Loading...
1998 06 09 PC02 3 � p � i OF TNT PLANNING CONIMISSION AGENDA A Regular Meeting to be Held at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, California June 9, 1998 7:00 P.M. **NOTE** ALL ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING Beginning Resolution 98-041 Beginning Minute Motion 98-006 I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance B. Roll Call II. PUBLIC COMMENT This is the time set aside for public comment on any matter not scheduled for public hearing. Please complete a "Request to Speak" form and limit your comments to three minutes. III. CONFIRMATION OF AGENDA IV. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of the Minutes for May 26, 1998 B. Department Report PC/AGENDA V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Continued Items ........ GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056 AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057 Applicant .................. City of La Quinta Location ................... City-wide/within the Hillside/Unique Geology overlay HUGC District Request .................... Amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 9.140 (Hillsidf Conservation Regulations), and the General Plan Land Use an( Environmental Conservation Elements regarding Hillsidf Development Density Transfers Action ..................... Resolution 98- , Resolution 98- , and Resolution 98- B. Continued Items ......... ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-061 Applicant ............... City of La Quinta Location ................ City-wide Request ................. Consideration of miscellaneous Amendments to Title 9 (Zonin€ Code) of the Municipal Code. Action ................... Resolution 98- , VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS A. Commission report on the City Council meetings of June 2, 1998. IN4111KIM11 L_0I0V I_DION1 PC/AGENDA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA May 26, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Seaton to lead the flag salute. B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Gardner Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard and Chairman Butler. (Commissioner Kirk arrived late.) C. Staff present: Community Development Director Jerry Herman, City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Planning Manager Christine di Iorio, Senior Engineer Steve Speer, Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit, and Executive Secretary Betty Sawyer. II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman asked that Temporary Use Permit 98-170 be added to the Agenda as an emergency item as it came in after the Agenda was posted and the event would occur prior to the next Commission meeting. Staff requested this item added to the Business Items as Item A. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to add Business Item A-TUP 98-170 (La Quinta Chamber of Commerce). Unanimously approved. IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of May 12, 1998. Commissioner Tyler asked that the following corrections be made: Page 3, Item 6, edit the second sentence to read, "Can the City regulate the hours of refueling?"; Item 7, remove the words "by anyone entering"; Page 4, Item 17, change the hours of refueling from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; Page 7, Item 8, remove the word "For" from sentence five. There being no further corrections, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to approve the minutes as corrected. Unanimously approved. B. Department Report: None CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd I Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Tentative Tract Map 28776; a request of KSL Land Corporation for approval of a 45 single family and other miscellaneous lots subdivision on 12.53 acres within PGA West. 1. Commissioner Gardner excused himself due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dais. Commissioner Kirk arrived and joined the Commission. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Senior Engineer Steve Speer informed the Commission the median landscaping on Madison Street presently contained temporary power. It is the City's hope to have the applicant provide permanent power to the median south of the proposed tract. Commissioner Tyler stated it seemed unusual to have participation agreements for land that is not adjacent to the improvements. Staff stated generally this was true. However, the PGA West Specific Plan provides for certain off -site improvements and at the rate it is being developed, the available land that is left to condition for the off -site improvements is reducing. As the PGA West Specific Plan is being built in phases, staff does not have the opportunity to put all improvements in place until a tract is processed. Therefore, they are taking advantage of every tract to see that the off -site improvements are completed. 4. There being no other questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this issue. Mr. Chevis Hosea, applicant, offered an alternative to staff s recommendation regarding the permanent power. He stated that adjacent to this tract, on the exterior of the project site, between the Madison Street wall and the landscape curb and the median, they are a proposing a tract where the landscaping has not been deeded to the Master Association. They are currently in the planning process and landscaping will need to be provided. As the improvements will be installed for a development on Wingfoot by the Seoktop Company, the project that is adjacent to Madison Street, they would like the participation language placed on these developments. 5. Chairman Butler asked staff if it was necessary to have the power in place for this tract. Staff stated it did not need to be done immediately, it just needs to be done and staff does not want to miss the opportunity. Chairman Butler asked if the tract should be conditioned to require the installation of the power. Staff suggested Condition #20.A. be changed to state all the existing medians. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 2 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 6. Mr. Hosea questioned Condition #32, having to obtain approval from the homeowners' association. His concern was that the association may try to prevent the proposal and they have the legal right to develop as they have the easements. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that if they have the easement rights and can show staff, the condition could be deleted. 7. Mr. Hosea questioned Condition #69, requiring the swimming pools be built during the phase it will be contained in. Commissioner Kirk asked if there was a plan to phase the pool. Mr. Hosea stated no as the tract is for sale. The builder would be phasing the tract, 15-20 homes at a time. Construction will start at the south end of the tract progressing north. Commissioner Kirk asked if the phases would be clearly determined or should a condition be placed to determine the number of houses to be in each phase. Mr. Hosea stated that recreational packages are submitted with the phasing plan and it has been approved by staff. 8. Commissioner Kirk stated that recreational amenities usually become a phase of their own and not with the development of the homes. Mr. Hosea stated the tract had been conditioned that no home adjacent to a pool could be sold until the pool was built. 9. Commissioner Woodard stated it was his understanding there were agreements with the homeowner associations that pools would be built according to the number of houses built in a tract. He suggested the recreational amenities be aligned with the HOA agreement. Mr. Hosea stated there were two different environments. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the condition could be refined to require all recreational amenities be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, or prior to a percentage of homes completed. 10. Commissioner Tyler stated there were two existing pools and the only pool to be added is the one at Southern Hills. Mr. Hosea stated the other was located at the southern end of the tract. 11. Chairman Butler read into the record a letter from Mr. Doug Edmund. 12. Mr. Roger Hobbs, Vice President -Land Development, stated they have the unanimous support of the HOA in this community. They were involved in the planning of this tract. 13. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 3 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 14. Commissioner Tyler commented on the number of errors on the tract map. The house count on the Legend did not agree with the lot count. Lot and Land Use Summary should read Lots 1-45. Utilities should be Media One. The pool at the top is shown as part of this tract and the other pool is labeled Pool "B" which adds to the confusion. He would suggest an addition to Condition #42 to require that any unused curb cuts be restored to curbs. 15. Commissioner Kirk asked for clarification on the two Pool "B"s, if the present tract used a darker tone of print. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- 034 recommending approval of Tentative Tract 28776, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval, as amended: a. Condition #20: Installation of permanent power for landscaping and irrigation improvements in the Madison Street median. b. Condition #32: Delete C. Condition #41: Trench excavation backfill and pavement replacement, grinding, curb cuts, and overlay shall meet the approval of the appropriate Homeowners' Association and the City Engineer. d. Condition 68: The recreation amenities package (i.e., two common pools/spas and two open space areas) shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the tract houses. The amenities package may be phased if approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of building permits for tract houses with completion prior to the Certificate of Occupancy for the 35' house. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner. ABSTAIN: None. Commissioner Gardner rejoined the Commission. B. Continued public hearing on the Repeal of Specific Plan 87-009-Village at La Quinta - Zoning Code Amendment 98-060 and Change of Zone 98-085; a request of the City to repeal the Village at La Quinta Specific Plan, replacing it with Design Review Guidelines. Eliminate the Subzones within the "Village Commercial" Zoning text and map. The "Village Residential" area, east of Desert Club Drive, is proposed for rezoning to RL-10,000-17/1 (Low Density Residential, one story, 17-foot height limit, 10,000 square foot minimum lot size). CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 4 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 1. Commissioner Dirk withdrew due to a possible conflict of interest and left the dais. 2. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit presented the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 3. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Abels asked staff to identify the lots that were within the area designated RL- 10,000. Discussion followed as to requests that had been received from residents asking that their adjacent residential property be designated as commercial. 4. Commissioner Woodard stated that in 1988, when the Village Specific Plan was adopted, there were specific guidelines. Now staff has been directed to provide guidelines that are not specific. He asked if the Planning Commission was being asked to accept a design prototype for one street in hope that this design will happen to the entire area? How can the City go forward without having an overall design for the entire area? Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the Commission was not approving the street prototype. The street prototype is part of the Capital Improvement Program budget allocations. The prototype process has not been defined at this time. Whether or not the Commission will be involved will be determined by the City Council. Commissioner Woodard stated a page in this document identifies how a street will be developed. Staff stated this is only a conceptual design. The Guidelines are to replace the Village Specific Plan. This was the direction given to staff by the City Council. Commissioner Woodard stated the Guidelines do not provide any direction as to the planning of the entire downtown area. 5. Commissioner Abels asked if every project proposed for the downtown area would come before the Planning Commission. Staff stated the projects would, but the street prototype process has not yet been determined by the Council. Projects will be brought before the Commission through the conditional use permit process. 6. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that the Guidelines contained no specific plan for pedestrian traffic or circulation, etc. Staff stated the Commission could deny the Guidelines and go on record as not supporting them. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 7. Chairman Butler asked if there were any plans to have a Master Plan for this area. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated Council had determined that since the plan has been in place since 1989, no development had occurred. Therefore, the plan should be changed to help the area develop. Chairman Butler stated that maybe they should deny it and let the Council make the decision. 8. Commissioner Abels stated his understanding was that if the Guidelines are followed, the desired plans for the Village will be realized. 9. Commissioner Woodard stressed his concern that the Guidelines do not contain any type of vision for the Village. Chairman Butler asked if the old plan contained a pedestrian linkage. Staff stated the old specific plan had a series of linear definitions as to where the pedestrian network would be located. These were in specified areas and were opposed by property owners where these links occurred. 10. Chairman Butler stated that if they approve what is before them, they would be giving staff the right to approve new projects built in the Village. Staff stated they would be processed through a CUP process and approved by the Commission. Chairman Butler stated his concern was that one plan had not worked and the proposed plan did not meet the goal of the Planning Commission for the Village. 11. Commissioner Abels suggested having a Master Plan containing the Guidelines. 12. Commissioner Woodard stated the adopted Village Specific Plan did not work due to economic trends, property owners who over -valued their land, and because the City has been unable to provide Redevelopment funds for assistance. In addition, KSL Land Development is currently planning a village area of their own which will take away commercial viability from this area. He too suggested approving the Guidelines, but with a master plan that would define how the Village would be developed. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the Planning Commission could request the City Council include the Commission in the design process for the prototype street. 13. Commissioner Woodard stated that if funds were allocated for the prototype street to make this happen and in two years that street is built, and the economy continues, what document would be in place to define for a property owner, what he can build? CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 6 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 14. Commissioner Tyler stated he had attended the Council meetings where the Village was discussed and staff has accurately portrayed their direction. These Design Guidelines are the first step in the process. He would suggest recommending to the City Council that a planning consultant be retained. He then asked if the lots proposed for the RL District would be able to meet the size restrictions. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit stated they should; one or two may be smaller, but the majority are very large. 15. Commissioner Woodard stated he had never heard of a city that planned 10,000 square foot residential lots across from a commercial zone. In his opinion, the area should be zoned for medium or low density. Associate Planner Wallace Nesbit stated the zoning follows the General Plan designation. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the lots were created prior to City incorporation and when a proposal was presented to subdivide them, the property owners rejected the idea and the City has retained that zoning at their request. 16. Commissioner Woodard questioned whether the City could retain enough businesses in the Village area if KSL were to build their own village area. Staff stated this was one of the reasons they were allowing residential zoning to remain in the commercial zone. If KSL does create a village, it is a hope that the Village will be a link between the La Quinta Hotel and PGA West. 17. Commissioner Tyler noted the Guidelines did not state any lot sizes and in his opinion this should be addressed. Chairman Butler stated it was his understanding this was to allow lots to be combined and create a better environment for development. 18. As there were no other questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item. Ms. Audrey Ostrowski, Palm Desert, stated her delight that the City was finally going to give money to improve the streets. Her complaint was that the original specific plan did not allow any input from the property owners. The City needs to make Montezuma a two-way street to encourage business. There is no need for the City to compete with KSL. The City needs to start with the street improvements and parking and the Village will develop. 19. Mr. Chevis Hosea, KSL Land Development, spoke to the Commission regarding the possibility of KSL developing their village area. He stated it was difficult to create a village area without critical mass; you need stringent guidelines. You need to have resort spending with hospitality and golf to make it work. Commissioner Woodard asked if KSL was to develop a village, would it be linked to the City's village area. Mr. Hosea stated they would support some type of linkage, but probably as a historical path. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 20. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 21. Commissioner Gardner stated he was uncertain what the difference would be between the old specific plan and the new Guidelines. He agreed with Commissioner Woodard that the City is trying to go somewhere, yet it is not reaching its goal. 22. Commissioner Abels stated this is a start, but there should be a master plan. He has seen several cities where this has been accomplished and it is beautiful; the City should go forward. 