The URL can be used to link to this page

2002 02 27 PC� T 9w5 �y OF Planning Commission Agendas are now available on the City's Web Page @ www.la-quinta.org PLANNING COMMISSION A G E N D A A Special Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California FEBRUARY 27, 2002 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 2002- Beginning Minute Motion 2002-_ 1. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call 11. 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. 111. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None V. PRESENTATIONS: None P:\CAROLYN\SPECIAL PCAgenda.wpd V1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 0 Item ................. 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 Applicant .......... City of La Quinta Location ........... City-wide and adjacent Planning Areas Request ....... Recommendation to the City Council for Certification of Environmental Impact Report for the Comprehensive General Plan, Annexation No. 12 and Sphere of Influence Amendment, SCH #2000091023, and for adoption of the General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment. Action .............. Resolution 2002-_, BUSINESS ITEMS: None CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None COMMISSIONER ITEMS: None ADJOURNMENT P:\CAROLYN\SPECIAL PCAgenda.wpd STAFF REPORT PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2002 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, ANNEXATION NO. 12 AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (SCH #2000091023), AND APPROVAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING AN UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOCATION: CITY-WIDE AND ADJACENT PLANNING AREAS APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION: AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2000091023) WAS PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN UPDATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT OF 1970, AS AMENDED. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS RECOMMENDED CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. GENERAL PLAN/ ZONING DESIGNATIONS: VARIOUS BACKGROUND: 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 area is shown on Table 1. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd N TABLE Statistical Summary of Land Uses Recommended Alternative City Limits Sphere of Influence Planning Area #1 Planning Area #2 IDeveloped F TOTAL Developed I Undeveloped I TOTAL Developed I Undeveloped I TOTAL Developed I Undeveloped TOTAL Undeveloped TOTAL Residential Land Uses VLDR (up to 2 du/ac 294.3 200.9 3,127.1 495.1 6,291.3 1,485.2 83.4 94.0 536.0 119.8 1.2 274.9 98.1 810.9 217.9 1.2 2 488.9 305.2 551.2 89.6 3 040.1 394.8 64.4 5 213.5 358.8 93.7 846.9 100.5 71.4 64.4 6 060.4 459.3 - 165.1 559.5 16 202.7 2 162.4 4795 259.1 LDR u to 4 du/ac 3,164.2 MDR u to 8 du/ac 1,121.6 363.6 69.0 92.1 MHDR (up to 12 du/ac 14.5 HDR u to 16 du/ac 1.9 Total Residential Acre!Se 4 596.4 3,852.7 8 449.1 657.0 373.0 Commercial 1,030.0 2,794.1 640.9 3,434.91 5,730.3 1 Land Uses 1,018.81 6,749.1 19 663.1 M/RC Mixed Comm. 87.9 309.0 124.2 55.3 64.0 39.9 178.6 65.8 396.9 155.5 131.8 64.0 39.9 506.9 128.0 39.9 10.1 1 EL=�== 39.9 10.1 - 26.6 2.5 29.1 _ - _ 69.3 219.7 43.7 14.3 33.1 83.6 252.8 - 43.7 520.4 408.3 164.0 64.0 83.6 506.9 128.0 CC CommunityComm. 31.3 NC Neighborhood Comm. 76.6 CP Commercial Park O Office TC Tourist Comm. 328.3 VC Village Comm. 62.2 Total Commercial Acreage 586.3 836.8 1,423.1 50.0 50.0 26.6 2.5 29.1 332.7 47.4 Other Land Uses 380.1 1,882.21 3197 60.6 380.3 380.3 I Industrial 13.1 128.0 4,234.6 10155 132.8 5 524.0 10 213.5 191.2 728.1 5.44 4 243.5 601.7 11 214.2 21 086.3 2.7 43.8 46.6 753.6 S. 5.7 378.7 F 52.3 1,132.3 29.0 153.2 182.2 3,002.9 44.5 49.0 93.5 736.8 29.0 44.5 202.2 275.7 3,739.7 496.2 815.9 6,878.9 36.7 149.4 246.7 1 312.8 36.7 645.6 1062.5 8,191.7 259.E 728.1 6 139.9 4 495.2 601.7 12604.7 34150.0 MC Major Comm. Facilities 178.1 P Park Facilities 600.1 OS en Space 1,215.2 3, 228.0 G Golf Course Open Space W Watercourse/Flood Control Total Other Acrea e 468.9 56 90.2 10 872.9 Total Acreage January, 2002 The buildout of the General Plan will result in the following residential buildout: Anticipated Buildout Conditions in the Planning Area Dwelling Unit Buildout Population Buildout Citv 25.730 61,744 Sphere 2 218 5,241 Planning Area9,353 26,540 Planning Area #2 18,064 51,666 TOTAL 55 366 146,191 "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: Commercial Development Potential at General Plan Buildout Area Developed Acres Vacant Acres Total Acres Existing Sq. Ft. Potential Future Sq. Ft. Total Buildout Sq. Ft. 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 2541913 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 19,541,033 8,497,422 18,038,456 Note: Square footage estimates assume 22% lot coverage 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. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wod 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 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. From inception of the General Plan update, staff has received letters and comments requesting amendments to the document. These amendment requests have been divided into two categories for the Planning Commission's consideration: Land Use Map amendment requests and General Plan Text amendment requests. These two categories are detailed below. Land Use Map Amendment Requests (Attachment A) 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 A to this staff report. The descriptions below include staffs analysis and recommendation. Individual votes on each of these items, by minute motion, is requested. I. 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, the Museum and the Senior Center), does represent a logical extension of the Village Commercial land PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 4 2. 3. 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. Staff 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 Vote: Minute Motion 2002-01 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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. Staff Recommendation: Change to Low Density Residential Vote: Minute Motion 2002-02 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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. Staff Analysis: The property is located less than one half mile south of proposed Neighborhood Commercial designations, in an area which is currently generally undeveloped. Surrounding designations are either Low Density Residential, or Medium Density Residential within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. The requested P:\CAROLYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wDd 5 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. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Low Density Residential Vote: Minute Motion 2002-03 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 4. Westward Ho and Dune Palms: south side of Westward Ho, east side of Dune Palms, north of the Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel. Parcel size: 28.09 acres, in a total of 11 parcels `Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: High Density Residential. Reason Given: Land is adjacent to La Quinta High School; mobile home park on Dune Palms has much higher density (mobile home park lot is part of this request); change in density would "promote the development" of the land. 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. The character of this area is single family development. An increase in density would appear warranted at a lower density. Staff Recommendation: Medium Density Residential Vote: Minute Motion 2002-04 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 5. Madison Avenue and Avenue 58: northwest corner. Parcel size: 5 acres `Recommended Alternative' Designation: Low Density Residential Requested Designation: Commercial (no particular commercial designation specified) Reason Given: Owner is considering a strip mall for the site. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 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. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Low Density Residential Vote: Minute Motion 2002-05 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Golf Course Vote: Minute Motion 2002-06 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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. P:\CARO LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702. wpd 7 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. Staff Recommendation: Maintain Low Density Residential with Agricultural Overlay Vote: Minute Motion 2002-07 AYES- NOES: ABSTAIN: General Plan Text Amendment Requests (Attachment W 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 B to this staff report. 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. Staff Recommendation: No additional change necessary 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 Avenue 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. Staff Recommendation: No additional 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 recommendation: 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 EIR. Since the writer proposes that all vacant residential lands be P:\CARO LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 8 designated Very Low Density Residential, without specific areas of concern, the staff recommendation is that no additional change be made. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-08 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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. Staff 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. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-09 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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). Staff Recommendation: 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 option available to professional archaeologists in their reports to the City. Staff recommends that the Policy remain as currently written. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-09 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 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 Recommendation: 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. 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 o Avenue 50, north of Airport Boulevard, east of Monroe, and west of Van Buren. Staff Recommendation: 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, staff would recommend that the boundaries remain as mapped. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-10 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 Recommendation: 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. Since 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, staff would recommend that the boundaries remain as mapped. P:\CAROLYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 10 Vote: Minute Motion 2002-11 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The balance of the comments in the letter, which was received well after the close of 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 Recommendation: The City has clearly demonstrated its concern regarding groundwater usage for new projects. The General Plan includes policies and programs which require that the City cooperate with the Coachella Valley Water District in conserving water and implementing the District Water Management Plan. Unless the City has grounds for a moratorium on development, which it does not, the proposed policy is too stringent. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-12 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The letter requests that the General Plan include a policy which proactively preserves existing equestrian uses and "an appropriate portion" of agricultural uses. Staff Recommendation: The City's Agricultural and Equestrian Overlay preserves the rights of existing uses which are either equestrian or agricultural. Further, the Development Code text which has been presented (See Attachment C) includes uses currently permitted and conditionally permitted under the County zoning ordinance, right to farm provisions, and allows the creation of new agricultural and equestrian uses, and has been 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 27th before the City Council. The City has clearly indicated that its intent is not to convert agricultural and equestrian land uses. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-13 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: P:\CAROLYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 11 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 that the City make it a policy to hold public workshops prior to any annexation effort in any area. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-14 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The letter requests that public participation policies be added to the Administration Element. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-15 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 Recommendation: 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 recommend the addition of the overlay to industrially and commercially designated lands (which occur primarily on the west side of Harrison across from the airport, and on the south side of Airport Boulevard at Harrison) insofar as 679 of the 789 acres are already developed (see Table 2.2 of the General Plan, page 15). No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-16 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: P:\CAROLYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 12 The letter requests clarification on Program 4.2, page 18. Staff comment: The circumstances under which the Director may allow an amendment to a Specific Plan are alternatives. The three conditions need not occur simultaneously. The letter requests amendment of Program 4.3 (page 18) to protect owners who do not wish to participate. Staff Recommendation: The Program only encourages the participation of adjacent land owners. The City has no jurisdiction to require such participation, nor does it intend to require a land owner to participate in a process in which he is not interested. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-17 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The letter requests a new program 8.? To require public participation prior to annexation efforts. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-18 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 Recommendation: The requested development standards for the new zoning district are included in Attachment C, 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. The Policy could be changed to read: Policy 9 Agricultural and equestrian land uses are encouraged Vote: Minute Motion 2002-19 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The letter requests that the Policy 10 (page 19) be reevaluated and that a program be added which requires the study of light levels for commercial projects. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 13 Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-20 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. As regards the berm height, Program 2.11, on page 41 of the Circulation Element, requires that the City adopt standards for berm height in its Development Code. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-21 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The writer requests that Program 3.3 on page 21 be changed from "encourage" to "require." Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. The writer requests that the City prohibit development until CVWD "has proven" that it can recharge the aquifer, secured sufficient imported water, and implemented its Master Plan. Staff Recommendation: 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, and almost always does. The District always 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-22 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: P:\CAROLYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 14 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 Recommendation: The program refers specifically to public golf courses, which would, by definition, be open to the public. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-23 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The writer requests that development in Agrarian corridors reflect Agrarian standards, referencing the berming on Avenue 54 as not conforming to this standard. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. The writer wishes the City to further consider multi -use trails, and suggests that the City consider the interior paths proposed within the Coral Mountain Specific Plan. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. The writer requests that "Policy 3 needs to be given more `strength' and detail." (page 45) Staff Recommendation: 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. 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 Recommendation: 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. No change is needed. The writer requests that a time frame be attached to Program 4.2, page 50, regarding regional trails planning. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 15 Vote: Minute Motion 2002-24 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The writer requests that Program 2.2, Air Quality on page 52 be "given more emphasis." Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-23 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: The writer requests that Programs 6.2 and 6.4 on page 53 be given "more force and effect." Staff Recommendation: 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. 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 Recommendation: CVWD is asked to comment on all new development proposals, and almost always does. The District always indicates that it has the ability to serve new projects. The City cannot require that an independent Lead Agency "prove" its ability to serve. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-25 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 below. Item 2: The writer states that equestrian trails provided in the Plan are inadequate. Staff Recommendation: 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. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 16 Vote: Minute Motion 2002-26 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: item 3: The writer believes the equestrian zoning proposed is unacceptable. Staff Recommendation: The zoning text (Attachment C) 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-27 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Item 4: The writer states that buffer areas are not adequately planned in the General Plan. Staff Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-28 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 below. 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 Recommendation: The zoning text (Attachment C) 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. No change is recommended. 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. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 17 Staff Recommendation: The zoning text (attachment C) will be heard by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of March 12, 2002. However, the current County zoning ordinance requires a Conditional Use Permit for commercial stables of any size. Some review should be afforded such a use, to ensure land use compatibility. 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 Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-29 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Item 7: The reader requests that Policy 9, on page 19 include equestrian land uses. Staff Recommendation: The policy has been recommended for amendment based on comments made by the Vista Santa Rosa Association to (see Minute Motion 2002-19, above): Policy 9 Agricultural and equestrian land uses are encouraged. Item 8: The writer requests that Policy 7 on page 20 be amended to include equestrian. Staff Recommendation: The policy could 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. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-30 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 Recommendation: 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. No change is recommended. PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 18 Vote: Minute Motion 2002-31 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: Traffic and Circulation Element Item 1: The writer requests that the multi -purpose trails be expanded. Staff Recommendation: Please see discussion under Minute Motion 2002-26, 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 Recommendation: 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, Airport Boulevard, Avenue 60, Monroe and Van Buren Streets could be added to the program (the odd numbered streets are not General Plan streets, and may or may not develop, so designating them for image corridors is not recommended). 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, and no change is recommended. Vote: Minute Motion 2002-32 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: 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 Recommendation: 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. The City is not able to include trails on private property. No change is recommended. 12. Sun Country Ranch, letter dated October 5, 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 writer requests the addition of multi -purpose trails which connect the system. Staff Recommendation: Please see discussion under Minute Motion 2002-26, above. P:\CARO LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702. wpd 19 Additional Public Comments Reauestina Amendment it is likely that additional oral comments which will be made at the Public Hearing will requests amendments to the General Plan. Staff requests that any resulting amendment which the Planning Commission wishes to consider be proposed in the form of one or more Minute Motions to be incorporated into the final motions listed below. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: The City prepared and circulated an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in conjunction with the preparation of the General Plan. A wide range of environmental issues associated with the implementation of the La Quinta General Plan were assessed throughout the EIR. These include, but are not limited to, land use compatibility, agricultural resources, traffic and circulation, flooding and drainage, geotechnical and seismic safety, air quality, biological and archaeological resources, noise impacts and visual resources. Other areas of concern include the availability of public services and facilities, and the socio-economic impacts associated with General Plan implementation. A number of letters were received providing comments on the EIR. Responses to comments were prepared and published in the Final EIR, released on February 14, 2002. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act, all commentors were provided a copy of the Final EIR. CONCLUSION: The General Plan Update has been prepared over a period of three years, and incorporated considerable public participation, both in the form of hearings and workshops, and through written comment. The General Plan represents a comprehensive land use plan for the City, its Sphere of Influence, and Planning Area No. 1 and No. 2, which accommodates future growth while maintaining the character of the community. The City has included all mandated Elements in the Plan, and has met the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act in reviewing this project. Findings for a recommendation for approval, as noted in the attached Resolutions, can be made. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 2002- recommending to the City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update, Annexation No. 12, and Sphere of Influence Amendment (SCH # 2000091023); and amend the General Plan by adopting the General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment, as amended by Minute Motions 2002-01 through 2002- PACAR0LYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 20 A. Land Use Map Amendment Requests B. Other General Plan Amendment Requests C. Zoning Text D. Hearing Draft, General Plan Policy Document and Master Environmental Assessment (Distributed under separate cover) E. Draft Environmental Impact Report (Distributed under separate cover) F. Final Environmental Impact Report (Distributed under separate cover) Prepared by: Submitted by: Nicole Sauvia Cri te, Consulting Planner Fred Baker, Principal Planner P:\CAROLYN\PCSTFFRPTGP22702.wpd 21 ATTACHMENT A The City of La Quinta 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA. 92253 M May 15, 2001 Attn: Fred Baker, Planning Dept. RE: General Plan Review, Residential Lot on Buena Ventura Dear Fred, 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, j,", q 4avr-- Bruce Y. Cathcart, Broker La Quinta Palms Realty 51-001 Eisenhower Drive • La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 564-4104 • Fax (760) 564-0344 ® C V V [Vid B. C.,.•] W-,4yEN1 -—T-HERMdDA' - I I — • a —J5 m �<Tl I — u N z N I I a — D am I I _4 1 1 � a A a 1 m 1 I \ I I I _ a� _ I <% IPB $ 1 11 I I• N M 02G-M —' v^ESEf i -CU E 020-0,� -D N IY6.YP i tl l OY! r! 1 I 1 IIB.7e J �•UjFil� 1 �y Y! Is I — I!l.6r 1 _ Yy 126.81 119.3! _ I I O 2 11. c O O$ I �. I � I 1 ^I. it 1 I It9. )P 1,9. BB IYB. 11 J I d 131, 59 I]].11 1 111.2s I)S )I I N_ O a O� I V y i� 4 / ]B c �) 3G'SI a O b � _ O •)✓ Q l o l O m I co C, CQ W \l rm I Si Sd 1 V 133 na elB !0 0.� V N O 4J -15-01 16:18 City of LaQuinta Comm•Dev.Dept ID= 750 77711233 P.01 i� DEC0vMER 12, 2000 CITY OF LA QUINTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT P O BOX 1504 LA QUINTA, CA 92253- 1504 AM: JERRY HERMAN, DIRECTOR DEAR MR HERMAN, IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TFIERE IS A GENERAL PLAN REVISLNG ZONING ETC. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY PROPERTY C&ANGED FROTq R-1 TO R-2. I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN FROM T OF MY PROPERTY AND THEY ARE BOTH INTERESTED IN THE SAME. MY PROPERTY ADDRESS IS: 55075 MONROE ST TT IS BORDERED ON THE WEST & SOUTH BY KSL GREG NORMAN GOLF COURSE, ON T11E NORTH BY MERV GRIFFIN'S RANCH. PLEASE ADVISE ME. THANK YOU, VERY 1RULY YOURS, BARBARA J WOLLAN P O BOX 1253 LA QUINTA, CA 92253-1253 (7,60) 399-8250 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 o � - ME SEP 1120M CITY 1OF LAQUlIVTA _ i''NC DEPARTMENT September 11, 2000 RE: Parcel #761-310-013, 761-310-014, 761-310-015, 761-310-016 Dear Jerry, As you know, I have written in the past of my full support for the annexation of my properties into the city of La Quinta. The above referenced parcels represent four contiguous ten acre parcels (a total of forty acres) that I would like the City Council to consider zoning for commercial and/or commercial high density residential (apartments). My wife and I have been approached by developers for this to be a potential commercial site and our own plans for this property that I have worked with the county of Riverside on in a very preliminary basis is to build apartment complexes on one or all of these parcels. If you have any questions, please call me at the above number. Thank you in advance for your help with this matter. Sincerely, William J. Hammer THIS ".P :z Up C;SESSNENI PURPOSES My 271 3 2�,, ,SSESSM'S HAP W.. 761 PC. 31• PAA N1/2 SEC 26 T6S, R7E ;R,7611 25-33 f ,w 23 24 25 ii (D, 1,42• AI r4l saena MW PM 3�/s PARCEL MAP 7IN P" :7 i3s- 39 2539E REV MP 1963 Pm. :79/7e-7? 26481 JAN 1967 B■a xielyv ,wv,, 2000 Properties Mr. Jerry Herman Community Development Director CITY of LA QUINTA Post Office Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: August 15h 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: The parcels are adjacent to La Quinta High School as well as the proposed new school on the NEC of Wesward Ho and Dune Palms Road. 2. The existing density of the mobile home park on the NEC of Dune Palms Road and the Whitewater Channel is much higher than the existing General Plan designation of 2-4 units/acre. 3. The land is currently vacant or mostly vacant and is therefore suitable for a change. 4. A large depression exists on the eastem-most parcel of 7.7 Acres. 5. A change of density will promote the development of these parcels. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please call me at (760) 773-3310 if I can be of help. Thank you. Sincerely, BAXL-EY PROPERTIES P t� (!