The URL can be used to link to this page

2006 10 24 PCc&y/ 4 4P Qum& Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California OCTOBER 24, 2006 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2006-037 Beginning Minute Motion 2006-026 CALL TO ORDER II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. Ill. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 10, 2006. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc V. PUBLIC HEARING: For all Public Hearings on the Agenda, a completed "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the Executive Secretary prior to the start of the Planning Commission consideration of that item. The Chairman 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 Planning Commission before a public hearing, 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 project(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 at, or prior to the public hearing. A. Item ................ CONTINUED - SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1015 Applicant ......... Prest/Vuksic Architects Location .......... West side of Caleo Bay, north of Avenue 48 Request ........... Consideration of a Sign Program to serve Caleo Bay Park. Action ............. Request to continue to November 14, 2006 B. Item ................ SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1022 Applicant ......... Travis Design Group Location .......... 47-647 Caleo Bay Drive, east of Washington Street, north of Avenue 48, south of Lake La Quinta Drive Request ........... Consideration of a Sign Program for permanent business identification signage for La Quinta Medical Center Action ............. Minute Motion 2006- C. Item ................ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-576, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108, ZONE CHANGE 2006- 130 FOR ANNEXATION 18 Applicant ......... City of La Quinta Location .......... East side of Washington Street, south of Hidden River Road Request ........... Consideration of adoption of a Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Medium Density Residential to High Density Residential for 12.29 acres of land north of the City limits. The action will lead to a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation request before the Local Agency Formation Commission. Action ............. Resolution 2006- , Resolution 2006- , Resolution 2006- , Resolution 2006- VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\1 AgendaW.doc Vill. COMMISSIONER ITEMS: A. Discussion regarding Lighting Ordinance Workshop - October 27, 2006 B. Review of City Council meeting of October 17, 2006 IX. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting of the Planning Commission will be adjourned to a Regular Meeting to be held on November 14, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. DECLARATION OF POSTING I, Betty J. Sawyer, Executive Secretary of the City of La Quinta, do hereby declare that the foregoing Agenda for the La Quinta Planning Commission meeting of Tuesday, October 24, 2006, was posted on the outside entry to the Council Chamber, 78-495 Calle Tampico and the bulletin board at the La Quinta Cove Post Office, on Friday, October 20, 2006. DATED: October 20, 2006 BE 1� . SAWYER, Executive Secretary 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 777-7123, twenty-four (24) hours in advance of the meeting and accommodations will be made. If special electronic equipment is needed to make presentations to the Planning Commission, arrangements should be made in advance by contacting the City Clerk's office at 777-7123. A one (1) week notice is required. If background material is to be presented to the Planning Commission during a Planning Commission meeting, please be advised that eight (8) copies of all documents, exhibits, etc., must be supplied to the Executive Secretary for distribution. It is requested that this take place prior to the beginning of the 7:00 p.m. meeting. G:\WPDOCS\PC Minutes\7 AgendaW.doc PH STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006 CASE NO: SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1015 APPLICANT: PREST/VUKSIC ARCHITECTS PROPERTY OWNER: DR. STEVE PHAN REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE CALEO BAY PARK COMPLEX LOCATION: WESTSIDE OF CALEO BAY DRIVE, APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET NORTH OF AVENUE 48 (ATTACHMENT 1) ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: ON -PREMISE SIGNS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15311(a) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) ZONING: CC (COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL) BACKGROUND: Site History This Sign Program was continued from the previous Planning Commission meetings of September 12', 261", and October 10, 2006. The continued requests have been to allow the applicant time to work with staff and the Rancho La Quinta Home Owners' Association on lighting issues associated with the proposed Sign Program. At the last Commission meeting, staff requested this item be tabled if the applicant was unable to reach a solution by this meeting. The applicant is requesting the Commission continue the item to allow the extra time to resolve the issues. Staff supports the request. Prepared by: f Eric Ceja, As nt Planner P:\Reports - PC\2006\10-24-06\Caleo Bay Park\SA 06-1015 Caleo Bay Park (CONTI NUANCE)4.rtf PH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006 CASE NO.: SIGN APPLICATION 2006-1022 APPLICANT: TRAVIS DESIGN GROUP REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A SIGN PROGRAM FOR PERMANENT BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE FOR LA QUINTA MEDICAL CENTER LOCATION: 47-647 CALEO BAY DRIVE; EAST OF WASHINGTON STREET; NORTH OF AVENUE 48; SOUTH OF LAKE LA QUINTA DRIVE GENERAL PLAN: CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING: CC - COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THIS SIGN APPLICATION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15311 (CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) BACKGROUND: The La Quinta Medical Center is located east of Washington Street at Lake La Quinta Drive (Attachment 1). The site is bounded on the north by Lake La Quinta Drive, on the east by Caleo Bay Drive and the Lake La Quinta residential development, and on the west by Washington Street. Vacant, un-entitled property is located to the immediate south. The Planning Commission approved the La Quinta Medical Center Development (SDP 2004-81 1) on October 12, 2004. La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.160.090 requires that sign applications that include three or more permanent signs shall develop a planned sign program that receives Planning Commission approval. SIGN REQUEST: The applicant requests a sign program be approved for the La Quinta Medical Center (Attachment 2). A total of up to four signs have been applied for as part of the proposed sign program; up to two signs located on the building, and two monument identification signs. The sign program identifies specifications such as materials, letter style, colors, illumination, and shape for all building -mounted and monument signs, as well as any general standards for sign installation and maintenance. Buildina Sianage Building -mounted identification signage for the La Quinta Medical Center is proposed only for the western building elevation facing Washington Street. No signs are proposed to be placed on the northern and southern building elevations. Signs on the eastern building elevation facing Caleo Bay Drive, both illuminated and non -illuminated, are not proposed and are considered restricted signs. The proposed sign program identifies two placement options for building -mounted signs; Sign Option 1 and Sign Option 2 (Attachment 2, Sheet 4). Sign Option 1 consists of a maximum of one sign for the entire building (Attachment 2, Sheet 6). The sign is proposed to be placed on the western building elevation, centered in the 7'-4" parapet area above the upper window treatment, left justified at approximately 