu 0 U Q O o a = J 0 e co J F O J Z `v -' v� O Q W y >- Q J Li W J F J JJJ U s W Wi s U 0 N O Q Z� Q S W J U Q U rn oIt > a awlc-(n p w two� O¢ 2 a a a W Z 00 cr W S Z W F J U m Q J d LL` U o Z cc Q OC Z Z Q 00 O a N W O W O J O t z x L e ww9mcnJ 0 >' O Q O O W N X J W N m mm d 3 Z O S Z WW cc J W C M U U U Q x O U Q O O LuW Q O O>> 0 J a D i= W W N a Q Z Z S LL 0 U m F' m 3 0 0= m x 2 g i J m ¢ w J a a0 W> ° 2 2 i m 2 u z 0 o°> z Q� i m o a 3 W U U U U = U (A a oao�a> 0 0�3. o� o' o� 00 a 17i l' 11 .l T1) I I �; NOr:If IVIN ih e 7% .l o� O� o 1 �o to lip e-4 w Go co 01 N N O O W y� C OC • G d W n D� t "M N W a. O Y e 1 _:Ere N .M.. c O t O C t C ca `1 Cl C V >. 0 � .> ... t� O t _ c`°cvo vccoc c � >. ar I I N LID a c WC=CiE O O O D v1 Z "' ? CO • - =EQ) OO -AM " 9 toss 0 Exhibit C July 12, 2000 Mr. Jerry Herman Summary 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 09 069 CHARLES PHYLE RRC>PERTI 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, WM. K. SCHMID General Manager 78-490 Calle Orense 564-6219 WKS/at 0 9 ('3 070 C:\WS20O0\DOCUMENT\AT\CITYBAKE 2.6 Fil October 3, 2001 Christine DiIorio Planning Manager Fred Baker, AICP Principal Planner DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION City of La Quinta Community Development 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: General Plan Update — Ranch Commercial Corner Dear Christine and Fred: Thanks for the opportunity to provide input into the General Plan update for the City of La Quinta. We would like to make the following recommendations for change in land use to some of our property that would best align the properties with their highest and best uses, provide for proactive market flexibility in planning and design and support the active development of the properties: Ranch — Southwest Corner of Ave 52 and Jefferson (14 acres) Change in land use to Neighborhood Commercial. As we noted in our last discussions regarding this site, we have been exploring the viability of this site as Neighborhood Commercial. However, at the time of our last correspondence, we had not concluded our feasibility analysis so we omitted this request in that document. We have now completed this research and have reason to believe this site would be actively developed with a viable Neighborhood Commercial Center within a reasonably short period of time. We would appreciate your consideration of this change in land use and would hope that you could recommend same to the Planning 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. a: 4- S. Chevis Hosea V.P., Land Development Cc: Larry Lichliter Bill Dodds Lexi Ward Forrest Haag, ASLA Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting Rick Deihl 0 9 ,j 0'71 55-920 PGA Boulevard 0 La Quinta, CA 92253 • (760) 564-7166 0 Fax (760) 564-7131 Sent By: ; Ut: 1 U t LJUU 1 1: 40PM sent By: ; 760 360 7580; Oct-3-01 11:35AM; HLIXSETH GROUP,INC. 7607766626 76C 380 7580; Oct-1-01 12:64PIi1; Page 2/2 Page 1 / 1 P-2 2.7 October 1, 21M1 City of La Quinta-CommuidLy Development i0m Hcrnian ?8-495 Cane Tampico La Quirnta, CA 92253 IU s. c T-3 I ,j-N OF L PAR MENT pi.-ANN►NG DE Re: 40 acres SEC Jackson St/Ave. 58 AM portion of 761-400-00 Dcar Jem-. In rtspoitse to Ilzc Drali General Plan Updatc for the City od La Qwnta. 1 hereby requeci. Iltc above ru►med 40 :acres at the Southeast coiner of Jackson Si. and Avenuc 58 be designated Contrnertial. Thank you for you consideration. sincerely, Timothy L. H[ixseth t 072 10-03-01 11:25 RECEIVED FROM:760 360 7580 p-91 3.1 DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CLAOctober 18, 1999 Jerry HermanDirector, 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. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City reduce its minimum full movement intersection spacing to 1,200 feet or less when the new intersection is serving a major new resort or commercial development in La Quinta. Your consideration of this request is sincerely appreciated. Very kindest regards, KSL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION N. WayAq Hancock Vice P e ident, Development w! r 074 55-920 PGA Boulevard • La Quinta, CA 92253 0 (760) 564-7166 9 Fax (760) 564-7131 Apr-04-00 12:34P P.02 SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER 4079 Mission Inn Avenue. Riverside. CA 92501 (909) 6X4-6203 Membership/Outings (909) 686-6112 Fax (909) 684-6 172 Regional Groups Serving Riverside and San 11ttmartlinc, ('aunties: lox Serwnu . 7vltyuita. Sint Bcmardino,%Youniai),ts. ,ilcjavc. ilorcrin Valley, Big Bear. .4rrn.vhcnd I ir!!c•t. Nwrtu •i-1o►Xn1,10 City Council, City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92252 Re: General Plan Recreational Trails Mayor and Members of the Council: April 41,2000 BY FAX - HARD COPY MAILED Regarding the La Quinta's General Plan for the City and proposed annexation areas, the Sierra Club urges the City to prepare for the future by preserving all existing trails and adding new trails and trails access to its General Plan. Regarding retaining the equestrian trail designation along Madison, we believe that an easement for a trail along this thoroughfare would be very useful for the future, whether it is an equestrian trail easement or a multi -use trail easement. The City's residents and tourists would be well served to have such an amenity, whether to access the Boo Hoff Trail, or just to tour that portion of the City by non -motorized means. We would urge the City to expand its trail system to provide many such access trails and loops for the growing numbers of people who ride, hike or bicycle for health and refreshment. Sierra Club also urges the City to designate mountainous trails within its expanding Jurisdiction in coordination with the trails plan to be embodied in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Plan. There are many aboriginal trails south of the Boo Hoff Trail which access that portion of the Santa Rosa Wildemess. These should be designated on the General Plan if compatible with bighorn sheep recovery. We would be happy to provide more detailed information to staff in this regard. Additionally, if compatible with bighorn recovery, it would be beneficial to designate a connector trail from La Quinta to Palm Desert and to retain access through the proposed Green and Travertine projects to the mountainous- trails behind them. Please make this letter part of the hearing and the record on the matter, and also put us on the mailing list for future notices and environmental documents at the address below. Very truly yours, Joan Taylor, C onservfti . Chairman Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club 1800 S. Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, CA 92264 Printed on Retvcicd Paper. .—TO eXplem. enjoy and prs-mcrve the nation%'- tore:•u, waters. wildlil�. arui wildetTre&S. 3.2 lay 075 DFr•F T Vrn rAnM P.02 J J%J1111G111 Page 1 of 1 msff} H otma i I® jsgates86@hotmait.com From : "john gates" <jsgates86@hotmaii.com> To : jsgates86@hotmail.com Date : Sat, 08 Sep 2001 22:20:39 -0700 v4� In I Previous Page c\ M UN/ 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. rights reserved. TERMS OF USE -TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement All 9 C7� 076 http://lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=F000000001 &a=6c4f5dc4b.-... 09/08/2001 FROM : COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CON PHONE NO. : 760 176 9698 Sep. 19 2001 02:15PM P2 3.4 COACHEL A VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERVANCY State of California In partnership to protect our mountain heritage Gouearung noorct ray o1 cetr► cm Ory City Of Dcz;m fMr Sparm Cku of lnata►•, %lei$ City Of La Quinru c ►y aj Fawn Deer cry of team Sp•mps ay ey P"k-ho Mirage coctimaars ApPOUuec Store Smarr Appoinree srare.A ;c,rbty Ay�x'UUCr ialvers a county Supervisor P15M iA RImwa a Coun u06-Tric IV Supertirur .lrjua Caftdtre BQtTd �l C�JYiUa Hk7lQli S:are Defwrrr►�rr u; Par1C.{ t3X1 kt3C,t:rL(,rl aurcau of r,;m #Avkhxxmnr U.S. ForeQ Serukc %Vddl4 a Corrxrxulrxr P.rxur! Store t�rrnnrn O,'+' fish Ono c;crne ttrirrcrsta� of Callfomta nu,L.irx► v1 .+gneuhure arxi na+urvl RcsOtltCCS ke�.�urt� .v>pr�1 September 18, 2001 Honorable Mayor John Pena Members of the City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mayor Pena and Members of the City Council: (Orl RECE/VFW C Thank, you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed General Plan. As you know, the Coachella Valle}, Mountains Conservancy is working with the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) to develop a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CV-NISHCP) for the Coachella Valley. In addition to CVAG and its member jurisdictions, this planning effort involves the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as well as state and federal 'Wildlife agencies. As one part of the CVMSHCP, a trails plan is being developed for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Over the last several vears, staff from the Conservancy and ELM 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 Sang 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 TraiLc 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 Plan 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 auy final proposals for the location of these perimeter trails, there are several areas ttiat have been discussed by the Trails and Bighorn Sheep 3"'Orkirg Group. 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 will be addressing the potential for these trails on 07 0 45-480 1-loriola :�vc. • Palm lleserl. CA 92 260 • 760-7-16-5026 • Fax 760-776.9698 09-19-91 13:41 RECEIVED FROM:760 776 9598 P•02 FROM : COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CON PHONE NO. : 760 776 9698 Sep. 19 2001 02:16PH P BLM lands in this area. WC would like the City to give consideration to potential Perimeter trails as well. According to information from City Planning staff, the proposed General, Plan does not currently provide this opportunity. The trails planning and evaluation process will certainly continue to involve City staff; .residents, and any affected landowners. A Public Review Draft of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Plan, including the draft Santa Rosa and San Jac iaito Mountains trails plan, is now planned for release in January 2002. I would be happy to discuss this matter further with City staff. I can be reached at 776-5026. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Katie Barrows .Associate Director cc: Fred Baker, City of La Quinta Jim Foote, Bureau of Land Management Jerry Hernian, City of La Quinta Jim Kenna, Bureau of Land Management Jim Sullivan, CVAG Trails and Bighorn Sheep Working Group 09-19-61 13:42 RECEIVED FROM:760 776 9598 078 P•03 3.5 ItArchaeological AdvisoryGroup P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491 Tel: 760.228.1142 • Fax: 760.369.4002 • E-mail: archadvgrp@aol.com September 18, 2001 \,A QU�N�� R _CF.. n Mr. Jerry Herman SE p Director, Community Development Agency City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico;: La Quinta, CA 92253 Comments on Cultural Resources Portion s of the City's "Comprehensive General Plan/Draft EIR" and "Drab General Plan/Cultural Resources 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 Quinta situation because archaeological research into Ancient Lake Cahuilla shoreline occupation is still in its infancy. I would 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 MR," 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, i James Brock, MA, xPA President , 079 3.6 o' 0 �O w KRMUDA DUNES r RANCHO MIRAGE O r INDIAN WELLS .. PALM DESERT • LAIC "U�NTA .� Desert Sands Unified School District 47-950 Dune Palms Road La Quinta, CA 92253 Board of Education John Benoit Tina A. Godecke Jim Koedyker Gary Tomak Dr. Marcile K. Wright September 19, 2001 Mr. Fred Baker Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Facilities Services (760) 771-8515 FAX (760) 771-8522 Re: La Quinta General Plan Dear Mr. Baker: d Q`ti W In response to Section II-14, Education: Desert Sands Unified School District requests that the City and District work cooperatively to locate future schools and recreation areas to accommodate growth. Sincerely, N/2 Peggy eyes Director Facilities Services 080 Sep 19 01 03:04p CitB of Coachella 1515 SIXTH STREET • COACHFLLA, CA 92236 Fax: (760) 3L�9-811 ; Hun. Mayor John Pena Members of the City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760 398-5421 p.2 3.7. Adr nistratlm......... AnimalGrard•c Control ..............398-a97S .399-3502 .. .......... . . 3W511G B uiklin Q................ 396-300� ►'kk`W � ............ FE+:Atl!>fy ........ 396. R 11 U City Clerk ..................... 3N-350:? ..... O I;inrtul� 106-35oz City Council ....... 3o1-SCKJ9 CGdc Enrorcenwnt Puthr Works 398-310; EC:Lulom'C develop. ........ 386 ...... 398-5110 Amils i�ivt�rrd.n Qru?arts Office Errgrrt nn9................... 39B-57v.t 3af itarv.... 563-8�;) r*'arKe ... .... ................ rr! 3ce-350= ........... .301 5008 ... ........................... 398-8895 Utiilk::.............. September 19, 2001 Re: Lip Quinta General Plait Update, La Quinta No. 12 Anne -ration, Proposed La Quinta Sphere of Influence and Draft Eniironntenial Impact Report Honorable Mayor Pena and Members of the City Cowlcil: 1 am sending the following comments on behalf of the City Council of the City of t�oa�:hella. ?tits letter describes those areas of concern that the Coachella City Council has with r4sp��ca 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'l -inning letter supplcillents the comments previously submitted to La QuinWs Principal Planner Area. red Baker by Coachella's DirectorofComrnunity Development Susan E. Williams, dated September 10. 2001. The proposed La Quinta Annexation No. 12 includes territory situated within Cciache]Ws cun•ent Sphere of Influence. That particular area extends from Avenue 50 to Airl)ort Boulevard and from Monroe Street to Van Buren Street. The Coachella City Council is adamantly oppr_lsed to the proposed annexation (by any neighboring city) of any territory situated within Cuachella's existing Sphere of Influence. This particular area consists of a variety of land uses: low density residential, vel>> low density residential, and is subject to an agricultural to urban transitional overlay zone. "T'he subiect area which also includes a public cemetery, a school and scattered general commercial uses has been identified in Coachella's General Plan as an integral component of C:oachella's suture Growth. In light of the above, the Coachella Cite Council respectfully requests that the subject area be excluded from La Quinta Anmexation No. 12. The Coachella City Council also objects to tht` proposal to include in La Quinta's Sphere of Influence any property located east of Van Buren Street and south of Coachella Is city limits. It has become clear to many local planners and policy makers that the Thermal Airport hay the potential to become a major transportation hub which can effecti-vely meet the future needs of rl()tonly the grooving tourist/resort based industry throughout the entire Coachella Valley, but also the grow manufacturing and industrial needs of the east end of the Coachella Valley and ftist 91T)wi11ti 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, cmitrol over land use and development of the area near the Thennal Airport and are the beneficiaries cal oeneral fund I 69-19-61 15:59 RECEIVED FROM:766 398 5421 P•82 Sep 19 01 03:05p City of Coachella 760 398-5421 p.3 revenue derived from the property taxes, sales tax, business license taxes, transient produced by the business activities that Will surely take place in the su re� in tale ne r taxes, future. Since Coachella is in the very unique situation bJect area in the very near loin to IOW iTiconie households it is imperative that Coachella look a relatively large number ofvery- opportunitles :For economic growtlt and prc�spe�rity, and the futureook to the h�ture l'ur all possible of the Thernial Airport is one such opportunity that Coachella's policy ynh ke thf� area in the vieinit�- on. P y akers mast keep their eyes Notwithstanding die above, the Coachella City Council sincerely believ Thermal Airport will create sufficient opportunities that can Provide es that the future otb the Coachella and La Quinta. As such, the Coachella City Council i enco mutual h��neEits to both ambition, both cities can work together on developing a lone terns plan forged that, with restrained the area in the vicinity of the Tliern)aI Airport tlit►t will result in the orderl dit future annexation of in a manner that fairly distributes between the two jurisdictions y development oi'the area development and the many benefits such development will likely create.otli the burdens �f such In light of the above, the Coachella City Council respectfully requests t Council direct its staff to eliminate from its Sphere of Influence proposal anav the La C1uinta City territory located east of Van Buren Street and south of Coachella's city limits. T/,�-plan o include any Council, however, »>o«!d not oppose a proporul tl:at extends ��l�l�rlla C.�rj� include that area bounded to the east by man Buren, the north ba �'�-rfo t�s sniter�� Uf IjlfluPtlCe to bi'Avenue 66. 1 p Boule andandthesouth tiVitli respect to the Draft EIR's analysis of traif c impacts, the Coachella Cit Co concerns about how the increased traff c will disproportionally impact nlanti, of`C:oil �1y gr�vc roadways and intersections. Coachella is specificaliyconcerned that themiti atioit measuresc1eli`11`�"s to the traffic impacts are wholly inadequate to non-existent and the suggest on that Formulation related traffic mitigation measures be deferred to a later time is in complete violatic)c, ofthe of Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). No matter which alterna 'v ie California x�•tth, it is imperative that mitigation measures be imposed that will effectively mt3 chooses to proceed traffic impacts to levels of insignificance. In this regard. the Draft EIR needs to the 1J significanteedto include traffic mitigation measures that, for instance, require financial Contributionsamended to toward necessary road improvements such as additional sibnalization, road�vjcienU be ,Wade separations, and bridges along sheets such as Munroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison �,ig' Made and Polk. Two ether additional concerns raised by the Coachella Cit Y Cou or the Increase demands that tivill be placed on the area's water supply.ctrelate to water. In recognition a mill gation measure that requires the development - Draft EIR should include 4 elopment of water reclamation facility. [n addition, will) respect to the severe drainage problems throughout the east end of the Coachella Valle i important that the Draft EIR include a mitigation measure that requires c el-ta'Valley, t is subdivisions to include the installation of retention basins and/or requires financial contributions residential Lions be made toward necessary drainage improvements. Without such mitigation m • . oes in place to t is certain that number of children who will be exposed to the health d safetyea�uies to place, It with the presence of stagnant water in residential areas will increase at an alarming and associated rate. �, c unacceptable 1 V osz 09-19-61 16:00 RECEIVED FROM:760 398 5421 P.03 Sep 19 01 03:05p 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 jx:rspective of the status of'current electrical and natural gas supplies. How 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 toaciiella and ,rust include mitigation measures that reduce those impacts to a level of Insignificance. ]lie 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 tlu-oughc�ut the Draft EIR is not appropriate under CEQA. Coachella also respectfully submits that the Concerns raised ill 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 hounded 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 and it Nvill provide both cities with the opportunity to meet with the intent to cooperate on developing a long tern plan for annexation and development of the area in the immediate vicinity of the Thernial Airport. Due to the potential tax revenue associated with the future growth of the Thennal Airport, the City Council of the City of C,oachel la wishes to ensure that it is able to participate with the City of La Quinta in benefitting from 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 oFLa Quinta on this and many other issues and concerns that our two communities share. Very truly. yours, Lupe L. Dominguez, Mayor City of Coachella cc: Tom Genovese, La Quinta City Manager Fred Baker, La Quinta Principal Planner 083 09-19-61 15:00 RECEIVED FROM:760 398 5421 P.04 sop-28-2001 02:07pm From - BEST BEST S KRIEGER LLP �► C^uFORnlw LIaITCD 16144IOMA ti PARThEfi.$hjP IfTC4_u0I04G PRCWESSIQr1AL CORPCOIAMOrui LAWYERS r RThuR I. 1_ITTL-9-wO8aTh' w l6w.m R QCWp�rC- RICMARO T anD[RLOh• .Ones O wAMLo.. -SO.R L OROW" MICrI.LCL T RIDpLI-L' P+ICnrGL 6waesT' rR+ftclz J O^wml GLORGC M. ALTLL wILLI^M w FLOTO. JR GREGOATL MwRDKE KfnOALL n m&CVET CL.r.AA n r.L6OP DAVID .1 iPiwlR' M 1C wrCI. -1 rwpCLSOn- PQWGLAS L Pr11"IPZ- GREGORT A W1LhInSOr. 6EhE TAnAAA v 1C?OR L tiQLF O^molcL C OL1VICw MOWARD 0. 60604 .TEPnCn P OtITLCn uOnn A ROTMCn^EFEA I.r.06T1n A r.uELL.EA J M/CRALL SIIMMLROIrR SCOTT C 414MI .^CA B CLARhE. A afib^n rI LEvr/a • an-OLcT E nEuFELO GERwIC L. M..►I/aM30h ft-Rirl P. rRs.XrIrR ALTLA 91 CMMM..C^ G r1E.RT .�1E►LCZ JOhh O. 1.1C41rIDOThrM �Grr Rtl v pelves DAVID n-M000n MAL/ITn7 s.IaAAMA NIAh sTGvGn C DLowun• nh11LET t OfTERa OR uSI rn EinREAT ERIC L GARhER' ROGCA n CRAW/Opp Ch.uC r+ n�rlLr•.ILL GEnhla r1 COTA ihAwh D. hAGLRTV -aerrRLt s aa"1es01•A r n w F PEARCE JAMLS P MORR►L M ThCRF=r Too.;.nT1no ko9ERT w P^AGREAvES A[vIR T COLLIhL ThLRCZa L rRT0nuCC1 C. M1Cnr466 COWiTT P..v10 w nZwmo%h r.EL1&sA YJ WOG E afwn ARThER ORWCL w ppaCn AR►[MC PRpTCR MAAA ^ C.GTLR .Lnndtw T DuCKI"004 M^RI^ r DI.(caa CI Ln w PRICC TA..I.4 T TAAn crIrmr-m M^WT104a uc oa..ew r.IcnCLLt CUEME FIARrMrCnA.CL M66900 TRACIL PnaM K[lrin It FAI►DOLPro JAMEB R TOuChSTONE wAZON C GLEZ. C.1.ThIr •A w4.PtV.MwO n.n[u01.7L' a aTA«RD L CVtP4 Iw ..«DERSOw AG6ERT L PATTEA&Oh N1�L1AIi1 ­ PAILST DAw1EL S ROBEM ILTLL A bNOw DRTrh n DiNMRP PIr RT pFTh COpNRn DAMES a GILPIh JrM/L V RaTMQnp ►In OSLT r COTTrr. AIIII A BTREPIL PAYVA C P of SOvLa O&mU.LL L GCRDRR OEAn DERLET►. ►Tia M T.►►17~4 CARIiTthA A r1LMRT COrI1r RuAIO CravrLno r -04CO - r a"oo.E2 ELIaE L CREnG JGnn O PIRr►RLT .lanes ► wwLan Knawneo C--hreER PIERO C DALLARD► J[rr"T I FLRRL Tarq P THA-M OwIGnT r+ r10RTG0MERT DORInE LAWRthCE nvGnCZ DaR1E6 C. r►r.TZ RICRrRp T c.GCFR r6130ro p as-ron? rRALniIR C ALD•►ML IIRISwrR 4 CMOP11- RATM0110 OLLT I I OCO 19371 WIL•/AM WOOD MERRILL oAMLS C 71 APIL: �^rn KS n MAICCCA I I o 1 a 197p, w1LL.IAh D OAMLIn&. JR MICMAEL D DOLIO- i.+oKRK IaCDT I I OD21 1 Np a j •/I. PftOPESSIOnnL COrlrOrt^TIOh September 28, 2001 VIA FA CSIMILE Tk4NSMISSION Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council and Chairman and Planning Commission Members City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92270 Re. Prupused Changes in Draft General Plan Honorable Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, T 397 P 002/00 4 F-071 3.8 Q�u t .4 >eo nlonwrNee 5uITL =00 In01rn wELLL, CrluiOwn►A tiraS I I'M /� _ POST OFFICE QOx 1 9ei0 � �J/ PALA DESERT, CAL1FC$k-- irx=dO TLi.LPnQnX 17QO1 766-261 1 TL.CCOPICR 1760) 740 6696 opPLaw CQM Or COuRLCL CnAiZTOPM[R L CARPEnTER M/Cwar,V P RaRRIL• aline T ThOMr= DOMALD F ZIrII.ER' CnAlaTnw ► OT6w O BRu►N RE►OER PLIRP. We zp%n% P1esr O rlrlaA►3 WaI124FR P plv%R RO9CRf4 n^"M^ DAn/EL G ZTEVEnrion OFFICE& 1w RlvfAnlO[ 1oOD► 000 / waO OI.TAfi16 10001 Ono 0e04 SAI. DIEGO to 1 10, Is t 3 ► a00 ORANGE 17, a► 03G-6u-60 I am submitting this letter as a follow-up to my comments at your joint meeting on September 197 2001 regarding agriculture preservation and groundwater protection, and to propose modifications to the draft General Plan to help mitigate the impacts of the proposed residential development within the Planning Area A GroundwaterGroundw�ter Prot�ion Proposed General Plan Policy. The City will not approve development that will cumulatively exacerbate the groundwater overdraft During the September 19' hearing, I noted that there was significant concern among many who rely on groundwater pumping within the Planning Area that build out of residential development as proposed by the draft General Plan would significantly exacerbate the current groundwater overdraft. •� ' 084 ,tWNt;f1WWH xV" .jep-28-2001 02:07pm From- T-397 P.003/004 F-071 u►w OFFICES OF BEST BEBT & KRIEGER UP Honorable Members of the City Council Planning Commission Members City of La Quinta September 27, 2001 Page 2 In response, it was suggested that any concerns were unfounded as proposed residential uses require roughly the same amount of water as the agricultural uses that would be replaced; consequently, there would be no negative effect on water resources. I do not believe there is sufficient information available at this time to draw that conclusion. New residential uses will be served, at least for the tune being, by groundwater Agricultural uses depend to a larger extent on canal water. Estimates of potential groundwater recharge (30 to 60,000 acre feet per year) may only be able to address the current overdraft, not the additional 100,000 acre feet per year that may be needed to serve the projected additional residential units. In any case, if the City believes it has sufficient information to conclude that the projected development will not exacerbate the groundwater overdraft, it should be willing to adopt and implement a no -net -impact groundwater policy. To The contrary, if the City believes that it does not currently have sufficient information to gauge the ramifications of the adoption of such a policy, it would be wise to seek additional information before adopting a development plan, the consequences of which on groundwater resources are not known. B. Agricylltural Preservation Proposed General Plan Policy The City will plan proactively to preserve all existing equestrian uses and an appropriate portion of current agricultural uses. In response to concerns that at least some portion of the unique and valuable existing agricultural uses be preserved, the sentiment was expressed that economics inevitably drive the land use process, and that economics would inevitably eliminate agricultural uses. The goal of responsible land use planning is to employ land use tools to shape economic forces to guide land use development to maximize long-term beneficial use. The southern California landscape is littered with bad examples of what happens when land use planning is abandoned to short-term economic forces An excellent example of effective land use planning, was offered by Mayor Pena: La Quinta's hill side preservation. Uncontrolled, short-term economic forces would have resulted in ridge -to - ridge buildout of the mountains surrounding La Quinta. The City deterrnined that such a buildout was not in the long range best interests of the community and developed effective policies to preserve 1 those view sheds, while respecting landowner rights. 085 ,uvu UWRWMI&V9oa Sep-2e-2001 02:07pm From- T-397 P.004/004 F-071 LAW OFFICES OF pF-ST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Members of the City Council Planning Commission Members City of La Quinta September 27, 2001 Page 3 In a similar way, the City could adopt as an affirmative goal the conservation of current equestrian uses and some significant portion of the Valley's valuable agricultural heritage. The City could creatively employ land use tools such as density transfers, conservation easements, and buffers to provide incentives to preserve equestrian and agricultural uses Individual property owners could decide for themselves whether to conserve or develop. By adopting the proposed groundwater conservation and agricultural preservation policies, The City would not only assuage many of the concerns generated by the draft General Plan, it would establish itself as a leader in balancing the Coachella Valley's need to accommodate growth and the desire of its residents to protect the Valley's outstanding quality of life. ours, Rbert W. H.argrea s of BEST BEST & GE LLP RWH-nun cc Jerry Herman, Director of Community Development Katherine Jenson, City Attorney RWV5\RM I%13"W 3.9 THE VISTA SANTA ROSA ASSOCIATION Ellen Lloyd Trover, President Philip Burnett, Vice President Betty-Morgin, -Secretary Elizabeth L. 'Talley, Treasurer Betty, Mangan Smith, Director Edward Granados, Director P. 0. Box 297 Coachella, CA 92236 September 29,' 2001 Mayor Pena, Councilmembers La-Quinta City Council, Chairman Robbins, Commissioners La Quinta-Planning Commission 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: City of La Quinta Draft General Plan Greetings to the Council & Commission: On behalf of the Association, l would like to thank you for this opportunity to address, in writing, comments to the proposed- General Plan; we appreciate the courtesy and attention shown to our citizens by the Council, Commission, and stag of the City. I would like to thank Councilmember Henderson for her proposal that the Draft General Plan be reprinted with changes noted, especially as the changes are numerous and varied, and we are not sure which changes are being given consideration. Additionally, I would like to thank Commissioner Tyler for his extensive comments on the Draft General Plan and Draft Master Environmental Assessment. As you know from the appearances of members of the Vista Santa Rosa area before public hearings, the majority of the residents and voters of this area have opposed any annexation by the City of La Quinta. While we understand the City's need to plan based on potential development of the surrounding area, we feel that even these efforts are flawed by the absence of any planning efforts actually carried out by the residents and landowners of the area. We do not believe the plan as set forth in your proposed General Plan and exhibits reflects how the area will actually develop, and therefore, defeats the purpose it is to serve. That being said, we are also concerned about aspects of the General Plan concerning the development of the City. While we basically believe that the citizens of La Quinta should plan their 1 Page 1 of 8 0 8 7 own destiny, we are, of course, concerned about your plans for the existing city based on two considerations: 1) you are our neighbor, share our natural resources, and development within your boundaries has regional impact, and 2) we may someday be annexed to the City and decisions today will drastically impact the future. I am endeavoring to submit comments based on the concerns I hear expressed by residents and landowners of the Vista Santa Rosa area; I am referencing them based on the Draft General Plan that I have purchased from the City and the handout of September 19, 2001. If there have been changes or I make errors, I request your indulgence as the material is copious and the Update with Attachments is extensive and detailed, as you know. There was discussion on September 19t', regarding the change of terms from "Annexation Area No. 12" to "Planning Area No. 12." While we appreciate that the Council was approached by some landowners in the area regarding annexation, as you know the residents are opposed to any annexation at this time. We note that the September 19' staff report continues to refer to "The proposed district will serve as an essential component of the pre -zoning for the proposed annexation area" (emphasis added). As a policy, we feel that it would be desirable that any annexation studies be preceded by workshops with the residents and landowners of the areas to be studied; these workshops would provide a forum for citizen concerns to be brought forward before the City expends large sums studying land uses, traffic, services, etc. for "visions" of an area which are not compatible with existing and/or realistically proposed uses of the lands subject to study. While we realize that there is extensive speculation in future development, respect for existing use of land and respect for realistic projections by actual owners, rather than developers who wish acquire land or options, should be given greatest priority in planning. Both the Council and the Commission have indicated that they have no desire to annex "folks" who do not wish to become part of the City; relying upon that sentiment, planning for additional residential development to the east is premature. The Coral Mountain and Kohl Ranch specific plans cited in your General Plan documents were approved over a decade ago in a vastly different world while the voters of the area were unaware that they were even proposed. I can assure you that this community has united in discussion and a commitment to take an active role in our future. As you know, on August 30, 2001, LAFCO indicated that the Cities surrounding Vista Santa Rosa should involve the Association prior to any proposed annexations; we think this should include any annexations to the east of the current city limits (south of Ave. 50) and not just the region defined by the Vista Santa Rosa Community Council, as proposed land use designations should have consistency with the greater area. We intend to continue to be true to our mission to provide information on local issues to the voters of our area and to be active advocates for the welfare of the region. Page 2 of 8 �. CHAPTER 1. ADNIMSTRATIVE GOAL, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS: Policy 2. In addition to the cooperative planning process given, we would propose inclusion of a policy to consult the residents and landowners of areas prior to "studies" and "EIR's" for annexation, and specifically a Program 2.1 for public notice to voters and landowners and a Program 2.2 for public workshops to be conducted. CHAPTER 2. LAND USE ELEMENT: The redesignation of the "southeastern planning area" to LD and VLD have the effect of encouraging development and urban sprawl, contrary to State policy to preserve prime farmland. Farming in Riverside County is not "dead" as shown by the county wide statistics submitted herewith. In light of the terrible developments of recent weeks, many are concerned about encouraging development for many reasons, among them 1) the potential need to protect and increase domestic food supply, 2) the need to protect our resources including that precious commodity, water, and 3) the possibility that our economy will change with drastic impacts on resort, second -home based development. We are realistic that there may be changes looming in the short and distant future, although we are not as certain that residential development will be as likely as we anticipated prior to September I Vh. Commissioner Tyler's proposal to consider a "Rural Living" land use designation may well be far more realistic, as well as more compatible with existing uses. Additionally, as you know, this region is in the County and subject to the RCIP process. As I advised LAFCO on August 30', it is the intention of the Association to promote planning of this region by its citizens. We are working with the County to endeavor to bring this forward with their assistance. Since the City cannot annex this area until the Service Area reviews are conducted, this seems to indicate that planning for this area will stay in the "hands" of the citizenry and the county for some time in the future. Based on the majority opinion that I hear expressed by citizens of the area, I believe that no smaller than 5 to 10 acre minimum parcels with agricultural and equestrian development will be the norm for the foreseeable future, and the City's planning for its future should be based upon that model for the outlying region. Many of us believe that there will continue to be numerous agricultural and equestrian holdings of 40 to 400 acres for half a century or more. As stated in the Draft, "As the City's needs change, it must consider amendments to the Land Use Element" (page 17); therefore such sweeping changes are proposed by the Draft are far more drastic than needed. If, and when, there are changes to the zoning of the Vista Santa Rosa area, we feel that it is imperative for the appropriate governmental agencies to consider a "Vista Santa Rosa zone" crafted to preserve the uniqueness of this area and facilitate the continuation of existing uses. There are many ideas circulating within our community which should be considered before any changes are made. Additionally, we are concerned about the interests of landovv-ners outside of "Vista Santa Rosa." As noted at the hearing, there are lands within the City and the planning area that do not have the Page 3 of 8 °� "Agricultural / Equestrian Overlay;" certainly in recognition of the historic agricultural heritage of this valley and the vast economic impact of agriculture and equestrian use, such use should be encouraged on all land not otherwise developed, even if only as an interim provision so the owners can productively use their land until developed for other purposes. The proposed Agricultural/Equestrian Overlay is a step in the right direction, but it needs additional consideration and refinement by staff working with people who actually operate agricultural and equestrian operations. Stating that Agricultural uses are not to be considered non -conforming gives neither the protection of actual agricultural zoning nor the protection of a "Right to Farm" ordinance coupled with mandatory agreements from developers and covenants passing with the land to protect neighboring agricultural and equestrian operations. A buffer zone of 100 feet also seems to be inadequate to protect both the farmer/equestrian and the public from the conflicts arising from noise, spraying, odors, etc. A Model ordinance developed by the California Farm Bureau is included with this letter. GENERAL LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES & PROGRAMS Under Program 4.2. Are these circumstances in the alternative or additive? While consistency of development of properties is extremely desirable, Program 4.3 seems to need to be reworded to protect owners who do not wish to change existing land uses. A new Program 8.? could be adopted to provide for specific notice to voters and landowners prior to annexation studies; Program 8.2 could be modified to provide for public workshops to be conducted within areas prior to the formulation of land use designations and EIR's. Policy 9. Should be reworded to provide encouragement of agricultural and equestrian land uses in both the city and the planning area. A new Program 9.1 could be drafted to provide for adoption of actual agricultural and equestrian "rural" zoning; Program 9.2 could provide for adoption of agricultural/equestrian overlays in all other zones; Program 9.3 could provide for an actual "Right to Farm" ordinance coupled with mandatory agreements and covenants running with the land to protect neighboring agriculture in the future. Policy 10 should be re-evaluated and a new Program 10.1 adopted to establish a new study of existing as well as projected "light pollution." While public safety is of paramount concern, the upward lighting of trees, lighting of sections of the mountains, automatic all night lighting of landscaping in "specific plan"communities, amount of lighting for commercial establishments, etc. should be the studied. RESIDENTIAL GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Program 5.2 could be added to provide for public hearings v"fhen there are changes of, or deviations from, development standards and design guidelines; an example is the earth berm on Avenue 54, Page 4 of 8 1 090 east of Jefferson Street. There is no standard for berms in the city, causing distress to the residents on the South side of Ave. 54 and a tunnel like atmosphere for people traveling down Ave. 54. Rather than having this situation develop "too far along in the process," public hearings and/or notification of neighboring landowners could be earlier in the process. Policy 7. An Agricultural / Equestrian Overlay with a Right to Farm ordinance could "overlay" all property not yet in residential or commercial development. INDUSTRIAL AND AIRPORT GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS With the unlikelihood that the area around the Desert Regional Resorts Airport will be annexed in the near future, and the removal of Bermuda Dunes Airport from the City sphere, less emphasis should be placed on "airport planning." OTHER LAND USE GOALS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS With the uncertainty of water supplies and usage in the West, Program 3.3 should be modified to require all future golf courses to submit native and low water demand landscaping and "links'' plans. Frankly, we feel that further development should not be allowed unless, and until, CVWD has proven its ability to adequately recharge the aquifer, obtained sufficient "imported" water to meet projected needs, and implemented its Ground Water Management Plan. Program 4.2. Either Park Fee credits should be limited for recreational facilities that charge for their use or a certain percentage of the facility should be accessible to the public without paying a fee. CHAPTER 3. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT Not being an urban planner, I cannot comment on the details of the Traffic Element; however, it would seem that more up to date statistics should be used for modeling. Additionally, movement of non -automobile traffic such as farm equipment, etc. should be given more consideration. Developments bordering Agrarian Corridors should conform to the description of "agrarian past." An example of the failure to follow this policy is the new Country Club of the Desert development along Avenue 54, an agrarian corridor. Supposedly the General Plan has been under development for quite some time and yet, an undulating berm (19" maximum) has been allowed along an Agrarian Corridor! We are concerned that "Golf Cart Routes" are extensively planned while equestrian and multi -use trails (paths) have not received equal or greater consideration. We would, at the very least, suggest the City examine the path plans submitted by Shea Homes to the County (Coral Mountain Specific Plan) as examples for consideration. Page 5 of S 091. CHAPTER 4. OPEN SPACE ELEMENT The Plan projects "open space lands" as including about 2,440 acres of golf course open space. If said golf courses are in walled, gated -access developments, their value as open space to the community is nil. Policy 3 needs to be given more "strength" and detail. Policy 5 regarding areas susceptible to liquefaction being preserved as oWn space is inconsistent with the "recommended" land use map in that 100% of the area in Annexation No. 12 and the southeastern planning area, as shown on Exhibit 8.2, is subject to liquefaction! CHAPTER 5. PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT Learning the lessons of the Sepulveda Dam basin in Los Angeles, the City should develop an early warning system for users of retention basin parks and planning for ways to secure the areas from use in times of threatened flooding. A program under Policy 4 should set a time specific goal for development of regional trail plans, including equestrian uses. Traditional trails such as the one along Madison Ave. should be identified and preserved. CHAPTER 6. NATURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT AIR QUALITY Since air pollution from automobile emissions is a "prime culprit" in Southern California, Program 2.2 should be given more emphasis. Programs 6.2 and 6.4 should be given force and effect. A prime example of the problem is the huge dust clouds from Country Club of the Desert grading on days of li& wind. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES I have been told by Imperial Irrigation employees that the pace of development in La Quinta has outstripped IID's ability to construct its infrastructure, so that even if they can provide service in the long term, a more coordinated schedule should be developed. WATER RESOURCES Under Policy 1, a new Program should be adopted that the City adopt an ordinance "with teeth" that all developments of over 20 residential units submit identification of water sources (including in times of drought) before approval. While we realize this would be unpopular with builders, it is imperative that the citizens be protected in the long term. ;, Page 6 of 8 1 U 0gg As said before, conversion of land use from agriculture to residential vastly increases demand on our aquifer. Recharge projects of sufficient magnitude have yet to be proven feasible or built. 1 refer you to Matthew Wiedlin's hydrology report submitted September 10, 2001. An extensive review of water use in the City must be considered. CHAPTER 7. INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SERVICES ELEMENT We feel that the City's infrastructure and public service element is woefully inadequate. A task force should be established to address the present and future needs of the citizenry. CHAPTER 8. ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ELEMENT While the Policies and Programs listed are laudable, we are concerned about the ability to mitigate significant impact with existing technology or within economic feasibility parameters. These are public safety issues and deserve prime attention. CHAPTER 9. CULTURAL RESOURCES ELEMENT A seemingly derisive comment was made on September 19, by an advocate of higher density and/or commercial development, that the "village'' character of La Quinta was gone, and therefore, should not be part of the criteria for the General Plan. La Quinta's reputation as the Gem of the desert is based on the heritage started in the 1920's by the La Quinta Hotel; that heritage was the "village" of La Quinta. If that character is being lost by modern development, then that gives all the more reason for future development of all types to be more oriented to enhance the village rather than destroy it. Since this is a "resort" area, the Programs under Policy 4.2 should be given consideration prior to approval of all future development. WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE REQUESTS FOR CHANGES SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2001: We are concerned about the requests of landowners to redesignate specific parcels to zoning not consistent with their neighborhoods. For example, both requests to increase density and/or allow commercial development along Monroe Street are out of character with both existing and proposed neighboring land use; nor is there adequate information regarding the impacts of these changes. Additionally, the request to allow a "strip mall" at the corner of Madison Street and Ave. 58 does not address its potential impact, but is also contrary to Commercial Land Use Policy 3. With respect to the KSL request regarding reduced spacing of traffic lights, we would assume that Page 7 of 8 1 093 the impact of such a change would require more professional analysis. Perhaps a per project analysis and EIR would be more appropriate rather than a change of the General Plan. Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on the General Plan itself and trust that you will give these comments due consideration while studying your options. I remain, Sincerely yours, Ellen Lloyd Trover President Page 8 of 8 094 3.10 THE VISTA SANTA ROSA ASSOCIATION Ellen Lloyd Trover, President Philip Burnett, Vice President Betty Morgin, Secretary Elizabeth L. Talley, Treasurer Betty Mangan Smith, Director Edward Granados, Director P. O. Box 297 Coachella, CA 92236 October 4, 2001 Mayor Pena, Councilmembers La Quinta City Council, Chairman Robbins, Commissioners La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calee Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: City of La Quinta Draft General Plan Greetings to the Council & Commission: Ze 4v 1N TA vREG��vE� �Z .Oslo I have discovered that the Riverside County Agricultural statistics and the California Faun Bureau Model Right to Farm Ordinance referred to in my letter of September 29, 2001, we inadvertently left out" of the Express Mail envelope. I am enclosing them herein and am sorry for any inconvenience this has caused. I remain, Sincerely yours, 4--f- 4--e-j oL \'� Ellen Lloyd Trover President ► .'r 095 �'-1 Riverside County Agriculture 1979-1999 1979 1999 Change Table grapes Acres 9,496 13,829 146% Value $ 50,171,100.00 $ 136,585,400.00 272% Citrus Acres 44,462 30,757 69% Value $ 95,432,500.00 $ 118,236,100.00 124% Cotton Bales 72,300 35,411 49% Value $ 22,488,000.00 $ 8,853,000.00 39% Alfalfa Tons 316,421 524,450 166% Value $ 25,056,300.00 $ 39,690,400.00 158% Dates Tons 13,470 17,335 129% Value $ 16,286,000.00 $ 40,217,200.00 247% Acreage 316,743 331,174 105°/ Livestock Dairy cattle 72,636 108,000 149% Milk, gallons 155,303,850 196,080,000 126% Milk value $ 162,198,700.00 $ 333,564,000.00 206% Eggs, dozens 156,280,000 170,984,000 109% Eggs, value $ 77,359,000.00 $ 75,233,000.00 97% Total livestock $ 289,170,800.00 $ 440,230,900.00 152% Total Ag Production $ 6319723,000 $ 19197,3629100 190% 096 12 4 Farmland Information Center - TA - Right -to -Farm (CA Farm Bureau Model) Page 2 of 5 industry as a whole. (b) The purposes of the chapter are to promote public health, safety and welfare and to support and encourage continued agricultural operations in the County. This ordinance is not to be construed as in any way modifying or abridging state law as set out in the California Civil Code, Health and Safety Code, Fish and Game Code, Food and Agricultural Code, Division 7 of the Water Code, or any other applicable provision of State law relative to nuisances, rather it is only to be utilized in the interpretation and enforcement of the provisions of this code and County regulations. Section 3. Nuisance. No agricultural activity, operation, or facility or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards and with all chapters of County Code, as established and followed by similar agricultural operation, shall be or become a nuisance, public or private, pursuant to the County Code, if it was not a nuisance when it began. Section 4. Disclosure. (a) The disclosure statement required by this chapter shall be used under the following circumstances and in the following manners: (1) The County of shall mail a copy of the disclosure set out in subpart (b) I to all owners of real property in County with the annual tax bill. (2) Upon any transfer of real property by sale, exchange, installment land sale contract, lease with an option to purchase, or ground lease coupled with improvements, or residential stock cooperative improved with dwelling units, the transferor shall require that a statement containing the language set forth in subpart (b) shall be signed by the purchaser or lessee and recorded with the County Recorder in conjunction with the deed or lease conveying the interest in real property. [Optional: provided, however that the real property to be transferred is adjacent to or within feet of real property upon which agricultural operations are conducted.] (3) Upon the issuance of a discretionary development permit, including but not limited to subdivision permits and use permits, for use on or adjacent to lands zoned for agricultural operation. The discretionary development permit shall include a condition that the owners of the property shall be required to sign a statement of acknowledgment containing the Disclosure set out in subpart (b)I on forms provided by the Planning Department, which form shall then be recorded with the County Recorded. (b) The disclosure required by Section 4 (a) (2) is set forth herein, and shall be made a copy of, the following disclosure form: Real Estate Transfer Disclosure Statement This disclosure statement concerns the real property situated in the County of , state of California, described as . This statement is a disclosure of the condition of the above described property in compliance with ordinance no. of the county code as of , 1990. It is not a warranty of any kind by the seller(s) or any agent(s) representing any principals) in this transaction, and is not a substitute for any inspections or warranties the principal(s) may wish to obtain. I. 1 9 Sellers Information 0 9" http://www.farm]andinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.htmi 9/29/200 l Farmland Information Center - TA - Right -to -Farm (CA Farm Bureau Model) Page 3 of 5 The seller discloses the following information with the knowledge that even though this is not a warranty, prospective buyers may rely on this information in deciding whether and on what terms to purchase the subject property. Seller hereby authorizes any agent(s) representing any principal(s) in this transaction to provide a copy of this statement to any person or entity in connection with any actual or anticipated sale of the property. The following are representations made by the seller(s) as required by the County of and are not the representation of the agent(s). If any, this information is a disclosure and is not intended to be part of any contract between the buyer and seller. 1. The County of permits operation of properly conducted agricultural operations within the County. If the property you are purchasing is located near agricultural lands or operations or included within an area zoned for agricultural purposes, you may be subject to inconveniences or discomfort arising from such operations. Such discomfort or inconveniences may include, but are not limited to: noise, odors, fumes, dust, smoke, insects, operation of machinery (including aircraft) during any 24 hour period, storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides and pesticides. One or more of the inconveniences described may occur as a result of any agricultural operation which is in conformance with existing laws and regulations and accepted customs and standards. If you live near an agricultural area, you should be prepared to accept such inconveniences or discomfort as a normal and necessary aspect of living in a county with a strong rural character and an active agricultural sector. County has established a grievance committee to assist in the resolution of any disputes which might arise between residents of this County regarding agricultural operations 2. (additional county requirements) Seller certifies that the information herein is true and correct to the best of seller's knowledge as of the date signed by the seller. Seller Date Seller Date Buyer(s) and seller(s) may wish to obtain professional advice and/or inspections of the property and to provide for appropriate provisions in a contract between buyer and seller(s) with respect to any advice/inspections/defects. I/We acknowledge receipt of a copy of this statement. Seller Seller Date Date Buyer Buyer Agent (Broker representing seller By (Associate Licensee or Broker -Signature) Agent (Broker obtaining the offer By (Associate Licensee or Broker -Signature) State of On this the day of Date Date Date Date 098 http://www.farmiandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.html 9/29/2001 Farmland Information Center - TA - Right -to -Farm (CA Farm Bureau Model) Page 4 of 5 SS, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared County of ) personally known to me. satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose names) sub- scribed to the within instrument acknowledge that executed the same for the purposes therein contained. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal. Notary Public provided to me on the basis of Present A. P. No. A Real Estate Broker is qualified to advise on real estate. If you desire legal advice, consult your attorney. Section 5. Refusal to Sign Disclosure Statement If a Buyer refuse to sign the disclosure statement set forth in Section 4(b) the transferor may comply with the requirements of this chapter by delivering the statement to the Buyer as provided in Section 4 (b) and affixing the signing the following declaration to the statement: I, (Name) , have delivered a copy of the foregoing disclosure statement as required by law to (Buyers name_ who has refused to sign. I declare the forgoing to be true under penalty of perjury. Date: Print Name: (Sign) Section 6. Penalty for Violation Noncompliance with any provision of this chapter shall not affect title to real property, nor prevent the recording of any document. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100.00). Section 7. Separability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court or competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance. Section S. Precedence This ordinance shall take precedence overall ordinances or parts of ordinances or resolutions or parts of resolution in conflict herewith and to the extent they do conflict with this ordinance they are hereby repealed with respect to the conflict and no more. Section 9. Resolution of Disputes (a) Should any controversy arise regarding any inconveniences or discomforts occasioned by `W v 099 http://www.farmiandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.htmi 9/29/2001 5 r armlano information Center - TA - Right -to -Farm (CA Farm Bureau Model) Page 5 of 5 agricultural operations, including, but not limited to, noises, odors, fumes, dust, the operation of machinery of any kind during any 24 how period (including aircraft), the storage and disposal of manure, and the application by spraying or otherwise of chemical fertilizers, soil amendments, herbicides and pesticides, the parties may submit the controversy to a grievance committee as set forth below in an attempt to resolve the matter prior to the filing of any court action. (b) Any controversy between the parties may be submitted to a grievance committee whose decision shall be advisory only, within thirty (30) days of the date of the occurrence of the particular activity giving rise to the controversy or of the date a party became aware of the occurrence. (c) The committee shall be composed of three (3) members selected from the community including representatives from (examples: County Agriculture Commissioner, President of local real estate association, other county officials). (d) The effectiveness of the grievance committee as a forum for resolution of disputes is dependent upon full discussion and complete presentation of all pertinent facts concerning the dispute in order to eliminate any misunderstandings. The parties are encouraged to cooperate in the exchange of pertinent information concerning the controversy. (e) The controversy shall be presented to the committee by written request of one of the parties within the time limits specified. Thereafter, the committee may investigate the facts of the controversy, but must, within thirty (30) days, hold a meeting to consider the merit of the matter and within twenty (20) days of the meeting must render a written decision to the parties. At the time of the meeting both parties shall have an opportunity to present what each considers to be pertinent facts. 100 http://www.fannlandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.htmi 9/29/2001 FROM : BEVIRLY-HILLS-MEDIC AL -PLAZA FAX NO. 31065786622 Oct. 05 2001 05 : 03FM F Honorable Mayer John Penya %,1embcr of City Council 5 2001 City of La Quinta OCT 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 _------ -- - --- - - �= �� RE: La Quinta General Plan Update n, _ Honorable Mayor John Penya and Members of City Council: 1 am sending the following comments reflecting the concerns of the Vista Santa Rosa City Council. We believe that the following concerns needs to be addressed in a different manner proposed by the general plan. 1. The stated land preservation and programs for open spaces have not been adequately addressed. Golf courses do not qualify as open spaces due to the fertilizer and pesticides used on them. We need real areas of open space defined in the general plan. We believe that the proposed plan to partially aruiex Vista Santa Rosa up to Jackson Street is destructive to our community and against the LRFCO concerns about piece -meal annexation. str The trails proposed for equestrian use iVista 2. s inadequate. The large street that you proposed through Santa Rosa is dangerous and inappropriate. 'There needs to be more equestrian trails provided for equestrian people. The horse trails down Madison is not a trail. The broad streets proposed for Vista Santa Rosa are dangerous for cbildren, horses, bicyclists, hikers and would destroy our scenic and agricultural resources. The agrarian image corridors should be incorporated into more of the streets and some streets should remain more rural. ?. This general plan regarding the equestrian zoning for overlay henceforth is unacceptable. This does not retie -any appropriate agricultural and equestrian zoning and is inappropriate at this time. d ; 4- There are not adequate buffer zones planted around all of our equestrian and agricultural properties. 'Fliese have to be fully planned -out in accordance aith the equestrian and agricultural interests in the area, so that they are acceptable. 5. This plan was not developed adequately with the people in the Vista Santa Rosa area. The entire process needs to go back and be redone as this proposed general plan was not done by a census of the people in the Vista Santa Rosa Community. There should be notices fora series of workshops for each resident and landowner. M rroll Chair Woman of Vista Santa Rosa City Council 101 10-05-01 15:s8 RECEIVED FROM:3106578662 P.02 Q11, .Diamanttna LLCfll�. CITY- OF LAQUiNTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT 74-090 E1 Paseo, Suite 202 Tele: (760) 342 - 9227 Palm Desert, California Fax: (760) 342 - 5939 92260 U.S.A. E-mail: IntertaxnGTE.net October 5, 2001 � P QU/N /-' RfCev, OM -8 avl Mr. Fred Baker Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Comments Concerning Draft Comprehensive General Plan; Equestrian Lot at 84-401 Avenue 61 @ Van Buren Avenue Dear Mr. Baker: This company is the owner of the above -captioned lot, which is used for residential and equestrian purposes. We are particularly interested in proposals under consideration by the City of La Quinta for revising its General Plan, which may ultimately impact the uses and enjoyment of this lot and the surrounding community. Please consider the following requests for changes in the Draft Comprehensive General Plan, which we believe to be important to preserving the equestrian lifestyle in the community of Vista Santa Rosa: Land Use Element 1. We strongly support the broadest possible permitted equestrian uses in the so-called "Southern Planning Area". 2. Please incorporate into the underlying zoning for those areas of the "Southern Planning Area" proposed to be designated MDR" as permitted uses the equestrian uses now proposed to be permitted in that area only pursuant to an "agricultural and equestrian" overlay. This facsimile transmission, including any documents accompanying it, contains legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the addressee identified above. If you are not that addressee, any use, copying, distribution or disclosure of the contents hereof is strictly prohibited. 1 If you have received this transmission by mistake, kindly notify us immediately so that we make arrangements for its return or destruction. i0� 3. If the concept of an "overlay" for equestrian uses is retained, please make clear in the description of the overlay on page 11, the resolution adopting it and in the sections of the zoning code expressing it that the overlay (and the uses its permits) may not later be abandoned or contracted by the City Council at all, or at least not without a series of public hearings. 4. Please expand the scope of permitted equestrian uses in the underlying zoning or the overlay district to treat as a permitted use (rather than a conditional use certain non private stabling or pasturing of horses not exceeding a fixed number of horses per acre. The present proposal to require a conditional use permit for all non - private stabling and pasturing of horses (no matter how small or lacking in intensity of land use) is too restrictive. Any nominal revenue resulting from such permits will be more than offset by the costs and disruption to the City of having to process and renew them all. 5. Please include a stronger statement in the description of the MDR" land use designation on page 10 supporting equestrian uses on lots so zoned, such as that included in the description of the proposed VLDR designation (i.e., that "equestrian uses are encouraged'; rather than that they '!mgy be appropriate' j. 6. Before finalizing the General Plan, please conduct workshops in the "Southern Planning Area"; so that you may become more familiar with the equestrian needs of the landowners in that area. 7. Please amend Policy 9 on page 18 to refer specifically to equestrian as well as agricultural land uses. S. Please amend Policy 7 on page 19 to refer specifically to an equestrian as well as agricultural overlay (assuming that the overlay concept is not dropped in favor of including such permitted uses in the underlying zoning, as previously requested). 9. Please provide for the adoption of a policy requiring a buffer of greater than 100 feet for residential or commercial developments that abut a property being used for agricultural or equestrian uses. We believe that the current 100 foot proposal is not enough to avoid unwanted conflict. Such a policy could make up for the embarrasing lack of parks presently provided for Southern Planning Area and further the City's articulated goal of preserving open space. 1 -' j ti l03 _2_ Traffic and Circulation Element 1. Please provide for at least as elaborate a plan for equestrian trails as you have provided for golf cart routes. 2. Please amend the discussion on page 30 to refer specifically to the plans for "agrarian image corridors" and "multi purpose trails" (e.g., following the discussion of the golf cart route system and pedestrian issues). 3. Please expand the proposed location of "agrarian image corridors" to include all streets and avenues in the Southern Planning area, or at least significantly more such streets and avenues (see Program 13.3 at page 40) and link all such corridors in an effective manner. 4. Please add specific provision for providing access to "agrarian image corridors" and "multi purpose trails". S. Consider locating "agrarian image corridors" and "multi purpose trails" on odd numbered avenues (such as Avenue 61) which do not have such a high amount of automobile traffic and would support lower speed limits. 6. Please soften the footing of the "multi purpose" trails to accommodate equestrian uses. At your suggestion, I had a close look at the trail on Madison Avenue and found the footing much too hard for equestrian use. 7. Please make specific provision for the preservation of all existing equestrian trails. Natural Resources Element 1. Please provide for a recharge station for the underground aquifir located in the Southern planning area to replace the extra demands placed on the community's water supply by the ambitious development plans contemplated by the City's General Plan. Thank you for your consideration of these proposals. We took forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Brent Lance, Manager 104 -3- 3.12 SUN COUNTRY RANCH Norman and Gayle Cady 82-831 Avenue 54 - Vista Santa Rosa Thermal, California 92274 October 5, 2001 La Quinta Community Development Department Attn: Fred Baker, Principal Planner 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta Ca 92253 Re: City of La Quinta Draft Comprehensive General Plan Dated July 2001 Dear Mr. Baker, L:� I OCT CITY OF LAQUINTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT My husband and I have spent considerable time reviewing and assessing the above referenced documentation. As individuals, registered voters, proud residents of Vista Santa Rosa, community involved citizens, parents, grandparents, equestrians, date farmers, ten acre ranch owners with eight horses, four head of cattle, three dogs, thirty chickens, and sixty or so quail, we have major concerns regarding certain text. Our first item of concern is La Quinta's "multi -purpose non -motorized equestrian trail system" and "Agrarian Corridors". DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN: Reflects Madison. Monroe, and Jackson Streets North to South per Map Exhibit #3.10 Multi -purpose Trails. Avenue 51 to Avenue 58 along Madison Street. Avenue 52 to Avenue 66 along Monroe Street. Avenue 50 to Avenue 66 along Jackson Street. Reflects Avenue 58 (only) West to East per Map Exhibit #3.10 Multi -purpose Trails. (Lake Cahuilla to Harrison Street - Then a "blank" area to Polk Street- Ending at I-10 Fwy) Mr. Baker, why is there only one west to east non -motorized multi -purpose trail drawn? Why are there no other connector trails hooking up with the three north to south routes? Wouldn't it be more prudent and advantageous to have trails connect and intermingle with each other? 13 105 Mr. Baker, has the Country Club of the Desert been advised of La Quinta's Draft Comprehensive General Plan to have "Agrarian Corridors" and "multi -purpose non -motorized trails" along their properties, including Avenue 52 south to Avenue 54 along Madison Street, and Avenue 52 south to Avenue 54 along Monroe Street? Are any of these "multi -purpose non -motorized trails" or "Agrarian Corridors" included in their general plan? Are there trails even indicated anywhere in their tract map? Are the Monroe Street trails to be built on the west or east side of the Street? How will these trails be funded? By whom? When? It is difficult to ascertain whether the Avenue 54 Agrarian Image Corridor (from Jefferson Street east to Monroe Street) is to be located on the north or south side of the street. Should this Corridor be scheduled for the south side, have the current property owners, KSL/PGA West, and Mery Griffin, been notified? Is there an existing `setback' easement from street center there? Who actually owns the tamarisk trees along the north side of Mery Griffin's property? Sadly, on October 1", 2001, answers to `some'of my questions were given by Jerry Herman. I had met with him to clarify zoning issues and discuss trails. On only my first inquiry, Jerry told me that, even though an Agrarian Corridor is shown along Avenue 54 from Madison Street to Monroe Street, "the only way it can actually be built is if someone develops the south side, because La Quinta can not require Country Club of the Desert to construct trails or build the corridor." It seems their complete tract map was approved in its entirety, prior to issuance of La Quinta's General Plan. Additionally, on the south side, unless Mery Griffin decides he wants to further develop his property, La Quints cannot force him to put in trails or corridors either. Unfortunately, it appears there is little hope for trails and corridors along this route. Mr. Baker, I ask you, how can this be????? The La Quinta City Council manifests to be all powerful for the betterment of the City, able to amend or change any and all things, dedicated to preserving open space, committed to not changing the rural, agricultural and equestrian lifestyle of the proposed annexation residents of Vista Santa Rosa, and devoted to enhancing Community involvement with an open mind. The Council can reverse decisions, create policy, etc., but they can't require a developer to construct a trail or corridor system???? Amazing! RESIDENTIAL GOALS. POLICIES and PROGRAMS (Page 18 DCGP) Goal 2 - Policy I - The City shall encourage the preservation of neighborhood character and assure a consistent, and compatible land use pattern.. Program 1.1 - The City shall periodically review use designation to assure that changes in the community and marketplace are met. Program 1.2 - Apply the City's discretionary rowers and site development review process consistently to assure that subdivision and development plans are compatible with existing residential areas. Goal 2 - Policy 5- Program 5.1 - The Development Code shall include development standards an design guidelines for EACH residential designation.. Program 7.1 - The Development Code shall be amended to include permitted and conditionally permitted land uses and development standards in the Agricultural Overlay zone. OTHER LAND USE GOALS. POLICIES and PROGRAMS (Page 20 DCGP) Goal 2 - The preservation of open space and recreational resources as a means of preserving and enhancing the quality of life and economic base of the City. Policy 3 - The City shall participate in efforts to preserve and protect sensitive resources throughout the City planning area. Program 3.2 - The City shall amend the Land Use Map as necessary to ensure the preservation of sensitive resources through the designation of land as open space. Program 4.2 - The City shall incorporate park planning into annexation studies and annexation community outreach efforts. TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION GOAL. POLICIES and PROGRAMS (Page 39 DCGP) Policy 7 - Develop and encouracre the use of continuous and convenient bicycle routes and multi -purpose trails to places of employment, recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas with potential for increased bicycle, equestrian, golf cart, and other non vehicular use. Program 7.1 - Prepare and adopt a master plan of bicycle -ways, and multi -purpose trails and develop or require the development of secure bicycle and golf cart storage facilities, and other support facilities which increase bicycle and golf cart use. "Require golf cart and bicycle storage facilities development"? "Require other support facilities which increase bicycle and golf cart use???? I am so confused. What about the horses and their riders? Don't they deserve "support facilities" to increase their participation? Yesiree, it truly sounds as if La Quinta is in full support of their rural, agricultural, and equestrian neighbors. Policy 13 - Program 13.3 - Agrarian Image Corridors SHALL INCLUDE: Madison, Jackson, Harrison, and Avenues 54, 58, 62, and 66. 13J 107 Agrarian Image Corridor - Map Exhibit #3.6 in Draft Comprehensive General Plan Map Exhibit #2.5 in Draft Master Environmental Assessment From Jefferson Street along Avenue 54 to Van Buren (West to East). From Madison Street along Avenue 58 to Filmore (West to East). From Madison Street along Avenue 62 to Hwy 111 (West to East). From Madison Street along Avenue 66 to Hwy I I I (West to East). From Avenue 50 along Madison Street to Avenue 66 (North to South). From Avenue 52 along Jackson Street to Avenue 66 (North to South). From Avenue 56 (Airport Road) along Harrison Street to Avenue 66 (North to South) Mr. Baker, there are at least eight trails reflected in the "Agrarian Image Corridor" - Map Exhibit #2.5 and #3.6 that have loose ends. They just stop. No connector trail listed. Trail design is inconsistent, disjointed, and UNCONNECTED. Remarkably similar to the La Quinta sidewalk system. Page 30: "Pedestrian and other non -motorized circulation is encouraged in the City wherever possible. The provision for sidewalks, bike lanes, and multi -purpose trails is especially important along major roadways in the community. While "sidewalks" have been constructed in various parts of the City, their design and construction has been inconsistent, disjointed, and UNCONNECTED. In future development, pedestrian safety and accommodation should be given emphasis equal to that currently given to automobile access". Mr. Baker: It should be noted here: Riding a horse or a bicycle along major roadways is always dangerous and never safe. Multi -purpose non -motorized trails should be located along less traveled roads for the benefit and safety of the rider, our children and our animals. Page 39: "Policy 7 - Develop and encourage the use of continuous and convenient bicycle routes and multi- purpose trails to places of employment, recreation, shopping, schools, and other high activity areas with potential for increased bicycle, equestrian, golf cart and other non -vehicular use." Mr. Baker, this being said, where in text or on any map or page are these "potential" equestrian, and multi -purpose non -motorized trailways clearly illustrated? Mr. Baker, once again there are at least eight trails reflected with loose ends. They just stop. No connector listed. Trail design is inconsistent, disjointed, and UNCONNECTED. Quite similar to the sidewalk system in La Quinta. Open Space Element Goal, Policies, and Programs (Draft Comprehensive General Plan -Page 43) Policy 6: " Develop a comprehensive multi -purpose trail network to link open space." In summation, please review and reflect on the following "multi -purpose non -motorized trail system" and "Agrarian Image Corridors" comparison: LO Comprehensive GP Dft LO Master Environmental Assessment Ryan Snyder, Consultant Multi -Purpose Trails July 2001 July 2001 - Page 32 working w/CVAG on Regional Map Exhibit #3.10 Agrarian Image Corridors Trails for Riverside County Avenue 58 (East to West from Avenues 54, 58, 62, and 66 Avenues 50, 56, 58, 60, and 66 Lake Cahuilla to Harrison St.) (East to West) (East to West) Madison, Monroe and Madison, Jackson, and North to South Streets Jackson Street Harrison Street were not discussed. (North to South) (North to South) Mr. Baker, the above comparison clearly illustrates major inconsistencies within La Quinta's proposed "multi -purpose non -motorized trail system", the "Agrarian Image Corridors" presentation, and the Riverside County Regional Trails Plan. Further, placement of multi -purpose non -motorized trails along heavily traveled streets demonstrates insufficient research and knowledge regarding the unpredictability of people riding, whether it be on a bicycle or a horse. As an example, riding a bike or a horse along Monroe Street with eighteen -wheelers, motor homes, buses, cars and trucks whizzing by at sixty plus miles an hour does not even begin to constitute a leisurely relaxing ride in the country. It most assuredly sounds more frightening and dangerous than fun and enjoyable. Think about it. Would you honestly want your child out there riding under such conditions? I have personally provided the City of La Quinta with photographs and pamphlets depicting successful rural and agricultural communities within Southern California. Included are newer beautiful pricey homes with their owners harmoniously living amongst country clubs, golfers, hikers, joggers, bicyclists, tennis folk, and equestrians. Beautiful meandering trails and golf courses can be seen throughout the area. None of this is even addressed in the Comprehensive General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Surely there are less traveled roads, or perhaps existing roads that can be adjusted to accommodate less traffic, or at least slow traffic down. One street comes to mind, Oasis Street, which runs (unpaved) from Avenue 53 south. There may be additional avenues as well. Perhaps collectively we could further explore such possibilities. I would also like to see the Coachella Valley Water District open their canal roads for public trail use. I have written to Corky Larson, and have asked for her support as a very well known and respected community leader and CVWD board member.. Corky agrees canal roads would provide a wonderful trail system, and has forwarded her endorsement of my suggestion to Tom Levy for review. 