�Vdw_ Bill Cover BC/sh 41865 Enclosed: Exhibit A - Adjacent Land Uses BOARDWALKS U I T E- 2 0 6 Exhibit B- Parcel Maps & Owners PALM DESERT Exhibit C- Summary of Land Uses C A L I F O R N I A 9- 2- 2- 1- 1 .760.773.3013 www.baxleyproperties.com �a 7 773-3310 A.4. Exhibit A 07/12/00 Mr. Jerry Herman ADJACENT LAND USES S_ubiedt 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 Quinta 3. La Quinta High School 4. Existing mobile home park 5. New Indian Springs development Ex Mt sir A V W co W 0 II U U a a � 7 U N o a a a m Q O J (O(�� F o J W = }Q g J lNl� 0. w J Q It z e cn J cc V g 5 w O Ul F W w Q w (A 2- Q w 2 Q W W N T O W In 20¢ J J> U. N O w 4ryp� fl7 NN fell C C� m U fi Q V O a L m 6F.. V 0 Z¢ w¢ z C, a O O a w w a (wn w O ti ? o z Z F W w N W '� Q C z x e J} o a o 2O w� 22 E w m O r a v, w v, w c7 t czc t� c� v o x O t� a o LLJ Ww Q-j In>> a o 2 z W2 v rLu ¢ Z Q O U. z U W p� z w o w w 0 W X o w o E 0' g o w a a m o a a 0 WQ >_5 f x oc � U z U 0 F- > z O a 0 0 na� co > SIR N U� g AIMM00,149ss I -flrn ^, Nn, I, l\9V 1 � u }� 7§ f ■ «a ` � �■ . � §� ■■ \ � "B§)} 2;=»R �■�3 21ƒ | | ,§CL - - ia-.ct, �R�� k�ƒ§ _, 7 co ■ 2 \ \ � 2 k K 5 � \ \ta ' 2 � m i Summary of Land Uses APN Use Acres 649-040-001 Vacant 649-040-002 House 649-040-003 House 649-040-004 House 1.56 649-040-005 Vacant 649-040-006 House 649-040-007 Vacant 7.77 649-040-011 House 2.21 649-040-012 House 649-040-013 Vacant 2.39 649-040-014 Mobile Home Park 11.29 25.22 Ac Summary SgFt 24,829 7,045 7,045 39,204 39,204 M1 Exhibit C July 12, 2000 Mr. Jerry Herman Total 125,167 SF 28.09 Ac Houses (6) 5.17 Ac Vacant 11.63 Ac Mobile Home Park 11.29 Ac TOTAL: 28.09 Ac C H A R L E S R H Y L E R R C>R E R T I E S July 14, 2000 City of La Quinta Zoning Department o w�'24ZF 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, W�, WM . K . SCHM I D `s- General Manager 78-490 Calle Orense 564-6219 WKS/at C:\W520O0\DOCUMENT\AT\CITYBAKE Mf 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. Si erely, S. Chevis Hosea V.P., Land Development Cc: Larry Lichliter Bill Dodds Lexi Ward Forrest Haag, ASLA Chris Bergh, MDS Consulting Rick Deihl 55-920 PGA Boulevard 0 La Quinta, CA 92253 • (760) 564-7166 • Fax (760) 564-7131 it By: ; 760 360 7580; Oct-3-01 11:35AM; Page 1/1 ULI Ut eUU1 1:40PM HLIXSETH GROUP,INC. 760776662E p - 2 ant By: ; 76C 360 7680; Oct-1.01 12:54PM; Page 2/2 -4 October 1, 2001 1` :� '�`; 1 iCITY DEPARTMENT 1 AUUINTA p�.ANNiNG City of L:n Quinta-Community Development Jury Hornran 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re. 40 acres SEC Jackson St./A,,c, 58 APN• portion of 761-400-01) 1 Dcar Jcm. In response to the Drali Gelerdl Plan Updaic for tltc City of La Qutnta, 1 hereby requcsl 11tc above nnmed 40 acres at the Southcast coiner of Jackson St. and Avouuc 58 be dasig=tEd Commercial Thank you for you consi&-ration. /Sincerely, TiroodtS• L. HltxseAfh A � 10—H3-61 11:26 RECEIVED FROM:760 360 7580 P.01 ATTACHMENT B DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION October 18, 1999 Jerry Herman Director, Community Development Department City of La Quinta P. O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 Subject: Request For General Plan Amendment Modifying Distance Between Full Movement Intersections On Major Arterials Dear Jerry: Z7 Oct left,G 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. LTherefore, 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. Wayh4 Hancock Vice P e ident, Development 55-920 PGA Boulevard 0 La Quinta, CA 92253 0 (760) 564-7166 • Fax (760) 564-7131 41pr-04-00 12:34P P.02 SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER 4079 Mission Inn Avenue, Riverside. CA 92501 (909) 694-6203 Mcmbership/Outings (909) 686-6112 Fax (909) 684-6172 Regional Groups Serving Riverside anti San Bernanlino Counties: Los .Serranos, 7ahyuit:, Sun Bcr»tardiino i%4ountairts, dlojave,.ilorerto Big Bear. Arrowlund ['ollc ►', .Santa Alaryrrrrru 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 4, 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 fixture, 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 Wilderness. 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, d Joan Taylor, Conservfti Chairman Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club 1800 S. Sunrise Way, Palm Springs, CA 92264 Printed on RCrvcicd Paper. 'fo explore, enjoy and pr4mcrvc the natioa' .r foreaa, waters, wildhl�. and wtldcmex,. 10_QO nuLmai l Page 1 of 1 -B. 3. aw MwHotmail® jsgates860hotmail.com From : "john gates" <jsgates86@hotmail.com> To : jsgates86@hotmail.com Date : Sat, 08 Sep 2001 22:20:39 -0700 M V I Previous Page w 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 Cor poration. All rights reserved. TERMS OF USE TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement L4V-,, 4i�� 21f- CSC /�u� . Y►�i a.�.eh,.o . tt,p://lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg?curmbox=F000000001 &a=6c4f5dc4b;... 09/08/2001 2CM : COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CON PHONE NO. : 760 776 9696 Sep. 19 2001 02:15PM P' W. COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CONSERV/kNCY State of California In partnership to protect our mountain heritage September 18, 2401 �'`'L`'t� cKwarring Roaro C ryy of CaVxGral Cry CA y o1 oczcw Hor 'All s c1ru ortnalaA WLS Gc11, DEV, yr La QW1W Honorable Mayor John PenaU!/ojF D s y of Pcom Members of the City Council ur„ tvp4runo Mtroge City of La Quinta C-Y-%MorS Apparvee 78-495 Calle Tampico Store Sewrc AFpolnree MeA% nbtyAJ)pOUMC La Quinta, CA 92253 aluasM County supervisor District to &*MaeCoumuSUperariaar Dear Mavor Pena and Members of the City Council: Digula N " hqua calirnrc Band arcta,,.La>s 'shank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environtnental Impact Sra'e Depomnera u) Park;nrxlkrCMirL,n Report (DEIR) for the proposed General Plan. As you know, the Coachella Vallee Bureau qP r,;nd A&wW2( 7=' Us Forest -,;Crulce Mountains Conservancy is working with the Coachella Valley Association of lyetr,Je cornervulnn ?rwrr} Governments (CVAG) to develop a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Sla.e t>d Crm a µr fish [MA Came(CV-NISHCP) for the Coachella Valley. In addition to CVA(J and its member 15U,-er (XA9aldortno fMLrron (X AyrlGLthufe jurisdictions, this planning effort involves the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) aW ^'a"r`°' Resources as well as state and federal wildlife agencies. As one part of the CV`MSHCP, a trails Haw�urc,� 'uJe�l plan is being developed for the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Over the last several years, 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 San Jacinto Mountains trails plan is intended to serve local trail needs, including within the City of La Quinta, as well as to address regional trails and trail access. One option that the Trails and Bighorn Sheep T orking 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 nails in the La Quinta area. Although we do not at this time have any final proposals for the location of these perimeter trails, there are several areas that have been discussed by the Trails and Bighorn Sheep 5'orking Group. These potential perimeter trails are =n the La Quinta Cove area, including the Coral Reef Moumtains, 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 35-480 Porlola .w&. • iralm llesert. CA W260 • 760-7766026 • F,-1X 7(-.i0-776.9698 09-19-01 13:41 RECEIVED FROM:756 776 9698 P.62 'ROM : COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS CON PHONE NO. : 760 776 9698 Sip. 19 2001 02 : 16F'P1 PO BLM lands in this area_ We 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 Jacinto 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 Herman, City of La Quinta Jim .Kenna, Bureau of Land Management Jim Sullivan, CVAG Trails and Bighorn Sheep Working Group 19-19-01 13:42 RECEIVED FROM:760 775 9698 P-63 ,i3, �. Archaeological Advisory Group P.O. Box 491, Pioneertown, CA 92268-0491 A G Tel: 760.228.1142 - Fax: 760.369.4002 • E-mail: archadvgrp@aol.com �1141--cQ11U, September 18, 2001 Mr. Jerry Herman jl" SEP 0 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 "Draft 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 EIR," Paragraph F: "A qualified archaeologist and/or Native American representative shall provide on - site monitoring during ground -disturbing activities in areas of high sensitivity." The "and/or" implies that it is acceptable for only a Native American to be present during monitoring. The contradicts the City's personnel requirements for archaeological monitors. It would be acceptable for only a Native American to be present provided they met the archaeological education and experience requirements necessary for an archaeological monitor. Sincerely, James Brock, mA, RPA President JN�f1E0 � a io Desert Sands Unified School District So w B MU'� ES CHO MIRAGE v 47-950 Dune Palms Road La Quinta, CA 92253 ` INDIAN WELLS 4 W PALM DESERT ti *Oo uINoa Is,, OUINTA �.a Facilities Services (760) 771-8515 FAX (760) 771-8522 Board of Education John Benoit Tina A. Godecke Jim Koedyker 41 Gary Tomak ��`��4� o Dr. Marcile K. Wright Q w September 19, 2001 Mr. Fred Baker Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Re: La Quinta General Plan Dear Mr. Baker: In response to Section I1-14, 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, 49 Peggy eyes Director Facilities Services Sep 19 01 03:04p CiL9 of Coachella 1515 SIXTH STREET • COACHFLLA, CA 92236 Fax: (750) 31,?8-8117 Hon. 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 Admrnisttatlpn ...... Animal COnGuI ..............398-4978 .398-35Q2 GranP... .... .3% 5110 Building . ....................398-3002 City clerk om .... .. ... .. Pc�suruxx ... .393. B71u SQ8-3E0� ................. CityC0tu1c11 ..................301-5009 398-3502 '�— Ptarrw ..... 398-31o2 C000Enforcement.. -- .. 398-4970 p �bl'r Warkz ... 398-Ht4.1 —� Economic Develop. Engult:enng....... ....398-5110 nrcw uam . l9tvtar:ayo Sncnffs 1 O t5e, 398-33:.^ E63-39.0 Finance ... ... ............. .398-574 1 398.950 t;anita,y Senlui 3t r ors tiro...398.010, .....................396-8895 ..... Svs.. .... LJtiGIF: :........... .... 3y8-27CY� September 19, 2001 Re: Lip Quinta General Plrrrr Update, La Quinta No. 12 Anne -ration, Proposed La Quinta Sphere of Influence and Draft Environmental Impact Report Honorable Mayor Pena and Members of the City Council: 1 am sending the following comments on behalf of the City Council of the City of Coa4hella. This letter describes those areas of concern that the Coachella City Council has with respect to the. La Quinta General Plan Update, the proposed La Quinta Annexation No. 12, the proposed La Quinta Sphere of Influence and the potential expansion beyond those limits within your Planning Area. This letter supplements the comments previously submitted to La Quinta's Principal Ylannc1 I'red Baker by Coachella's Director ofCommunity Development Susan F. Williams, dated September 10. 