23. Chairman Butler stated he understands Commissioner Woodard's concern and yet he understands the prior specific plan did not work. Now, as there may be some competition, they may be creating a bigger monster by getting rid of the specific plan and creating a commercial district that could develop without specific details. The City is trying to make something work, when it couldn't in the past. An option of the Commission may be to deny the Guidelines and send it to the Council and see what they do with it. 24. Commissioner Seaton stated that although she has only been in La Quinta for eight years, she believes there should be a master plan for the Village and the Guidelines are incomplete. A recommendation should be given to the Council that a master plan be completed first. 25. Commissioner Tyler stated he shared the same thoughts, and would recommend that the money allocated for a prototype street design be used to hire a master plan consultant to give an overall design for the area. Chairman Butler stated he agreed with this, but it should not be someone who is detached from the City. It has to be someone who is in touch with the City and understands the complications that are involved. 26. Commissioner Woodard asked the Commission to look ahead 5-10 years. If KSL does develop a magnificent village, what would the Commission like to have the City's village look like? The property owners are out of touch with the value of their land. It will become high density residential with service shops. There needs to be a plan that makes sense; a master plan with a vision. Property values will increase if they understand the vision. He then suggested the Commission recommend to the City Council that the Guidelines be adopted with the provision that either the $500,000 allocated for the street design be used for a master plan or some other provision be made to have a master plan for the Village that is based on today's reality and market. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 8 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 27. Commissioner Abels asked what guidelines would have to be followed if a developer submitted plans to build now; could he build another building such as the one existing on Calle Estado. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated currently there was no conditional use permit process in place. Therefore, if the developer met all the design criteria based on the existing Village Specific Plan, they could build under a Site Development Permit process for approval by the Planning Commission. 28. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission could recommend approval of the Design Guidelines subject to an architectural planning study. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this was within their discretion. 29. Commissioner Tyler stated that in the previous document, several design examples were included that this plan did not have. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated they did not want to give an exact example of a theme. The direction staff was given by the City Council was to provide guidelines that a developer could work within. 30. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-035 recommending certification of a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 98-353. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman .Butler. NOES: Commissioner Seaton. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 31. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-036 recommending repeal of Specific Plan 87-009, for the Village at La Quinta. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Seaton. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 32. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-037 recommending adoption of the Design Guidelines for The Village at La Quinta with the recommendation that a master plan for the Village area be prepared by an urban planning consultant. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 9 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 33. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-038 recommending adoption of a revision to Chapter 9.65 of Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code (Village Commercial). ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. 34. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Woodard to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-039 recommending approval of Change of Zone 98-085, to rezone certain real property from VN, VP, VS, and VT to VC, and from VR-10,000 to RL-10,000-17/1. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: Commissioner Seaton. ABSENT: Commissioner Kirk. ABSTAIN: None. Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:08 p.m. Staff requested that do to the lateness of the meeting, the Agenda be reorganized to allow Business Item A to be heard at this time. It was moved and seconded by Commissioner Tyler/Abels to place Business Item A before Public Hearing "C". Unanimously approved. Commissioner Tyler asked to make a statement regarding his editing of tract maps. He stated that even though some Commissioners feel it is unnecessary to note every item that is wrong on the map, it is his belief that it is a duty of the Commission to make these changes. The applicant has hired an engineer to prepare the plans and it should be correct in its presentation to the Commission. VI. BUSINESS ITEM: A. Temporary Use Permit 98-170; a request of the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce for a roll -away billboard sign to be located at the southeast corner of Highway 111 and Washington Street to advertise the "Expo `98, Building La Quinta From the Ground Up" CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 10 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 1. Chairman Butler asked for the staff report. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated this was an item added to the agenda as an emergency item as the event will take place before the next Commission meeting. He cited the Municipal Code Section which allows a temporary outdoor event, but does not specify where the event must take place. Staff has brought this to the Commission because the event takes place outside the City limits, but its purpose is to promote the City of La Quinta. Staff is asking the Commission to determine whether the sign for an event in a different city should be allowed. 