109 I have tried to contact several officers within KSL regarding the re -opening of the trail west of PGA and west of the canal from Avenue 54 to Lake Cahuilla. Except for a few places, there is ample room to hike or ride there along the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. I am in touch with Rachelle at the Bureau of Land Management. We plan to walk the "trail" and do a feasibility study on creating a route to bypass PGA's 17" green which is physically located in the side of the mountain (cutting off the existing trail). BLM has assured me there are folks who actually build trails where to us it would impossible. Sadly, "equestrian" and other "riding" provision, welfare, safety and accommodation are rarely discussed in La Quinta's Comprehensive General Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Report, Master Environmental Assessment Draft or Comprehensive General Plan Draft. Indeed, it is painfully apparent minimal thought and scant appreciation have realistically been given in welcoming an equestrian neighbor who, on the average generates over $200 million annually in to the East Valley's economy. ************* Mr. Baker, we have major concerns relating to La Quinta's proposed zoning ordinances, rules and illusory "agricultural overlay". Re: Riverside County Right to Farm Ordinance - Ordinance #625 (Pursuant to Civil Code 1102.6) "It is the policy of the State of California and the County of Riverside that no agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenances thereof, conducted or maintained for commercial purposes, and in a lawful manner consistent with proper and accepted customs and standards, as established by similar agricultural operations in the same locality, shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, due to any changed condition in or about the locality, after it has been in operation for more than three years if it was not a nuisance at the time it began. The phrase `agricultural activity, operation, or facility, or appurtenance thereof includes, but is not limited to the cultivation and tillage of soil, production, cultivation, growing, and harvesting of any agricultural commodity, including timber, viticulture, apiculture, horticulture, the raising of livestock, fur bearing animals, fish or poul, and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparation for market, delivery to storage or to market, or to carriers for transportation to market." "AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS which typically occur during the day, but which may occur at night include the use of heavy machinery which may GENERATE NOISE and dust. Applications of agricultural chemicals that are applied within state and local permit requirements may have noticeable odors associated with their application. Organic fertilizers may be employed that generate their own objectionable odors. When and if frost and/or freezing conditions occur, helicopters may be employed at low altitudes to stir up the air and prevent freezing. Workers traveling to and from agricultural property to engage in work may generate additional traffic and noise on public streets in the vicinity." Existing agricultural land uses in the La Quinta General Plan area are currently under the jurisdiction of Riverside County. The Riverside County General Plan designates them for "Agricultural (AG)" development, a designation which permits agricultural cultivation, associated uses (including limited commercial, industrial, and single-family residential development at a MAXIMUM DENSITY of ONE DWELLING UNIT per TEN ACRES. 3 E Ito Mr. Baker, why is La Quinta is adamantly proposing low density zoning - four houses per acre (versus our current one house per 10 acres zoning designation with Riverside County.)? " Page 6-Proposed Land Use Designations -Table 1.1: Very Low Density Residential, VLDR (Up to 2 dwelling units per acre). This designation provides a transition between agricultural lands and residential uses. It encourages large lot subdivisions and equestrian use." As a compromise suggestion from our County one -dwelling -on -ten -acres zoning ordinance to La Quinta's proposal of significantly more homes on considerably less acreage, we much prefer inclusion of a one residential dwelling_ maximum per five acre parcel agricultural/equestrian zoning ordinance. Our second choice would be, without compromise, a maximum of one residential dwelling per two -and -one-half acre parcel agricultural/equestrian zoning ordinance. The "Agricultural Overlay" provides for the continuation of existing agricultural activity at the discretion of the land owner (Page III-24 EIR). Agricultural uses within this overlay area shall be permitted to continue as the, occur ccur at the time the Recommended General Plan is adopted (Page III-28 EIR). Buildout of the proposed General Plan will result in the construction of approximately 68,811 new residences (Page 79-Draft Comprehensive General Plan). Letter dated 10-04-2000 from County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency, Planning Department - Aleta J. Laurence. AICP: "After reviewing the proposed General Plan Update the County offers the following comments: (1) The most significant change in the recommended alternative land use plan are changes to the agricultural land use designation which was eliminated (Page 12). Lands under the County's jurisdiction outside of the planning area are primarily agricultural and open space in nature. We would recommend consultation with the County on these proposed land use designations and that proposed land use designations in the City's general plan update be compatible with adjacent County land use designations and agricultural preserves. (2) The City of La Quinta and the Coachella Valley are located within one of the most biologically unique and diverse regions in the country. Buildout of the incorporated City, its sphere of influence, and other planning area lands outside of the sphere of influence, pursuant to the Recommended Land Use Plan, has thepotential to cause significant environmental impacts. We recommend that the zoning designation in the proposed City's General Plan be consistent with the Coachella Valley Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). (3)..... Many residents and landowners from this area attended a community meeting October 4.2000 and expressed strong desire to keep their area rural and equestrian friendly, both to protect their rural lifestyles as well as to support the large equestrian oriented tourism industry in the area.. THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN SHOULD ADDRESS THIS NEIGHBORING RURAL EQUESTRIAN LIFESTYLE, EQUESTRIAN TRAIL LINKAGES BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY, AND EFFECTIVE METHODS OF BUFFERING THE RURAL USES FROM ADJACENT, MORE URBAN USES IN THE CITY." 11A3;' Mr. Baker, Mayor John Pena repeatedly states he and the City of La Quinta have "no plans to, no desire to, and no intention of changing anyone's lifestyle in the Community of Vista Santa Rosa" through annexation. Can this be true? Page III-28, Section 3-G-EIR : ALL AGRICULTURAL and urban ACTIVITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE NOISE STANDARDS described in Section 9.100.210 of the City Municipal Code and other mitigation measures set forth in Section 111-J (Noise) of this EIR. Page III-144, 1-Existing Conditions: Evaluation of noise levels within a community is important to protecting the health and welfare of the general public, and can help define the need for remedial measures for existing noise problems and those associated with future development. Page III-144, 1-Noise Rating System: A number of noise rating scales are used in California to evaluate land use compatibility. The equivalent sound, or Leq scale, represents average constant noise level over a given period time, and is the basis for the Ldn and CNEL scales. Ldn value represents a summation of hourly Leq's over a period of 24 hours, and includes a weighting factor or penalty for noise occurring in the nighttime period of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) represents a 24-hour average noise level which includes a 5dBA penalty for noise occurring during evening time period (from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and a 10dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime period (from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) Appendix E-EIR Noise Element Update Technical Report -PF 3: NOISE, as it has been simply defined is "UNWANTED SOUND." It is an undesirable by-product of transportation systems and industrial activities within a community that permeate man's environment and cause disturbance. The full effect of such noise on individuals and the community will vary with its duration, its intensity, AND THE TOLERANCE LEVEL OF THE EXPOSED INDIVIDUALS. Mr. Baker, it is quite apparent La Quinta is making diminutive effort to accommodate and encourage the current rural, agricultural, and equestrian lifestyle and daily routine of Vista Santa Rosa residents. Expecting this community to arbitrarily accept your token inadequacy offering of a "Low Density/Agricultural-Equestrian Residential District" zone specifying minimum ten thousand square feet lots, with maximum of four houses per acre, versus qualified perpetuity agricultural and equestrian zoning ordinances is absurd. Demanding all undeveloped open space property immediately conform to "four houses per acre" zoning designation upon annexation is ludicrous. Suggest insertion of a Land Use/Zoning Designation of RURAL LIVING to define small (5 to 10 acres) family residential farms and ranches. This would more clearly identify the current residential atmosphere of Vista Santa Rosa. It certainly compliments similar agricultural/rural and equestrian zoning ordinances within the County. Including an in perpetuity RURAL LIVING zoning district within La Quinta's General Plan may enhance the likelihood of La Quinta receiving a more favorable response to proposed annexation. Clearly, without additional cooperative zoning ordinance stipulation, a negative vote for annexation would be appropriate. 1 3 -j ************ Mr. Baker, it is totally incomprehensible to us as to how, in all good conscience, the Coachella Valley Water District Management and the City of La Quinta elected officials can mutually agree on and approve new construction proposals of over sixty thousand homes within the Vista Santa Rosa Community while exhibiting flagrant disregard for the subsistence and preservation of our precious water supply. Re: DMEA- Pg 103 6.3.6 Seismically Induced Geologic Hazards -Liquefaction: "MUCH OF THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PLANNING AREA CONTAINS GROUND WATER WITHIN 30 FEET OF THE GROUND SURFACE AND IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION. LIQUEFACTION IS LARGELY LIMITED TO LANDS CONTAINING SHALLOW GROUND WATER (WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE GROUND SURFACE) AND SANDY, SILTY SOILS. HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH LIQUEFACTION CAN BE MINIMIZED BY RESTRICTING OR PROHIBITING _s CONSTRUCTION WITHIN SUSCEPTIBLE AREAS." Re: CVWD Letter 10-06-2000 from Tom Levy.GM/Chief Engineer to LO ..... "THE GROUNDWATER AQUIFER IS IN A STATE OF OVERDRAFT." ......"LAND SUBSIDENCE DUE TO THE OVERDRAFT OF THE GROUNDWATER BASIN MAY AFFECT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF FOUNDATIONS AND STRUCTURES." Re: DESERT SUN NEWSPAPER 5-13-2001 "SPECIAL REPORT: SHRINKING WATER RESERVES - WATER CONSUMPTION OUTPACES ABILITY TO REPLENISH SOURCE" Tom Levy, CVWD General Manager and California Water Contractors Association President, sighs ruefully when asked about long-range planning: "We water guys can never confront the hard issues. We find a temporary fix and hope we're retired before we have to answer for it. Then if the kids are attorneys, they can make a living sorting it out." Mort Rosenblum, AP Special Correspondent, "The desert around here (Palm Springs area) is so dry that imported Arizona cactus needs watering. A quarter million residents use an average of 375 gallons of water a day at home, twice the national average. To water specialists, the over tapped Colorado River basin is symbolic of a calamity facing much of the world. Fresh water reserves are disappearing fast. The planet has no more fresh water than it did millennia ago, but with today's rocketing growth in and zones, conflicting needs of farms, cities, industry, recreation and wetlands promise bitter water wars. Water managers across America say the public and political leaders who can effect change seem to ignore the danger. `Planners always say that we can worry about water supplies in the future,' said Tom Turney, New Mexico state engineer. Dennis Underwood, former head of U.S. Bureau of Land Reclamation, and now assistant director of the Met in Los Angeles, lamented, `When it comes to planning, we're still 1 3 J looking at the end of our noses.' its rX Linda Vida, Water Resources Center at University of California -Berkeley, `Nobody is looking out. The stakeholders want what they want. No political leader is willing to go out on a limb and make some people very unhappy. No one wants to deal with lying growth to resources. They just squeeze out more. As a result, a drought that otherwise might be managed with water reserves could hit California far harder than the energy crisis'." Re: CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD- Letter 10-05-2000 1)" The proposed project has a potential for runoff and flooding which would create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage system controls. 2) The proposed project may substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there will be a NET DEFICIT IN AQUIFER VOLUME -or- LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER TABLE. 3) The proposed project may substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which will result in a substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite. 4) The proposed project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in such a manner which would result in flooding on or offsite." Re: COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT LETTER - May 16, 2001 "The proposed annexation area totals 5,419.9 acres bounded on the north by Airport Boulevard, on the east by Jackson Street, on the south by Avenue 62, and on the west by the existing city limits. The sphere of influence amendment consists of 8 205.4 acres bounded on the north by Avenue 50, on the west by Jackson Street, on the south by Avenue 62, and on the east by Polk, Harrison, and Van Buren Streets. The annexation area and sphere of influence amendment areas are primarily vacant desert lands and large residential development. The city's proposed zoning designations for these areas consist of mostly low density residential with a small amount of medium to high density and mixed commercial zoning. `THE COACHELLA VALLEY GROUNDWATER BASIN IS IN A STATE OF OVERDRAFT' Future development within the General Plan area, including the annexation and amended sphere of influence, WILL CONTRIBUTE IMMENSELY TO THE VALLEY WIDE OVERDRAFT. Groundwater recharge goals stated in the Coachella Valley Water District Urban Water Management Plan include continuing the current level of groundwater recharge in the upper valley and implementing a lower valley recharge program." Mr. Baker, to date no comprehensive or definitive lower eastern valley water replenishment program has been officially implemented by the Coachella Valley Water District. In reality it would take several years to achieve and successfully execute such a plan. 114 Mr. Baker, IN THE MEANTIME, WHILE THE BUREAUCRATS ARE FALLACIOUSLY STAGGERING OVER WHAT TO DO, OH MY, WHAT TO DO, OUR EAST VALLEY UPPER THERMAL SUB -AREA WATER TABLE RESOURCE BASIN IS CONTINUING TO EXPERIENCE AN EVER INCREASING OVERDRAFT CONDITION!!! Aanendix G-Seismic, Geologic and Flooding Hazards EIR-Pg 1-2,1-5. 1-28.1-29: "Liquefaction/Ground Failure: Portions of the La Quinta general plan are susceptible to liquefaction and landsliding or rockfall, both very destructive secondary effects of strong seismic shaking. Liquefaction occurs primarily in saturated, loose, fine to medium -grained soils in areas where the ground water table is 50 feet or less below the ground surface. Liquefaction does not occur at random, but is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily recently deposited sands and silts, in areas with high groundwater levels. Currently, shallow ground water, within 50 feet of the ground surface, is present ONLY in the eastern portion of the general plan area. Therefore, at present, this is the only area susceptible to liquefaction. Four general approaches apply to mitigation of liquefaction hazards: 1) AVOIDANCE 2) Prevention, 3) Engineered Design, 4) Post -earthquake Repairs. A prime way to limit the damage due to liquefaction is to AVOID AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LIQUEFACTION. Appendix G - Ground Subsidence Pg 2-8. 2-9. 2-10: Ground subidence is gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. This phenomenon is usually associated with the EXTRACTION OF oil, gas or GROUNDWATER from below the ground surface with a resultant loss in volume. Ground fissures were observed in the City of La Quinta in 1948. Regional subsidence related to GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL is believed to have occurred in the Coachella Valley. The GROUNDWATER BASIN IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY IS CURRENTLY IN A STATE OF OVERDRAFT. GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN THE LA QUINTA AREA ARE DECLINING AT AN INCREASING RATE AS A RESULT OF VALLEY WIDE MINING FOR GROUNDWATER. GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN 1996 WERE IN MANY AREAS LOWER THAN THE HISTORICAL LOW GROUNDWATER LEVELS. These observed declines in water level have the potential to induce new or renewed land subsidence in the area affecting the City of La Quinta. The timing of subsidence measurements corresponds with water level declines. Land subsidence is probably occurring, and a significant part of the measured subsidence likely has occurred since 1991, about the time when water levels began declining below their previously recorded low levels. Land subsidence can result in the disruption of surface drainage, reduction of aquifer system storage, formation of earth fissures, and damage to wells, building, roads and utility infrastructure. Mitigation of subsidence requires a regional approach to groundwater conservation and recharge. Mitigation measures are expected to be difficult to implement........ CONSERVATION EFFORTS WILL BE MORE THAN OFFSET BY THE RAPID GROWTH , OF THE REGION AND THE HEAVY WATER REQUIREMENTS OF GOLF COURSES.* 14 .1 *( plus -or -minus 8 acre-feet per acre per year) 115 CURRENTLY, GROUNDWATER RECHARGE IN THE LA QUINTA AREA IS MINIMAL. Mr. Baker, I have endeavored to highlight some of Norman's and my major grievances regarding La Quinta's Draft Comprehensive General Plan dated July 2001. Although of issue, I have omitted discussing some items such as traffic, air quality, adequate infrastructure provisions, electrical power, schools, park and recreational facilities, law enforcement, fire protection, etc. It is my understanding addressing any questionable items at a public hearing is entirely appropriate, so we have elected to do so as the need arises. We are genuinely disappointed in La Quinta's seemingly inherent propensity to blatantly disregard specific necessities, wishes, desires and suggestions frequently voiced by her agricultural and equestrian neighbors. Sadly, provision for equestrian enjoyment, welfare, safety and accommodation are rarely mentioned in the text. Needs and concerns of the farmers were given negatory attention. It is quite apparent little thought or appreciation has been given to this esteemed group of people who project an incredibly awesome lifestyle and are making considerably valuable contributions to the people and the economy of this valley. We are dismayed at La Quinta's obvious reluctance to accept and accommodate several of Vista Santa Rosa's current residents by incorporating new zoning ordinances with considerably less density than four houses per acre to better service and enhance the existing agricultural, rural, and equestrian lifestyle. As I mentioned early on, it is totally incomprehensible to us as to how, in all good conscience, the Coachella Valley Water District Management and the City of La Quinta elected officials can mutually agree on and approve new construction proposals of over sixty thousand homes within the Vista Santa Rosa Community, while exhibiting flagrant disregard for the subsistence and preservation of our precious water supply. The availability of water necessary for life. The power of nature to destroy life through drought, flood, liquefaction, and subsidence. Meanwhile, the bureaucrats are scrambling over who thinks they can fix what first on the water issue, and the developers are selling their souls to make a buck regardless of consequences or who may get hurt. The thought process is very frightening. Respectfully Submitted, Norman F. Cady Ifiayle Cady i t Pa a 11 of Eleven October 5.2001 Date 14.1-0 116 760-564-0406 AuM CONSTRUCTION PAGE 0202 4.1 ECEIVE FEB 2 7 2002 0 February 27, 2002 Mr. Fred Baker Community Development Dept. CITY of LA QUINTA- F.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92153 RE. February 27, 2002 Meeting Suggested change to General Plan for Approx. 20 acres ,tAPN's : 773-245-002, 311-027; 190-003-002, 003 I respectfully request that the General Flan designation for the above -referenced parcels be changed from Park Space to R-I Zone. The requested change to the General plan is based on the following rationale: 1. This parcel was re -zoned after our purchase. ?. The area was created by Army Core of F-119ineers for storm grater which is no longer used. 3. The parcel is perfect for single family custom. horn.es, 4. The parcel is part of the La Quinta Cove, East of the Bike Paths_ Thank: you for your consideration of this request- :Please call me at (760) 564-4832 if r can be of help. Thank you. Sincepely, �M CONSTRUCTION 1 Rick Mom's 14 'It 118 P.O. BOX 366 / LA 9UWTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 /PHONE: (760) 564-4832 /FAX: (760) 554-0406 02_27-A2 12:12 RECEIVED FROM=760 564 0486 p.02 4.2 LA QUINTA COVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION February 26, 2002 To: Honorable Members of the Planning Commission The Cove Neighborhood Association is a newly formed and highly committed group of several hundred residents dedicated to preserving the quality of life in the Cove and throughout the City of La Quinta. At a meeting of the Open Space Committee on February 26, 2002, enthusiastic support was expressed for development of a conceptual "ridgeline policy" that would provide for the preservation of all remaining undeveloped areas around the Cove. We find the following: l . Residents of the La Quinta Cove have bought or built their homes here so they can be close to the natural environment of the desert for exploration, walking, cycling, and appreciating the natural habitat of the desert) f> fe-c-iFN ( 6-4-cj '-Na- 5 % qWpre- .0 5yumt- 2. Property values are enhanced due to the abundance of natural open space, providing magnificent views, recreational potential, and tranquility for residents. 3. Residents are faced with ever increasing attempts by developers to diminish the natural environment with planned developments. Easy access to open space has been considerably diminished on the east side of the Cove, and comparable attempts have been made by developers on the west side of the Cove. 4. These open space areas are used extensively by residents of La Quinta and visitors from the La Quints Resort and Club and throughout the valley, for diverse recreational and nature experiences, such as hiking, cycling, running, dog walking, stargazing, painting, and studying the native flora and fauna. 5. Over the years the La Quinta City Council has expressed its formal or informal commitment to assure the preservation of the natural environment of our City and taken some actions for implementation of this commitment. Consequently, we strongly encourage the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta take to the following actions to protect in what is left of the natural environment in the City: 1. Continue the existing zoning and general plan designations of "Open Space," "Park," and "Hillside Conservation" for all undeveloped lands surrounding the La Quinta Cove and other natural open space areas within the City. 2. Make every effort to insure that these open space areas are maintained in ppu<y and act as expeditiously as possible to protect the natural beauty and environment of our community. )--t-r-t5� \-4ao w -A'Vu` CCaV E&,r Ayw Czy;3SaY mjtl by i k-0 ► ra --4-, PU V- W<-4 -V S t 0.(- We appreciate the efforts of the La Quinta Planning Commission to improve our community. 14 119 4.3 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION Of GOVERNMENTS Main Office M West Seventh Street 12th Floor Los Angeles, California 9ooi7-3435 t (213) 236-i800 f (213) 236-1825 www.scag.ca.gov officers: President: Supervisor Jon Mikels, County of San Bernardino • First Vice President: Councilmember Hal Bernson, Los Angeles Second Vitt President: Mayor Pro Tern Bev Perry, Brea • Immediate Past President: Mayor Ron Bates, Los Alamitos Imperial County: Hank Kuiper, Imperial County Lot Angeles County: Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Los Angeles County • Zev Yaroslaysky, Los Angeles County • Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel • Bruce Barrows, Cerritos • George Bass, Bell • Hal Bernson, Los Angeles • Robert Bruesch, Rosemead • Gene Daniels, Paramount • Jo Anne Darcy, Santa Clarita • Ruth Galanter, Los Angeles • Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles • Ray Grabinski, Long Beach • James Hahn, Los Angeles • Janice Hahn, Los Angeles Dee Hardison,Torrance • Nate Holden, Los Angeles • Sandra Jacobs, Fl ,Segundo • Lawrence Kirkley, Inglewood • Bonnie Lowenthal, Long Beach Keith McCarthy, Downey • Cindy Miscikowski. Los Angeles • Stacey Murphy, Burbank • Pam O'Connor, Santa Monica • Nick Pacheco, Los Angeles • Alex Padilla, Los Angeles • Jan Perry, Los Angeles • Beatrice Proo, Pico Rivera • Mark Ridley - Thomas, Los Angeles • Ed Reyes, Los Angeles Karen Rosenthal, Claremont • Dick Stanford, Azusa • Tom Sykes, Walnut • Paul Talbot, Alhambra Sidney Tyler, Jr., Pasadena • Joel Wachs, Los Angeles • Dennis Washburn, Calabasas • Jack Weiss, Los Angeles • Dennis P. Zine, Los Angeles orange County: Charles Smith, Orange County Ron Bates, Los Alamitos • Ralph Bauer, Huntington Beach • Art Brown, Buena Park • Lou Bone. Tustin • Elizabeth Cowan, Costa Mesa • Cathryn DeYoung, Laguna Niguel • Richard Dixon, Lake Forest • Alta Duke, La Palma • Shirley McCracken, Anaheim Bev Perry, Brea • Tod Ridgeway, Newport Beach Riverside County: Bob Buster, Riverside County Ron Loveridge, Riverside • Greg Pettis, Cathedral City • Ron Roberts, Temecula • Jan Rudman, Corona • Charles White, Moreno Valley San Bernardino County: Jon Mikels, San Bernardino County • Bill Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga • David Eshleman, Fontana • Lee Ann Garcia, Grand Terrace • Bob Hunter, Victorville Gwenn Norton -Perry, Chino Hills • Judith Valles, San Bernardino Ventura County: Judy Mikels, Ventura County Glen Becerra, Simi Valley • Donna De Paola, San Buenaventura • Toni Young, Port Hueneme Riverside County Transportation Commission: Robin Lowe, Hemet Ventura County Transportation Commission: Bill Davis, Simi Valley February 27, 2002 Mr. Fred Baker Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: Comments on the Draft Quinta Comprehensive 20010402 Dear Mr. Baker. QuIN TA; c �Xf � UrV ! T Y `2 Environmental Impact for the City of La General Plan Update — SCAG No. I Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact for the City of La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan Update to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. SCAG staff has reviewed your response to our comments, which were outlined in our August 26, 2001 letter on the Draft EIR. SCAG's comments were considered and we appreciate your efforts. Therefore, we have no further comments. The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning the above referenced document and project. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1867. Thank you. Sincerely, { *nir M. , AICP n r Intergovernmental Review 14 t: 1^0 IQ Printed on Recvded Pacer 559-1 / 16/02 Feb-27-02 08:51A P.01 4.4 Sierra Club Gorgonia Cha " San Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group • Los Serranos Group -)qxt06$rnardino Mtns. Group • Mojave Group ss.. Planning Co?11111ISS101; City of La Quinta POB 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 BY FAX TRANSMISSION — ORIGINAL BY MAIL DEC E V E 0 FEB 2 7 2002 COMMUNED ftT MENT Re: EIR for the General Plan Update in general and Policy 7 in particular. Chairman and Members of the Commission: I am writing on behalf of the San Gorgonio Chapter of the Sierra Club. We have already �vritten the City (4/4/00) with regard to non -motorized trails and access, which we very much support as delineated to be compatible with survival and recovery of Peninsular bighorn. However, we do want to go on record as sharing the wildlife agencies concerns about proposed development in bighorn habitat, in particular as regards the plan for Travertine and Section 5 as currently proposed. With regard to Policy 7, continued participation in the assessment for development of perimeter trails in the La Quinta area, we support this policy as very important in order to ensure the continued availability of non -motorized trails amenities City residents and visitors in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, Joan Taylor, Low Desert Issues Chairman 1800 S. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 ... To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness . M0_,-)7-Q9 Aq:;1A RECEIVED FROM: 1411 121 •.ire+► ;�- rum P.01 04/23/1992 05:36 3106578662 PAGE 02 4.5 INS CAp T,L GRoup, LLC private Investments ana RW Estate 150 N. Robertson Blvd. Suite: 320 Beverly Hills, CA. 90211 Tel, (310) 657-6464 Fax (310) 6 57-8662 February 26, 21102 La Quinta Plarning Commission 78-495 Callc ' i'anipleo La Quinta. t A Re: Final f=.1 ii, in l.a Quinta Comprebensive General Plan, j%nnexatiofn No. 12 Dear Sirs: l' ot1 revic:u il•,L vOur responses to zny written coMznents on the Draft EIR, again it is apparent that I Ile i:ysues I raised have not been adequately addressed. li; irsi of ttl 1. t 110 (' i? y of La Quints has made it exceedingly difficult to fully understand sta a the erfc;et orth+, t., r,cral Plan on the proposed area to be mexed to the read of Quinta. The City :,f� 1 i t.4uirl�ta has not made the revised General �]� easily of time to review it. available: to ;111 interested parties or allowed for a reasons p 'rhis has hek:+1 done by calling for a Planning Commission hearing soon after the release orthe rev isc::., l; I at;d limiting access to the revised General Platt to the library. second l \1. of < rc-v i sed EIR still does not thoroughly address the impact of the proposed format whemby zoning = Zittd ,+t.-.ri-cultural overlay on the area. For La Quin.11 be b follow a andfinalized, akes the General 1ft:t 1 will be approved and then the zoning w-tll b a comprc:lls au ett,derstanding of the proposed new General Plan impossible. �• Very impottantly, the Revised Environmental lzrnpact Report does not adeqwitelon the consider art tt1+tigate the significant impact of the proposed 66,000 n hom wittcr tLjlilc- .:ir palludon, and the 1,250,000 new car trips per day on the traffic in La Qiiinta and ,i c new armexationa area. Nor does the Revised EIR adequately consider the econotn i c i :,, tact of reducing the agricultural and equestrian industries in the region and on the nei g1l1'fex-1118 Cities. There fore. i lie '—I ised EIR is still inadequate and biased as I first stated and should be thet u'hi., .��+cl honestly re -done. S,in,crl y . 'rracjy i�ttt�r+tll Resident o t' -V 1sta Santa Rosa 14:' 1t$n ARTICLE XIV A-2 ZONE (HEAVY AGRICULTURE) SECTION 14.1. USES PERMITTED. a. (1) One -family dwellings. (2) Water works facilities, both public and private, intended primarily for the production and distribution of water for irrigation purposes. (3) Nurseries, greenhouses, orchards, aviaries, apiaries, field crops, tree crops, berry and bush crops, vegetable, flower and herb gardening on a commercial scale; the drying, packing, canning, freezing and other accepted methods of processing the produce resulting from such permitted uses, when such processing is primarily in conjunction with a farming operation and finther provided that the permanent buildings and structures used in conjunction with such drying, packing and processing operations are not nearer than 20 feet from the boundaries of the premises. (4) The grazing of cattle, horses, sheep, goats or other farm stock or animals, not including hogs, including the supplementary feeding thereof, not to exceed five animals per acre of all the land available; provided however, the systematic rotation of animals with more than five animals per acre is permitted so long as the total number of permitted animals is not exceeded. For the grazing of sheep or goats, the penmissible number of animals per acre may be multiplied by three, except that there shall be no limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre when the grazing is for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, provided. that such grazing is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six month period. The provisions of this paragraph apply to mature breeding stock, maintenance stock and similar fann stock, and shall not apply to the offspring thereof, if such offspring are being kept, fed or maintained solely for sale, marketing or slaughtering at the earliest practical age of maturity. In all cases the permissible number of animals per acre shall be computed upon the basis of the nearest equivalent ratio. (5) Farm for rabbits, fish, frogs, chinchilla, or other small animals (excluding crowing fowl). Amended Effective: 09-15-00 (Ord.348.3954) (6) Farms or establishment for the selective or experimental breeding and raising of cattle, sheep, goats, and horses, subject to the limitations set forth in Subsection a.