2001. The proposed La Quinta Annexation No. 12 includes territory situated within Coachella's current Sphere of Influence. That particular area extends from Avenue 50 to Airport Boulevard and from Monroe Street to Van Buren Street. The Coticltella City Council is adamantly opposed to the proposed annexation (by any neighboring city) of any territory situated within Coachella's existing Sphere of Influence. This particular area consists of a variety of land uses: low density residential, very low density residential, and is subject to an agricultural to urban transitional overlay zone. The subject area which also includes a public cemetery, a school and scattered general commercial uses has been identified in Coachella's General Plan as an integrtl componNnt of Coachella's futuregrowth. In light of the above, the Coachella City Council respectfully requests that the subject area be excluded from La Quinta Annexation No. 12. The Coachella City Council also objects to tltc proposal to include in La Quinta's Sphere of' Influence any property located east of Van Buren Street and south of Coachella's city limits. It has become clear to many local planners and policy makers that the Thermal Airport has the potential to become a major transportation hub which can effectii ely meet the future needs t)f ntlt only the growing tourist/resort based industry throughout the entire Coachella Valley, but also the growing manufacturing and industrial needs of tile east end ofthe Coachella Valley and fast growing imperial County. There is no doubt that the transformation of the Thermal Airport into a major transportation hub will create a bonanza of opportunities for those local jurisdictions which have. control over land use and development of the area near the Thermal Airport and are the beneficiaries ol'general fund 09-19-01 15:59 RECEIVED FROM:760 398 5421 P.02 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 occupancy taxes, Produced by the business activities that will Surely take place in the subject area in the ver , new fi.ttlre. Since Coachella is in the very unique situation of having a relatively lar�} low to low income households it is imperative that Coachella look to the fi,ttire for all possible Y ge number of very - opportunities .for economic growth and prosperity, and the future growth of the area in the vicinity of the Thermal Airport is one such opportunity that Coachella's policy makers must kcQp their e es UIl. y Notwithstanding the above, the Coachella City Council sincerely believes that the future of the Thermal Airport will create sufficient opportunities that can provide tnutual benefits to both ambition, both cities can work together on developing a long terns plan for the future anlnexation of Coachella and La Quinta. As such, the Coachella City Council i4 encoura ed that restrained the area in the vicinity of tile Thermal Airport that will result in the orderly development of the area in a manner that fairly distributes between the two jurisdictions both the burdc,is of such development and the many benefits such development will likely create. In light of the above, the Coachella City Council respectfully requests that the I,a Quinta ity Council direct its staff to eliminate fi•om its Sphere of Influence proposal any plant to includeCtny territory located east of Van Buren Street and south of Coachella's city limits. The Coachella Goy Council, however, would trot oppose a proposal drat extends nuence t bY.Ai�enue 66. include that area boundedto the east by La Quirrta's Sphere u} I flan Buren, the north hyAirport Bottlevard armre soialr With respect to the Draft EIR's analysis of traffic. impacts, ve concerns about how the increased traffic will disp oportiona lyampactchella Cmanyity (rof`Cotrch il ha, m s roadways and intersections. Coachella is specifically concerned that the mitigation measures related to the traffic impacts are wholly inadequate to non-existent and the suggestion that formulation of traffic mitigation measures be deferred to a later tune is in complete violation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). No matter which alternative La Quinta chooses to proceed with, it is imperative that mitigation measures be imposed that will effectively mitigate all significant traffic impacts to levels of insignificance. In this regard. the Draft EIR needs to be amended to include traffic mitigation measures that, for instance, require financial contributions to be made toward necessary road improvements Stich as additional signalization, road widening, grade separations, and bridges along streets such as Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison; and Polk. Two other additional concerns raised by the Coachella City Council relate to water. In recognition of the increase demands that will be placed on the area's water supply; the Draft El fZ should include a mitigation measure that requires the development ofa water reclamation facility. In addition, with respect to the severe drainage prcblems throughout the east end of the Coachella Valley, it is important that the Draft EIR include a mitigation measure that requires certain residential subdivisions to include the installation of retention basins and/or requires financial contributions to be made toward necessary drainage improvements. Without such mitigation measures in place, it is certain that number of children who will be exposed to the health and safety threats associated with the presence of stagnant water in residential areas will increase at an alarming and unacceptable rate. 99-19-91 16:00 RECEIVED FROM:760 398 5421 P.93 !Sep 19 01 03:05p City of Coachella 760 398-5421 p-4 In addition, rite 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 otherrespiratoryailments suffered by marry local residents. The current energy crisis also needs to be discussed in the Draft EIR from the perspectivof the status of e 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 Coachella and ,nust include mitigation measures that reduce those impacts to a level of insignificance. 'llhe Draft EIR as written does not include mitigation measures that can be quantified with a projected schedule and identified responsible party. Also, the deferred mitigation which is suggested throughout the haft EIR is not appropriate under CEQA. Coachella also respectfully submits that the Concerns raised in the September 10, 2001 letter have still not been properly addressed and, as such, must be reassert herein as though set forth at length. ed In closing, please note once again that the Coachella City Council would not oppose a La Quints annexation or sphere of influence proposal that extends easterly to Van Buren bounded by Airport Boulevard to the north and Avenue 56 to the south. Such a proposal would not intrude on Coachella's current Sphere of Influence and it �N ill provide both cities with the opportunity to meet with the intent to cooperate on developing a long term plan for annexation and development of the area in the immediate vicinity of the Thernial Airport. Due to the potential tux revenue associated with the future growth of the Thennal Airport, the City Council of the City of Coachella wishes to ensure that it is able to participate with the City of La Quinta in benefrtting 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 of La 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, I,a Quinta Principal Planner 69-19-91 IS: go RECEIVED FROM:768 398 5421 P.04 8-2001 02:07pm From - BEST BEST S KRIEGER LLP A CAu►ORTNA LIMITYD 6tA01L.ITT PART..ERSh1P InC"DING PRCWESSIONAL CORPORATtOnS LAWYERS RTTIUR 1. LITTLLwONTh- t1.r.rM A PswPI-►L- tCnARO T ANDLRSOn- DnN D W^"Lln• DNN K P.0wn iIC nI.LL T ATOP 6LL' nCn.KL awrnT• R.—CIS J p.uM- EOROG M. RLTL6 'tLLI^ M W FLOTD. JR REGOAT L. nARDME E.DALL n _CVET 1_rlln n .Ld OM .VIP d GNWIN- i.CZ" ..PCLLOn- 000t,. z G Pn11.FIP3- RE40RT A WILA-SON ENE TA.AAA [TOR L. wO. F NIeL E OL.V... OWARD O. GOLDS TEPnin P DZITC Ch Onn R ROTTSC..AEFEA ..NTIN A MuELLEA M.CMACL-YMMLR04ri1 Carr C SMITI. AC,n Bn CLARAE, .A IAww "W. - w«D..BT E «EufELD ♦FTlq w P.A M.Cw � G lv Ril v Puwn _TGVLn C P►P.un- EAIC L GARNER• OEnNIO M COTA r n w f PEARCE ROBERT - nAAOREAVES C. _C__ CQw FTT ORwCC w Os.cn ARLLnE PR.TLR MARK A C.CTLR ..Ic n[I-Lz vuELLz7tE ARVIn A AANOOLPn [. nTh.. ......0 M r.9A.19 b s- TA D #,TLC A GNOW 4AMIs 6 GILin AIM A BTREnt O£A. OEALETh :ONIA Ru010 C-QV I nO 40NN O PINANiT PIERO C DALLARDA OwIG.T M AOoTGOMERv RICMARP T o4CCR FAAn MEIN C hD.MG WILLIAM WOOD MERR/LL ..—AM D OAhunG JR -A PNOIESSIOnAL COMrOnATIOn BERATE L. wn-L..MSON G nEnRT wfI,LEC O.V.O n COCn n -"IR O. PCWAs.On R04ER I,CRAW/Opp ih.WN D. M049RTT 'AMC., P "Wins-1 A EVIN T COLunC P-12 w newn.N �Kn n+rKN T n.CAMM/. M.P.. i atiFaa C " M - MCC MARTMWC AEL MGLCOD JAMES R TOuCNSTONE LTfvEN M ..DER861% AOBERT L PATTEASON DRT.N M OLn.RP •AM.0 L A.TMOnP PA VLA C P Gi ZOY+. L 1SA M SA�72MAn ...CO A MwRTtnE2 ..OMN T wAI..oN 4CIIR7 I FCRRL DORINE n"','CE NVCnLG ALI�On P r�l- v .F.Sn.n S CMOPM- ..MCC C TLRNL+ MICh.CL D DOuDA VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION nrRin M IAcKMrn �OhN P nIC4..007h-M MALATI.T 46RAMANIA14 '. MESnAEAl C k..0 M M. nLn.L4 �I:/tRC, L P.wI-.er. M TnLR". M"NTIRD TI.CR=. L rn70..CCl E-66A y WOO E n£AI. ARTIER TR.nO T TAAn C.wMin M.w71«92 u[ Oa.PA TR.C6 Pn.M ..AEON C GLCL: w.LUAM ... PR.C?T DANIEL S ROBERT M.wv PFTh CoaN". L/NOSiT A COW— PAn16LLG C "RPAR C. RILTINA . nCNRT ELSE L CnEnG ,t . ,ln C V.hnffi T.M P TR.N DANIZL C. AATZ RATMOnO OLLT t I Or 0 1 SZ 71 .M= M .A.LCGR ..ID 1 ::; 1 G77, 2uoiNK PeeT . I a0z� ..DP 1, September 28, 2001 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council and Chairman and Planning Commission Members City of La Quints 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92270 Re Proposed Changes in Draft General Plan Honorable Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, T-307 P.002/004 F-071 ee: KkX Qn�u t suli�•�Tc-,ono 1 POST OFfd60,E BOX . 3e(� 11�, PALM DESERT, CA -FOR- Di:65 TCLLPrvONZ 1700) 368.26, 1 TC.CCOP1ER 17601 '= 6606 PPAL.W CO" OF COun-M, CMRICTOPNZR L CARPEnTER M.Cwrit- P n.RR9Z- .N-e T ThOM.= DONALD F ZIrInEp- D dRun REIDER #,+R1, W =MfTN P.n.O n--A13 w.NN(./t P A+VT.N ROBEAr, , n..w. DAN.EL G STEVEnnOn OFFICES IN R-EAn.Oe .o ON+ PPC O.TARIO 4.001 Ono nnp4 San P.Esc 05. f., a.; s 1 2.00 ORANGE 17, 47 03L-GW40 I am submitting this letter as a follow-up to my comments at your joint meeting on September 19, 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 Groundwater Protection Proposed General Plan Policy. The City will not approve development that will cumulatively exacerbate the groundwater overdraft During the September 19'4 hearing, I noted that there was significam concern among many who rely on groundwater pumping within the Planning Area that build out of residemial development as proposed by the draft General Plan would significantly exacerbate the current groundwater overdraft. 