4'-9" from the edge of the building. At its highest and widest dimensions, the sign is proposed to be a maximum of approximately 1'-9" in height and 28'-6" wide, with a maximum sign area of 50 square feet (Attachment 2, Sheet 8). Sign Option 2 consists of a maximum of two signs for the building (Attachment 2, Sheet 7). The signs are proposed to be placed on the western building elevation, centered in the 7'-4" parapet area above the upper window treatment. One sign would be left justified; the other would be right justified, both signs placed approximately 4'-9" from the building edge. At its highest and widest dimensions, the signs are proposed to be a maximum of approximately 1'-4" in height and 18'- 9" wide, with a maximum area of 25 square feet per sign (Attachment 2, Sheet 9)• Both Sign Option 1 and Sign Option 2 are proposed to be placed approximately 30 feet from bottom of the building. They consist of one line of individual halo - illuminated reverse channel letters mounted with fasteners and spacers 1 .5" from the fascia. The font for the signs is Humanist 777 BT Bold, all uppercase. The signs are proposed to be halo -illuminated with warm white neon tubing. Monument Signage The proposed sign program identifies two non -illuminated double -sided monument signs for the La Quinta Medical Center. One is located at the corner of Washington Street and Lake La Quinta Drive, and the other is located near the northern Caleo Bay Drive parking lot entrance (Attachment 2, Sheet 3). Each monument is approximately 5 feet in height, 9 feet in width, and a depth of 8 inches. The aluminum cabinet sits on a concrete pedestal, and is capped by a painted crown. The color schemes for the monument signs match the colors of the building (Attachment 2, Sheet 10). Each side of the monument consists of one "La Quinta Medical Center" building identification panel and four tenant identification panels. The building identification panel and the tenant identification panels are all colored Old Copper, and have the same font as the building -mounted signs, Humanist 777 Bold. The letters are 3/8" acrylic, and are mounted with adhesive and mechanical fasteners to the panel. ANALYSIS: The proposed sign program for the La Quinta Medical Center meets all criteria set forth in La Quinta Municipal Code Section 9.160.050 Permanent Signs in Non - Residential Districts. The maximum sign area allowed for a multi -tenant building is 50 square feet, and the maximum size and number of monument signs allowed is 50 square feet at one per street frontage. The building -mounted signs and the monument signs in the proposed program are consistent with the applicable code requirements. Additionally, the monument signs are not located within 5 feet of any City right-of-way. The proposed sign program identifies no building -mounted identification signage along Caleo Bay Drive, thereby minimizing any visual impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood to the east. The monument signs are indirectly -lit, and are set low enough to the ground where any visual impact is negligible. The halo - illumination of the signs on the western building elevation is subtle and should not result in excessive lighting. Illuminated signs would be suitable as the signs are appropriately -sized, the building is set back quite a distance from Washington Street (approximately 150 feet from right-of-way), and traffic characteristics (volume/speed of cars) on Washington Street justifies illuminated signage. However, the proposed illuminated signage, at the proposed height, could have a negative visual impact on the nearby residential neighborhoods located across Washington Street, which include existing residential communities Laguna De La Paz, the Highland Palms neighborhood, the future site of a Laing Luxury Homes project, as well as the St. Francis of Assisi church. This can be alleviated by relocating the illuminated building -mounted signs to the 5-foot area beneath the second -story windows, which would serve the purpose of adequate building and tenant identification, and at the same time minimizing the visual impacts of prominently -placed illuminated signage. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Minute Motion 2006- , approving the requested signage, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The building -mounted signs shall be relocated to the area between the first and second floor (or the two rows of windows) on the western building elevation. 2. A building sign permit shall be obtained prior to installation of the signs. Prepared by: JAY-WLAJ, Assistant Planner Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. La Quinta Medical Center Proposed Sign Program a 47TH AVE , J Q W V O O r! Q VIA MARQUESSA H pp � C7 � O Z 0 x d f ' ? VIA FLORE Z iiTE J o m Z VIA TRIM m rn W 48TH AVE _ DESCANSO LN y PH 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-576 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108 ZONE CHANGE 2006-130 ANNEXATION #18 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (PRE -ANNEXATION ZONING) REQUEST FOR 12.29 ACRES OF LAND NORTH OF THE CITY LIMITS. THE ACTION WILL LEAD TO A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT AND ANNEXATION REQUEST BEFORE THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION. LOCATION: EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET, SOUTH OF HIDDEN RIVER ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER: FRANK R. GOODMAN AND ASSOCIATES AND TESTA FAMILY PARTNERSHIP GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: PROPOSED: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). THE LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS COMPLETED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-576. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT; THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. SURROUNDING LAND USES: NORTH: HIDDEN RIVER ROAD, MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, VACANT LAND SOUTH: MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNDER CONSTRUCTION (CURRENT CITY LIMITS) EAST: VACANT LAND. NURSERY WEST: WASHINGTON STREET, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUND: The City's Redevelopment Agency has been researching property acquisitions to meet its Five Year Implementation Plan requirements for the provision of affordable housing. Through that process, the property under consideration in this case was identified. The parcels in question are: 1. Assessor's Parcel No. 609-040-007 and 609-040-023 totaling 4.79 acres. 2. Assessor's Parcel No. 609-040-005 is 15 acres, of which the Agency would purchase the westerly 7.5 acres. The first two parcels consist of a total of 73 units, as well as ancillary facilities. All the units are occupied. The project is restricted to low-income senior and disabled residents. The third parcel is vacant. The Redevelopment Agency has undertaken negotiations with the respective property owners, and is currently under contract to purchase these properties. The Agency is planning to invest in improvements of the existing apartment units, in order to ensure and preserve the existing affordability to low-income senior and disabled tenants for the long term. The Agency is also planning to construct additional affordable residential units on the vacant 7.5 acres. No plans have been proposed at this time, but the land could accommodate up to 120 units. The next step in the acquisition process is to process a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation request through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The pre -zoning of the properties is a requirement of these requests. PROJECT REQUEST: The project includes Planning Commission consideration of a pre -annexation General Plan and Zoning designation of High Density Residential for three properties located immediately north of the City limits, on the east side of Washington Street, totaling 12.29 acres. The existing County General Plan designation for the properties is Medium Density Residential (2-5 units per