(4) of this section. (7) The noncommercial raising of hogs, not to exceed five animals; provided, however, that the total number of animals permitted on parcels of less than one acre shall not exceed two animals except that no animals shall be permitted on lots of less than 20,000 square feet. For the purposes of determining the number of hogs on a parcel, both weaned and unweaned hogs shall be counted. (See County Ordinance No. 431 regarding hog ranches). (8) Future Farmers of America (FFA) or 4-H projects conducted by the occupants of the premises. Provided, however, if the project involves crowing fowl, an unexpired crowing fowl affidavit form describing the project must be on file with the Planning Director. Affidavit forms are available at the Planning Department and may be filed free of charge. Amended Effective: 09-15-00 (Ord.348.3954) 164 143 12-21-00 (Ord.348.3966) (9) A temporary stand for the display and sale of the agriculture produce of any permitted use that is produced upon the premises where such stand is located or upon contiguous lands owned or leased by the owner or occupant of the premises. Off-street parking shall be as required in Section 18.12 of this ordinance, except that no paving shall be required. (10) A sign, single or double faced, not exceeding 12 square feet in area per face, advertising only the sale of the services or the products produced on the premises. The sign shall not be lighted or have flashing objects or banners. (11) The keeping or raising of not more than 50 mature female crowing fowl and 10 mature male crowing fowl on lots or parcels between 20,000 square feet and 39,999 square feet or not more than 100 mature female crowing fowl and 20 mature male crowing fowl on lots of 40,000 square feet or more for the use of the occupants of the premises. The crowing fowl shall be kept in an enclosed area located not less than 20 feet from any property line and not less than 50 feet from any residence and shall be maintained on the rear portion of the lot in conjunction with a residential use. Amended Effective: 09-15-00 (Ord.348.3954) (12) Home occupations. (13) Repealed. Amended Effective: 07-23-99 (Ord. 348.3881) (14) Kennels and catteries are permitted provided they are approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this ordinance. (15) A mining operation that is subject to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 is permitted provided that the operator thereof holds a permit to conduct surface mining operations issued pursuant to County Ordinance No. 555, which has not been revoked or suspended: (16) Both large and small animal hospitals. (17) Commercial stables and riding academies. (18) Mink farms. (19) Signs, on -site advertising. (20) Public fairgrounds including usual commercial uses appurtenant thereto. (21) Kennels and catteries are permitted provided they are approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this ordinance. b. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a plot plan pursuant to Section 18.30 of this ordinance. The plot plan approval may include conditions requiring fencing and landscaping of the parcel to assure that the use is compatible with the surrow-iding area: (1) A permanent stand for the display and sale of the agriculture produce of any permitted use that is produced upon the premises where such stand is located or upon contiguous lands owned or leased by the owner or occupant of the premises. (2) Canning, freezing, packing plants and drying yards that are not in conjunction with a farming operation. (3) Churches, temples, or other structures used primarily for religious worship. (4) Fraternal lodge halls, including grange halls. (5) Libraries. 165 1�J (6) An additional one family dwelling (including mobilehoines), excluding the principal dwelling, shall be allowed for each ten acres gross being farmed. Said additional dwelling units shall be located on a parcel being fanned and occupied by the owner, operator or employee of the fanning operation as a one family residence provided that: a) The mobilehome shall have a floor area of not less than 450 square feet. b) The dwellings are not rented or held out for lease to anyone other than an employee of the fanning operation. c) The dwellings are located not less than 50 feet from any property line. d) The dwellings are screened from view from the front property line by sluubs or trees. e) The arrangement of the dwellings, sanitary facilities and utilities conforms with all of the requirements of the County Health Department, the County of Building and Safety Department, and State law. fl The number of dwellings for employees shall not exceed four per established farming operation. (7) Private schools. (8) Public utility facilities. (9) Truck transfer stations and depots for use in the cartage, storage, maintenance, weighing and transfer of agricultural commodities. (10) Meat cutting and packaging plants, provided there is no slaughtering of animals or rendering of meat. (11) Agricultural equipment sales and repair yards. (12) Commercial fertilizer operations -the stockpiling, drying, mechanical processing and sale of farm animal manure produced on and off the premises. (13) Feed store. (14) Real estate office. (15) Expansion of an existing dairy farm provided that: a) The total number of animals permitted on expansion shall not exceed 150 percent of the total nu nnber of animals which were penmitted for the original dairy farnn. b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, applications for plot plans submitted pursuant to Section 18.30 of this ordinance shall show the entire dairy farm as proposed after expansion. (16) Beauty shops operated from a home by its inhabitants where no assistants are employed and the on -site sign is unlighted and does not exceed two square feet in area. (17) Expansion of wi existing commercial poultry operation provided that: a) The total number of fowl pennitted on expansion shall not exceed 150 percent of the total number of fowl which were permitted for the original commercial poultry operation. b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, applications for plot plans submitted pursuant to Section 18.30 of this ordinance shall show the entire poultry operation as proposed after expansion. (18) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard length fairways, and country clubs. Added Effective: 07-23-99 (Ord.348.3881) C. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit is granted: (1) Any mining operation which is exempt from the provisions of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and County Ordinance No. 555. 166 l a La Quinta General Plan City Council Public Hearing, March 20, 2002 Letters Received After Planning Commission Action (with staff analysis or response) 1. W.R. Rogers Construction, March 12, 2002 No response necessary. 2. Susan Harvey, March 19, 2002 No response necessary. 3. Sofia Investments, Inc., March 20, 2002 No response necessary. 4. Brian Lewis, Best, Best & Krieger, March 20, 2002 The letter addresses two issues: Water Resources The commentor requests that "groundwater resources are not compromised by the development process." Staff Analysis and Response: The General Plan EIR has identified potential water usage at buildout of the General Plan, the current state of overdraft of the groundwater table, the sources of water available to the Coachella Valley Water District (the District) now and in the future, and the additional methods identified by the District in its Water Management Plan to compensate for the current overdraft by implementation of "Alternative 4" of the Water Management Plan. The EIR also includes mitigation measures associated with conservation of water resources for any new development proposed in the City, both through City efforts and continued cooperation with the District in implementation of its conservation efforts. These mitigation measures are proposed in order to lessen the potential impacts to the groundwater resource, and therefore the existing wells in and near the planning area. (Please also see the excerpt from the Water Management Plan, attached to this document.) No additional changes to the General Plan are recommended. Setbacks or Buffers The commentor requests that a minimum buffer of 300 feet be imposed for all projects abutting farming operations. Staff Analysis and Response: The EIR includes a minimum buffer requirement of 100 feet. This represents only a minimum mitigation measure. Individual projects will be reviewed as they 1 .) are proposed, and additional mitigation may include additional buffer if it is required. The City has also proposed, in the Zoning text amendment which follows the General Plan hearing, the inclusion of "Right to Farm" provisions to protect farming operations. No additional changes to the General Plan are recommended. 5. Robert Hargreaves, Best, Best & Krieger, March 20, 2002 The letter addresses two issues at length: Water Resources and Agricultural Preservation. The following discussion further breaks down the issues to address the specific statements made. Inflows of Salton Sea Waters into Aquifer The commentor cites a specific Table in the IID Draft HCP EIR/EIS as representing the amount of water which will come into the aquifer from the Salton Sea due to reduced water levels. Staff Analysis and Response: Staff located the document on the internet, and identified the Table referenced. The commentor has apparently misinterpreted the Table. The Table represents waters flowing into the Salton Sea from various sources (emphasis added). Staff therefore cannot determine whether the statement made by the commentor regarding contamination of the aquifer by Salton Sea water is true. EIR data on Water Resources The commentor states that the EIR does not provide sufficient information regarding ground water levels, rates of decline or the rate of decline of water levels due to General Plan buildout. Staff Analysis and Response: The commentor is incorrect. Page III-88 states "the top of the water table is present at a depth ranging from 300 to 600 feet below the surface. The aquifer zone is believed to be at least 500 feet thick, and may be in excess of 1,000 feet thick." (III-88) The EIR goes on to state "the rate of overdraft in the Management Area is currently estimated at about 0.32% per year..." The EIR identifies a buildout demand of 113,000 acre feet per year. This usage is expected at buildout of the General Plan. Although impossible to predict accurately, buildout of the entire area is not expected for at least 66 years, based on an average annual increase in residential units of 638 units. Water consumption for these units will therefore increase by 1.07 acre foot per year. The District's Water Management Plan estimates that water usage in 2035 in the Lower Valley will total 538,300 acre feet per year. The planning area's growth would represent a contribution to that total of 35.31 acre feet per year, or 1,165.23 acre feet by 2035. Agricultural vs. Urban Water Usa eg Rates The commentor quotes at length from a project -specific EA prepared for the City, and states that the usage associated with urban uses is much greater than agricultural uses. Staff Analysis and Response: The project specific EA used current and historic water usage on the parcels involved in the annexation. This represented only 80 acres of the 200 acres involved in the annexation, since the balance was vacant desert. Therefore, the water usage per acre for agricultural land uses is still slightly higher than urban land uses. 2 Groundwater Recharge The commentor states that the recharge program is not in place, and is insufficient to address the need, and that other sources of water are not secured.. Staff Analysis and Response: The recharge component is only part of the Preferred Alternative shown in the Management Plan. Further, the annual increase in water usage represents 35.31 acre feet per year, over a period of 66 years, not the 103,000 acre feet proposed at buildout. As CVVWD implements components of the Management Plan, and additional water sources are secured, the demand and supply will be assessed incrementally through individual project review by the City and the District. Impacts to Agricultural Lands The commentor suggests that the City should implement Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) as an effective mitigation measure against urbanization in the planning area. The commentor further states that the City should require the preservation of one third of the land in the planning areas. Staff Analysis and Response: The Zoning text amendment proposed to be heard after the General Plan public hearing includes specific references to the use of TDRs. The commentor's suggestion that one third of the land should be preserved, although laudable, would represent a taking of land, insofar as the City cannot deprive a property owner of his development rights by forcing him to participate in a TDR program. The City has a TDR program in place which it proposes to utilize for the preservation of agricultural and equestrian land uses, whenever a land owner wishes to exercise them. This incentive will help to preserve agricultural and equestrian lands in both Planning Area No. 1 and No. 2. 15 " E Section 6 - Evaluation of Alternatives N 4) w PAGE 6-24 O v, � °� o o —4 c A U V ¢ V ( ¢ A cV ° >a � O N O O � "" O O 1 o •b =� o + a W _ o 4� M 4--4 M M �O Cd O C7 3 om. O ¢ CD_ om.+ O O O '0 ¢ C O N O O N O �O ", O O 69 r. O. Q M O+ C U M 0064 ar U Z N w 4-4°� 4-4 E U O ¢ O O O O .-. cis Q N O as C) Q 00 tn CO (D O p > CC " M °�� O N 3 b� O 0 $� C 00 'C f-tr N t5 L7� ' �' CO O kn O O ir ¢ O .¢O Q ya OO s E... �+ 69a 0O , O (0�i 00 + A W wCd O N 8 U O O 69 A A UNA¢UC, 'IT ' x� N zM a Q U . 4.4 O kn M U O ¢ O _ Cd p N O N p ¢ C a� O as O a� p A + > O U 1-4U C 4 -d r� to �O o ?� "d CO r M >o co >o Cd oc Cd a� 3 CO to �E� r 0 r p , 64 ►S U C-4 U c� AD Z � 4r 4-4 o to O O M as 00 to r- W OP. ,0 �p O U 'I O U N O 3 'C �" •• as �4. !°< c o � z C13W � � N O �0 CDc's � N 4) C [� U O C N U 00 O O � 10. A¢U A¢U��a x z00 o as > w z � � Gm Od •C O bA 0 a� '� p •C -0-4 C •r. [-r w1. 0 C O 0= u > C a ���.� � G7 mow w i.+ GD bq CD �n Nal H w �'u ° 0843 ��� �� A a 3 b •�CL C CI rA WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 15 Section 6 - Evaluation of Alternatives From among Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, the alternative(s) that best meets each evaluation criterion are summarized in Table 6-12. Preferred Alternative The evaluation results indicate that Alternative 4 would best: • maximize the increase in total storage, • eliminate groundwater overdraft throughout the Valley, • minimize the decline of groundwater levels in the Upper Valley while increasing groundwater levels throughout the Lower Valley, • minimize the potential for land subsidence, • maximize conjunctive use opportunities, • minimize the economic impacts to Valley water users, and • minimize the environmental impacts. Table 6-12 Summary of Evaluation Results - Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evaluation Criteria Alternative 1 2 3 4 1.0 Eliminate overdraft La Change in groundwater storage Total change in storage Change in freshwater storage Lb Declining groundwater levels Lc Land subsidence Ld. Water quality degradation 46 2.0 Maximize Conjunctive Use Opportunities 3.0 Minimize Economic Impacts Economic sustainability, economic development, economic and financial risk, and regional economy Net cost 4.0 Minimize Environmental Impacts "6" denotes a relatively superior alternative - multiple dots denote equally superior alternatives Based on these results, Alternative 4 would best meet the goals and objectives of the Plan and is therefore selected as the preferred alternative. Section 7 describes the strategy for implementation of the preferred alternative. IWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 6-25 15 Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative The preferred alternative identifies the need for average deliveries of 140,000 acre-ft/yr of SWP exchange water; 103,000 acre-ft/yr for recharge at the Whitewater Spreading facility and 37,000 acre-ft/yr for direct use on mid -Valley golf courses. Assuming average deliveries of 80 percent of entitlement, CVWD and DWA need to obtain firm combined SWP entitlements of approximately 175,000 acre-ft/yr. To the extent possible, additional long-term entitlements would be obtained from other SWP contractors. If adequate long-term entitlements cannot be obtained, surplus SWP water will continue to be purchased on a year-to-year basis as needed and as available. SWP exchange water obtained from Metropolitan under the Quantification Settlement Agreement will be delivered via the Coachella Canal for agricultural irrigation purposes in the Lower Valley. Recycled Water Treated Municipal Effluent. There are seven municipal wastewater treatment plants located in the Coachella Valley. The cities of Coachella and Palm Springs and the Valley Sanitary District (VSD) operate one water reclamation plant (WRP) each. CVWD operated four water reclamation plants designated WRP-4, WRP-7, WRP-9 and WRP-10. Water is recycled from each plant except for the Coachella, VSD and WRP-4 facilities, which discharge treated effluent to the CVSC. The other facilities discharge to percolation ponds when the demand for recycled water is low. Use of recycled water is assumed to increase by about 14,000 acre-ft/yr in the absence of the Water Management Plan as growth occurs in the Valley. The use of municipal recycled water will increase an additional 16,000 acre-ft/yr compared to No Project conditions. The proposed uses for municipal recycled water are discussed in the following section. Desalinated Agricultural Drain Water. Up to 11,000 acre-ft/yr of agricultural drain flows will be desalted to a quality equivalent to Canal water and delivered to local farmers for agricultural irrigation. Approximately 13.6 mgd of drain water would be diverted and filtered prior to desalination. The desalination facility would have a 10-mgd capacity that will produce about 7.5-mgd of product water. Approximately 3.5 mgd of the flow would be bypassed and blended with the product water to produce the desired quality. Delivery of this water would begin at a rate of about 4,000 acre-ft/yr and reaches 11,000 acre-ft/yr in approximately fifteen years. The preferred alternative does not identify specific users for this water since the product water would be delivered to the District's Canal water distribution system at the 97.1 Lateral, where the downstream demand is for agricultural irrigation. Since this water is non-federal, it is not subject to the contractual restrictions regarding use of Canal water within the ID-1 service area. The District anticipates that an equal amount of Canal water can be delivered to golf courses or the portion of the Oasis system outside ID-1. Preliminary discussion with USBR officials indicated that such an exchange of water might be feasible. No specific location for the plant has been identified. WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 7-11 15 Section 7 Implementation of Preferred Alternative The treatment process would produce about 2.6 mgd of filter backwash and brine waste. Preliminary studies have considered both on -site and off -site evaporation ponds for brine disposal. On -site evaporation ponds would require about 530 acres of surface area due to the relatively low TDS of the brine. Alternatively, the brine could be conveyed to the Salton Sea either in the CVSC or a parallel brine outfall. Evaporation ponds located near the sea could remove an equivalent amount of salt by evaporating Salton Sea water. Approximately 110 acres of ponds would be required in this case. Decisions on the method of brine disposal will be addressed as project implementation proceeds. Source Substitution Source substitution is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users currently pumping groundwater. This approach is frequently referred to as in -lieu delivery where other water sources are delivered in place (or in -lieu) of groundwater use. The substitution of an alternate water source reduces groundwater extraction and allows the groundwater to remain in storage, thus reducing overdraft. Alternative sources of water include: municipal recycled water from WRP-7, WRP-9, WRP-4 or the City of Palm Springs Wastewater Treatment Plant; Canal water, desalinated agricultural drain water, or SWP Exchange water delivered through the Coachella Canal. Source substitution projects under the preferred alternative includes the following: • Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the Lower Valley from groundwater to Canal water, • Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the Upper Valley from groundwater to recycled water, • Conversion of existing and future golf courses in the Upper Valley from groundwater to Canal via SWP Exchange water, • Conversion of agricultural irrigation from groundwater to Canal water, primarily in the Oasis area, and • Conversion of municipal use from groundwater to treated Canal water in ID-1. Specific details on each of these projects are presented below. Because the timing for the various projects is dependent on the available water supplies and the economics of the various projects, the implementation schedules presented are generalized. Conversion of Lower Valley Golf Courses Canal water use will be expanded to serve additional golf courses within ID-1. Existing golf courses within ID-1 that use groundwater will be supplied with Canal water. The District will develop a program to convert existing courses from groundwater to Canal water. Many of the existing golf courses within ID-1 have Canal water connections but are not making full use of the water. The District will also work with the courses currently using both groundwater and Canal water to maximize their Canal water use. Because of the availability of desalinated agricultural PAGE 7-12 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative drainage water, the preferred alternative may also include conversion of Lower Valley golf courses that are located outside ID-1. The facilities required to serve golf courses located inside ID-1 are generally expected to be minimal as the Canal water distribution system is currently in place. Some new pipelines and pumping facilities may be required to convey desalinated agricultural drainage water that is exchanged for Canal water to courses located outside ID-1. Conversion of golf courses is expected to reduce groundwater pumping by about 14,000 acre-ft/yr by 2035. Upper Valley Golf Course Conversion to Recycled Water Water from wastewater treatment plants in the Upper Valley is currently either recycled for golf courses or municipal irrigation or disposed by percolation/evaporation ponds located at each facility. Use of nitrogen -rich recycled water for irrigation lowers the amount of inorganic fertilizers needed on golf courses and other landscaped areas, thus reducing the nitrogen loading on the entire basin. One difficulty in recycling sewage effluent for irrigation purposes involves fluctuations in supply and demand. Flows to Valley treatment plants are generally higher in the winter months when irrigation demands are at their lowest, and flows are conversely lower when demand is highest. In the Upper Valley, recycled water use for golf course and park irrigation will be expanded in areas adjacent to treatment plants where it is most cost-effective. The preferred alternative anticipates about 8,000 acre-ft/yr more recycled water use than the No Project conditions. The facilities required to expand the recycled water systems are expected to include pipelines and pump stations. Conversion of Upper Valley Golf Courses to SWP Exchange Water There are a number of golf courses in the Rancho Mirage -Palm Desert -Indian Wells area that pump groundwater for irrigation. This area has experienced a steady decline in groundwater levels over the past 50 years or more. Recent information indicates that there is an increased risk of land subsidence if water levels continue to decline. Therefore, conversion of the golf courses in this area to imported or recycled water is a high priority for the District. Since this area is outside the ID-1 service area, it is not eligible for Canal water delivery. However, the District could redirect a portion of its SWP entitlement to this area. Conveyance options include the construction of over 20 miles of pipelines from the Whitewater turnouts, over 12 miles of pipelines from the Metropolitan aqueduct at Fan Canyon (east of Dillon Road) or by taking delivery through the Coachella Canal. The latter option would be similar to the proposed conveyance of desalinated Whitewater River water in the Canal delivery system. The Coachella Canal conveyance option was chosen as it involves the least amount of conveyance facilities to bring imported water to the Rancho Mirage -Palm Desert -Indian Wells area. This project will require construction of over 30 miles of pipelines, two major pumping stations and delivery connections to each course. The project to convert the Upper Valley golf courses is WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 7-13 15�) Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative expected to be implemented in phases beginning in the late 2000s and finishing in the mid 2010s. A total of 37,000 acre-ft/yr of groundwater pumping would be eliminated by this project. Conversion of Existing Lower Valley Agriculture Agricultural users of groundwater within the ID-1 service area will also be converted to Canal water. The Plan anticipates converting most of the groundwater pumping within the currently served portion of ID-1 to Canal water by the mid-2010s. Because most of these users have connections to the District's Canal water distribution system, these conversions will require minimal infrastructure modifications. Agricultural users located in the. unserved area of ID-1 other than the Oasis area are also proposed to convert from groundwater to Canal water in the late-2020s. Since these users do not currently have connections to the distribution system, some new conveyance facilities will be required. The extent of these new facilities will be determined prior to any project -specific environmental documentation. Delivery of Canal water to agricultural users within ID-1 is expected to decrease future (2035) groundwater pumping by 30,000 acre-ft/yr. Oasis Area Agricultural Conversion The Oasis area is located near the northwest shore of the Salton Sea extending westerly up the alluvial fans. The westerly portions of the Oasis area are eligible to receive Canal water but lack a distribution system to convey water to the area farms. Other portions of the Oasis area are outside the ID-1 boundary and are ineligible for Canal water service. The Oasis area annually accounts for approximately 27,000 acre-ft/yr of demand, of which about 21,000 acre-ft/yr of groundwater is used within ID-1 (Summers Engineering, 1996). The Plan proposes the extension of the Canal water distribution system to serve all acreage in the Oasis area. Studies conducted for CVWD indicate this project could supply Canal water to about 6,700 acres of land located within ID-1 and about 2,200 acres outside ID-1 (Summers Engineering, 1996). The Oasis Conversion Project involves construction of over 20 miles of pipelines, two pumping stations, two small regulating reservoirs and miscellaneous facilities to convey Canal water to this area from the vicinity of the 97.1 Lateral. Since portions of the Oasis area are outside ID-1, only non-federal water could be served to these users. CVWD proposes to develop agricultural drainage water for this use. The District would track the amount of desalinated agricultural drainage water conveyed in the system and serve a like amount to users outside ID-1. Facilities to serve water to this portion of the Oasis area are expected to include two pumping stations, about six miles of pipeline and other appurtenant facilities. The ID-1 portion of the Oasis area is expected to convert to Canal water by the mid-2020s. The portion of the Oasis area outside ID-1 will be completed in the late-2020s. Because detailed engineering studies have not been conducted, separate environmental documents will be prepared for this project prior to its implementation. PAGE 7-14 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative Conversion of Municipal Use to Canal Water Approximately 30 percent of the municipal demand in the Lower Valley would receive Canal water. The facilities required for this conversion would include the construction of one or more potable water treatment plants having a total capacity of at least 30 mgd. Other facilities would include pipelines to convey water from the Canal to the filtration plants, pipelines, pumping stations and reservoirs to deliver water from the filtration plants to the existing municipal water systems. Total municipal usage of treated Canal water is estimated to be about 32,000 acre-ft/yr. These facilities are projected to be phased in during the late 2020s and early 2030s. Groundwater Recharge Groundwater recharge is a critical tool for modern water management. Groundwater recharge involves the infiltration of local or imported water into the groundwater aquifer through recharge basins. CVWD and DWA have been recharging the Upper Valley aquifers using SWP Exchange water at the Whitewater River Spreading Facility since 1973. Imported water will continue to be spread at the Whitewater facility using the existing recharge basins. In addition, new recharge facilities will be constructed in the Lower Valley. Figure 7-C presents the projected amount of water used for groundwater recharge through 2035. It should be noted that recharge for the year 2000 assumes delivery of SWP exchange water equal to the long-term average of 50,000 acre- ft/yr. Overall, groundwater recharge will increase by approximately 90,000 acre-ft/yr above 1999 levels. Figure 7-C Groundwater Recharge Flows under Preferred Alternative 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 m100,000 a 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 Year WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 7-15 Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative Whitewater Spreading Facility CVWD and DWA would recharge an average of 103,000 acre-ft/yr of SWP water at the Whitewater Spreading Facility. As with the current operation, the SWP water would be exchanged for Colorado River water with Metropolitan. No capital improvements would be required at the Whitewater facility. Dike No. 4 Recharge Although it may be possible to recharge in the range of 30,000 to 60,000 acre-ft/yr of Canal water at the Dike No. 4 recharge location, the Plan assumes an average recharge rate of approximately 40,000 acre-ft/yr. The Dike No. 4 recharge facility would be constructed within three to four years. The facility would include approximately 240 acres of recharge ponds along with a pumping station and over two miles of pipeline to convey water from Lake Cahuilla to the site. This recharge project will be subjected to separate environmental review when the project is more thoroughly. defined. Martinez Canyon Recharge CVWD has evaluated other potential recharge sites in the Lower Valley including the Martinez Canyon area along the western margin the Valley. The Martinez Canyon recharge facility is expected to be operational by the mid-2010s and would be at full capacity by the mid-2020s. The basins could be constructed in phases to match the availability of Canal water. An average recharge rate of approximately 40,000 acre-ft/yr is assumed. The facility is expected to include approximately 240 acres of recharge basins, a pumping station and about three miles of pipeline to convey water from the Oasis Tower to the site. This recharge project will be subjected to separate environmental review when the project is more thoroughly defined. The District plans to conduct a demonstration recharge study to determine the feasibility of a large-scale facility. Groundwater Monitoring Program As the Plan is implemented, the District's ongoing groundwater monitoring program will play an integral roll in the District's understanding of the basin's response to different plan elements. The effectiveness of the Plan will be measured against its impacts on groundwater levels, water quality and subsidence potential. Data collected through the monitoring program will enable future updates to the plan to accurately assess individual plan elements and their effectiveness in meeting the goals of the Plan. The monitoring program will include: • monitoring of groundwater levels and water quality in the Valley, • monitoring of potential saltwater intrusion from the Salton Sea including construction of additional multi -level piezometer wells, • the CVWD/USGS land subsidence monitoring program in the Valley, and PAGE 7-16 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 1C Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative review of the monitoring data and incorporation of new information into the groundwater model to enhance the usefulness of the model in predicting trends and impacts of management actions. A thorough monitoring program is essential to the success of the Water Management Plan. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES The District, DWA, and Metropolitan have historically worked together on programs which are mutually beneficial to all three agencies. The exchange program at the Whitewater Spreading Facility and the advance delivery program are two such examples. Several other programs, which would provide benefits to both the Coachella Valley and to Metropolitan, are currently being studied. These programs are designed to provide the Coachella Valley with a firm long- term water supply and to provide Metropolitan with the dry -year supplies needed to serve its member agencies. CVWD and DWA are currently negotiating the transfer of 100,000 acre-ft/yr of SWP entitlement from Metropolitan. As proposed, Metropolitan would permanently transfer 100,000 acre-ft/yr of its SWP entitlements to DWA and the District. In years when SWP supplies are less than full entitlements or Colorado River supplies are reduced, Metropolitan will have the ability to buy back some or all of the transferred water in any given year. It is envisioned that within any given period, CVWD and DWA would take the water roughly half the time resulting in a long-term average of an additional 50,000 acre-ft/yr for the Valley. If this entitlement transfer is completed, CVWD would need to obtain additional entitlements of about 50,000 acre-ft/yr to meet remaining needs. The water obtained from these proposed transfers would be exchanged with Metropolitan for Colorado River water delivered either to the Whitewater River turnouts or to the All -American Canal at Imperial Dam. The District and Metropolitan are also studying the potential of implementing a conjunctive use program in the Coachella Valley. Metropolitan currently has water available for storage and the Coachella Valley has a groundwater basin capable of storing surplus water. A successful conjunctive use program must be able to store water when available, either through direct recharge or in -lieu use, and to recover the stored water effectively during drought periods. Metropolitan would benefit from the program by increasing its dry -year water supply and the Coachella Valley would benefit from Metropolitan financed facilities, higher water levels, and from portions of the stored water being transferred into CVWD ownership. IMPLEMENTATION COSTS Each management category -conservation, groundwater recharge, and source substitution —will have specific implementation costs in addition to the baseline costs associated with the No Project alternative. The baseline costs include existing water conservation activities, existing delivery of recycled water to Upper Valley golf courses, and the continued purchase of existing SWP entitlements for Upper Valley groundwater recharge. In order to spread these implementation costs over the entire planning period, assumptions were made regarding the initiation of certain management elements within each category. Conservation activities WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 7-17 16 Section 7 - Implementation of Preferred Alternative primarily involve costs associated with additional manpower, which are included as an operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. The costs associated with groundwater recharge and source substitution activities include both capital and O&M costs. The average annual implementation costs for the preferred alternative throughout the planning period are illustrated in Figure 7-D. The total capital cost associated with groundwater recharge and source substitution elements in the preferred alternative is estimated at $180 million. The average annual costs for each category include capital costs, depreciation of the capital investment over time, and O&M costs (fixed and variable). Figure 7-D Estimated Total Annual Implementation Cost for Preferred Alternative $. U $1 $• s• ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 2000-2005 2006-2010 2011-2015 2016-2020 2021-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 ®Baseline Costs 13Groundwater Recharge OSource Substitution ■Conservation ■Colorado River Water Delivery FINANCING MECHANISMS Several financing mechanisms are available to provide funding for the Plan including: • Water rates, • Replenishment assessments, • Assessment districts, • General property taxes, • Financing by agencies outside the District, • Grants, and PAGE 7-18 WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 16 Ll 03:120: '?002 1?: �.2 7603991311 HADLEYS PAGE 01 SS ,S Qjj' N r ' L 5 I N C 2 1 9 9 1 March 20, 2002 La Quinta City Council Members City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253-1504 Re: Support for General Plata Density Plans Dear Council Members: CT oC%AV, As you know we are a family farming and packing operation located east of the current La Quinta city limits. Our family has consistently been a strong part of this community for over sixty years and we own a significant amount of land in the area lc>7own as Vista Santa Rosa We continue to stand strongly against any notion of placing extensive restrictions upon the use or development of our properties including minimum zoning requirements of five to ten acre lots. Furthermore, a more serious threat to farmers would be to restrict their land from further development thus causing their financial lenders to call back loans secured by their landholdings in the area. As such, we respectfully request that La Quanta maintain the current density requirements as outlined in the General Plan. We disagree with many who claim to ` represerl" the community and do not subscribe to the premise that development of this area would be negative or detrimental. To the contrary, the believe that well -planned development with respect for individual property rights would be very beneficial to the community and that agricultural and equestriau uses can co -exist With such plans. We have faith that the current La Quinta City Council is sensitive to this issue and will work with the residents and landowners in that regard. Thank you for your consideration in tivs important matter. Sincerely, r Albert P. Keck President U9 ph 760.399.5191r, 83-555 Airport Boulevard, Thermal, California 92274 ��' fx 7G0.399.1311 innnnnr h A rl l G V C i A rn 03-20-02 17:26 RECEIVED FROM:7603991311 P-01 LA QUINTA COVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIA TION March 20, 2002 To: Honorable Members of the La Quinta City Council The La Quinta Cove Neighborhood Association is a newly formed and highly committed group of several hundred residents dedicated to preserving the quality of life in the Cove and throughout the City of La Quinta. At a meeting of the Open Space Committee on February 26, 2002, enthusiastic support was expressed for development of a conceptual "ridgeline policy" that would provide for the preservation of all remaining undeveloped areas around La Quinta Cove We find the following: 1. Residents of La Quinta Cove have purchased or built their homes here so they can be close to the natural environment of the desert for exploration, walking, cycling, and appreciating the natural habitat of the desert. 