1"u W9uewrn18M 28-1001 02:07pm From- T-397 P.003/004 F-071 t-Aw OMCFS OF IBEST i3E5T & KRIEGER 1_EP 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 time 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. $. AgricgJrgraj Preservalin 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 econonuc 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 shoe -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 determined that such a buildout was not in the long; range best interests ofthe community and developed effective policies to preserve those view sheds, while respecting landowner rights. ,cMrusur M1849M 9-2001 02:07pm From - LAW OFFICES OF EIEST BEST & KRIEGER Lt_.P Honorable Members of the City Council Planning Commission Members City of La Quinta September 27, 2001 Page 3 T-397 P.004/004 F-071 1n 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. P,Oert W. HargftaSIEGE of BEST BEST LLP RWH-mm cc ferry Herman, Director of Community Development Katherine Jenson, City Attorney 34. THE VISTA SANTA ROSA ASSOCIATION Ellen Lloyd Trover, President Philip Burnett, Vice President Betty Morgin, -Secretary Erizabeth L. Talley, Treasurer Betty Mangan Smith, Director Edward Granados, Director P. C. Box 297 Coachella, CA 92236 Mayor Pena, Councilmembers La Quinta City Council, Chairman Robbins, Commissioners La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 5 September 29; 2001 RE: City of La Quinta Draft General Plan Greetings to the Council & Commission: On behalf of the Association, I 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 Page 1 of 8 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 Mth Attachments is extensive and detailed, as you know. There was discussion on September 19'', 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 ofthe 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. ADMINISTRATIVE 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 11'. 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 3011, 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 S 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 landowners 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 when 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 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 8 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 open 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 light 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 As said before, conversion of land use from agriculture to residential vastly increases demand on OUT 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 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 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 aV1Nrq vR�Grc\�� October 4, 2001 L Mayor Pena, Councilmembers La Quinta City Council, Chairman Robbins, Commissioners La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: City of La Quinta Draft General Plan Greetings to the Council & Commission: I have discovered that the Riverside County Agricultural statistics and the California Farm 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, ;r-� 4--f- a-,, 0�- �'� Ellen Lloyd Trover President Riverside County Agriculture 1979-1999 1979 1999 Table grapes Acres 9,496 13,829 Value $ 50,171,100.00 $ 136,585,400.00 Citrus Acres 44,462 30,757 Value $ 95,432,500.00 $ 118,236,100.00 Cotton Bales 72,300 35,411 Value $ 2-2,488,000.00 $ 8,853,000.00 Alfalfa Tons 316,421 524,450 Value $ 25,056,300.00 $ 39,690,400.00 Dares Tons 13,470 17,335 Value $ 16,288,000.00 $ 40,217,200.00 Acreage 316,743 331,174 Livestock Dairy cattle 72,636 108,000 Milk, gallons 155,303,850 196,080,000 Milk value $ 162,198,700.00 $ 333,564,000.00 Eggs, dozens 156,280,000 170,984,000 Eggs, value $ 77,359,000.00 $ 75,233,000.00 Total livestock $ 289,170,800.00 $ 440,230,900.00 Change 146% 272% 69% 124% 49% 39% 166% 158% 129% 247% 105% 149% 126% 206% 109% 97% 152% Total Ag Production $ 631,723,000 $ 1,197,362,100 190% 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 principal(s) in this transaction, and is not a substitute for any inspections or warranties the principal(s) may wish to obtain. I. Sellers Information http://www.farmiandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.htrnl 9/29/2001 Farmland Information Center - TA - Right -to -Farm (CA Farm Bureau Model) Page 4 of S SS, before me, the undersigned Notary Public, personally appeared County of personally known to me. satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) 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 Iaw to _ (Buyers name) who has refused to sign. I declare the forgoing to be true under penalty of perjury. Late: (Sign) Print Name: Section b. 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 & Precedence Phis ordinance shall take precedence over all 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 ittp://www.farTniandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.htmi 9/29/2001 FROM : BEVERLY—HILLS—MEDICAL_PLAZA Honorable Mayor John Penya 1.lember of City Council City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, Ca 92253 RE: La Quinta General Plan Update FAX NO. . 3106578662 Honorable Mayor John Penya and Members of City Council: Oct. 05 2001 05:03PM P2 OCT 5 20o� I 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 annex Vista Santa Rosa up to Jackson Street is destructive to our community and against the LAFCO concerns about piece -meal annexation. 2. The trails proposed for equestrian use is inadequate. The large street that you proposed through Vista 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. 3. This general plan regarding the equestrian zoning for overlay henceforth is unacceptable. This does not reflect any appropriate agricultural and equestrian zoning and is inappropriate at this time. 4. There are not adequate buffer cones planted around all of our equestrian and agricultural properties. ',Chest have to be fully planned -out in accordance-Mth the equestrian and agricultural interests in the area, so that thev 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 for a series of workshops for each resident and landowner. Sinc 0v, arroll Chair woman of Vista Santa Rosa City Council O 10-05-61 15:58 RECEIVED FROM:3106578662 P.02 5 Diamantina L � OCT- �2 ,. �U L�' � 4 CITY OF LAULJINTA I i PLANNING DEPARTMENT 74-090 El Paseo, Suite 202 Tele: Palm Desert, California Fax: 92260 U.S.A. E-mail: October 5, 2001 Mr. Fred Baker Principal Planner City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 (760) 342 - 9227 (760) 342 - 5939 Interta? @GTE.net MT-gAV1 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 irtformation 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. If you have received this transmission by mistake, kindly notify us immediately so that we make arrangements for its return or destruction. 1. 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 "may be appropriate'). 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. 8. 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. -2- V 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". 5. 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 look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Brent Lance, Manager -3- 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, I OCT - 5aol: 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? 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, pdor 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 Quinta 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! RESIDENTIIAL GOALS. POLICIES and PROGRAMS (Page 18 DCGP) Goal 2 - Policy 1 - 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. 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 Lake Cahuilla to Harrison St.) Madison, Monroe and Jackson Street (North to South) Avenues 54, 58, 62, and 66 (East to West) Madison, Jackson, and Harrison Street (North to South) Avenues 50, 56, 58, 60, and 66 (East to West) North to South Streets were not discussed. 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. 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 RacheJle 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`h 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 my agricultural commodity, including timber, viticulture, apiculture, horticulture, the -aising of livestock, fur bearing animals, fish or poulta, and any practices performed by a fanner 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. 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 l 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 they occur 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 the potential 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." 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 1I1-28, 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 1II-J (Noise) of this EIR. Page III-144, ]-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 II1-144, 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 1 OdBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime period (from 10 p m to l a.m.) Appendix E-EIR Noise Element Update Technical Report -Pg 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. ************ 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 Lev GM/Chief En ineer to L ..... "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 wont' about water supplies in the future,' said Tom Tumey, 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 looking at the end of our noses.' 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 1ying 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. 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!!! Appendix 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 PE 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.* *( plus -or -minus 8 acre-feet per acre per year) 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 thins 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, — October 5. 