acre), and the County Zoning designation is R-3-2000 for the existing apartments, and R-1-12,000 for the vacant parcel. Under the County General Plan, the existing apartment project is a legal non -conforming use. The County General Plan would allow up to 38 single-family homes on the vacant parcel. The City proposes that all parcels be designated High Density Residential. Under this designation, the existing apartments would be conforming, insofar as up to 76 units would be allowed, and 73 units occur on the property. On the vacant lands, up to 120 additional units could be constructed. The Agency has not yet formulated development plans for the site. Surrounding Land Uses The annexation area is bordered by multi -family residential land uses on the north, vacant lands on the east, multi -family residential under construction on the south, and single-family residential and institutional uses on the west, across Washington Street. Land Use Compatibility The annexation area is located on the heavily traveled Washington Street corridor. The existing apartments are within walking distance of shopping and social activities, as well as public transit. Apartments are located immediately north and a new apartment project is under construction south of the site. Low Density designations in the County occur for vacant and developed lands to the east of the annexation area. High Density Residential designated lands at this location allow for the development of additional multi -family units on Washington Street, in an area which is impacted by traffic and noise. The siting of apartment structures can provide an effective buffer from these impacts, by creating a physical barrier with structures which are oriented to the interior of the site. High Density Residential at this location also provides for transition and buffering to the lands planned for single-family residential units to the east. No development plans are proposed at this time for the vacant parcel. When development plans are brought forward, they will be reviewed for conformance with all City standards. The City's zoning standards would allow two and three story structures on the annexation lands, with a maximum height of 40 feet. The apartments being constructed are two stories in height. The vacant lands would likely be developed with two and three story structures. The City's zoning standards require that structures over 28 feet provide additional setbacks from adjacent land uses. Therefore, should a project be designed for the vacant land which includes 40 foot high buildings, setbacks of 15 feet must be provided on the side yard, and 20 feet on the rear yard. These standards will provide a minimum physical separation between the future structures and the future homes to the east. General Plan Consistency The proposed annexation, and associated pre -annexation General Plan and Zoning designations, are consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use Element, General Land Use Goals and Policies Policy 8 The City shall carefully consider Sphere of Influence and subsequent annexations to accommodate growth. Land Use Element, Residential Land Use Goals and Policies GOAL 2 A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. Policy 2 Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. Policy 6 The City will use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing, including affordable housing. Program 6.1: The City shall monitor the progress made to achieve its Housing Element mandated goals for the provision of housing, and shall consider amendments to the General Plan when necessary to help achieve those goals. Housing Element — Section 11.0 Adequate Housing Resources Goals, Policies and Programs: GOAL Provision of a diversity of housing opportunities to satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents of La Quinta. GOAL 2 Maintain a sufficient inventory of developable land at varying densities to accommodate the existing and project needed housing supplies. Program 1.4 Direct new housing development to viable areas where essential public facilities can be provided and employment opportunities, educational facilities and commercial support are available. Policy 2 Develop and implement regulatory actions that will advance the production of units affordable to low- and moderate- income households. Cnnrlusinn In conclusion, the requested pre -annexation General Plan and Zoning designation is appropriate for the long term provision of affordable housing for future City residents. The findings to support approval of the project can be made. Public Notice This request was published in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 14, 2006, and mailed to all affected property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project site as required by Section 9.200.110 of the Zoning Code. To date, no letters have been received. Public Agency Review A copy of this request has been sent to all applicable public agencies and City Departments. All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department. Applicable comments received have been included in the recommended Conditions of Approval. STATEMENT OF MANDATORY FINDINGS: Findings to recommend approval of this request can be made and are contained in the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of Environmental Assessment 2006-576. 2. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006- , recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 2006-108. 3. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2006-, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change 2006-130. Attachments: 1. Aerial Photo 2. Assessor's Map Prepared by: icole gauviat Criste, Consulting Planner PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108 AND ZONE CHANGE 2006-130 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2005-576 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24" of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of a General Plan Amendment and Pre -annexation Zoning designation of 12.29 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, and more particularly described as: APNs 609-040-005, -007, & -023 WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending to the City Council certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1. The proposed applications will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2006-576. 2. The proposed project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts associated with biological and cultural resources can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The site does not contain significant paleontological resources. 3. There is no evidence before the City that the proposed project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. No development is contemplated as a result of the amendments, and further environmental review will be undertaken when a development project is proposed. Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2006-576 - Annexation 18 City of La Quinta October 24, 2006 4. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as the proposed project supports the long term goals of the General Plan by providing a variety of housing opportunities for City residents. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 5. The proposed project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the proposed project, which occurs on a Major Arterial roadway. 6. The proposed project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project does not have the potential to adversely affect human beings, as no development is proposed. 7. There is no substantial evidence in light of the entire record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. 8. The Planning Commission has considered Environmental Assessment 2006- 576 and said Environmental Assessment reflects the independent judgment of the City. 9. The City has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 CAL Code Regulations 753.51d►. 