2. Property values are enhanced due to the abundance of natural open space, providing magnificent views, recreational potential, and tranquility for residents 3. Residents are faced with ever increasing attempts by developers to diminish the natural environment with planned developments. Easy access to open space has been considerably diminished on the east side of the Cove, and comparable attempts have been made by developers on the west side of the Cove 4. These open space areas are used extensively every day by residents of La Quinta, visitors from La Quinta Resort, as well as by visitors throughout the Valley for diverse recreational and nature experiences, such as hiking, cycling, running, dog walking, star gazing, painting, and studying the desert's natural flora and fauna. S. Over the years the La Quinta City Council has expressed its formal or informal commitment to assure the preservation of the natural environment of our City and taken some actions for implementation of this commitment. Consequently we strongly encourage the La Quinta City Council to take the following actions to protect in perpetuity what is left of the natural environment of the City: 1. Adopt and continue the existing zoning and General Plan designations of "Open Space'; "Park" and "Hillside Conservation "for all undeveloped lands surrounding the La Quinta Cove and other natural open space areas within the City. 2. Make every effort to insure that these open space areas are maintained in perpetuity and act as expeditiously as possible to protect the natural beauty and environment of our community. We appreciate the efforts of the City Council and encourage your acquisition of open spaces necessary to implement the General Plan update and the zoning contained in it. 16 March 20, 2002 Dear Members of LaQuinta City Council: We wish to thank you for all the hard work you have done. You have done a great job of trying to meet the needs and desires of many different people. We think your plan is great. We have hoped and still sincerely hope we can be a part of LaQuinta before long. The Raymon and Nora Mae Bown Family Property Owners of 55+ acres at 55-265 East Jackson, Thermal ITY OF INDIO ,,err Development' Services Department 100 Civic Center Mall September 10, 2001 P.O. Drawer 1788 Indio. CA 92202 Tel: 760 . 342-6500 Fax: 760.342-6556 Mr. Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 City Clerk Tel: 760 . 342-6581 Fax: 760.342-6597 City Manager Subject: Environmental Review - La Quinta General Plan EIR Tel: 760 . 342-6580 Fax: 760.342-6597 Development Services Tel: 760.342-6541 Dear Mr. Baker: Fax: 760.342-6556 Finance Tel: 760.342-6560 Pursuant to your July 13, 2001, transmittal, we have reviewed the Draft Fax: 760.342-5653 Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of La Quinta General Plan. While Fire your transmittal indicated that the last day to file comments was August 26 (Sunday) Tel: 760.347-0756 Fax: 760.775-3710 the law requires a minimum of 45 days for the review of the DEIR. Therefore, the Human Resources end of the minimum required comment period was August 27, 2001, the 45 day Tel: 760.3426540 from your date of transmittal. However, your office notified us that they have Fax: 760 . -142-6597 extended the comment period to September 10, 2001. Therefore, we respectfully Police Tel: 760.347-8522 offer the following comments submitted within the noticed comment period. Fax:' 760.347-4317 Engineering/Building The environmental analysis of the General Plan includes approximately 53,498 Tel: 760 .342-6530 Fax: 760. 3426556 acres encompassing the City of La Quinta's corporate boundaries (20,254 acres); City Yard a proposed annexation area (5,420 acres); a sphere -of -influence amendment Tel: 760.347-1058 (8,205 acres); and lands outside the sphere (19,619 acres). The City of Indio is Fax: 760.347-4190 particularly concerned about the latter of these areas under consideration — the Senior Center Tel: 760.347-5111 19,619 acres located outside the sphere of Influence of the City of La Quinta an Fax: 760.342-6557 it is to that area in particular that we address our comments and concerns. Because of the proposed project's potential effect on the City of Indio, we have carefully reviewed the DEIR to ascertain whether it addresses all of the potential impacts, as established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA guidelines. Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 2 Our conclusion - the DEIR fails to meet the minimum legal requirements for both procedural and substantive aspects necessary to carry out a complete, thorough and objective analysis in accordance with CEQA. In particular, the DEIR is flawed and deficient in the areas of: • Proper notice to affected and adjoining governmental jurisdictions. • General Plan, zoning and land use descriptions of Indio Ranchos Country Estates 'and Polo Resorts properties immediately adjacent to your area of interest and north of Avenues 50 and 52 in the City of Indio are not identified or are inadequately described. These are areas of particular concern to the City of Indio, its residents and investors and must be addressed in the DEIR. • Traffic impacts upon the City of Indio including impacts upon such major north/south roads as Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Calhoun and Van Buren which provide the most direct access to both Highway 111 and the 1-10 freeway and all of the inter -related intersections thereto resulting from the potential of 80,000 new dwelling units rather than 66,000 dwelling units identified in the DEIR. • Traffic impacts upon the City of Indio including impacts upon such major east/west roads as Avenue 52, Avenue 50, Avenue 49, Avenue 48, Highway 111, Miles Avenue, Fred Waring Drive and all of the inter -related intersections thereto resulting from the potential of 80,000 new dwelling units rather than 66,000 dwelling units identified in the DEIR. • Cumulative impacts upon all areas of sensitivity to thresholds including mitigation measures, public improvements and other financial offsets for enhanced infrastructure to affected public agencies necessary to properly mitigate the significant impacts. • Consideration of reasonable municipal service agency alternatives to the project including leaving the area within the City of Coachella Sphere of Influence, placing the area into the City of Indio's Sphere of Influence, creation of a Vista Santa Rosa Municipal Advisory Council under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside or the incorporation of a city of Vista Santa Rosa. • In other instances, the DEIR contains summary and conclusionary statements that are not supported by any information, documentation or analytical data. 1 f -3 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 3 In determining the proper scope of an EIR, it is necessary to consult with the appropriate agencies, municipalities, and public who will be impacted by the proposed actions. Because a portion of the area being considered for annexation and a sphere -of -influence amendment currently lies in the city of Coachella s sphere -of -influence and the fact that both cities of Indio and Coachella would bear impacts from buildout of the proposed General Plan, the absence of a Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIR» to the City of Indio has resulted in a void of information relative to impacts upon the City of Indio. Traffic, noise, land use, and water resource impacts upon the City of Indio were not fully analyzed or disclosed in the DEIR. It should be noted that the City of Indio was not sent a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the DEIR. It is unclear to us whether such notice was overlooked with the City of Coachella - and if it was, there may be additional shortcomings in this DEIR. Although the document contains a substantial amount of information, the DEIR is inadequate since it fails to fully analyze the General Plan's_ impact on several environmental categories including mineral resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and parks and recreation. These categories were identified in the Initial Study as less than significant and potentially significant. This is very questionable since the buildout will add about 66,811 new dwelling units (see comment below regarding the potential maximum buildout). All of the environmental categories identified above that have been excluded in the DEIR are required to be analyzed in EIRs for general plans. The DEIR fails to include an accurate project description. In particular, the DEIR ignores the fact that the area being considered for annexation and sphere -of - influence amendment is currently in the City of Coachella's sphere -of -influence. This oversight is significant for all parties involved (citizens and properly owners in and surrounding areas, investors/developers, affected public agencies) in the decision making process regarding this very important land resource opportunity. All members of the public are owed a reasonable description and comparison analysis of all options in analyzing your proposal. In fact, one of the actions necessary to achieve the projects end result is a LAFCO Sphere of Influence Amendment by the City of Coachella deleting a portion of their SOL The DEIR fails to provide any thresholds of significance as a baseline for determining whether the impact for each of the issue areas is significant. Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta. September 10, 2001 Page 4 The analysis in the DEIR underestimates the impacts of buildout of the proposed General Plan and the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment areas on the adjacent cities of Indio and Coachella. This is especially apparent in the impact analysis for public services and utilities. The DEIR uses 2.75 persons per household to determine the impacts. This number is considerably lower than the household size figures used by the California Department of Finance (3.263 persons per household), and the Southern California Association of Governments (3.24 persons per household - 2005 and 3.14 persons per household 2020). The DEIR's low household size figure is used throughout the analysis, significantly underestimating the impacts of the buildout of the General Plan on all public services and utilities by 20 percent — that is as much as 13,362 additional households and dwelling units. Alternative analysis in the DEIR is inadequate because it does not comply with CEQA's requirement to provide alternatives that substantially lessen or avoid environmental damage. Instead, the DEIR presents a "more intense development scenario" which does not lessen or avoid environmental damage and has impacts greater than General Plan buildout. Besides containing substantial errors in forecasting impacts, the DEIR also lacks consistent application of the cumulative impact analysis, especially as it pertains to the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment. Time and time again, the cumulative impact analysis for an environmental category consists of a brief, superficial discussion that is factually lacking. In sum, the DEIR discounts or entirely ignores many significant, adverse environmental impacts associated with buildout of the General Plan and the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment areas. An EIR must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to take necessary and appropriate actions. The DEIR's analysis of the project's impacts fails this test, being seriously misleading and inaccurate. The following is a list of some of the deficiencies in the DEIR. We conclude that the DEIR is inadequate in its present form and that the DEIR requires additional information and analysis of such substantial nature that it cannot be completely corrected by simply responding to the comments which follow. The additional information, needed for the Riverside County LAFCO to make an informed and intelligent decision in accordance with. CEQA Guidelines, is so extensive as to justify additional peer review by recirculating the EIR as a draft for public review. Prior to 171 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta, September 10, 2001 Page 5 recirculating the EIR, the issues raised in these comments need to be fully addressed. Without the benefit of peer review, the information presented to LAFCO will contain many of the flaws identified below. Detailed Comments Page 1-4 Project Description The project description does not disclose that a substantial portion of the area being considered for the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment is currently in the city of Coachella. Rather, the DEIR addresses the City, its SOI and land outside the SOI. While the existing City area encompasses 31 square miles; existing SOI area includes another 2.7 square miles; the area outside the SOI encompasses an additional 49 square miles. Clearly the preponderance of the area reported in the DER is located outside the City of La Quinta Sphere of Influence and yet the level of information provided for this area is described at best, as being "broad." Perhaps a better term might be to describe the DEIR's description and analysis of this area outside the SOI is "vague." Page 1-9 Existing Land Uses There is a discrepancy between the number of acres and dwelling units disclosed in the second and third paragraphs, and those shown on Tables 1-1 and 1-2. Normally, this would be a simple mathematical error that could be easily corrected. However, it may be indicative of a common and critical error in this document, i.e. making incorrect mathematical forecasts for critical issues. Page 1-10 The second paragraph refers to the properties within the jurisdiction of the City of Indio. It is a general description that offers an inaccurate depiction of what exists and planned for areas critically close and adjacent to the proposed Sphere of Influence amendment area. In particular, existing land uses located in the two square mile area bounded by Avenue 52 on the south, Madison and Jackson Streets on the west and east, and Avenue 50 on the north are oriented around major equestrian facilities including the Empire Polo Grounds, the El Dorado Polo Grounds and the Horses in the Sun (HITS) equestrian facilities. These land use activities are core equestrian facilities that have resulted in the establishment of very significant equestrian investments for the area, including new estate sized lots and housing with equestrian permitted accessory uses. In addition, the area immediately Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quints September 10, 2001 Page 6 north of Avenue 50 is also zoned and used for equestrian oriented single family residential properties. The Indio General Plan and zoning for these areas (Country Estates Indio Ranchos zoning and Indio Ranchos Polo Estates Specific Plan) recognize existing land uses and projects future land use policy to be of an equestrian nature. To ignore their presence in and around this portion of the Vista Santa Rosa community would be a disservice to both existing and future landowners of the area; not to mention the land use ramifications of non -equestrian properties locating nearby equestrian oriented activities such as these. It would seem "good planning" to build upon the equestrian orientation that is being pursued by both the City of Indio and the Vista Santa Rose community. Page 1-12 On Table 1-1, two columns of information are reported: "City of La Quinta" and "Sphere/Planning Area." The latter column groups together the land area currently in the City of La Quinta's Sphere of Influence and the land area currently in the City of Coachella sphere of influence. The table needs to be enlarged to accommodate a split of the latter category into two distinct categories for analysis to better enable the reader the opportunity of comprehending and assessing the issue of deleting the 19,619 acres from the Coachella SOI and placing that area or a portion thereof into the La Quinta SOL Page 1-13 On Table 1-2, what is the land use buildout for the City of La Quinta, the proposed annexation area, the sphere -of -influence amendment area, and the remaining planning area? In the Office category as well as the Commercial and Industrial subtotals, there are many typographical errors which makes it difficult to distinguish the correct buildout numbers for Office, Commercial and Industrial land uses. What is the correct buildout for Office? What are the correct Commercial subtotal? What are the correct Industrial land uses? This could be an easily corrected simple error. However, it is indicative of a pattern of errors in this document that includes providing incorrect information for critical issues. Pages 1-19 and 1-20 On Tables 1-4 and 1-5, what are the existing land uses (not the existing General Plan designations) for the proposed annexation area, sphere -of -influences amendment 17 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 7 area, and the remaining planning area? How many acres of the proposed annexation, sphere -of -influence, and remaining planning area are currently being used for agricultural? Classifying their existing land uses as either "very low density or low density" is misleading and incorrect. Pages 1-20 and 1-21 The discussion regarding residential land uses is also misleading and incorrect. What are the existing residential land uses? How many dwelling units and residential acres are currently in the city of La Quinta, the proposed annexation area, the sphere -of -influence amendment area, and the remaining planning area? What information and methodology have been used to derive the assumption of 75 percent of the maximum densities permitted"? How many acres of "residential development" are currently being farmed or used for agricultural? Page 1-22 and 23 There is no mention that a portion of the area within the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment is currently within the sphere -of -influence for the city of Coachella. How many acres of the proposed annexation and the sphere -of - influence amendment areas are in Coachella's existing sphere -of -influence? How many acres of Coachella's existing sphere -of -influence are currently used for agricultural? What is the average household size for the proposed annexation and the sphere -of -influence amendment areas according to the 2000 Census? What information and methodology have been used to derive the household size of 2.75 persons per household? This is lower than the figure used by the California Department of Finance and SCAG. Page 1-25 Information provided in the first and second paragraphs regarding the number of acres designated for Very Low Density Residential (7,089 vs. 6,280) and Low Density Residential (22,705 vs. 11,335) is not consistent with the numbers shown on Table 1-1. Why is there an discrepancy? How many acres are going be designated as Very Low Density and Low Density Residential? Page 1-27 Impacts on water resources are one of the many critical components in the DEIR where impacts have been vastly underestimated. If the population is 174 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 8 underestimated, then water usage is underestimated. How was the low household size of 2.75 persons per household derived when the California Department of Finance and SCAG have projected household size to be 3.2'and above? What are the assumptions and methodologies used to come up 2.75 household figure? How is it determined that only 75 percent of the residential lands would have maximum densities permitted? How was the population figure of 207,970 derived? According to Table 1-2, at buildout, the General Plan will result in 78,952 dwelling units. Using the low household size of 2.75 persons per household, the population generated is 217,118 persons, not 207,970 persons as disclosed in the DEIR. Normally, this would be a simple mathematical error that could be easily corrected. However, it may be indicative of a common, and critical error in this document, that includes making incorrect mathematical forecasts for key issues. Page II-1 What are the existing land uses (not the existing General Plan designations) for the City of La Quinta, the proposed annexation area, sphere -of -influence amendment area, and planning area? How many dwelling units and what type of dwelling units (single family vs. multi family, seasonal, low income housing) in La Quetta, the proposed annexation area, sphere -of -influence amendment area and remaining portion of the planning area? How many square feet of commercial and industrial uses are in La Quinta, the proposed annexation area, sphere -of -influence amendment area, and remainder of the planning area? How many acres of park and open space exist? How many acres and square feet of public/quasi-public facilities currently exist? How are many acres are currently in agricultural production? Why was there no mention of the fact that a substantial portion of the area of the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence areas are currently in the city of Coachella's sphere -of -influence? Page 11-2 Existing Land Uses Why is there such a large discrepancy between the information provided in the discussion of the existing -land uses and the information provided on Table 11. Page II-2 Surrounding Land Uses The information provided in the DER is inadequate regarding surrounding land uses in Indio and Coachella. Where are Indio and Coachella s residential, commercial, and industrial areas in relationship to the proposed General Plan, annexation area, and sphere -of -influence amendment area? Where are the 17j Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 9 potential land use conflicts? Page II-3 The DEIR downplays the fact that approximately 40 percent of the existing area (19,938 acres) in the General Plan which is currently used for agricultural purposes will- be converted to urban development. What are the potential land use conflicts between proposed residential developments and existing agricultural operations? What about potential conflicts with surrounding equestrian properties to the north in the City of Indio? The close proximity to the Polo Grounds and the Desert HITS facilities? Page- II-6 The majority of the planning area is located in a high liquefaction hazard area. This needs to be identified in the existing setting as well as identified as an issue of future analysis and mitigation. Page II-13 Domestic Water No mention is made of the serious groundwater overdraft situation in the Coachella Valley or that the amount of water which is being pumped in from Colorado River to recharge the areas is being reduced. There is also no discussion of the subsidence caused by the groundwater overdraft situation. There is no information provided regarding how much growth the Coachella Valley can support in the future and whether the development being proposed by the General Plan can be facilitated and by what means or costs to other existing development policies. Wastewater Treatment No information is given as to the current capacity of wastewater treatment facilities that will be serving the planning area and whether they can support the additional development from the proposed General Plan at buildout; or a phasing plan for implementation. Solid Waste No information is provided as to the capacity of the landfills that will be servicing the planning area and whether the landfills can accommodate projected development. 1P Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quints September 10, 2001 Page 10 Page III-2 The DER does not provide any information regarding existing land uses within the proposed General Plan area. How many dwelling units and type of dwelling units (single family vs. multi family, seasonal, low-income housing, equestrian oriented) in the City of La Quinta, the proposed annexation area, sphere -of -influence amendment area, the adjoining areas in the City of Indio and the remaining portion of the planning area? What is the comparative assessment between existing residential, current land use policy and what is being proposed? How many square feet of commercial and industrial uses are in La Quinta, the proposed annexation area, sphere -of -influence amendment area, and the remainder of the planning area? What is the difference between existing commercial/industrial land uses and what is proposed? How many acres exist or are proposed for public parks and recreation areas? How will General Plan buildout impact public parks and recreation areas? How many acres and square feet of public/quasi-public facilities now exist, and how many are proposed? How many acres are currently in agricultural? How many agricultural acres will be lost to urban development as proposed by the General Plan? Page III-3 How was it established that only 75 percent of the residential lands would have maximum densities permitted? What are the methodology and information used to substantiate the 75 percent assumption? How did the analyst derive a 22 percent lot coverage assumption for buildout of commercial use? What are the methodology and information used to substantiate the commercial lands? How did the analyst derive a 34 percent lot coverage assumption for buildout of Industrial uses? What are the methodology and information used to substantiate the industrial lands assumption? How do these assumptions differ from what is currently happening in the Coachella Valley? Page III-4 Exhibit III-1does not distinguish between Agricultural and Very Low Density residential land uses. According to the DEIR, 19,938 acres currently are designated Agricultural. There is a significant difference between the two land uses, and this difference needs to be shown. Also, there is no indication that the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment areas currently are in the city of Coachella's sphere -of -influence. In addition, there is no indication of what the existing land uses are for the adjacent jurisdictions affected by the proposed Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 11 General Plan. Exhibit III-1 needs to be corrected to show the difference between the Agricultural and Very Low Residential land uses, Coachella's existing sphere -of - influence, and existing land uses for adjacent jurisdictions (cities of Indio and Coachella). Page III-5 Why are the re inconsistencies between Table III-1 (Current General Plan - Land Use Buildout Statistical Summary) and Tables 1-1 and 1-2? Table III-1 states that there are 19,938 acres of Agriculture (1 du/10 acres), out of which 16,132 acres are designated for urban development. Why are there no existing dwellingunits listed for these urban areas? Also, there lacks mention in either Tables 1-1 or 1-2 of agricultural land, when Table III clearly states that 16,132 agricultural acres are set aside for urban development. Thus, the sub -totals for each of the categories on Table III-1 are in conflict with those in Tables 1-1 and 1-2. Page III-10, fourth paragraph The DER does not address land use impacts on adjacent jurisdictions, which contain rural residential, agricultural, and private recreational areas. The higher residential densities and assignments proposed by the General Plan would be incompatible with adjacent jurisdictions' land uses and could create significant impacts. Page III-13 What methodology and approach have been to utilized to assess land use impacts resulting from buildout of the proposed General Plan? What threshold of significance was used to evaluate land use impacts? Summary of Impacts No information or analysis is provided regarding land use impacts on adjacent jurisdictions. The majority of the proposed annexation and sphere -of- influence amendment areas currently are in agricultural use. The proposed General Plan would designate these areas for residential development with no transitional land to buffer the existing agricultural operations. This would cause significant land use impact. Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 12 Page III-14 How many acres within the proposed annexation area currently are used and designated as either Agricultural or Very Low Density Residential? . Page III-15 The city of Coachella's current sphere -of -influence should be designated on Exhibit III-3. Page III-17 No information is provided in the DEIR identifying land uses in jurisdictions adjacent to the proposed annexation area. The majority of the adjacent land uses are agricultural. The proposed General Plan would designate areas currently used for agriculture to urban development. This could result in significant land use incompatibilities. Page III-18 In the proposed sphere -of -influence amendment area, the DEIR fails to specify the number of acres currently used for agricultural, nor does it identify land uses in jurisdictions adjacent to the proposed amendment area. How many acres in the proposed sphere -of -influence area support agriculture? The proposed General Plan would change land currently designated for agriculture to urban use. This would result in significant land use incompatibilities with existing and adjacent land. Again, the DEIR fails to mention that the proposed sphere -of -influence amendment area currently is in the city of Coachella's sphere -of -influence. Page III-20 The majority of the proposed sphere -of -influence area and adjacent land uses currently support agricultural operations. The proposed General Plan would designate an area currently used for agriculture to urban development. This would create significant land use incompatibilities with existing adjacent land uses. 17 J. Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 13 Page III-22 The DEIR states that the County Agricultural Resources Map shows a combined total of 28,657 acres of Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance exist within the planning area. This conflicts with the 19,938 total agricultural acres presented on Table III-3. Why is there a discrepancy between Table III-3 and the discussion Section of the DEIR? How many acres of productive agricultural land currently are in the planning area? Page III-23 Williamson Act Contracts The DEIR fails to identify parcels currently under Williamson Act contracts. What are the proposed land uses according to the General Plan? Page III-24 What were the methodology and approach taken to assess agricultural impacts resulting from buildout of the proposed General Plan? What was the threshold of significance for evaluating the impacts on agricultural lands? The DEIR should utilize the LESA methodology recommended by State Department of Resources. Agricultural Land Use Impacts In Table III-9, the DEIR states that a total of 19,938 acres are in agricultural productiori and recommends 17, 615 acres be designated as low -density residential with an agricultural overlay. What will the remaining 2,323 acres of agricultural lands be designated? How many acres of State Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Important would be designated for residential land uses? How many agricultural acres under the Williamson Act contracts would be designated for non-agricultural uses? The DEIR fails to acknowledge that buildout of the proposed General Plan would convert prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural uses; therefore, a significant impact will result. 18D Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 14 Page 111-35 What are the existing average daily traffic (ADT) volumes for the proposed annexation, sphere -of -influence, and the remaining planning areas? No information is provided in the DEIR. Also, no information is provided as to the existing Level of Service (LOS) and ADT for the areas that will be affected in the adjacent jurisdictions (cities of Indio and Coachella). Since the adjacent jurisdictions will be affected by General Plan traffic, existing traffic information is needed. Page III-36 Where are the routes for public transit services? What is the existing rider ship for public transit service? How many.trains provide passenger service? Where is th train station in Coachella Valley, and how far is it from the proposed planning area?. Page III-37 Are there bicycle and pedestrian facilities in La Quinta and the proposed General Plan area? If so, where are they located? Are there any plans for bicycle and pedestrian facilities? Are provisions made for electric golf carts? Page III-38 What methodology and approach have been utilized to assess traffic and circulation impacts resulting from General Plan buildout? What are the thresholds of significance for determining whether traffic impacts are significant? Page III-39 Level -of -Service on Roadway Segments How many segments have a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio between 0.91 and 0.99? Where are those segments located? Are there any segments with a V/C ratio between 0.91 and 0.99 located in the adjacent jurisdictions? Page II1-40 What assumptions have been used for the traffic model? What assumptions were made regarding access to network roadways and actual impacts to capacity? Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 15 Page IIIA3 Intersection Analysis Which intersections located in adjacent jurisdictions will be impacted by traffic associated with General Plan buildout? Which intersections in Table III-14 are located in adjacent jurisdictions? The most direct lines of access from the proposed Sphere of Influence Amendment area and the 1-10 freeway or Highway 111 are via Jefferson, Madison (along an uncompleted segment to the north), Monroe, Jackson, Calhoun and Van Buren. It is the City of Indio's contention that the addition of upwards of 80,000 new dwelling units will have significant impacts upon these and connecting roadways/intersections and will require mitigation if better alternatives are not pursued. Summary of Roadway Impacts What are the ADT volumes projected to result from buildout of the Recommended Land Use alternative, and how will volumes affect circulation systems in adjacent jurisdictions? Your traffic analysis must identify the roadway segments in the adjacent jurisdictions that will likely operate with volumes exceeding their design capacities? And mitigation of such impacts is required. Roadway Classifications What are the existing roadway classifications and do they differ from those proposed? How do the proposed roadway classifications correspond to existing roadway classifications of adjacent jurisdictions? Page III-58 Which mitigation measures address traffic impacts on adjacent jurisdictions? Page III-72 Project Impacts What methodology and approach were used to assess soils and geological impacts resulting from the proposed General Plan? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether impact on soils and geological are significant? 18) Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 16 Page III-74 What are the wind erosion and blowsand impacts resulting from the construction activities associated with General Plan implementation? Page III-75 What assumptions have been used to determine that no substantial amount of development will occur within the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence areas in the near future? Page III-84 What methodology and approach wereused to assess impacts on storm water run- off and flooding? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether the proposed project would have significant impacts on hydrology? the proposed he What are t storm water and flooding impacts resulting from the buildout o P P General Plan on adjacent jurisdictions (the Cities of Indio and Coachella)? What mitigation measures will be taken to reduce storm water and flooding impacts on the adjacent jurisdictions? Page III-91 What methodology and approach were used to assess impacts on groundwater resources in the Coachella Valley? What are the thresholds of significance used to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact ori groundwater resources? What is the basis for the assumption of a 23 percent increase in commercial lands and a 43 percent increase for industrial lands stated in the DEIR? The DER assumes a low household size which underestimates water consumption P im acts. This is especially apparent in the impact analysis for public services and utilities. The DER uses 2.75 persons per household to determine impact. This number is considerably lower than the household size figures used by the California Department of Finance (3.263 persons per household) and the Southem California Association of Governments (3.24 persons per household in 2005 and 3.14 persons per household in 2020). The DERshould be revised to reflect these updated household size assumptions to analyze water consumption and impact on groundwater resources resulting from the buildout of the proposed General Plan. 183 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 17 There is no impact analysis for the increase in water consumption of commercial and industrial land uses resulting from buildout. Page III-111 What methodology and approach were used to assess impact on biological resources resulting from the buildout of the proposed General Plan? What thresholds of significance establish criteria to determine whether the proposed Project would have significant impacts on biological resources? Would the urban development proposed by the General Plan affect biological resources in adjacent jurisdictions? Page III-120 Where historic resources exist within the planning area? Which historic sis are on the State and National Registers? Are there any local historic resources? Page II1-121 What methodology and approach were employed to assess impact on historic resources resulting from General Plan buildout? What are the thresholds of significance used to determine whether the proposed project would have significant impacts on historic resources? Which historic resource would be affected . Page III-132 What methodology and approach were used to assess air quality impacts resulting from the buildout? What thresholds of significance have been used to determine whether the proposed project would have significant air quality impacts? Page III-138 What assumptions and information were used to determine the average trip length? Page III-139 What are the air quality impacts on adjacent jurisdictions? Are there any sensitive land uses within the adjacent jurisdictions which will be affected by carbon monoxide hot spots? Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 18 Page III-141 What air quality impacts on adjacent jurisdictions will result from buildout within the q � proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendments areas? Page III-149 Which computerized noise model was used and what were the assumptions? What are the thresholds of significance used to determine whether the buildout would have a significant noise 'impact? Where are the sensitive receptors? Are there any noise -sensitive land uses in the adjacent jurisdictions which will be affectedy development? Page. III-151 What was the basis for the assumptions regarding train trips and aircraft e on operations? What impact will the future train trips and aircraft operations hav o se P ro tions were made regarding n Posed urban development? What assump P impacts generated from commercial and industrial development? How were noise impa cts assessed? Where are sensitive receptors in relationship to planned commercial and industrial development? Page III-155 Wha t are the noise impacts on sensitive uses in adjacent jurisdictions resulting from buildout within the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence areas? Page III-160 What methodology and approach were utilized to assess visual impacts? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether the General Plan would have significant impacts on visual resources? Are there any view corridors that will be affected by proposed development? Will scenic views from surrounding areas be affected by the proposed urban development? Page III-162 The urban development proposed within the annexation and sphere -of -influence areas are not consistent with the rural, agricultural and open space land uses of the existing General Plan designations. The DER needs to be revised to reflect this. Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 19 Also, the proposed urban development designations in the annexation and sphere - of -influence areas will be in direct contrast with the adjacent scenic rural open spaces and will impact visual resources and view corridors. Page III-166 According to Table 1-2, the number of dwelling units resulting from buildout is 78,952 units, not the 66,811 units reported here. The school enrollment analysis should be revised. The breakdown between single family and multi -family is different than the one used in the air quality analysis (Table III-24). What is the proposed capacity of the Mountain Vista Elementary School and how will it ease the elementary student overcrowding which will result from the buildout of the proposed General Plan? The average persons per household size is increasing. How will this affect the methodology and approach (student generation rates) taken to assess school enrollment impacts resulting from the buildout? What thresholds of significance are used to determine whether buildout would have significant impacts on school facilities? What are the specific student enrollment impacts on the Desert Sands Unified School District? On the Coachella Valley Unified School District. Page III-170 The DER uses a low household size figure and therefore underestimates impact on library facilities. The DER uses 2.75 persons per household to determine the impacts. This number is considerably lower than the household size figures used by the California Department of Finance (3.263 persons per household) and the Southern California Association of Governments (3.24 persons per household in 2005 and 3.14 persons per household in 2020). The DER should be revised to reflect a current household size figure in analyzing public services. Also, what methodology and approach were used to evaluate impact on library services and facilities? What are the thresholds of significance used to determine whether the project would have significant impacts on libraries? Page III-172 The DER should be revised to reflect a current household size figure to analyze impact on police protection services. Also, what methodology and approach are used to assess impacts on police protection services resulting from the buildout of the proposed General Plan? What are the thresholds of significance used t determine whether there would be significant impact on police protection services? 1su Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 20 Page III-174 What methodology and approach were used to assess impact on fire protection services? What are the thresholds of significance used to determine whether there were significant impacts? Which fire agency currently serves the amendment and sphere -of -influence areas? Are fire stations planned for the proposed General Plan area? if so, where? Page III-175 What methodology and approach were used to assess impacts on health care facilities and services? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether there would be significant impacts? Are any public health facilities planned to meet the increased population? Page III-177 Where are existing solid waste facilities in relation to the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment areas, and what are the landfill capacities and closure dates? How much solid waste is currently generated? How much solid waste will be generated in the future? What methodology and approach were used to assess solid waste impacts? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether there would be significant impacts? It is unrealistic to assume that the buildout pursuant to the proposed General Plan (19,137,651 square feet of commercial and 28,835,849 square feet of industrial) will not result in any hazardous waste generation. Page III-181 What is the service area for the existing sewage treatment plant? How much wastewater will be generated within the project area? What methodology and approach were used to assess wastewater impacts? What threshold of significance were used to determine whether significant impacts would result? Page III-183 The DER uses a low household size to estimate water usage and therefore underestimates the impacts on domestic water service. (See prior discussion). The DER should be revised to reflect an updated average household size to analyze impacts on domestic water services. What methodology and approach were used t 8 7 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 21 to assess domestic water service impacts? What thresholds of significance ere used to determine whether significant impacts result? What impacts occur due to development in the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment areas? Page III-186 What methodology and approach were utilized to assess electrical service impacts? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether significant impacts will result? Page III-189 What methodology and approach are taken to assess natural gas service impacts resulting from the buildout of the proposed General Plan? What are the thresholds of significance used to determine whether there were significant impacts resulting from the buildout of the Proposed General Plan on natural gas services . What ar� the impacts from the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment. What impact will this have on the adjacent jurisdictions? Page III-190 What methodology and approach were used to assess cable service impacts? What thresholds of significance were used to determine whether significant impacts will result? Page I11-198 The DER uses a low household size assumption to assess public service impacts (see previous discussion) and therefore underestimates impact. The DER should be revised to reflect an updated household size assumption to analyze impacts on public services. Page IVA Is the loss of 26,312 acres of Prime Farmland considered an unavoidable significant impact? 18 Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta- September 10, 2001 Page 22 Page V-1 The "More Intense" Alternative should not be considered in the DER since this alternative does not comply with CEQA regulations by reducing or eliminating environmental impacts. With the "More Intense" Alternative eliminated from consideration, the DER does not present an adequate range of reasonable alternatives to meet CEQA requirements. Page V-13 What impacts to existing agricultural resources result from a "No Project" Alternative? What are the impacts of the "No Project" Alternative on land use within the adjacent jurisdictions? Page V-14 Under CEQA regulations, Alternative I: More Intense Development should not be considered as an alternative in the DER because it does not reduce or eliminate any significant environmental impacts. Under Alternative II: Less Intensive Development Scenario, what are the impacts to existing agricultural resources? How many acres of Prime Farmland would be converted to urban land uses? How does the Less Intense Alternative impact land use in adjacent jurisdictions . How would the land use impacts associated with the project differ from No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives? How would land use impacts on adjacent jurisdictions differ between the No Project and Less Intense Development alternatives? Page V-16 What traffic impacts in adjacent jurisdictions (circulation and intersections) result from the No Project Alternative? Page V-17 Under Alternative II: Less Intensive Development Scenario (Table V-4), the traffic impacts are greater than the proposed project. How does the Less Intense Alternative impact circulation and intersections in adjacent jurisdictions? How would traffic impacts differ from No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives? t How would traffic and circulation impacts on adjacent jurisdictions differ among the alternatives? ice{] Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 23 Page V-18 The DER does not provide adequate information to compare the relative impacts with respect to soils and geology. How would project differ from the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives? Page V-19 The DER does not provide adequate information to compare the relative impacts on hydrological systems among the alternatives. How do the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives affect flooding in adjacent jurisdictions.? Page V-20 The DER does not provide the quantitative information necessary to analyze P otential water quality and resources Impacts for the alternatives. What assumptions were used for the population projections? Will groundwater overdraft or water quality impacts result from the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives? How do impacts of the project compare to the No Project and ess Intense Development Alternatives both within the project area and regionally? . Page V-22 The DERdoes not provide sufficient information to enable comparison of the potential biological resource impacts among the alternatives. Wold the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives impact biological resources In adjacent jurisdictions? How do impacts associated with the project compare to the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives both locally and regionally? Page V-23 The DER provides no information to enable comparison of potential cultural resources impacts among the alternatives. Will the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives impact cultural resources in the adjacent jurisdictions How do the air quality impacts of the project compare to impact from No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives both locally and regionally? 1.9 :) Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quinta September 10, 2001 Page 24 Page V-23 How might the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives affect air quality uali in the adjacent jurisdictions? How do project air quality compare to Impacts from the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives both locally and regionally? Page V-25 How might traffic noise associated with the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives impact adjacent jurisdictions? How do noise Impacts compare between the alternatives? Page V-27 What are the regional visual resource impacts associated with the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives? How do visual impacts compare between the alternatives? Page V-29 The DER underestimates the public services and utilities impacts because the analysis utilizes a low average household size of 2.75 persons per household. As discussed above, the California Department of Finance and SCAG project a larger average household size, at least 3.2 and above. The public services Impacts of the alternatives should be re -analyzed using this updated household size. How would the public service impacts differ from the No Project and Less Intense Development Alternatives both locally and regionally? Page VII-1 Prime Farmland is considered a non-renewable environmental resource. The DER should state that Prime Farmland will be permanently lost due to implementation of the proposed General Plan. Page VIII-1 How do the growth -inducing impacts of the proposed General Plan impact adjacent jurisdictions' agricultural resources? 19 :_ Fred Baker, Principal Planner City of La Quints September 10, 2001 Page 25 Page VIII-2 The DER underestimates the cumulative impacts by using a figure of 2.75 persons per household (see discussion above). The DER lacks consistent application of the cumulative impact analysis, especially as it pertains to the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence amendment. Buildout of the proposed General Plan, together with development within the proposed annexation and sphere -of -influence areas, would have a significant cumulative impact on the adjacent jurisdictions. In conclusion, the environmental analysis contained in the DER exhibits significant flaws. The analysis substantially underestimates the type and severity of significant impacts associated with the buildout of the proposed General Plan and within the annexation, and sphere -of -influence amendment areas. Because of inconsistencies in the document and the underestimation of impacts, the DER requires substantial reworking to comply with CEQA and also requires recirculation. In particular, a thorough analysis of impacts on the cities of Indio and Coachella associated with the proposed annexation and the sphere -of -influence amendment are critical. Sincergly yours, Gar". ernK Developm tervices Director cc: City Manager 190,20 AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA QUII:TA AND THE CITY OF INDIO REGARDING FUTURE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES WHEREAS, this agreement is made between the City of La Quinta (La Quinta) and the City of Indio (Indio); an WHEREAS, La Quinta and Indio desire to establish a reasonable and logical boundary for future sphere of influence anal annexation considerations between the two cities; and WHEREAS, La Quinta and Indio intend to use such a line as a basis for requesting any new sphere of influence, modified sphere of influence, or annexation; IT IS HEREBY AGREED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. A line is established, beginning at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Avenue 38 and ending at the intersection of -Monroe Street and Avenue 56, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A". 2. La Quinta will neither initiate nor accept a .sphere of influence or annexation east of the line described on Exhibit "A". 3. Indio will neither initiate nor accept a sphe:-e of influence or annexation west of the line described on Exhibit "A". CITY OF LA QUINTA MA)ZR (J U Mav 8. 1986 DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK CITY OF INDIO U� MAYOR Mav 8 1966 DATE ATTEST: CITY CLERK 1 � , f c W cc Z O 1 cn ■ w , �NTERsTq T w F ryr�ywq Y i 1 . r e0 C-3/ Z O ■ co cc �1 U. . cc —' MILES AVENUE N J 6 wWA WESTRD HO DR. 7- STATE HIGHWAY 1 than wl cc 1 H N1 Z 01 W. U. -2 ■ w vCN11E 50 EXHIBIT A AVENUE 50 Q NORTH Mar 20 02 03:21p Martha 760-674-0142 P•1 BERNARD JACQUES DEBONNE March 20, 2002 City of La Quinta City Council Members P.C. Box 1504 75-495 Calle Tampico La Quintal CA. 92253 RE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Dear Council Members: Upon the completion of the General Plan Update T would like once again to commend the Staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council for their continuous and successful efforts in building and expanding a beautiful city and in the process of doing so, for taking to heart the diverse aspirations of the citizenry. With my best wishes. ;gere yours, �~ Bernard Debonne 73-1 1 1 EL PASEO - SUITE 206 - PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 POST OFFICE BOX 1935 - PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE (760) 674-4949 FAX (760) 674-0142 CELL (760) 774-0433 EMAIL 00ebonn9gearthlink.net 03-20-02 15:29 RECEIVED FROM:760 674 0142 P•01 ce , Mu O"r C�VAC41 hhCA CM e�ten� � BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP AtM A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS RIVERSIDE LAWYERS SAN DIEGO (909) 686- 1 450 74-760 HIGHWAY I 1 1. SUITE 200 (6 1 9) 525- 1 300 INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 92210 ONT POST OFFICE BOX 13650 ORANGE COUNTY (909) 989-89-8584 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92255 (714) 930-5940 (760) 568-251 1 (760) 340-6698 FAX SAC RAM ENTO BBKLAW.COM (91 6) 974-3400 ROBERT W. HARGREAVES RWHARGREAVES@Q BBKLAW.COM March 20, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92270 Re: Certification of Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive General Plan and Adoption of the General Plan Update Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: This office represents the South of Airport Neighborhood Association, an Association of property owners located within Study Areas 1 and 2 of the proposed General Plan. The Association objects to the certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the City of La Quinta's Comprehensive General Plan and the adoption of the proposed Findings because the EIR has failed to adequately analyze impacts of the proposed General Plan buildout on the Coachella Valley's critical groundwater resources, and has failed to mitigate to the extent feasible significant impacts on the Valley's agricultural and equestrian resources. The Association respectfully requests that Study Areas 1 and 2 not be included within La Quinta's General Plan process until the City has sufficient information to conclude that impacts on groundwater resources will not be significant and has made a commitment to preserve a significant portion of the Valley's equestrian and agricultural resources. I. THE EIR DOES NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO ADEQUATELY GAUGE THE IMPACTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN BUILDOUT ON GROUND WATER RESOURCES NOR CONTAIN SUFFICIENTLY DEVELOPED MITIGATION MEASURES TO ENSURE MITIGATION OF THOSE IMPACTS. The Coachella Valley is blessed with tremendous ground water resources. The aquifer that underlies the City of La Quinta, the study area, and the Coachella Valley contains billions of gallons of high quality water. For many years, that aquifer has served as the principal source of potable water RMPUB\RWi-I\196853 �i LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 2 for Valley households and an important supplement to canal water for agricultural irrigation. The aquifer can serve as an invaluable resource to store excess water in times of surplus and as a conveyance system to distribute that water to places that use it throughout the Valley. Properly cared for, this irreplaceable resource can serve the Coachella Valley forever. For a number of years, we have pumped significantly more water from the aquifer than is naturally recharged. CVWD estimates that the current overdraft of fresh water from the lower Coachella Valley aquifer is approximately 104,000 acre feet per year. (Draft of Coachella Valley Water Management Plan ("CVWD"), p.3-33). In certain areas of the lower Coachella Valley, water levels have dropped more than 60 feet. (CVWD p. 2.). CVWD has concluded that the continued decline of ground water levels is unacceptable. (CVWD p.9.): "Continued overdraft will have serious consequences for the Coachella Valley. The immediate and direct effect will be increased ground water pumping costs for all water users. Wells will have to be deepened, larger pumps will have to be installed, and energy costs will increase as the pump lifts increase. Eventually, the need for deeper wells and larger pumps will have an adverse impact on agriculture and will increase the cost of water for municipalities, resorts, homes and businesses. Continued decline of ground water levels could result in substantial and possibly irreversible degradation of water quality in the ground water basin. Continued overdraft also increases the possibility of land subsidence within the valley. As ground water is removed, the dewatered soil begins to compress from the weight of the ground above, causing subsidence. Subsidence can cause ground fissures and damage to buildings, homes, sidewalks, streets, and buried pipelines - all the structures that make the valley liveable. Recent studies indicate that as much as 7 cm of subsidence occurred in the Palm Desert area between 1996 and 1998." (CVWD p.8.) In 1948, during a period of rapid ground -water withdrawal, ground fissures were observed in the City of La Quinta. (DEIR, Appendix G p. 2-8.) "Ground water levels in 1996 were in many areas lower than the historic low ground water levels. These observed declines in water levels have the potential to induce new or renewed land subsidence in the area affecting the City of La Quinta." (Appendix G p.2 - 8.) Recent studies by the USGS have determined that long term declines in water levels of sufficient magnitude to induce land subsidence have occurred in portions of the Coachella Valley. (Appendix G p.2-9.) 1 Q , FNWUB\RWM196853 Zj � LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 3 "Damage to structures as a result of regional subsidence would be expected to be greatest at the valley margin and because the City of La Quinta is built at the margin of the Coachella Valley, future ground fissures have the potential to occur throughout much of the City. Based on a 1948 photograph ... the fissure [observed in La Quinta] appears to be over 20 feet in length and more than one foot across at its widest location. Therefore, a reoccurrence of this or similar ground fissures would clearly result in damage to any structures that are built in the affected area." (Appendix G p. 2-10.) The overdraft has caused ground water levels to fall below the level of the Salton Sea. Consequently, thousands of acre feet of salt water from the Sea will intrude into the aquifer at an accelerating rate. (IID Water Conservation and Transfer Project Draft, EIR/EIS, Appendix F, Table 4.1; wwv-w.1s.c112m.com/iidweb/current.) Once the aquifer becomes contaminated, it will be very difficult and expensive to clean. (CVWD p.1.2.) Overdrafting also impacts current well users. Water levels have been dropping in wells for years. Property owners report that the dropping has accelerated in recent years in the vicinity of the PGA West development. Well users are forced to incur the expense of deepening their wells, augmenting their pumps, and incurring the additional expense of extracting water from ever deeper wells. The EIR acknowledges that the planned residential development of the study area will cause significant negative impacts to ground water resources. (DEIR III-93.) The EIR claims than any impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (DEIR III-94.) However, the EIR provides scant information that would allow decision makers or the public to gauge either the level of the impact or the efficacy of mitigation measures.' The EIR does not provide base line information as to existing ground water levels in the study area, or existing rates of decline. The EIR includes figures that indicate that the general plan buildout could raise city-wide total domestic water demand by 113,000 acre feet per year. (DEIR III-92.) However, the EIR does not project to what extent the additional water use will accelerate the drop in water levels, or quantify the efficacy of mitigation measures. Decision makers and the concerned public are left to guess about the buildout impacts to critical ground water resources. 'An EIR must contain sufficient information, supported by reasonable documentation, to gauge existing conditions and the efficacy of proposed mitigation measures. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County (2001) 87 Cal. App Ath 99.) RMPUB\RV;M196853 193 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 4 It has been suggested that urbanization will not negatively impact the ground water because urbanization would displace agricultural uses that use an equivalent amount of water. To the contrary, agricultural uses rely primarily on canal water, while urban uses are serviced exclusively by ground water resources. Consequently, urbanization can be expected to exacerbate ground water pumping. Furthermore, while the EIR contains an estimate of water use by projected urban uses, there is no estimate of the current agricultural use that would be displaced. In a recent proposed annexation of agricultural land into the City, it became clear that conversion of agricultural land to residential uses would nearly double water demand for the project area. Environmental Assessment 2001-418 noted that the 200 acres of agricultural land slated for annexation used an average of 783 acre feet per year. (Revised Addendum for Environmental Assessment 2001-418, §VIII.b.; Attachment "I".) Using water consumption figures included in the EIR (DEIR III-92) up to 800 units could be developed on the 200 acres proposed to be annexed. At 2.75 persons per household and 550 g/d. per person, the 200 acres in an urbanized use could consume 442 million gallons a year, which equals 1,360 acre feet per year, or roughly double the current agricultural use on the property. These calculations indicate that urbanization may significantly increase water use within the study area. This conclusion is bolstered by CVWD's Draft Water Management Plan, which concludes that an additional 200,000 acre feet per year of water would be needed valley -wide by the year 2035 to accommodate population growth. (CVWD p.8.) The EIR suggests that impacts will be mitigated by ground water recharge. There is no current recharge program in place. "The maximum amount of potential recharge in the lower valley is not known." (CVWD p.5-15.) The only feasible recharge site identified in the CVWD Plan (behind the dike in the vicinity of Coral Mountain) is still under study. "Assuming favorable results, it maybe possible to recharge as much as 30,000-60,000 acre feet per year at this location." (CVWD p.2.) Consequently even if recharge is possible, it will be insufficient to address the current overdraft (104,000 acre feet per year), much less any additional burdens (113,000 acre feet per year) placed on the aquifer by large scale residential development. Recharge programs rely on additional water resources becoming available to the Coachella Valley. While CVWD has done an outstanding job in attempting to acquire such additional resources, California as a whole faces a serious long term water deficit that will make acquisition of additional resources difficult. Currently, the CVWD plan contemplates the use of an additional 155,000 acre feet of Colorado River water, made available pursuant to the Quantification Settlement Agreement, in conjunction with water transfers from IID to San Diego. (See Coachella Valley Water District Annual Review 2000, Attachment "2".) However, arrangements for those transfers have not been RNT1UB\RWH\196853 19 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 2012002 Page 5 finalized and face serious obstacles. (See Attachment "3".) It would be dangerous to rely on those transfers, or the acquisition of other water resources, until arrangements for those supplies have been finalized.2 In response to comments regarding the uncertainty of impacts on ground water resources, staff replied that the only alternative to the proposed mitigation measures was a moratorium on new development. (February 27, 2002, Staff Report p.14.) No one has suggested that a moratorium is necessary or appropriate. What is needed is solid information so that the impacts of development can be accurately accessed and mitigation can be evaluated and tailored to ensure that long term damage to the aquifer does not occur. We need to know: • Current water levels (from existing well records) • Current rate of ground water decline • Likely acceleration of decline due to anticipated impact ofurbanization, ifunmitigated • Likely efficacy of the mitigation measures • Extent of salt water intrusion • Extent of threat of subsidence • Financial impact of declining water levels on current well users • "Safe" level of overdraft based on the factors above. Based on that information, decision makers and the public could make more informed decisions regarding the amount of additional overdraft the aquifer can sustain without causing long term damage to that resource. If necessary, developers who impose additional demands on the aquifer could contribute funds to offset the costs to existing pumpers of drilling deeper wells' and 2 See, Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal. App.3 d 692, 727- 728: Court rejected EIR because, notwithstanding that the aquifer underlying the project area had steadily been overdrafted for a period or years, city concluded that there would be no significant impact. The primary mitigation measure to ensure the aquifer was recharged was a so-called mitigation agreement by which the applicant agreed to give the local water district money to purchase water from unknown sources. However, there was no evidence in the record showing that any replacement water was, or would be, available for purchase. 'During last summer's Kalamath emergency, the California emergency services division paid to deepen or adjust pumps in household wells that lost water to new, large, irrigation wells drilled to provide relief to drought stricken Kalamath farmers. (See Attachment "4".) RMPUB\R Wi-M968 53 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 6 compensate owners of surface structures damaged by subsidence.' Developers could be required to limit the water use of new development to the amount of water used by the agricultural use that the development will replace, or other existing water uses that will be retired.' The pace of future development could be tied to the success of acquiring new water resources and implementing recharge. CVWD does not control land uses. The City does. It is incumbent on the City to use its land use policies to ensure that the projects it approves do not exceed CVWD's ability to successfully develop additional ground water resources.' To approve a master plan for large scale urban development for the lower Coachella Valley without adequate information regarding impacts on ground water resources is to put at risk the Coachella Valley's most precious natural resource: its water. II. THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN HAS FAILED TO MITIGATE, TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURAL AND EQUESTRIAN RESOURCES. Prime agricultural land is being lost to development nationwide at the alarming rate of one million acres annually. The loss of prime agricultural land, both in Riverside County and California as a whole, is of strong concern to policy makers at all levels of government. 'Appendix G p.2-10. 'See, Save Our Peninsula Committee above, 87 Cal. App. 4 h at 56: In an area of groundwater overdraft, County required developer to limit water use of proposed development to historic water use on the property, plus the amount of use on nearby agricultural parcel which use would be discontinued. 'See, Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442. When approving projects that are general in nature, such as a General Plan, cities must devise and approve whatever general mitigation measures are feasible to lessen or avoid project significant impacts. Cities cannot defer the obligation to formulate and adopt mitigation until a specific development project is proposed, nor defer the mitigation obligation to other agencies. A city cannot refuse to consider mitigation measures simply because another agency with subsequent permitting responsibility may also have the power to address significant impacts. RNWUB\RWM196853 10 die LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 7 In attempting to adjust this concern, the State of California has enabled Williamson Act Agricultural Preserves (Govt. Code § 51200 et seq), Agricultural Protective Zoning (Govt. Code § 6647.4) and Right to Farm Laws (Civil Code § 3480, et seq). The report of the California Commission on Local Governments of the 21" Century strongly encourages all LAFCOs to adopt strong agricultural land protection policies. The lower Coachella Valley encompasses one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas in the world. Included within the original planning area are 26,000 acres of prime farm land, of which 2,345 acres are "statewide important farm land." (DEIR III-22.) 