2001 Norman F. Cady ayle Cady Date Pa e 1 I of Eleven PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#2000091023) PREPARED FOR THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT AND APPROVAL TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADOPTING AN UPDATED GENERAL PLAN AND MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, AND MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California previously adopted Resolution 92-81 as a comprehensive update the General Plan for the City; and, WHEREAS, it is recognized that the current General Plan consisting of various state mandated elements requires revision and update to assure compliance with current State laws and regulations; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department has prepared a General Plan Update pursuant to Sections 65350 et seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law and transmitted same to the Planning Commission in compliance with Section 65354 of said law; and, WHEREAS, the updated La Quinta General Plan comprises six of the seven elements and consists of a Land Use Element, Traffic and Circulation, Open Space Element, Parks and Recreation Element, Natural Resources Element, Infrastructure and Public Services, Environmental Hazards Element, and a Cultural Resources Element required by Section 65300 et. seq. of the California Planning and Zoning Law and as recommended by the State of California General Plan Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the Housing Element has not been included as part of the General Plan Update as the five year review cycle began for Housing Elements began in 1989; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2000091023) has been prepared for this project as prescribed by the California Environmental Quality Act; and, A:1GP Resosldraft PC RESO GPA update 2002.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 2002- Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, and Master Environmental Assessment February 27, 2002 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the EIR, and has found the EIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the decision of the Commission in this case; and, 2. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Updated General Plan and the Master Environmental Assessment; and, 3. That it does hereby recommend that the City Council amend the General Plan, with the exception of the Housing Element, by adopting the General Plan Update and Master Environmental Assessment consisting of maps and text which are incorporated into and part of this Resolution by reference herein. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a special meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 27th day of February, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California JACQUES ABELS, Chairman City of La Quinta, California A:\GP Resos\draft PC RESO GPA update 2002.wpd ATTACHMENT C SECTION 9.140.060 LOW DENSITY/AGRICULTURAL-EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TABLE? PERMITTED USES IN THE AGRICULTURAL/EQUESTRIAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE Residential Uses Single Family detached dwellings P Farmworker Housing C Mobile Home Parks C Mobile Home Subdivisions and manufactured homes on individual lots P Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 8 or fewer children, subject to Section 9.60.190 A Child day care facilities as an accessory use, serving 9-14 children, subject to Section 9.60.190 M Caretaker's residence P Open Space and Recreational Uses Public parks, playfields and open space P Bicycle, equestrian and hiking trails P Tennis Court or other game court as an accessory use associated with a private residence P Tennis Court or other game court for public use M Golf course and country club, with or without driving range P Driving Range with or without lights C Accessory Uses and Structures Home occupations, subject to Section 9.60.110 H Patio covers, decks and gazebos, subject to 9.60.040 A Fences and walls, subject 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 Guest houses, subject to Section 9.60.010 M Second units. "granny flats" and employee quarters, subject to Section 9.60.090 M Garages and carports, subject to Section 9.60.060 A Keeping of animals, subject to Section 9.60.120 A Equestrian and Agricultural Uses Stables, Private p Stables, Commercial or riding academy C Polo grounds, including stables, clubhouse C Veterinary offices and hospitals C The grazing and breeding of cattle, horses, llamas, sheep, goats or other farm stock or animals, not including hogs, not to exceed five animals per acre of all the land available P I 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, aviaries, apiaries p Tree crop farming p Field Crop or Turf Farming p Produce stands, subject 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 Feed Stores C Menageries C Commercial composting facilities C Other Uses Guest Ranches and Bed and Breakfasts C Restaurants C Fraternal lodge halls p Churches, temples and other places of worship C Schools i C Libraries I C Public Utility facilities p Communication towers and equipment subject to Section 9.170 C A. Residential Development Standards TABLE 501 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARD E/A R Min. Lot Size for Single Family Dwelling (sq. ft.) 10,000 Min. Project Size for Multifamily Projects (sq. ft.) 20,000 Min. Lot Frontage for Single Family Dwelling or Multifamily Projects (ft.) 100 Max. Structure Height (ft.) 78 Max. No. of Stories 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 All buildings shall be limited to two stories in height and a maximum of 35 feet, measured from the finished grade of the pad. 2. Setbacks: The following minimum setbacks shall apply from the property line: Pasture: 0 feet Accessory buildings: 20 feet Accessory structures: 20 feet Manure storage: 25 feet 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. Manure Collection: Any use involving the storage, spreading or use of manure, or the keeping of animals, shall be required to file a plan for its use and disposal with the Public Works Department. 5. Parking: Parking shall be provided as required by Chapter 9.150. Lighting: All lighting shall comply with Sections 9.60.160 and 9.100.150. 7. Loudspeakers: Loudspeaker systems or other amplified sound are limited to operation or use between 8 a.m. And 10 p.m. Unless otherwise specified by an approved conditional use permit. 8. Dust Control: A Dust Control Plan shall be maintained on file with the Public Works Department at all times. C. Definitions "Accessory building" means any building subordinate to a permitted or conditionally permitted use, including but not limited to hay and tack barns, storage sheds and other structures and uses customarily appurtenant to the primary permitted use. "Accessory structure" means any structure subordinate to a permitted or conditionally permitted use, including but not limited to exercise rings, arenas, corrals, and other structures associated with the permitted or conditionally permitted use. Fences are not considered structures for the purposes of this Section. "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. "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. "Commercial stable" means any facility specifically designed or used for the stabling of horses not owned by the residents of the property on which the stable is located, and for which the residents or land owner receives compensation. Services provided by a commercial stable including boarding, breeding, training, riding or other recreational use of the horse. "Corral" means an enclosure designed for use as an open holding area for horses for the purpose of confinement within that area for an indeterminate period of time. "Farm" means a parcel of land devoted to agricultural uses where the principal use is the propagation, care and maintenance of viable plant and animal products for commercial purposes. "Farmworker housing" means any building or group of buildings where six or more farm employees are housed. "Menagerie" means a lot on which more than one wild, non -domestic reptile (not including turtles or tortoises), bird (not including poultry) or mammal is kept. A tamed or trained wild animal shall not be considered a domestic animal. "Pasture" means an enclosed holding area consisting of grass or similar vegetation, specifically used for purposes of grazing or feeding of animals. "Guest Ranch" means any property of five acres or more operated as a ranch which offers guest rooms for rent and which has outdoor recreational facilities such as horseback riding, swimming or hiking. "Riding Academy" means a facility designed and used primarily for recreational riding, training and instruction, and allowing both on -site boarding or trailering of horses to the facility. "Stable" means a building or structure containing multiple stalls for the purposes of sheltering, feeding, boarding, accommodating or otherwise caring for horses. "Stall" means a division of a stable accommodating one horse into an adequately sized enclosure for the purposes of confining individual horses within a sheltered environment as may be necessary for security, safety or other reasons pertinent to the health, welfare and daily care of each animal. 