10. The location and custodian of the City's records relating to this project is the Community Development Department located at 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 2006-576 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist, attached and on file in the Community Development Department. Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Environmental Assessment 2006-576 - Annexation 18 City of La Quinta October 24, 2006 3. That Environmental Assessment 2006-576 reflects the independent judgment of the City. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a Quinta Planning Commission held on this 24th day following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Douglas R. Evans Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California regular meeting of the La of October, 2006, by the PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: General Plan Amendment #2006-108, 2006-130, and Annexation #18 into the City of La Quinta. A General Plan Amendment and to establish pre -annexation land use designations for 12.29 acres for lands to be added to the City's sphere of influence and corporate boundaries. 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 3. Contact person and phone number: Doug Evans - 760-777-7125 4 Project location: East side of Washington Street, south of Hidden River Road. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 609-040-005, -007, and 023 5. Project sponsor's name and address:: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: County: Medium Density Residential (2-5 County: R-3-2,000 and R-1-12,000 du/ac) Proposed: High Density Residential Proposed: High Density Residential (up to 16 (up to 16 units/acre) units/acre) 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are required as part of a Sphere of Influence amendment and Annexation request to the Local Agency Formation Commission. The pre - annexation designation being sought is High Density Residential, allowing up to 16 units per acre. The City of La Quinta proposes the amendment of its sphere of influence, and concurrent annexation of two parcels of land currently located in unincorporated Riverside County. The northerly parcels, consisting of 4.74 acres, are fully developed with 73 existing apartments. The vacant land is 7.5 acres in size. The vacant property could be developed with up to 120 additional multi -family residential units. A domestic water well site is also proposed within the 7.5 acres. The well site would be approximately 1 acre in size. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Hidden River Road, multi -family residential development South: Under construction, High Density Residential West: Washington Street, single family residential development East: Vacant desert lands 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission :NVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 'he environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least me impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance IETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) In the basis of this initial evaluation: X II find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Douglas R. Evans, Community Development Director October 10, 2006 Date -2- .VALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -3- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact f. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: t) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) )) Substantially damage scenic resources, X ncluding, but not limited to, trees, rock )utcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial )hotograph) ;) Substantially degrade the existing X /isual character or quality of the site and is surroundings? (Application materials) 1) Create a new source of substantial X ight or glare which would adversely tffect day or nighttime views in the area? Application materials) a)-d) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on aesthetics. The eventual development of 120 multi -family residences on the southerly 7.5 acres will result in the construction of buildings which are likely to be 2 or 3 stories in height. Any construction associated with the well site would be low profile, and involve small scale facilities. This is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance standards for the High Density Residential designation. The site is located on a major arterial roadway, and development of 2 or 3 story buildings will be similar in nature to development in the area. Views in this area are primarily to the southwest. Properties to the east, developed as single family residential, will not be significantly impacted by development to the west, insofar as their viewshcds to the southwest will continue. In addition, the City's Zoning standards require additional setbacks, depending on building height, in the High Density Residential zone. Development standards and site plan review procedures will be required by the City when development occurs on the site. These processes will assure that potential impacts associated with the design of the project relating to aesthetics are reduced to a less than significant level. There are no rock outcroppings, significant trees or historic structures on the site. The eventual development of up to 120 multi -family residential units on the property will increase light on the site, which is currently vacant. The primary sources of light associated with this development will be landscaping and building lighting, and lighting associated parking and with vehicle traffic. The northerly 4.74 acres is currently developed, and impacts associated with light will not change from current conditions. The vacant land is located on a major arterial, which already is impacted by light sources, -4- primarily vehicles. The City will enforce lighting standards contained in its Zoning Ordinance, which prohibit the spillage of lighting to adjacent properties. These standards will assure that compacts associated with lighting will be kept at less than significant levels. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact :Mitigation Impact J. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: i) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide X mportance (Farmland), as shown on the naps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the -alifornia Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 f) )) Conflict with existing zoning for X igricultural use, or a Williamson Act ;ontract? (Zoning Map) :) Involve other changes in the existing X mvironment which, due to their location ar nature, could result in conversion of ,armland, to non-agricultural use? General Plan Land Use Map) a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on agricultural resources. The northerly parcels are currently fully developed, and no change will occur on this parcel. The 7.5 acres are currently vacant desert lands, and no agricultural activity occurs on the parcel. The parcels are both designated and zoned for urban residential development on the County General Plan and Zoning maps. The City also proposes urban residential designations. The land is not appropriate for agricultural activities, given its location on a major arterial, with urban development surrounding it. There are no Williamson Act contracts on either property. Commercial nurseries are located several hundred feet to the east of the proposed annexation area. The annexation of the subject parcels will have no impact on these nurseries. No impacts associated with agricultural resources will result from the proposed project. -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact 1II. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: i) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air juality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) �) Violate any air quality standard or X ,ontribute substantially to an existing or )rojected air quality violation? (SCAQMD EQA Handbook) ;) Result in a cumulatively considerable X iet increase of any criteria pollutant for Nhich the project region is non- tttainment under an applicable federal or Mate ambient air quality standard including releasing emissions which ;xceed quantitative thresholds for ozone )recursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, !002 PM 10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) 1) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? Project Description, Aerial Photo, site rspection) �) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project )escription, Aerial Photo, site inspection) I. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on air quality. The northerly 4.74 acres are fully developed, and air emissions from this property will not change. The eventual development of the 7.5 acres will generate emissions during construction and operation of the up to 120 residential units which could occur on the site. Both parcels have been considered for development in the County General Plan. The County General Plan was part of the basis for the preparation of South Coast Air Quality Management District plans for the Coachella Valley. As a result, ultimate development of the vacant lands is expected to be consistent with the District's plans for the Coachella Valley. During construction, the vacant land has the potential to generate fugitive dust caused by grading activities. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less). Fugitive dust can be a source of PM10. Table 1, below, illustrates the potential dust generation from the vacant land, should it be mass graded. -6- Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (Dounds Der dav) Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) 7.5 26.4 198.0 Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District. April 1993. As demonstrated in the Table, fugitive dust will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, without mitigation. However, the City requires the preparation of PM10 :Management Plans for all construction projects. These plans include best management practices required by the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan to reduce dust generation on construction sites. The Management Plan for the vacant lands will assure that impacts associated with grading of the site will result in less than significant impacts to air quality. The construction of up to 120 multi -family residential units has the potential to generate up to 791 trips per day'. These trips will impact regional air quality through exhaust emissions. The total emissions anticipated as a result of these trips are illustrated in Table 2, below. Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total Length (miles) miles/day 791 x 15 = 11,865 Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 Pounds 152.1 16.1 16.4 0.1 1.4 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550 55 55 150 150 URBEBMIS Version 2.2 Scenario Year 2007 -- Model Years 1965 to 2007 Pollutant - Vehicle CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 0.012820 0.001361 0.001383 0.000009 0.000115 "Trip Generation, 7" Edition," prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 221, Low -Rise Apartments. -7- As shown in the Table, operation of the 120 units will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. The annexation will not generate objectionable odors, and will not expose sensitive receptors to concentrations of pollutants. -8- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, X either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on X any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ;General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) o) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ;including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan �IEA p. 72 ff.) 1) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with :stablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan vIEA p. 72 ff.) ;) Conflict with any local policies or X )rdinances protecting biological •esources, such as a tree preservation )olicy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) Conflict with the provisions of an X tdopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, 0 )r other approved local, regional, or state iabitat conservation plan? (General Plan AEA p. 72 ff.) V. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on biological resources. Future development on the site will be reviewed by the City under the provisions of CEQA. As the vacant land is not developed, this will include consideration of biological resources. However, the vacant land is not located near an area designated for special status species habitat, and is sparsely vegetated. It is likely that the parcel does not harbor sensitive species. The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, and shall be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the time development occurs, if that Plan is still in effect. If the City has adopted the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, that fee will apply. 10- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would heproject: i) Cause a substantial adverse change in X he significance of a historical resource is defined in'15064.5? (`•A Phase I krchaeological Survey Report...," L&L .nvironmental, December 2003) )) Cause a substantial adverse change in X he significance of an archaeological 'esource pursuant to'15064.5? ("A Phase I krchaeological Survey Report...," L&L :nvironmental, December 2003) ;) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X )aleontological resource or site or unique ;eologic feature? (MEA Exhibit 5.9) I) Disturb any human remains, including X hose interred outside of formal ;emeteries? ("A Phase I Archaeological survey Report...;' L&L Environmental, )ecember 2003) a)-d) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on cultural resources. No further development will occur on the northerly parcels. On the vacant land, the City will conduct review under CEQA when development is proposed. This will include review of the project site by the Historic Preservation Commission, which has jurisdiction over recommendations on archaeological and historic resources. This requirement of the City will assure that potential impacts associated with archaeological and historic resources are less than significant. Both parcels are outside the historic lake bed of Lake Cahuilla, and no paleontologic resources are expected to occur on the site. Neither parcel is known to have been a burial ground or cemetery. California law requires that any remains unearthed during grading be reported to law enforcement authorities, who follow a strict protocol for their recovery. These requirements of law will assure that impacts to human remains are less than significant. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X [he loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) 3) Be located on expansive soil, as X 3eftned in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Building Code) -) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the iisposal of waste water? (General Plan EIR) 'I. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on geologic resources. Both parcels will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The northerly parcels are developed, and no further impacts are expected from that development. The vacant land could eventually see the development of up to 120 multi- family residential units. These units will be required to submit building plans prior to construction. The City reviews building plans using the latest provisions of the Uniform -12- Building Code for seismically active areas. The plans will be required to conform to these standards, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. Neither site is subject to liquefaction, due to the depth to groundwater. The area is flat, and no landslide potential occurs. Development on the vacant land will be required to comply with City standards to prevent erosion during construction. Soils in the City are not expansive. The vacant land, when developed, will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CV WD). Overall impacts associated with soils and geology are expected to be insignificant. -13- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS VIATERIALS --Would theproject: i) Create a significant hazard to the X )ublic or the environment through the •outine transport, use, or disposal of iazardous materials? (Application materials) �) Create a significant hazard to the X )ublic or the environment through •easonably foreseeable upset and iccident conditions involving the release if hazardous materials into the ,nvironment? (Application materials) ;) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X iazardous or acutely hazardous naterials, substances, or waste within me -quarter mile of an existing or imposed school? (Application materials) 1) Be located on a site which is included X >n a list of hazardous materials sites ;ompiled pursuant to Government Code iection 65962.5 and, as a result, would it :reate a significant hazard to the public )r the environment? (Riverside County lazardous Materials Listing) ;) For a project located within an airport X and use plan or, where such a plan has tot been adopted, within two miles of a tublic airport or public use airport, vould the project result in a safety Lazard for people residing or working in he project area? (General Plan land use map) ) For a project within the vicinity of a X nivate airstrip, would the project result n a safety hazard for people residing or vorking in the project area? (General Plan and use map) ;) Impair implementation of or X ihysically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency 'vaeuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) 14- 1) Expose people or structures to a X >ignificant risk of loss, injury or death .nvolving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas )r where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) '1I. a)-h) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact from hazards and hazardous materials. Any residential project proposed on the vacant land will be added to the City's waste franchisee's, Waste Management of the Desert, service area. Waste Management is responsible for the appropriate disposal of the small amounts of household hazardous waste generated in residential projects. Overall impacts are expected to be insignificant. The two parcels are not located in an area subject to wildland fires. -15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V111. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ti:) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p. I11-187 ff. z) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion :)r siltation on- or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing X drainage pattern of the site or area, .ncluding through the alteration of the ;ourse of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount )f surface runoff in a manner which Mould result in flooding on- or off -site? General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) :) Create or contribute runoff water X Nhich would exceed the capacity of ;xisting or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan ilR p. III-87 ff.) Place housing within a 100-year flood X iazard area as mapped on a federal Flood -16- Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance [fate Map or other flood hazard ielineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 .f. ) ;) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or -edirect flood flows? (Master Environinental 4ssessment Exhibit 6.6) 'III. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on hydrology or water resources. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) currently provides water to the northerly parcels. When development occurs on the vacant land, domestic water will supplied by CVWD also. CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The proposed well site will be integrated into CVWD's facilities, and will be constructed to meet all standards for this type of facility. The City will require compliance with NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters, and that storm flows be controlled within a project site. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. III. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. When development occurs on the vacant land, the City Engineer will review and approve the drainage analysis for the project proposed prior to the issuance of any permits. These City standards will assure that impacts of build out of the land associated with hydrology will be less than significant. III. e)-g) Neither parcel is located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -17- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) X. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on land use and planning. The County General Plan currently designates the parcels Medium Density Residential. As such, the existing apartment building is non -conforming. The balance of the property is vacant, and under the County General Plan, could develop into up to 38 residential units. The City proposes High Density Residential on all annexed properties, which will make the existing apartments on the northern parcel conforming with the General Plan, and will allow up to 120 residential units on the vacant lands. City General Plan designations immediately to the south of the proposed annexation area include High Density Residential, Commercial Office and Community Commercial. The proposed pre - annexation zoning will therefore be consistent with City designations in this area. Lands to the east, which will remain in the County, are generally designated for lower density residential development. The City's zoning development standards, including requirements for additional setbacks for multiple story buildings, will provide a buffer to these land uses. Impacts associated with land use compatibility are expected to b insignificant. Development on both sides of Washington Street in this area is a mix of single family residential, multi -family residential and institutional uses. Immediately to the south of the annexation area, apartments are currently under construction within the City limits. The development of additional multi -family dwellings on the vacant land, therefore, is -18- consistent with both the City's proposed designation, and the character of the area in which the land is located. No impacts are expected. The ultimate development of the vacant lands will not displace an existing community. No change is anticipated to the northerly parcels, which will continue to be an apartment project. Future development will be required to comply with habitat conservation planning adopted at the time that development occurs. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would [he project: I) Result in the loss of availability of a X <nown mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of he state? (Master Environmental Assessment �. 71 ff.) �) Result in the loss of availability of a X ocally-important mineral resource -ecovery site delineated on a local ;eneral plan, specific plan or other land Ise plan? (Master Environmental Assessment ). 71 ff.) a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on mineral resources. Both parcels are within the MRZ-1 Zone, and are therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. 19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact :Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. II]- 144 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) 3) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III- 144 ff.) :) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land ise map) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose )eople residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) ;I. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on noise. The eventual development of the vacant land will be reviewed under CEQA at the time that development is proposed. The City will review potential noise impacts, and consider noise mitigation as necessary. Further, the Uniform Building Code requires the submittal of noise analyses for interior and exterior noise levels with the submittal of building -20- plans. Any mechanical equipment associated with the operation of the well site is generally located in a structure, and such development would be reviewed by CVWD at the time construction occurs. The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport. Existing City standards and requirements, therefore, will assure that impacts associated with noise will be less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: i) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, )y proposing new homes and businesses) )r indirectly (for example, through :xtension of roads or other nfrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) �) Displace substantial numbers of X ;xisting housing, necessitating the ;onstruction of replacement housing ;lsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application naterials) ;) Displace substantial numbers of X )eople, necessitating the construction of •eplacement housing elsewhere? (General 'Ian, p. 9 ff., application materials) II. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on population and housing. Development of the vacant land could generate up to 312 persons, based on the City's current household size. This does not represent a substantial increase in population, and would be absorbed as part of the City's normal growth patterns. The 7.5 acre parcel is currently vacant, and an existing apartment project occurs on the northerly parcels. The vacant land will eventually be developed for multi -family housing, having no impact on population, and a positive impact on housing. There is no anticipated change for the northerly parcels, which will continue to provide housing for senior citizens as it currently does. No impacts are expected. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with [he provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or 3hysically altered governmental Facilities, the construction of which could :ause significant environmental impacts, ,n order to maintain acceptable service -atios, response times or other )erformance objectives for any of the )ublic services: sire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X ?olice protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X ?arks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X vlaster Plan) )ther public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X ). 46 ff.) III. a) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on public services. The area is already served by Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments, on contract to the City. Under current conditions, impacts to public safety would remain the same. Upon build out of the vacant lands, impacts on public safety services will increase somewhat, however, the City will collect development impact fees to provide for additional facilities for police and fire, to offset the costs associated with these services, and the property tax and sales tax generated by the homes and their residents would also serve to offset these costs. Future development on the vacant land may be required to pay a public facilities fee, if such a fee is adopted by the City at that time. The vacant lands will, when developed, pay the mandated school fees to offset the impacts to schools. The City imposes both Quimby fees and development impact fees to offset the cost of purchase and maintenance of parks, respectively. These fees will be required for the development of the vacant lands, and will offset the costs associated with the provision of parks in the area. Overall impacts associated with public services are expected to be less than significant. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X :xisting neighborhood and regional parks :)r other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Application materials) :)) Does the project include recreational X Facilities or require the construction or ;xpansion of recreational facilities which night have an adverse physical effect on .he environment? (Application materials) IV. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on recreational facilities. As stated under Public Services, above, the City will impose Quimby and development impact fees to offset the need for additional recreational facilities caused by the development of the vacant lands. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial Increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ;General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) )) Exceed, either individually or X :umulatively, a level of service standard :stablished by the county congestion management agency for designated roads )r highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) :) Result in a change in air traffic X )attems, including either an increase in raffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air raffic involved in project) I) Substantially increase hazards due to a X lesign feature (e.g., sharp curves or iangerous intersections) or incompatible ises (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative tract Map 31087) :) Result in inadequate emergency X iccess? (Tentative Tract Map 31087) ) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X Tentative Tract Map 31087) ;) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X )r programs supporting alternative ransportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle 'asks)? (Project description) V. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on traffic and circulation. The General Plan EIR analyzed regional traffic not only within the City's limits, but also in surrounding jurisdictions which affect City streets. This analysis found that the area surrounding the proposed project will operate at acceptable levels of service at build out -24- of the General Plan. Although the proposed density under the City's proposed designation would result in a small increase in the number of trips generated, this increase is expected to be fractional. Further, the City will review the development proposal for the vacant lands under CEQA when it is submitted, and will study traffic impacts further at that time. The site is located adjacent to Washington Street, on which SunLine currently provides public transit. No impact is expected. -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) )) Require or result in the construction of X riew water or wastewater treatment Facilities or expansion of existing Facilities, the construction of which could ;ause significant environmental effects? General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) :) Require or result in the construction of X iew storm water drainage facilities or ;xpansion of existing facilities, the ;onstruction of which could cause >ignificant environmental effects? General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) 1) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from ;xisting entitlements and resources, or tre new or expanded entitlements teeded? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) ;) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has idequate capacity to serve the project=s rrojected demand in addition to the )rovider=s existing commitments? General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) ) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X >ermitted capacity to accommodate the )roject=s solid waste disposal needs? General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) ;) Comply with federal, state, and local I X statutes and regulations related to solid vaste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff) -26- (VI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on utilities. The eventual development of the vacant lands will result in a need for utilities. All service providers will charge connection and service fees to the developers and residents of the vacant lands. These fees are designed to provide for the expansion of service as need arises. Water supplies have been found adequate in CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan (please see Hydrology and Water Resources, above). CVWD will also provide sanitary sewer services to the sites, and has sufficient capacity to serve both parcels. The City's solid waste franchisee will service the two parcels, and haul waste to the transfer station at Edom Hill. From this location, solid waste will be transferred to one of several regional landfills for disposal. Impacts associated with utilities are expected to be insignificant. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X 3egrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish :)r wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a )]ant or animal community, reduce the lumber or restrict the range of a rare or :ndangered plant or animal or eliminate mportant examples of the major periods )f California history or prehistory? )) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage )f long-term environmental goals? ;) Does the project have impacts that are X ndividually limited, but cumulatively ;onsiderable? ("Cumulatively ;onsiderable" means that the incremental :ffects of a project are considerable when /iewed in connection with the effects of )ast projects, the effects of other current trojects, and the effects of probable itture projects)? 1) Does the project have environmental X ;ffects which will cause substantial tdverse effects on human beings, either iirectly or indirectly? VII. a) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on biological or cultural resources. Further environmental review, or the standards imposed by the City, will assure that potential impacts associated with development of the vacant lands are reduced to less than significant levels. VII. b) The annexation of the two parcels will further the City's goals of providing a wide range of housing of all types to current and future residents. VIi. c) Cumulative impacts analyzed in the City's General Plan EIR were associated with regional air quality. The City found that the ultimate development of the General Plan -28- overrode the potential impacts associated with air quality. As shown under the air quality discussion above, the development of the vacant lands will not significantly impact air quality. WII. d) The General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on human beings. The eventual development of the vacant lands will be subject to environmental review, and will implement any mitigation measures necessary, if impacts to human beings are identified. 'VIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The La Quinta General Plan EIR was used in this analysis. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -29- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108, TO PROVIDE PRE -ANNEXATION GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 12.29 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIDDEN RIVER ROAD CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 24`h of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of pre -annexation General Plan land use designation of 12.29 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, and more particularly described as: APNs 609-040-005, -007, & -023 WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2006-576 for this General Plan Amendment in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes.; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 14, 2006, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said General Plan Amendment: Planning Commission Resolution 2006- General Plan Amendment 2006-108 City of La Quinta - Annexation 18 October 24, 2006 1. The General Plan Amendment, as proposed is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as it will provide for the development of housing for future residents. 2. Approval of the amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will assure refurbishment and rehabilitation of existing senior apartment units. 3. The new designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties, insofar as High Density Residential land use designations occur to the south of the proposed General Plan Amendment, and multi -family residential development occurs to the north. 4. The land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the property, insofar as the apartments exist on the northern portion of the amendment area, and the City proposes to provide additional multi- family units on the flat, vacant portion of the area. 5. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of current conditions, and this General Plan amendment reflects these conditions and accommodates for future growth within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of General Plan Amendment 2006-108, placing a pre -annexation General Plan land use designation of High Density Residential on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 609-040-005, -007, & -023, to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 241" day of October, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: Planning Commission Resolution 2006- General Plan Amendment 2006-108 City of La Quinta - Annexation 18 October 24, 2006 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta 1 CoC5 o� 0 M� c ow 0 L"❑LCL N -p C �a0= c E n oa❑ o m rn a a Kac9v W�2 CDo x PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONE CHANGE 2006-130, TO PROVIDE PRE - ANNEXATION ZONING DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO 12.29 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WASHINGTON STREET AND HIDDEN RIVER ROAD CASE NO.: ZONE CHANGE 2006-130 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 241" of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for review of pre -annexation Zoning designation of 12.29 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Washington Street and Hidden River Road, and more particularly described as: APNs 609-040-005, -007, & -023 WHEREAS, said Zone Change has complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63) in that the La Quinta Community Development Department has prepared Environmental Assessment 2006-576 for this Change of Zone in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. The Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore, is recommending that a Negative Declaration of environmental impact be certified. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration was posted with the Riverside County Recorder's office as required by Section 15072 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes.; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department published the public hearing notice in the Desert Sun newspaper on October 14, 2006, as prescribed by the Municipal Code. Public hearing notices were also mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the site; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval of said General Plan Amendment: Planning Commission Resolution 2006- Zone Change 2006-130 City of La Quinta - Annexation 18 October 24, 2006 1. The proposed Zone Change is consistent with General Plan Amendment 2006-108, and provides consistent land use designations for lands proposed for annexation into the City. 2. Approval of the Zone Change will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will assure refurbishment and rehabilitation of existing senior apartment units. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Zone Change 2006-130, placing a pre -annexation zoning designation of High Density Residential on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 609-040- 005, -007, & -023, as contained in the attached Exhibit "A", to the City Council for the reasons set forth in this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on the 24`h day of October, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL QUILL, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director City of La Quinta Ilir17 �IOQWL Uhl,— 427 41 ..ffWASHINGTON STe ^+ 10 491 I❑ y f N m z < e m rf 77 ' BYRON PL- = m x w fN -gyp o CD 0 A CPO _ = O Oyd ' O O (D O. C 5.0M m " A ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMEN m a r