5,412 acres of land are under Williamson Act contracts. (DEIR III-23.) Additionally, the Vista Santa Rosa community is a unique agricultural and equestrian community of regional significance. It is estimated that equestrian related uses bring $70 million annually into the local region, an amount that is projected to grow to $120 million over the next few years. The EIR proposes a number of mitigation measures intended to reduce impacts on prime agricultural lands. Nevertheless, the EIR concludes that, "Even with implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts associated with long term loss of prime agricultural lands will be significant." (DEIR 111-28. ) Given this finding of significant impact, the City may proceed to adopt the General Plan only by adopting a statement of overriding consideration, that must be supported by substantial evidence. Before doing so, the City must fully explore feasible mitigation measures. (Coster v. County of San Joaquin (1996) 47 C.A. 429, 32.) The proposed statement of overriding consideration fails to provide any compelling reasons that would justify the significant unmitigated impacts to the Coachella Valley's environment and is not supported by any evidence in the record. finding: With respect to the unavoidable impact on agricultural resources, staff proposes the following "Changes, alterations, and other measures have been made and/or incorporated into the plan, or otherwise being implemented, which will mitigate this impact [to agricultural resources] to the extent feasible." This finding is not supported by the record. RMPUB\R WIT 196853 LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 8 A more effective mitigation measure that would ensure that a substantial portion of the lower valley's agricultural uses are retained would be to implement lower density zoning coupled with the ability to transfer development rights. Density transfers would be effective to preserve a significant portion of agricultural land only if overall densities are uniformly reduced, in order to provide an incentive for developing land owners to purchase development rights from property owners who are disinclined to develop. If a viable market for development rights were established, non -developing land owners would share in economic benefits of surrounding development by selling development rights. The benefits of development would be more evenly distributed throughout the community without forcing all owners to develop. If La Quinta were to establish a goal of preserving one third of existing agricultural and equestrian uses, it could diminish the overall density of zoning by one third, thus encouraging one third of the land to remain in open space and agricultural uses. The rights to develop would be transferred to the remaining two thirds to develop at marketable levels. The EIR notes that implementing lower density zoning "would better preserve the real character of the southeasterly portion of the planning area, the annexation area, and the SOI area..." (DEIR V-15.) However, the EIR dismisses the lower -density alternative because "it will not take full advantage of the development potential of these lands.". (DEIR p. V-15. ) Good land use planning requires a broader view of what constitutes maximum "development potential." Potential uses are evaluated based on their benefit to the community as a whole, as well as benefit to the individual land owner. Consequently, gas stations and liquor stores are not allowed in residential neighborhoods, even though such uses might constitute "full advantage of the development potential" of particular parcels. Hillside preservation, habitat conservation, parks and open space are considered important uses, though not necessarily the "highest development potential". There are compelling reasons to attempt to preserve at least some portion of the Valley's agricultural and equestrian heritage. The world population will likely double in the next 50 years, at a time when prime agricultural land is shrinking. America's ability to feed itself will be an important strategic asset. All of the currently undeveloped land in the Coachella Valley cannot be developed to "take full advantage ofthe development potential". Conversion of all ofthe Coachella Valley's 80,000 acres of agricultural land to residential uses at densities contemplated by the General Plan would produce 800,000 new residents. Conversion of the Valley's non-agricultural land might contribute another 400,000, residents for a combined potential population at build out that could approach 1.5 million RMPUB\RWM196853 ,, LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 9 persons. Even the most optimistic proponents of growth would agree that a population of that size would result in intolerable reductions of the quality of life. Choices will need to be made. We should attempt to preserve significant portions of our prime agricultural land, both as an important economic resource, and as an integral part of our quality of life. Until the City has seriously considered alternatives to full development of agricultural lands, it cannot claim that it has mitigated, to the extent feasible, unavoidable impacts to this important national resource, nor that other considerations override the community's responsibility to preserve a portion of this important economic, social, and aesthetic resource. Very truly yours, BEST BEST & KRIEG ER LLP RWH:dm u Li RMPUB\R WHL 196853 1 f� REVISED ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2001-418 I. d) The proposed annexation will not result in an increase in light or glare in and of itself. Buildout of the parcel, however, will generate light, since the proposed project will occur on a currently vacant parcel. The land use designation to be placed on the parcel will result in low density residential units, which generate low levels of light. The project will be required to meet the City's standards for outdoor lighting, which will ensure that lighting is directed downward and contained within the site. Compliance with these standards will reduce the potential impacts of light and glare to a less than significant level. II. a) &c) Approximately 75 acres of the 200 acres in the annexation area have been in agriculture for some time, primarily as sod farming. The Waters property, consisting of 40 acres immediately south and east of the annexation area is being farmed currently, and produces table grapes. Annexation of the 200 acres, and the imposition of land use designations, will not in and of itself impact the agricultural use of the annexation area. In the long term, however, the annexation area will be developed in low density residential land uses. Currently there are two parcels (769-200-002 & 003), totaling 40 acres, which are under the Williamson Act contract. This acreage is included in the 75 acres currently in agriculture within the annexation area. The applicant has filed a Notice of Non -renewal for these parcels. The loss of 75 acres of land currently in sod farming within the annexation area will not represent a significant loss of prime agricultural land in the Valley. The sod farming and pasture lands which occur in the annexation area do not represent a significant portion of those lands in that use in the Coachella Valley. Data from the County of Riverside shows that land in agriculture in Riverside County has substantially increased in production in the last twenty years. Under the revised project, the 40 acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Avenue 53 aid Monroe, which had been included in the original assessment, but has been removed at the request of the property owner and Planning Commission, can continue as an agricultural land use without interruption under the County's jurisdiction. Acreage in production of table grapes in Riverside County increased 146% from 1979 to 1999, from 9,496 acres in 1979 to 13,829 acres in 1999 (please see attached statistics). Should the Waters property, southeast of the annexation area property, be converted to residential land use by the land owner, the loss of land for agriculture would not be significant, given the increase in production which has occurred in the last 20 years. The County land use designation does not designate the annexation lands for Agriculture. The current County General Plan designations for 40 acres of the annexation area is 313, Residential 0.2 to 0.4 units per acre. The other 1602 0 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annex13EAAdd.WPD 0 acres are designated 3A, Residential 0.4 to 2 units per acre. That portion of the annexation area designated 3A could generate 320 dwelling units, and the 3B designated land could generate 16 dwelling units, for a total of 336 residential units. The 40 acre parcel to the southeast of the proposed annexation area, and previously included, is also designated 3B, Residential 0.2 to 0.4, and could generate 16 dwelling units. There is no specific project proposed with the annexation and associated General Plan and Zoning Map amendments. The maximum number of units which could be generated under the City designation on the 200 acre annexation land is 800 units. It is likely, however, that either a standard tract or a country club development will occur. This type of development in La Quinta has typically resulted in densities of between 2 and 3 units per acre. Such a development would be similar to the densities which are currently allowed under the Riverside County General Plan. The property owner of the 40 acres located at the northwest corner of Avenue 53 and Monroe Street (the Waters property) provided comments on the original Environmental Assessment. These comments included concern that the development of the acreage to the north and west of their property would result in conflicts between their existing agricultural land use and the future residential land uses. The property owner requested both a buffer and a notification process be implemented by the City. The development of residential land uses on the annexation area will result in the construction of a 6 foot wall along western and northern the property lines of the 40 acre parcel. The current County General Plan includes discussion of buffers between agricultural and residential land uses, without specifying the size of such buffers. Under the County's jurisdiction, Ordinance No. 625.1 ("An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Providing a Nuisance Defense for Certain Agricultural Activities, Operations, and Facilities and Providing Public Notification Thereof") provides on -going protection for agricultural activities adjacent to residential developments This ordinance protects agricultural operations from the potential complaints which can arise from neighbors of agricultural land uses. The ordinance also requires that developers of residential projects adjacent to active agricultural land uses notify potential buyers within 300 feet of the agricultural land use that they are purchasing a home near an agricultural land use. This ordinance has been effective. in protecting agriculture from such complaints. In order to address the potential for land use conflicts between agricultural and residential land uses, the following mitigation measures are shall be implemented: 200 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annexl3EAAdd.WPD 1. Prior to the Conducting Authority Hearing before the Local Agency Formation Commission, the City shall adopt an ordinance whose intent and content is equivalent to Riverside County ordinance 625.1, including a notification requirement of 300 feet. 2. All development proposals within the proposed annexation area which will occur adjacent to existing active agriculture shall be required to incorporate a 100 foot landscaped setback from the property line(s) of the adjacent agriculture into development plans. No structure shall be permitted within the setbacks. III. c) & d) The primary source of air pollution in the City is the automobile. Although annexation will not cause an increase in air emissions in and of itself, the buildout of the project will. The proposed land use designation for the project site is low density residential, 0-4 units per acre. At this density, a maximum of 800 single family residences would be possible. Based on calculations provided by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, 800 units could generate up to 7,656 trips per day'. As shown in the Table below, buildout of the annexation area will not exceed any SCAQMD thresholds. Running Exhaust Emissions (pounds/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 CO ROC NOx Exhaust Brakes Tires 50 mph 237.29 9.13 48.67 -- 1.01 1.01 Daily Threshold* 550 75 100 150 Based on 7,656 trips/day and average trip length of 6 miles, using EMFAC7G Model provided by California Air Resources Board. Assumes catalytic light autos at 75°F. * Operational thresholds provided by SCAQMD for assistance in determining the significance of a project. is The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM 10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or smaller). In order to control PM10, the City has imposed standards and requirements on development to control dust. Although no immediate project is proposed, the disturbance of the site for construction will eventually have an impact on air quality from PM 10. These impacts can be mitigated by the mitigation measures below. 1 Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Trip Generation, 6th Edition." Rate calculated for single family residential. at 9.57 trips per day. 2 L G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annexl3EAAdd.WPD 1. No earth moving activity shall be undertaken without the review and approval of a PM10 Management Plan. The applicant shall submit same to the City Engineer for review and approval. 2. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and serviced to minimize exhaust emissions. 3. Existing power sources should be utilized where feasible via temporary power poles to avoid on -site power generation. 4. Construction personnel shall be informed of ride sharing and transit opportunities. 5. Cut and fill quantities will be balanced on site. 6. Any portion of the site to be graded shall be pre -watered to a depth of three feet prior to the onset of grading activities. 7. Watering of the site or other soil stabilization method shall be employed on an on -going basis after the initiation of any grading activity on the site. Portions of the site that are actively being graded shall be watered regularly to ensure that a crust is formed on the ground surface, and shall be watered at the end of each work day. 8. All disturbed areas shall be treated to prevent erosion until the site is constructed upon. Pad sites which are to remain undeveloped shall be seeded with either a desert wildflower mix or grass seed. 9. Landscaped areas shall be installed as soon as possible to reduce the potential for wind erosion. 10. SCAQMD Rule 403 shall be adhered to, insuring the clean up of construction -related dirt on approach routes to the site. 1 1. All grading activities shall be suspended during first and second stage ozone episodes or when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 12. All buildings on the project site shall conform to energy use guidelines in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. 13. The project shall provide for non -motorized transportation facilities and shall implement all feasible measures to encourage the use of alternate transportation measures. 14. Bicycle racks and/or other mandated alternative transportation provisions shall be included in project design, in conformance with City ordinances in effect at the time of development. 203 G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annex 1 3EAAdd.WPD With the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impacts to air quality from buildout of the annexation area will not be significant. Moreover, improvements in technology which are likely to reduce impacts, particularly from motor vehicles or transit route improvements in the future are not included in the analysis. IV. a) The 'annexation area was previously studied for biological resources2. The biological analysis concluded that four types of habitat occur on the site: Desert Scrub, Agriculture, Pasture and Disturbed. No species of concern were identified in site surveys conducted specifically for Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, Palm Springs Ground Squirrel, Palm Springs Pocket Mouse and Flat Tailed Horned Lizard. The area was, however, identified as having mesquite hummocks, which provide important habitat for a number of desert species. The proposed annexation area includes several mesquite hummocks. In order to mitigate this potential impact, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project proponent(s) shall submit an on -site biological resource analysis identifying the total acreage of mesquite hummocks on the 200 acre site, or any portion thereof proposed for development. 2. Prior to construction or site preparation activities, the project proponent(s) shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California Department of Fish and Game and an appropriate non- profit organization whose purpose is to acquire and manage land, for the purpose of protecting special status plants and wildlife. This MOU shall provide the organization chosen the financial resources necessary to purchase and manage the equivalent acreage identified in mitigation measure #1 of mesquite hummock habitat in the Willow Hole area. V. b) Annexation of the project site will not, in of itself, have an impact on cultural resources. Buildout of the site, however, could impact such resources. A cultural resource survey was conducted for the subject property3. The survey found a number of resources in the area, but only very limited resources on the annexation area property. In order to ensure that buried resources are not lost if they occur, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: 2 "Biological Assessment for the Country Club of the Desert Project," Michael Brandman Associates, May 2000. 3 "A Phase I Cultural Resource Investigation of the Country Club of the Desert Project .area..." McKenna et. al., September 1999. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annex 1 3EAAdd.WPD 1. A qualified archaeological monitor shall be present during all demolition, earth moving and grading activities. The monitor shall be empowered to stop or redirect activities on the site should a resource be identified. A final report shall be filed with the Community Development Department prior to occupancy. VI. a) i) & ii) The proposed project lies in a Zone III groundshaking zone. The property, as with the rest of the City, will be subject to significant ground movement in the event of a major earthquake. The site is not subject to liquefaction4. In order to protect the City from hazards associated with groundshaking, the City has adopted the Uniform Building Code, and the associated construction requirements for seismic zones. The City Engineer will require the preparation of site -specific geotechnical analysis in conjunction with the submittal of grading plans (please see below). This requirement will ensure that impacts from ground failure are reduced to a less than significant level. VI. b) & c) The subject property is subject to soil erosion due to wind. The City will impose requirements for a PM 10 management plan, which will control this hazard (please see above). The soils on the property will also be examined through an on -site soil analysis required prior to issuance of grading permits. These requirements will reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Vill. b) Domestic water is provided by the Coachella Valley Water District, which extracts groundwater from a number of wells in the Lower Thermal sub -basin. The CVWD Water Management Plan includes a Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4) for the management and recharge of groundwater, which results in positive cumulative water storage for the period from 1999 to 2035 (Table 6-1). 0 Comments made on the original Environmental Assessment indicated a concern regarding water usage associated with residential development. The comments included an attached letter from Pace Engineering, calculating water usage for another project. Although no source or reference is provided for the data used in the Pace letter of June 7, 2001, the author uses an average of 150 gallons per person per day for residential land uses. The proposed annexation area encompasses 200 acres of low density residential land which could generate up to 800 dwelling units. The City's current average household size is 1.99 persons. Therefore, the potential water consumption within the annexation area boundary at buildout would be 238,800 gallons per day, or 0.73 acre feet per day, or 267 acre feet per year. "Draft Environmental Impact Report, Country Club of the Desert," SCH #99061109, Impact Sciences. August 2000. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annex 1 3EAAdd.WPD Data provided by the Coachella Valley Water District for the parcels included in the 200 acre annexation area show that a total of 7,829 acre feet of Canal water has been provided to metered locations in the last 10 years. This represents an average annual water usage of 783 acre feet for the entire 200 acres. The 267 acre feet estimated for usage by 800 residential units would therefore represent only 34% of the average annual usage of agricultural land uses within the annexation area for the last 10 years. Since Canal water is the primary source of water recharge plans being implemented by CVWD for groundwater recharge, the current use of Canal water for irrigation can be used in direct comparison to groundwater usage. The buildout of the annexation area would therefore reduce existing impacts to water resources, and would represent a beneficial impact. Alternatively, if the 200 acre annexation area were to develop as a golf course and residential development, with 100 acres of golf course and 100 acres of residential development, yielding up to 400 single family units (a similar larrd use distribution to that found at the adjacent approved Country Club of the Desert project), the annexation area would require 883 acre feet of water annually, based on the factors supplied by Pace Engineering (133 acre feet for the residential component, and 750 acre feet for the golf component). This represents an increase in water usage of 12.8 % over the annual average currently being utilized at the meters located within the annexation area. Since these meters occur only on 60 of the 200 acres in the annexation area, the water usage will represent a net per acre reduction in the water usage for the entire annexation area at buildout. Regardless of the type. of development which occurs on the site, all landscaping will be required to comply with the standards of the City's landscape water conservation ordinance, which mandates reductions in both irrigation and evapotranspiration. This standard will further reduce the potential impacts associated with groundwater within the annexation area. Vill. c)-e) When the annexation area is developed, impermeable surfaces will be created, which will ctfbnge drainage patterns in a rain event. Any project on the site will be required to meet the City's standards for retention of the 100 year storm on - site. This will control the amount of runoff which exits the site during a storm. The site's drainage plan will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. This will ensure that impacts to the City's flood control system are reduced to a less than significant level. IX. b) The County of Riverside currently has jurisdiction over the annexation area. The land use designation for the subject property under the County General Plan is 3A and 313, which allow 0.4-2 units and 0.2 to 0.4 units per acre, respectively. The City's proposed Low Density Residential designation will therefore somewhat increase this density, but will maintain the intended residential character of the area. The character of the property will not be changed by the "y G:\WPOOCS\Env Asses\Annexl3EAAdd.WPD proposed action, insofar as residential development would be expected to occur on this site under either jurisdiction. Finally, the adjacent lands to the west are being developed in residential units in a low density. The impacts associated with adjacency to existing agricultural land uses immediately south of the proposed annexation area have been addressed and mitigated under item II, above. The mitigation measures proposed are consistent with current conditions and standards under Riverside County's jurisdiction. The County's intent for the properties in this area is clearly defined as residential in their General Plan. The agricultural land uses will continue to operate at the owners' discretion under County jurisdiction. The impacts to land use are not expected to be significant. XI. a) b) & c) The noise environment in the annexation area is generally quiet, due to limited development and low traffic volumes. The ultimate development of the sife will result in an increase in noise levels, particularly noise generated by automobiles. The proposed land use designation will result in residential land uses on the site, which are considered sensitive receptors. In order to ensure that these sensitive receptors are not subject to noise impacts, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Xlll.a) 1. Any project on the subject property shall be required to complete a noise analysis which includes current conditions and anticipated buildout noise levels, and which includes mitigation measures to ensure that exterior and interior noise levels meet City standards in effect at that time. The analysis shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of building permits. Annexation and construction of the subject property will result in potential impacts for both police and fire services. The property, once developed, will generate property tax. These taxes will contribute to the City's General Fund, and offset the potential impact to police and fire service. The project will also be required t! pay school fees, as required by law. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant impact on municipal services or facilities. XV. a) & b) Based on comments received on the original Environmental Assessment, a traffic study has been prepared for the proposed annexation applications. The traffic analysis assumed that low density residential development totalling 960 units would occur on a 240 acre site (the 40 acre property now deleted from s "Country Club of the Desert Traffic Impact Analysis," prepared by Urban Crossroads, October 4, 2001. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annex 1 3EAAdd.WPD the annexation area was included in the traffic analysis). The analysis examined the potential impacts on the area's circulation system. It is important to note that the firm which completed this analysis also prepared the analysis for the General Plan, and therefore has the most current and accurate data available for the City's circulation system. The study found that with buildout of the proposed annexation area, combined with buildout of other projects, based on General Plan designations, the intersections within the project area will all operate at a Level of Service D or better, which meets the City's standards for roadway operations. Improvements required, and to be installed as development occurs, include signalization of the Madison/Avenue 52, Monroe/Avenue 52, Monroe/Avenue 53 intersections, and widening of Monroe, Madison and Avenue 52 to City General Plan standards. It is important to note that the widening and signalization will be required even if the proposed annexation area does not build out. The City requires that development contribute its fair share to street improvements as develoament occurs. Such a requirement will be imposed within the annexation area to ensure that levels of service are maintained at an acceptable level. XVI. b)-f) Although the annexation will have no impact on utilities, the ultimate, buildout of the site will have an impact on utilities and public services. However, the overall impacts of the project on these services is not expected to be significant, insofar as these suppliers will charge the residents for their services, and provide improvements to these services as needed. In addition, connection .fees will be required of the project proponent at construction of the project. These fees and charges will mitigate the potential impacts to a less than significant level. G:\WPDOCS\Env Asses\Annexl3EAAdd.WPD For a century Coachella Valley residents have understood the need to manage limited water supplies Managing water for our future 41 —it's time to tweak the system wisely to protect their lands for future generations. Professional water users — primarily farmers at first but later golf course managers and urban developers — recognized the need to monitor, protect and supple- ment groundwater supplies. They watched wells drop as Coachella crops began to feed the world and recover after they worked 30 years to bring Colorado River water to the area. Defining water jargon Overdraft: Ground- water extraction in excess of inflow to the groundwa- ter basin over a period of time. Acre-foot: Volume of water if one acre of land was covered with one foot of water — 325,000 gallons. Upper valley: Area westerly of Wash- ington Street. Lower valley: Area easterly of Wash- ington Street. They watched ground- water levels drop as the valley developed into a winter residential and recre- ational area for the world and they saw those declines greatly reduced as imported water began supplementing natural flows in the White - water River and percolated into the ground. Implementation of microirrigation techniques and computerized water management programs by farmers and urban irrigators together with aggressive rec- lamation and reuse of waste- water, computerized man- agement of distribution systems and use of other cut- ting edge conservation techniques have attracted engineers from throughout the world to study Coachella Valley facilities. More important — these actions have allowed the valley's water supplies to meet growth resulting from city and county planning decisions. To assure that we continue to meet those demands without causing significant environmental damage we must periodically adjust water manage- ment actions. The proposed Coachella Valley Water Management Plan consists of many small to modest tweaks to improve conservation and increase importa- tion to get us through the next 35 years while we plan for changes that may be necessary then. Are we running out of water? Page 12 Without a management plan, we will but the time frame is measured in centuries. There is no question, however, that environmental damage will occur long before we go thirsty. Are major California cities running out of water? Not if they keep their imported water pipelines flowing. If their pipelines fail, their water supply is limited to days —not centuries. They have no on -site storage to match Coachella Valley's aquifer. We have always had to aggressively manage the valley's limited water supplies but the storage capacity of our aquifer has granted us the luxury of time to plan and develop new and improved sources, the basics of which are conservation, reuse and importation. What does the plan do? In 1999, Coachella Valley suffered an overdraft of 136,000 acre-feet of water-32,000 from the upper valley and 104,000 from the lower valley. Generally speak- ing, an acre of developed desert land —in houses, agricul- ture, golf courses or lakes — requires about 6 acre-feet of water per year. It was this overdraft trend that led, sev- eral years earlier, to work on a new water management plan. The proposed Coachella Valley Water Management Plan provides a comprehen- sive framework that assures adequate quantities of safe, high quality water for the entire valley for the next 35 years. At that point, future water leaders can be expected to again tweak the system to account for new technology, development trends and supply availability then. This plan will reverse today's declining groundwater levels. The current reduction in groundwater storage brings with it the threats of decreas- ing water quality, land subsid- ence and increased costs. Coachella Valley Water District began development of this plan in 1993 by contract- ing with a team at the Uni- versity of California at Davis for development of a computerized groundwater model that would develop detailed information of future water needs based on the history of water use and availability. This model was completed in 1998. Actual formulation of the plan and environmental review process began in 1994. Nearly complete in 1999, the plan and environmental impact report were revised to conform with projected water availability after broad points of negotiations concerning Colo- rado River use were completed. Charts show current water sources. Note that the Coachella Canal delivers an average of nearly 300,000 acre-feet annually to the lower valley while the valley's State Water Project entitlement (yellow line) is a little more than 60,000 acre-feet. Major changes in State Page 13 Water Project deliveries from year to year reflect an exchange agreement with Metropolitan Water District. It allows delivery to the Coachella Valley groundwater basin of excess flows during wet years and little or no water during dry years when all surface water is needed on the coastal plain. Then Coachella Valley relies on the "banked" groundwater delivered in wet years. Accompanying charts show groundwater decline in selected wells throughout the valley. Red shows actual decline. Projected continuation of that decline —if the water management plan is not imple- mented —is in yellow. Water levels will continue to decline if the over- draft problem isn't addressed. There will be a perma- nent loss of storage capacity as the land compresses on the declining aquifer. This also creates the potential for surface subsidence. The potential for water quality degradation increases. What is the process? Many alternatives were considered in drafting the plan. These were combined and reduced to four pro- posals —no project, pumping restrictions, demand man- agement and a combination plan. The no project alter- native is just that —do noth- ing and suffer the conse- quences —a required alterna- tive of the environmental review process. The pumping restric- tions alternative would require court -ordered restric- tions on groundwater extrac- tion —reducing water extrac- tion to balance water replen- ishment. To accomplish this it is estimated well owners in the upper valley would have to reduce their use by about 35 percent while well users in the lower valley would be cut back by 70 percent The demand manage ment alternative would keep imported supplies near cur- rent levels and require exten- sive expansion of conservation and reuse. The combination alternative includes three basic water management elements: conservation, source substitution (replacing use of groundwater with use of canal water, for instance) and groundwater recharge. The groundwater model was developed to provide a scientific basis for understanding impacts of the man- agement plan alternatives on the groundwater basin. What alternative is preferred? The combination alternative does the best job of meeting current and future water needs with the least impact to environment and the water user's quality of life and pocketbook. Page 14 The water conservation measures would reduce urban water demand by 10 percent, agricultural demands by 7 percent and existing golf course demand by 5 percent. Demand for new golf courses would be reduced more substantially. Demand on current groundwater supplies would be reduced through source substitution: delivering canal water to current agricultural golf course pump- ers, increasing the use of recycled water, desalting agricultural drain water for reuse, treating canal water for domestic use and providing State Water Project water for direct golf course use. The least expensive of these with the most poten- tial for alleviating the problem would be implemented first with the more costly being phased in toward the end of the 3 5-year period. The plan would continue the current level of recharge in the upper valley —about 100,000 acre-feet per year —and implement a lower valley recharge pro- gram of about 80,000 acre-feet per year. Where will we get more water? For several years, CVWD has been negotiating with other Colorado River water contractors in Califor- nia to quantify entitlements. As the plan now stands, we would gain an additional 155,000 acre-feet of water annually. We are also nearing completion of negotiations with Metropolitan Water District of Cali- fornia for a State Water Project entitlement transfer to us of 100,000 acre-feet in most years. Other new water would come from increased recycled water use, additional purchases of surplus water when other agencies have it available and the desalting of agricul- tural drain water. What will result? The chart on this page shows the projected result of implementing the pre- ferred alternative of the Water Management Plan based on CVWD's comput- erized groundwater model. Taking the Bermuda Dunes well chart as an example, the red line shows historic conditions, the yellow line shows projected conditions with no plan and the green line shows the groundwa- ter table recovering with the preferred plan. Where do we go? The Water Management Plan's draft environmen- tal impact report is expected to be issued before the end of 2001. It will be open for public comment for 45 days. Until that process is complete, CVWD will be holding a series of public forums and workshops on the plan in various parts of the district's service area. How can 1 see the full plan? The complete plan can be found on the district's web site: www.cvwd.org. It can be downloaded from there or, if you have ftp software, from ftp.cvwd.org by navigating to the public folder and then to the public documents folder, signing on as an "anonymous" user and using your e-mail address as a password. It is also available for viewing at CVWD headquarters, Highway 111 and Avenue 52, Coachella. When the draft environmental impact report is finished it will also be available in the same locations. Groups within Coachella Valley Water District can arrange for a speaker to discuss the water manage- ment plan by calling Steve Robbins, assistant to the general manager, at CVWD, 398-2651. Showing of a new 28-minute video about water management in Coachella Valley can be arranged by calling Dennis Mahr, communications and legislative director, at the same telephone number. Pa e 15 Page 1 of 4 Robert Hargreaves - 1. California Water News - 2/27/02 - Today's Top News: Klamath Basin wells From: "Cohen, Jeff' <jcohen @water. ca. gov> To: "Ca I iforn iaWaterN ews Readers (E-mail)" <water news@water.ca.gov> Date: 02/27/2002 12:25 PM Subject: 1. California Water News - 2/27/02 - Today's Top News: Klamath Basin wells California Water News A compilation of daily news distributed to personnel of the California Department of Water Resources Subscribe / questions? - jcohen(cD_water.ca.gov Feb. 27, 2002 Today's Top News: Klamath Basin Wells in California threaten to leave Oregon town dry Portland Oregonian - 2/27/02 By Michael Milstein, staff writer The struggle for water in the Klamath Basin has gone underground, as huge new irrigation wells in California have extracted water from beneath Oregon and placed the supply of a small Oregon farm town in jeopardy. Neither Oregon nor California water managers know just what to do about it. Neither can control or remedy what goes across the state line. And town leaders in Malin, a mile inside Oregon, don't know what to do about the dropping water in their longtime municipal wells. "We're kind of at someone's mercy, we just don't know whose," said city recorder Kay Neumeyer. "We don't know how long it will take to run us out of water." Malin and its population of about 750 have become unwitting victims of tremendous pressure placed on the invisible reservoir of groundwater beneath the Klamath region during last summer's drought. No one knows how big that reservoir is. But when federal agencies held irrigation water back to help protected fish last summer, farmers and officials sunk new wells and file:HC:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00002.HTM 02/27/2002 Page 2 of 4 reopened old ones like never before -- effectively dipping "straws" into a hidden cache that may prove as vital to Klamath's future as water on the surface. It may be an inadvertent throwback to Western water feuds of decades past, when landowners rushed to beat each other to river water, seeking first -come, first -served rights in a drainage. California installed the biggest straws last summer, drilling 10 large irrigation wells with $5 million in emergency funds Gov. Gray Davis gave the Tulelake Irrigation District to help farmers through the drought. Because the Klamath Basin slopes southward, crews sunk most of the wells as far north in California as they could so flowing water would reach as many farmers as possible. Six wells went in next to the state line, with the deepest one scarcely a mile from the Oregon town of Malin. The 2,600-foot well known as Number 6 reached almost seven times deeper than the old, 380-foot well that supplies Malin's best water; it yielded close to 10,000 gallons a minute, more than 20 times the flow of the nearby Malin well. Such large wells are rare in the Klamath Basin, where farms have drawn water for nearly a century from ditches and canals federal authorities left dry much of last summer. Geologists think the Number 6 well plunged into the same sloping subterranean reservoir as Malin's wells. When workers installed a powerful new pump on the Number 6 well in California last fall, water in Malin's best well dropped about 40 feet in a matter of days and forced the town to switch to a backup well with a sulfurous odor. "The city of Malin can't really compete with the state of California," said public works director Rob Grounds. "I don't think we can afford to drill to 2,700 feet to keep up with the Joneses next door." People in Malin are less upset with California farmers desperate for the new wells than with Oregon officials who seem quicker to throw up their hands than to lend a hand. "The state of California and the state of Oregon really have a dilemma here that they've never addressed," Neumeyer said. "We're stuck with it." Other wells more than three miles into Oregon also have dropped because of the California irrigation wells, said Fred Lissner, groundwater manager for the Oregon Department of Water Resources. It's also "entirely possible" the California wells drew water undetected from other parts of Oregon, he said. "Dealing with the groundwater there, we don't have much experience," he said. "We don't 21 � file://C :\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00002.HTM 02/27/2002 Page 3 of 4 know if we're overdeveloping the system." Landowners on the Oregon side of the Klamath Basin historically have drilled more wells than their neighbors in California, but Oregon's investment in developing Klamath's groundwater last year pales in comparison with California's $5 million outlay. The Oregon Legislature last year provided $2 million to help pay for some new wells, but budget cuts sliced that by $750,000, and Oregon farmers are still working out how to spend the rest. California's emergency services division paid to deepen or adjust pumps in some household wells in California that lost water to the large, new irrigation wells. The division hoped to do the same for Malin but learned it could not spend state money outside California, said Noel Eaves, an engineering geologist with the California Department of Water Resources. Water law offers little help. In California, whoever drills the deepest well usually gets the water. Oregon water law does not kick in unless an underground aquifer is almost exhausted -- and, in any case, does not apply in California. "We're left with the good -neighbor policy," Eaves said. At Malin's urging, California irrigators shut off the Number 6 well when farm demand eased in November. The Malin well is slowly recovering, Grounds said. He has lowered the pump in the town's best well to reach the water, but a kink in the old hole keeps him from dropping it below 140 feet. Now residents are worried about what will happen if the Tulelake Irrigation District cranks its new wells open this spring without any water in irrigation canals to help recharge the underlying aquifer. "Our community is an ag community," Grounds said. "I understand them needing the well, but nobody ever thought all this would happen." Farmers in the Tulelake Irrigation District hope they will not have to use the new wells this year, but that depends on the federal government, said manager Earl Danosky. If federal agencies hold back irrigation water as they did last summer, the wells may be the only water source California farmers have, he said. But he and Eaves said the irrigation district will try to operate the well to minimize any impact on Malin. A state -federal study is under way to map Klamath's subterranean water supplies but will take a few more years. Many think well water will play a vital part in easing the heavy demand on surface reservoirs that must provide for farmers, tribes and endangered fish. If the public fears new wells will infringe on homes or towns such as Malin that have file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00002.HTM 02/27/2002 r t Page 4 of 4 older, shallow wells, however, they could oppose new drilling. That leaves a situation where "you lock up the resource with the shortest straw," said Paul Cleary, director of the Oregon Department of Water Resources. "It's becoming a huge issue, especially across state lines," he said. An interstate compact commission helps oversee rivers and streams in the Klamath Basin but has no power over underground water. Still, Cleary hopes it may offer a forum for resolving groundwater disputes. But most admit the precious water beneath the arid, high desert basin will always remain something of a mystery. "That's why we call it the big experiment," said Marshall Gannett, a U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist leading the ongoing groundwater study. "There's a heckuva lot of development without a heckuva lot of certainty about what the effect will be." # [more topics to follow] Jeff Cohen Public Information Officer, Office of Water Education California Department of Water Resources 1416 9th St., Room 1104-1 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-0979 jcohen@water.ca.gov file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) 00002.HTM 02/27/2002 Page 1 of 4 Robert Hargreaves - 1. California Water News - Today's Top News: Crunch Time for Big Transfer From: "Cohen, Jeff' <jcohen@water.ca.gov> To: "CaliforniaWaterNewsReaders (E-mail)" <water news@water.ca.gov> Date: 03/15/2002 10:21 AM Subject: 1. California Water News - Today's Top News: Crunch Time for Big Transfer California Water News A compilation of daily news distributed to personnel of the California Department of Water Resources Subscribe / questions? - icohen water.ca.4ov March 15, 2002 p Today's To News: Imperial -San Diego Transfer Met chief says water transfer at critical juncture North County Times (Escondido) - 3/16/02 By Gig Conaughton, staff writer Ron Gastelum, chief executive officer of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, said this week that the next 90 days are going to be crucial to the success or failure of San Diego County's historic proposal to buy billions of gallons of water from Imperial Valley farmers. Bringing Metropolitan board members up to date Tuesday about the proposed water - transfer deal between the San Diego County Water Authority and Imperial Irrigation District, Gastelum also said: The water -transfer deal, which is scheduled to start Jan. 1, still faces numerous environmental, financial and legislative hurdles. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is scheduled to meet later this month with the water agencies involved to try to get a read on how the deal is progressing. Water agencies and state and federal fish and game officials may have found a solution to what the water transfer's proponents believe are the true environmental impacts, but the solution would cost between $110 million and $115 million, and no one is volunteering to pay that sum. �? file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } OOOO 1.HTM 03/15/2002 Page 2 of 4 Groups that want to see the Salton Sea ---- California's largest lake ---- environmentally restored are still trying to hold the water transfer responsible for that desire, constituting the biggest threat to the deal. If anyone expects Metropolitan "to put large sums of money on the table for the Salton Sea," then that would be "a matter for considerable debate" at Metropolitan. Under terms of the water transfer, the Water Authority will pay as much as $50 million to Imperial Valley farmers in return for roughly 72 billion gallons of water a year. The deal was made even more important in February 2001 when it became the linchpin of two other water plans that promise California will reduce its take of Colorado River water by2015. Some say if the water transfer falls apart now, Southern California will suffer an immediate 35 percent cut in its water supply. Feinstein will meet Howard Gantman, a spokesman for Feinstein's office, confirmed that Feinstein has agreed to meet with the Imperial Irrigation District when she is in California on legislative recess March 27. Maureen Stapleton, general manager of the Water Authority, said her agency, as well as Metropolitan and the Coachella Valley Water District, expect to take part in that meeting. Stapleton said the Imperial district and Water Authority first met with Feinstein in Washington, D.C., last month. "The four agencies are getting together with her at the end of the month, and the purpose is to figure out how we get from here to success," Stapleton said. Stapleton and Sue Giller, spokeswoman for the Imperial Irrigation District, agreed with Gastelum's assessment that the next 90 days will be critical if the water transfer deal is to be successfully completed. "This is a critical time," Giller said. "There are things that have to be decided; federal and state legislation could be needed.. We need the help on the outside, and without it, the fate of 17 million people (Southern Californians) sort of hangs in the balance." Officials from both agencies, as well as federal and state agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Fish and Game and others, are still racing to complete the deal. For example, public hearings for the draft environmental impact report on the water 1 1#? 3 file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00001.HTM 03/15/2002 Page 3 of 4 transfer are scheduled for April 2, 3 and 4. That report still must be certified by the State Water Resources Control Board this summer. It's all in the details Imperial officials have yet to hammer out the specific details about how farmers will conserve enough water to honor their 75-year agreement. And the Water Authority, which has a 35-year agreement with Metropolitan to "rent" aqueducts to transport the water to San Diego County, still hasn't worked out a deal for the second 35 years. However, the biggest hurdles facing the water transfer remain the environmental questions. The most pressing of these is whether people who want the Salton Sea to be "saved" can persuade congressional leaders that the water transfer should pay to restore the sea. The Salton Sea, about 80 miles northeast of San Diego in Imperial and Riverside counties, was created between 1905 and 1907, when floods overran farmland irrigation levees and spilled into what was then the Great Salt Sink. Since it was created, the lake has become an important haven for migratory birds. But it also has become increasingly salty because of two factors ---- evaporation and the fact that the lake's only source of replenishment comes from irrigation runoff from Imperial Valley farms. Salton Sea advocates say the water transfer will reduce that runoff, and hasten the lake toward becoming so salty that the fish and birds living there will die; and because of that, the water transfer should pay the $1.6 billion supporters say it will take to restore the lake. From Salton to dead Gastelum, Stapleton, Giller and proponents of the water transfer say the Salton Sea was already "dying" even without the water transfer, and so the transfer should not have to pay to fix the lake. Even if that is true, there are still several environmental -related hurdles to overcome in the next nine months. Stapleton said the Water Authority, Imperial district, and the federal and state fish and game officials believe the best way to soften the environmental damage the water transfer would cause would be to build a fish hatchery and a series of "ponds" in which fish ---- 2 ,� , s. L� file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}OOOOI.HTM 03/15/2002 Page 4 of 4 and birds ---- could continue to live even as the Salton Sea becomes saltier. That solution would cost between $110 million and $115 million ---- money that none of the water agencies are prepared to spend. Giller said the Imperial Irrigation District has a contractual option to get out of the deal if its environmental costs are more than $30 million. However, Stapleton said there are two bills being considered by federal legislators ---- authored by U.S. Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, and Ken Calvert, R-Corona ---- that could bring the water transfer $120 million in funding. # [more topics to follow] Jeff Cohen Public Information Officer, Office of Water Education California Department of Water Resources 1416 9th St., Room 1104-1 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 653-0979 jcohen@water.ca.gov file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW) OOOO 1.HTM 03/15/2002 C&O nU0 AA l BEST BEST br: KRIEGER LLP A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS a e� c48.1k..✓ RIVERSIDE LAWYERS SAN DIEGO (909) 686- 1 450 74-760 HIGHWAY 1 1 1, SUITE 200 (6 1 9) 525- 1 300 INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 922 10 ONTARIO POST OFFICE BOX 1 3650 ORANGE COUNTY (9O9) Q89-8584 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92255 (714) 939-5940 (760) 558-251 1 SACRAMENTO (760) 340-6698 FAX (91 6) 974-3400 BBKLAW.COM BRIAN M. LEWIS BMLEWIS@BBKLAW.COM March 20, 2002 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92270 Re: Comprehensive General Plan Dear Sirs: This firm represents Howard B. Keck, Jr., and submits this letter on his behalf. Mr. Keck owns and farms approximately 310 acres south of Avenue 62 at Monroe. The farm was included in the original General Plan Study Area, and lies just outside the Study Area in the current version of the General Plan. Mr. Keck believes that property owners should be free to develop their properties if they choose to do so, and that the City of La Quinta and County of Riverside should encourage responsible development in the eastern Coachella Valley. However, in order to protect existing, valuable farming operations, it is important that the City and County put in place sufficient controls on the development process to ensure that residential developments do not prejudice the ability of farmers to continue to farm. Mr. Keck farms his property in a technically advanced, large scale commercial farming operation, with approximately 220 acres in grapes, and the remainder in date and fruit orchards. The grapes are a special hybrid table grape that commands a premium in domestic and international markets. The farm employs 200 to 300 seasonal workers and produces several million dollars worth of agricultural products annually. The Keck property is in a Williamson Act Agricultural Preserve, which requires that it be maintained in exclusive agricultural use for an ever -extending term of ten years. Farming operations on the Keck property generate impacts typical of large scale farming operations. Heavy machinery operates at all hours of the day and night, as cultivation practices RWUB\RW1i\196848 rl LAW OFFICES OF BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of La Quinta March 20, 2002 Page 2 demand, and generates significant levels of noise and dust. Applications of agricultural chemicals such as sulfur, herbicides and pesticides create inevitable strong odors. On particularly cold nights, helicopters are employed at low altitudes to stir up the air and prevent freezing. Organic fertilizers are employed that generate their own objectionable odors. Workers travel to and from the property, and engage in work on the property, at all hours of the day and night, generating additional traffic and noise. Of particular concern with respect to the La Quinta planning process is the protection of groundwater resources. Mr. Keck's farming operation relies on groundwater for drip irrigation systems and domestic water supply. If groundwater levels are allowed to drop without check, the cost of drilling deeper wells, increasing the size of pumps, and additional power costs to pump the water from greater depths may significantly impact the profitability of existing farming operations. Contamination of the aquifer from lower quality water being drawn in by dropping water levels is also a serious concern. Finally, Mr. Keck's farm is close to the valley/mountain interface and has been identified at greater risk from ground subsidence. Consequently, Mr. Keck urges that the City take particular care to ensure the groundwater resources are not compromised by the development process. Also, in order to remain viable, farming operations need adequate buffers from residential developments to ensure that conflicts with residential neighbors do not impede farming operations. For that reason, the Coral Mountain project, which abuts the Keck property to the, north of Avenue 621 agreed to set back its residential development by 300 feet from Avenue 62. That setback, when combined with Avenue 62, provides almost a 500 foot buffer between Mr. Keck's farming operations and adjoining residential development. This is the minimum that is believed necessary to protect future neighbors from the impacts of large scale farming operations. Consequently, the City is urged to carefully condition future development to ensure that farmers can continue to work their land without jeopardy from the impacts of urban development. Very truly yours, Brian M. Lewis of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP RWH:dm cc: Howard B. Keck, Jr. 22 7 RMPUB\R WHO 196848 05' 15f 1992'' C�4: 45 310657866 Tracey Darroll RANCHO CHEETAH 83-581 Avenue 60 Vista Santa Rosa, CA 92274 March 20, 2002 To: City of La Quinta City Comicil Re., La Quinta General Plan and Revised EIR Dear La Quirtta City Council; PAGE 02 0 0 -- :1 1. The Public Review period is inadequate and should be extended. The General Plan references the Agricultural Ordinance in many locations. However, the Agricultural Ordinance was not fully completed and available to the public until early last week. Therefore_ the City Council should grant another 30 days for the public to adequately re-. ic.w the General Plan, 1^ urthermore. the documents are very lengthy, convoluted, and intertwinc.d. The entire scope of the do� unients is very expensive and has not been readily available. Just the other day I coy, Id not purchase over the counter without special order, th�-. current proposed General Plan. That makes a full review impossible. Therefore, to allow for appropriate public notice and review, i request that the City Council extend the review Period, 2. All of the issues outlined in my previous letter still stand and have not been fully addressed in a non -biased manner by the comments in the Revised EIR. 3. Very importantly, the water issue needs to fully and adequately addressed. The EIR does not adequately address the cumulative impact of the current development and proposed densi. ty on the water table- The water impacts have been grossly understated, Currently the ,% ater table has been dropping about 30-40 feet minimum per year. I have already had to lower my well twice over the last ten years, and most recently again in 200 l . The hu�c financial impact on overdrafting the welts on the agricu:ture and local ranches has not been adequately addressed or analyzed. 03-20-02 15:55 RECEIVED FROM:3166578662 P•02 051' 15 f 1 y'32 04: 45 31065.78662 P"� �E 0 D. The FIR stares that development uses the same amount of water as a ranch or agriculture, hot w Izat this J ,)cs not analyze is the current continuing financial impact to the loc-al property their wells as they have to keep lowering them to -nett La Quinta's gro'VN th. ��'h�ii. kvi ll occur when the we11s no longer function? What will be the impact on agriculture; ami equestrian ranches? What will be impact on the Salton Sea and the neighboring c.o!i)munities? These questions have not been adequately �Lddressed and mLcst be. 4. The Air Quality is another issue that was obviously not addressed adequately as the EIR states that this is not a significant issue, when in fact per the EPA our air pollutants are already over and above the legal limits. The-refore, ft., EIR is blatantly wrong abotit rlik. impact of 66,000 nev., homes and 1,250,000 new traffic trips per day on the environni ni The FIR needs to be redone to adequately address this issue. Sincerely, --91) Tracey Darro l l Robert Darrol f Rancho Wheelah Vista Santa Rosa 2�1 03-20-02 15:55 RECEIVED FROM:3106578662 P•03 05/ 15/ 1992 04: 45 9106578bb2 PA13E C11 Car) Trace)' Darrel! 150 N. Rolier*50r1 F; Rosa 5wta 32�, Vista Santa f3everty t-1i11s, CA 90? � Phone. 310-6.57 -64 h4 Fax-, 31 Ci-65T-aZ66? Fax l ` Fro„n; Tracey Derroll Date'. Fax: - - : I Pages: � Phone: 1 _ CC: Re: 20 �G`G x Urgent 0 For Review 0 PlAase comment El Pleases RePly CI Please RecyCle • Comments Sincerely, Tracey Darroll cell- 310-713--4277 Office 310-657+-6464 03-20-02 15:54 RECEIVED FROM:3106578662 P-01 ROBERT L. PIPPIN-ROBERTLPiPPIN®AOL.COM MICHAEL A. CRISTE IRWIN L. GOLDS PAUL D. BOJIC Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CITY OF LA QUINTA 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California 92253 WL fy Law Offices of CRISTE, PIPPIN & GOLDS v r� 73-550 ALESSANDRO DRIVE SUITE 200 ,TEHONE: (760) 862-1111 PALM DESERT, CA 92260 FACSIMILE: (760) 776-4197 C—Y C ; , , . r tNAIL: CPGCA@aol.com , 1 ..,;. � C; 1 Y C;'"S OFFICE March 19, 2002 Re: Certification of Environmental Impact Report for Comprehensive General Plan and Adoption of the General Plan Update Honorable Mayor and Members of the County Council: My office has been retained by Triangle Bar Farms, Inc. dba Brazo Norte ("Brazo Norte"), a property owner impacted that the above referenced proposed action. Brazo Norte objects to the certification of the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Comprehensive General Plan ("CGP") and the adoption of the General Plan Update ("GPU"), for the reasons set forth below. Generally, Brazo Norte believes that the attempt of the City to overreach by including Study Areas 1 and 2 under the purview of the EIR and proposed GPU creates insurmountable obstacles to the adequacy of and the certification of the EIR. Brazo Norte believes that removal of Study Areas 1 and 2 from inclusion in the City's General Plan process would resolve most of the concerns regarding the GPU and EIR by removing from the General Plan the 1000's of new acres and 10,000's of new dwelling units which create the negative environmental impacts which are not adequately addressed by the EIR. Brazo Norte will not restate all of the arguments against the EIR and GPU that have been more than adequately presented to the City by the numerous letters which populate the record. Brazo Norte does adopt all of the arguments presented in the letters, and incorporates the same in this letter by reference. In addition to the many objections that have been already voiced, as above referenced, Brazo Norte would like to highlight just a few issues that may have been overlooked or not been focused upon. r1p2\brazo nor[e-la quinta.101.wpd 1+" Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CITY OF LA QUINTA March 20, 2002 Page 2 A. THE EIR ADMITS THAT GROUND WATER ISSUES RAISE SERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, YET THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ARE ILLEGALLY DELEGATED AND DEFERRED An EIR is not adequate where its findings are based upon the presumed success of mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. [Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino 202 Cal. App. 3' 296. See also Oro Fino Gold Mining Corporation v. County of El Dorado 225 Ca1.App.3rd 872] In this case, the City acknowledges serious ground water depletion issues, but claims sufficient mediation is proposed with comments such as: (1) All future development projects shall be carefully analyzed by the City, CVWD, etc.; (2) The City shall support and cooperate with CVWD in the development of permanent ground water recharge; (3) The City will encourage drought tolerant landscaping; (4) The City shall support CVWD, etc. The alleged mitigation measures are nothing more than delays to get around a proper study of the very real issues of water depletion and contamination by the tremendous increase in demand that would result from the more than 100,000 people envisioned in Study Areas 1 and 2 by the GPU. To propose that a proper mitigation plan for an increase of 100,000 people (1 /3rd of the current total population of the Coachella Valley) is simply to state that the City will work with CVWD does not constitute a proper environmental study and/or mitigation by the City as lead agency in this process. B. THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IS NOT SUPPORTED IN THE RECORD BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The Statement of Overriding Considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. [CEQA Guidelines § 15093(b); Towards Responsibility in Planning v. City Council (61h Dist. 1988) 200 Cal.App.3rd 671 ] The lead agency much find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. [California Public Resource Code §21081(b)] The City acknowledges in the EIR that unavoidable significant impacts will flow from the GPU in the areas of Biological Resources, Water Resources, Geotechnical Hazards, Traffic and Circulation, and Air Quality. In response to these unmitigated environmental degradations, the City relies upon a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Yet, nowhere in the record is there any support for the minimal statements included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. Essentially, the City proposes to increase its size and population almost ten -fold, with the attendant unmitigated environmental impacts, and justifies its actions by stating that its GPU will be beneficial to the City. 1,1 3 r1p2\brazo none -la quinta.101.wpd � '"� Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CITY OF LA QUINTA March 20, 2002 Page 3 The City's overreaching in its GPU and EIR by including 1000's of acres of property that are not included in the City limits or the City's sphere of influence, and the resultant unmitigated environmental impact, are not supported by the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and are certainly not supported by the required substantial evidence it the record itself. See Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1 St Dist. 1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1212; and Koster v. County of San Joaquin (3rd Dist. 1996) 47 Cal.AppAth 29 for similar situations where the Courts have determined that the Statement of Overriding Considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record, and that petitioners may challenge the evidentiary basis for Statements of Overriding Considerations associated with first -tier project approval, such as general plan updates, even though subsequent planning approvals will be required to implement the board policies at issue. Here, the City cannot lay an environmental blanket over 1000's of acres of new land, acknowledge the unmitigated environmental impact, and then simply brush the environmental issues aside with a four point Statement of Overriding Considerations which simply states that the GPU would be good for the City. Neither can the City support its decision by stating that future studies will solve the unresolved environmental issues. C. BY FAILING TO COMBINE THE REQUIRED HOUSING ELEMENT WITH THE REST OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS, THE CITY HAS IMPERMISSIBLY PIECE-MEALED PROJECT CONSIDERATION The housing element is a mandatory element of a General Plan. [Govt. Code § 65302(c)] In adopting a housing element, a city must consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors, as well as community goals set forth in the General Plan. [Govt. Code § 65580(e)] The housing element must assess the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, and include an implementation program formulated to meet those needs. [Govt. Code § 65583] The proposed General Plan does not include a housing element. The EIR does not contain an analysis of the impact of the projected build -out on housing needs in the lower Coachella Valley. The Final EIR notes: "The General Plan housing element is being prepared separately and will be processed immediately following the General Plan policy document. The element will identify and describe specific programs that will increase the supply and quality in the planning area, including affordable housing. Potential environmental impacts associated with future housing policies and programs will also be evaluated." [FEIR p23] r1p2\brazo norte-la quinta.101.wpd Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CITY OF LA QUINTA March 20, 2002 Page 4 This segmentation of environmental review is not permitted. A project must be defined broadly to incorporate all aspects of a proposed project. An agency is not permitted to split a project into two or more segments. This prohibition against "piece-mealing" ensures "that environmental considerations will not become submerged by chopping a larger project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences". [Burbank -Glendale -Pasadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577,592] By separating the GPU and housing element approval process, the City has impermissibly segmented the total project, rendering impossible the informed discussion of the impacts on affordable housing within the context of the broader General Plan. This approach is not permitted under CEQA. D. THE EIR SHOULD BE RECIRCULATED BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BOTH IN THE PLANNING AREA AND THE PROPOSED MITIGATION If, subsequent to the commencement of the public review and interagency consultation but prior to final EIR certification, the lead agency adds "significant new information to any EIR, the agency must issue a new notice and must recirculate the revised EIR, or portions thereof, for additional commentary and consultation". [Public Resources Code § 21092.1 ] Since commencement of the public review process, significant changes have been made to the GPU: the study area north of the city has been eliminated, and the large study area to the east has been cut in half. Significant new mitigation measures have been proposed, including adoption of "Right to Farm" ordinance and an agricultural overlay. Notwithstanding that these changes, may of which significantly affect the environmental impacts of the proposed project, the EIR has not been modified to reflect the changes, nor has it been recirculated for public review. Given the substantial changes in the project that have occurred during the update process, recirculation of the EIR is required. E. THE GENERAL PLAN AND DRAFT EIR DID NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDER IMPACT TO BIG HORN SHEEP HABITAT While the draft EIR briefly discusses impacts at the proposed project on Big Horn sheep, it does not provide sufficient evidence on how the proposed mitigation measures would ameliorate significant habitat impacts. Development contemplated by the proposed General Plan would eliminate hundreds of acres of Big Horn sheep habitat and introduce high levels of human disturbance into remote and sensitive areas. The Untied States Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game have reviewed the proposed mitigation measures and concluded that the impacts on the Big Horn sheep by development contemplated by the proposed r1p2\brazo none -la quinta.101.wpd i� Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CITY OF LA QUINTA March 20, 2002 Page 5 GPU would be significant and would likely preclude achievement of recovery objectives for the ewe group whose habitat would be impacted. [FEIR p83] Consequently, the EIR has not sufficiently considered mitigation of impact to the Big Horn sheep. For all of the above reasons, together with the arguments and facts presented by others in writing and at all public hearings, Brazo Norte urges that the City remove Study Areas 1 and 2 from consideration at this time, or in the alternative, the City should send the EIR and GPU back to the Planning Commission for additional study and investigation to resolve the significant the environmental issues remaining to be addressed. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ob of C , PIPPIN & GOLDS RLP/cgt r1p2\brazo none -la quinta.101.wpd 03J:; .`,` / 2002 09: ? 61a- 7 779810 SOFIA INVESTMENTS P' i 01 Sorm in ems, Inc March 20, 2002 Faxed Honorable City Council Cam' OF LA QUINTA P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, California 92253 79-285 Rancho La Quinta Drive La Quits, California 92253 (760) 777-980-' (760) 777-9810 tax RE: The La Quinta General Plan Update/Draft Final Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Peiia and Council: As a representative of the Coral Mountain Specific Plan, I want to express my complete support for the adoption of the General Plan before you this evening. Portions of Coral Mountain are located within the existing sphere of influence, while other areas are outside the sphere, including an area east of Monroe Street. Without exception, Coral Mountain supports the cWs vision for the area, including Coral Mountain and properties to the east. The ciV has gone to considerable time and expense to ensure a fair prods that considered input from all quadrants of the community. It is time now for action. Sincerely, SOFIA INVESTMENTS, INC. r John P. Garnlin President 03-20-02 09:35 RECEIVED FROM:760 7779810 P.01 MAR 19 2001 7:44PM DESERT PACIFIC PROP. 760 360 7580 p.2 March 19, 2002 City of La Quinta City Council Members P.O. Sox 1504 75-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: General Plan Update ct-0 �1"Dv/ �VNAJ CM Ash CD / Celery ✓ en - Dear Council Members: I would like to take a momentto couupliment you on your efforts with regard to the General Plan update. No doubt this has been quite a task but the teamwork put forth by staff, Planning Commission and City Council members has resulted in a well -laid plan for the future. You have done a very nice job of accommodating a diverse group of citizens to meet their indi-vidual needs without compromising the quality the City of La QFinta has grown to be known for. You are all to be commended! Keep up the fantastic work! Sincerely, Susan Harvey Monroe Partners LLC APNs: 767-360-002 767-360-001 646-311-017 03-19-02 19:43 RECEIVED FROM:760 360 7580 P-02 t 1:19.i' 00'1 L�3:5 9495595959 RAQUEL RETTBERG PAGE 01 March 191> 2002 1_,a Quinta City Council Re: Council meeting, March 20, 2002 I understand there is to be a meeting to discuss and receive property owner's preference regarding the General Plan and E I R. My husband, Howard Rettberg, and I own a 20 acre ranch in Indio, unincorporated, and we wish to respond, but unfor- tunately we are out of town due to illness in the family. We hope that you will take our preference into consideration. I . We want to maintain low density in the area. 2. We want the area to be designated as Agriculture, with equestrian overlay. 1 We have great concern about our future pertaining to clean air and the availability of water. 4. Naturally polutioni is a threat, that we would like to overcome. Very truly, r d1&Ret1tb,ergg 82-675 Ave 53 Indio, California 92201 03-19-02 16:02 RECEIVED FROM:9495595959 P.01 ,,js P� > rn ; March 20, 2002 La Quinta City Council RE: General Plan I wish to oppose the General Plan. I do thank you for considerations; you have heard about our concerns, but the fact is the vast majority of residents in the Thermal - Vista Santa Rosa area do not want to be in the city of La Quinta. We have a task force that is working hard to help determine the future of our area. I have several concerns: (1) AGRICULTURE - The agriculture portion of this plan will not be heard until next week. We don't know exactly what's in it. Also, I feel that La Quinta really doesn't fully understand the needs of agriculture. (2) WATER - The domestic water table is dropping in our area. New developments are coming into areas that are not presently using water. (3) AIR POLLUTION - I have lived here long enough that I have experienced periods of two to three weeks when there is no air movement - just hot and humid and smoggy, even without additional traffic. (4) ROADS - To have traffic movement, roadways will have to be wider. Roads like Washington Street in our area will certainly change life as we know it. (5) FEASIBILITY - Your original report stated that the city would have a negative cash flow until everything is built out - and you are saying that Ag and Equestrian uses are welcomed. The two statements are not compatible. I feel that the best future of the Thermal - Vista Santa Rosa area is best served by the county. Thank you. .-5y'-%77 CA 0v,t% � l� 03; 20/ �O02 17: 55 7608638905 t`r w. i :_; Rrj OMCE: ;a} , 4090 L,es m Stzees, 74th r CA 92=-164 (909)955-1040 ` IraX"g) 955-2194 4 `j r, � 3.. rsx- t t . � t - La Quinta Cit 1 Council Mayor John P ma . , And Councii embers: SUPERVISOR WILSON AY oil SUPERVISOR ROY WIL Fo[uRTH Disma / V� 6 PAGE 01/01 Dismucr OMG Z G ADDxm. 46.2M Oasis Strect, Ste. 318 Indio, GA, 9220I 933 (760)86342 Fax (760) $63- Iviarca 20, 2002 At the r most recent meeting, the Vista Santa Rosa Commuitity Council vote to ask me to r quest that you delay adoption of the revise General Plan and certific -of the enviror mental impact report. By co y of this letter, I am complying with, their r Zy st and asking that you the Vista San Ro.sa community an additional 30 days to the documentation. Sine rely, y ilson Fo b laist�rict S et i 1 4-1 give INTERNET: us 100 Civic Center Mall P.O. Drawer 1788 Indio . CA 92202 Tel: 760 . 342-6500 Fax: 760.342-6556 City Clerk Tel: 760 . 342-6581 Fax: 760.342-6597 City Manager Tel: 760 . 342-6580 Fax: 760.342-6597 Development Services Tel: 760 . 342-6541 Fax: 760.342-6556 Finance Tel: 760 . 342-6560 Fax: 760.342-5653 Fire Tel: 760 . 347-0756 Fax: 760.775-3710 Human Resources Tel: 760 . 342-6540 Fax: 760.342-6597 Police Tel: 760 . 347-8522 Fax: 760.347-4317 Engineering/Building Tel: 760 . 342-6530 Fax: 760.342-6556 City Yard Tel: 760 . 347-1058 Fax: 760 . 347-4190 CITY OF INDIO March 20, 2002 City Administration Mayor John Pena La Quinta City Council 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: General Plan Amendment; Areas not in Sphere -of -Influence Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: The City of Indio is on record with serious concerns regarding La Quinta's efforts to plan areas not within its sphere -of -influence. In particular, on September 10, 2001, the City of Indio filed correspondence with the City of La Quinta (Letter to Fred Baker, copy attached). Among the issues we raised that have as yet to be resolved with the City of Indio, are: Land use, land use intensities, traffic, cumulative growth issues and others. The City of Indio has yet to receive a reply to the issues we raised in our September 10, 2001, correspondence. As you are well aware, the Cities of Indio and La Quinta share common boundaries that have raised numerous issues causing us to meet, confer and in some cases litigate. Given your proposal to extend the La Quinta sphere -of -influence further into an area that borders the City of Indio, it would seem to me, in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, that we meet and discuss these issues and concerns prior to your adoption of new City Policy. Senior Center May I remind you that on May 8, 1986, the City of La Quinta entered into Tel: 760.342-5111 a written agreement with the Cityof Indio committing to not extend La Fax: 760.342-6557 g g Quinta's municipal interests east of Monroe Street. This agreement was executed by yourself, Mayor Pena, as authorized by the La Quinta City Council. We see La Quinta's proposed actions this evening as a breach of that agreement, a breach of good faith, and not in the best interests of all parties involved. oe 0 eo .game® We look forward to meeting with you prior to your adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment as presently constituted. WMA Sincere �v Ben Godfrey, Mayor City of Indio Attach: September 10,2001, letter to Fred Baker Agreement dated May 8, 1986