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, "Caretaker Residence" means a residential unit not exceeding 1,000 square feet, which is not the principal use on the property, to be occupied by a caretaker or watchman who is responsible for the security of the principal use of the property. "Commercial stable" means any facility specifically designed or used for the stabling of horses not owned by the residents of the property on which the stable is located, and for which the residents or land owner receives compensation. Services provided by a commercial stable including boarding, breeding, training, riding or other recreational use of the horse. "Corral" means an enclosure designed for use as an open holding area for horses for the purpose of confinement within that area for an indeterminate period of time. "Farm" means a parcel of land devoted to agricultural uses where the principal use is the propagation, care and maintenance of viable plant and animal products for commercial purposes. "Farmworker housing" means any building or group of buildings where six or more farm employees are housed. "Menagerie" means a lot on which more than one wild, non -domestic reptile (not including turtles or tortoises), bird (not including poultry) or mammal is kept. A tamed or trained wild animal shall not be considered a domestic animal. "Pasture" means an enclosed holding area consisting of grass or similar vegetation, specifically used for purposes of grazing or feeding of animals. "Guest Ranch" means any property of five acres or more operated as a ranch which offers guest rooms for rent and which has outdoor recreational facilities such as horseback riding, swimming or hiking. "Riding Academy" means a facility designed and used primarily for recreational riding, training and instruction, and allowing both on -site boarding or trailering of horses to the facility. "Stable" means a building or structure containing multiple stalls for the purposes of sheltering, feeding, boarding, accommodating or otherwise caring for horses. "Stall" means a division of a stable accommodating one horse into an adequately sized enclosure for the purposes of confining individual horses within a sheltered environment as may be necessary for security, safety or other reasons pertinent to the health, welfare and daily care of each animal. 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 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 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 unincorporated area of the County, 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 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. FEab-27-02 08:51A P.O1 Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties Tahquitz Group • Los Serranos Group y 2 yitopgrnardino Mtns. Group - Mojave Group S& Planning 1:61imussior, City of La Ouinta POB 1504 La Quinta. CA 92253 BY FAX TRANSMISSION — ORIGINAL BY MAIL oECE VE G FCEBpF2 q7 20g02 COMMUNED REV NOpMENT 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 written 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 traits 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. Thant: you for the opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, Joan Taylor, Low Desert Issues Chairman 1800 S. Sunrise Way Palm Springs, CA g2264 Ilium To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness ... �'� a,0-f)7-13a Aq:Rn RECEIVED FROM: P•01 04/23/1992 05:36 310657B662 PAGE 02 Ims CAPITAL GROUP, LLC private Investments and Red Estate 150 N. Robertson Blvd. Suite 320 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Tel. (310) 657-6464 Fax (310) 657-8662 February 26. 002 La Quinta Planning Commission 78-495 Calls 'i'ampico La Quinta. ( .% Re: Final F.l „' in La Quinta Comprehensive General Plan, lknnexation No. 12 Dear Sirs: Upon revic« ing your responses to my written comments on the Draft MR, again it is apparent tha! iltc issues 1 raised have notbeen adequately addressed. l'irsl of illl. ou: City of La Quinta has made it exceedingly difficult to fully understand the effect of the t,oncral Plan on the proposed area to be annexed to the east of La Quinta. The ("ity- of* 1 t tluinta has not made the revised General Plait easily readable or readily available: to ;ill interested parties or allowed for a reasonable period of time to review it. 'Phis has beat done by calling for a Planning Commission hearing soon after the release orthc re%,isi." FIR and limiting access to the revised General Plan to the library. Seconds\,. ow revised MR still does not thoroughly address the impact of the proposed zoning and itu)-icultural overlay on the area. For La Quinta to follow a format whereby the General ll lat i will be approved and then the zoning will be heard and finalized, makes a compreliv-r.* - wQ MIderstanding of the proposed new General Plan impossible. Very importantly. the Revised Environmental Impact Report does not adequately consider and maigate the significant impact oftheproposed 66,000 new homes on the water tahic .tir pollution, and the 1,250,000 new car trips per day on the traffic in La Quinta and the new annexation area. Nor does the Revised EIR adequately consider the economic i:»Pact of reducing the agricultural and equestrian industries in the region and on the neighboring cities. Therefore:. i lie -levised EIR is still inadequate and biased :3.s I first stated and should be thoroughly -ind honestly re -done. Sinc"'l y . 'rracey Darroll Resident ot"'V i to Santa Rosa Qr-,. 271` 2002 12: 56 760-564-0406 r^,&M CONSTRUCTION PAGE 1 r n E-C-E I V E P� FEB 2 7 2002 j5 February 27, 2002 Air. Fred Baker Coni munity Development Dept. CITY of LA QUINTTA P.O. Box 1504 La Quinta, CA 92253 RE: February 27, 2002 Meeting Suggested change to General Plan for Approx. 20 acres .APN's : 773-245-002, 311-027; 190-003-002, 003 I respectfully request that the General Plan designation for the above -referenced parcels be changed from Park Space to R-1 Zone. The requested change to the General Plan is based on the following rationale: 1. This parcel was re -zoned after our purchase. 2. The area was created by :army Core of Engineers for storm water wbieb is no longer used. 3. The parcel is perfect for single family custom. homes. 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 meat (760) 564-4832 if 1 can be. of help. Thank you. Sincerely, CONSTRUCTION w Rick Morris P.O. BOX 366 / LA QUINIA, CALIFORNIA 92253 / PHONE: (760) 564-4832 / FAX: (760) 564-0406 02-27-02 12:12 RECEIVED FROM:760 564 9496 P-02 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: 1. 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 �- fe— ,C e-tt -E1 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 Quinta 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 Wei* 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 Q iyty and act as expeditiously as possible to protect the natural beauty and environment of our community. .,-e5 \,st7ow ��C.l.�,ua�► -NV� C�-4v�S-r % �`yw �,,�Sw ccc A-0 6,> uv 1 r4 -� C.rx_ t'3%u t— 0k-"16r ATle-A A-e.C>A- 0--% c,.:Cas S to,, 04= Cz;v� We appreciate the efforts of the La Quinta Planning Commission to improve our community. 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 I I I (West to East). From Madison Street along Avenue 66 to Hwy 111 (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 3 : "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." Program 1.2 - Ap p 1y the City's discretionary powers 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 develotiment 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 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. 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. Farmland 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 hour 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 parries. At the time of the meeting both parties shall have an opportunity to present what each considers to be pertinent facts. h�ttp://www.farmlandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.html 9/29/2001 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) Metier 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 Date Buyer Date Seller Date Buyer Date Agent (Broker representing seller By Date (Associate Licensee or Broker -Signature) Agent (Broker obtaining the offer By Date (Associate Licensee or Broker -Signature) State of )On this the day of http://www.farrniandinfo.org/fic/tas/rtfl-ca.httnl 9/29/2001 PropTax Pomeios Ranch Property Tax Summary Assessment No. !Prop Tax School Dist Water Debt Pest Control CV CSD Delinq.lrr. Total 751090013-0 4,319.56 223.79 89.84 798.38 100.84 1,802.00 7,334.41 751100005-3 2,995.71 155.20 62.31 - 69.78 - 3,283.00 751100007-5 6,590.54 341.45 137.08 839.28 102.50 - 8,010.85 751100008-8 3,790.66 196.39 78.84 744.68 163.28 - 4,973.83 751100009-7 2,304.35 119.38 47.93 572.60 86.00 - 3,130.26 751100010-7 2,373.45 122.96 49.36 589.70 86.00 - 3,221.47 753350001-6 495.41 25.66 10.30 - 20.00 - 551.37 753350002-7 927.95 48.07 19.30 - 20.00 - 1.015.32 753350003-8 934.41 48.41 19.43 814.96 20.00 - 1,837.21 753350004-9 1,313.48 68.05 27.32 857.70 20.00 - 2,286.55 753350005-0 1,593.39 82.55 33.14 672.28 86.00 - 2,467.36 753350006.1 1,242.09 64.35 25.83 692.58 20.00 - 2,044.85 753350007-2 1,216.71 63.03 25.30 20.00 - 1,325.04 753350008-3 338.70 17.54 7.04 20.00 - 383.28 753360001-7 691.29 35.81 14.37 40.02 - 781.49 753360002-8 691.29 35.81 14.37 39.50 - 780.97 753350003-9 1,250.15 84.77 26.00 692.58 20.00 - 2,053.50 753360004-0 1,539.77 79.77 32.02 654.10 20.00 - 2.325.66 753360005.1 1,352.54 70.07 28.13 577.14 20.00 - 2,047.88 753360006-2 721.65 37.38 15.01 384.76 20.00 - 1,178.80 753360007-3 1,212.25 62.80 25.21 389.58 88.00 - 1,775.84 753360008.4 1,270.75 65.83 25.43 485.40 86.00 - 1,914.47 753360009-5 1,270.10 65.80 25.41 465.46 86.00 - 1,913.77 753360010-5 1,212.25 62.80 25.21 444.08 86.00 - 1,830.34 753360011-6 1,207.05 62.53 25.10 441.68 86.00 - 1,822.36 753360012-7 1,280.35 65.29 25.21 461.72 86.00 - 1,899.57 753360013-8 1,270.75 65.83 28.43 465.46 86.00 - 1,914.47 753360014-9 1,212.25 62.80 25.21 387.16 86.00 - 1,773.42 46,598.85 2,414.12 969.13 12,411.34 1,681.90 1,802.00 65,877.34 1 . o -710 'A � (i�5o Page 2 ov, ,•,\, Ali _ �� ,� . �� - �•� Iln� ., Obi � _ { t., rat t 9 1 P•, �� '""_ `� ',Mrs' zr ,", - ,a:. iA aatk, *4 ril, lot IN 757 g3L 71 771 '4z O�A SM At e �4��d �t, w-1 a+a t �ti4 � � � w w.b�fy ; l��. cj4Pk G "l � � • ? 3_vAl wti�..r4. �^ -1 .,tk_•*4$. 6w• Y A a'r .,• a°a Y I� 9e �tT�,'� elm .. :i a,�� _ i .' •• � 3"' � ��, ,. �!. � .qq p 4 4�r $R � �q�sq t + � x q .t' • _ � ��gya t 3 ,ice,. �w . d _.. .k V" a^ jf'4*p ac+»r Er flag{ ��x,aaG�#fin � � ... _'t.,, �i4 Ni'aMIVt'! .. �✓<" . , a'. ' `. �,� ,7..- .. TAlk �ax< rya a � 44 e � >p .gy. gyp' SMjk;.'�,t' "7E ra,