2. Chairman Butler, asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated there had been similar signs at this location identifying events outside the City. Staff stated those signs had been removed by Code Enforcement. City regulations, however, do allow five signs on private property as long as they do not exceed 12 square feet. The "Big Gig" signs were permitted under this provision. 3. Commissioner Seaton asked if this was the same billboard used for the La Quinta Chamber of Commerce Mainstreet Marketplace. Staff stated it was the same sign with different copy. 4. Commissioner Gardner asked if approving this request would set a precedent. In his opinion, the Chamber should endeavor to hold events within the City of La Quinta. Staff concurred that approving of the sign would set a precedent. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the interpretation is whether or not the event is taking place outside the City, when some aspect of what is being advertised would impact our City. The ordinance as written is ambiguous on this point. Once the decision is made, a discrimination could not be made on the next person. 5. Chairman Butler asked if the sign was approved because it was for the economic benefit to the City, would it still create problems in the future. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that the underlying reason is that it will be an economic benefit to the City. 6. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff? 7. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone would wish to speak regarding this issue. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 11 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 8. There being no further discussion, is was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Seaton to adopt Minute Motion 98-005, approving Temporary Use Permit 98-170, allowing a roll -away billboard sign at the southeast corner of Highway I I I and Washington Street from June 3, 1998 to June 17, 1998. Approved with Commissioner Gardner voting no. PUBLIC HEARINGS - CONTINUED B. Continued public hearing on Zoning Code Amendment 97-058 and Zone Code Amendment 98-061; a request of the City for consideration of miscellaneous Amendments to Title 9 (Zoning Code) of the Municipal Code. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if the Commission would like to review the report page by page, or only note each Commissioner's concerns. 3. Staff reviewed the proposed changes page by page. Commissioners requested the following additional changes: a. Page 30-3: change "projects with 10 or more" to 5 and "contiguous" to adjacent. b. Page 30-4: change "projects with 10 or more" to 5 and "contiguous" to adjacent. C. Page 30-5: change "projects with 10 or more" to 5 and "contiguous" to adjacent. d. Page 30-6: change "projects with 10 or more" to 5 and "contiguous" to adjacent. e. Page 30-7: change "projects with 10 or more" to 5 and "contiguous" to adjacent. f. Page 50-1: change Section 9.50.020 to Height Limits Near Image Corridor; add paragraph to require a 25-foot yard setback adjacent to any Image Corridor and add a requirement for a 25-foot setback for buildings adjacent to the property line at the street. g. Page 50-3, *3: change "projects with 10 or more" to 5-feet and "contiguous" to adjacent. h. Page 50-7: revisit the use of single family attached for RH Zoning. i. Page 50-11, 13: change landscaping to permitted fencing... CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 12 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 j. Page 50-12, B.: Change to read, "Developers or applicants who intend to, or have applied for, five or more approvals; B.1. "...roof types or structures"; D.l . "...Community Development Department". k. Page 50-13, Item 3: Change to "...scale (1" = 8'...)...". 1. Pages 60-8, 60-9, 60-20 change "Director" to Community Development Director here and wherever else "Director" appears by itself. in. Page 60-20, B.2. Add "County". n. Page 60-21, B.2. Add "County". o. Page 60-22-23,B: Add statement regarding berming not being required on an upslope. P. Page 60-39, F: Change "...total of four..." to five. q. Page 60-41, 5: leave as was, "...ten percent from the square footage..." r. Page 60-42, C. Quantity: Change "Arterial Street" to Image Corridor. S. Page 60-43, C.3.: Determine minimum window size. t. Page 60-43, 4: Delete. U. Page 60-44, C.3 and D. & E.: Delete. V. Page 70-2, A: Delete the word "primarily". W. Page 90-1, B: Refer to Section 9.100.070, for further satellite dish requirements. X. Page 100-6, 7.c.: Delete. Y. Page 100-10, 1.: Delete "...up to a maximum of 90-days." Z. Page 100-13, C.2.: Change to read "...more than once every four months..." and add, "regardless of who is sponsoring or participating in the event." to the end of the sentence. aa. Page 100-33, 2 and 3: Add "County" to both. bb. Page 100-34: Add the following to the end of the sentence, "...in conjunction with the Sunline Transit Joint Powers Authority." CC. Page 160-3, 13/15: Wherever "sq/ft" occurs, change to sq.ft. dd. Page 160-3, 18: In the Maximum Area change "..Aggregate not to exceed 6 sq. ft." ee. Page 160-10, F: Add, "...lifesaving equipment, street signs, obelisks, or traffic signs or signals." ff. Page 160-12, A: Change "approved" to issued. gg. Page 185-1, A.1.: Add, "...excluding sliders and built-in..." hh. Page 185-2, 1., 2., and A. Rental Parks: Change "calendar year" to any one year. 4. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this issue. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 13 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 5. There being no further public comment, Chairman Butler closed the public participation portion of the public hearing and opened the item for Commission discussion. 6. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Tyler/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-040 recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendments 97-058 and 98-061, amending Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal Code, subject to the above - noted changes. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 7. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Kirk to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-041 adopting the Manual on Architectural Standards, subject to the following changes: a. Manual for Architectural Standards under Building Design Standards - Architectural Styles: Reword to "...examples of styles that are recommended." b. Manual for Architectural Standards under Building Design Standards - Special Requirements, Multiple Approvals: Add "...Developers, or applicants who have obtained, intend to, or have applied...." ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Gardner, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None. VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS. A. Chairman Butler reminded the Commission they would need to reapply for the Planning Commission or Architectural and Landscaping Review Committee (ALOR). Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain how cases would be brought to the ALOR. Staff explained that as projects are brought into the City, staff will determine what and when a ALOR meeting would be held to review those issues. B. Commissioner Tyler gave a report of the Council meeting of May 5, 1998. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 14 Planning Commission Meeting May 26, 1998 ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Tyler to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on June 9, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 10:52 P.M. on May 26, 1998. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc5-26-98.wpd 15 PH #A PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 9, 1998, Continued from May 12 1998 CASE NO.S: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056 ZONE CHANGE AMENDMENT 97-057 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA LOCATION: CITYWIDE - WITHIN THE HILLSIDE/UNIQUE GEOLOGY OVERLAY (HUGO) DISTRICT REQUEST: AMENDMENT OF ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9.140 (HILLSIDE CONSERVATION REGULATIONS), AND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENTS REGARDING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY TRANSFERS BACKGROUND: These items were continued from the May 12, 1998, Planning Commission meeting, in order to address concerns and questions expressed by the Commissioners. The three main concerns were with regard to the method used for determination of the toe of slope; clarification of the processing of a Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District development application and how it is done in other cities; how do other cities determine viewshed; and to meet with developers to discuss the proposed amendments. The minutes from that meeting are included as Attachment 1. DISCUSSION: Toe of Slope Determination A review of ordinances from other cities did not result in the discovery of any other toe of slope formulas better suited for the hillsides within La Quinta. La Quinta is unique in that we are proposing such a formula ( as contained in the proposed ordinance amendment) to mathematically define the toe of slope so there is no confusion, or misinterpretation. Processing of Development Applications Development applications in hillside areas of other cities usually involves the processing of a Conditional Use Permit through the public hearing process. Environmental analysis is prepared to conform to the requirements of CEQA. Some cities also require a specialized Hillside Development Permit, labeled by various names. In some cases, when the project consists of just one single family house, a conditional use permit is required and in other cities only a Hillside Development Permit approved by the Planning Director and City Engineer is required. A survey of several cities revealed the following: Carlsbad Hillside Development Permit with public hearing and approval by City Council on 15%+ slopes. Belmont CUP application with public hearing and approval by Planning Commission for specific uses within Hillside Zone. Permitted uses include single family residences (SFR) on an existing road, horse stables, accessory structures to a SFR, home occupations, temporary subdivision sales offices, construction trailers, small signs, and small -family day care homes. Folsom Public hearing by Planning Commission on grading plans within Hillside District. Ross Hillside lot application for 30%+ slopes with a public hearing and approval by Town Council. Antioch CUP preliminary development plan with public hearing and approval by Planning Commission. CUP final development plan with public hearing and approval by City Council for development in areas 25%+ slopes. Danville Scenic Hillside Development Permit with grading or building permits with Planning Director approval. All other applications require Planning Commission with public hearing approval. Laguna Beach CUP for Planned Residential Development's, parks, trails, public utility stations and facilities, second units, churches, senior or low income housing projects, and other uses with public hearing and approval by City Council. Single Family Residential units, accessory buildings and uses, guest houses, home occupations, and noncommercial limited agriculture or horticultural uses are permitted uses. Large Family Day Care homes require Administrative Use Permit only. Agoura Hills CUP or architectural review approval for any building. CUP required for 5+ acre parcel, or parcels with environmental constraints. Public hearing approval by Planning Commission. Architectural review approval by Planning Commission for anything not subject to a CUP. Indio CUP with public hearing and approval by City Council for all development on 20%+ slopes. For properties within the Indio Hills a special design for viewshed considerations is required for slopes greater than 15%. La Canada/Flintridge Public hearing approval by City Council for anything over 600 square feet, one-story addition to a single family residence for parcels with an average slope of 15%+. Rancho Mirage City Council approval and 2/3 vote of City electorate for any development in the Mountainous Lands District as defined by the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy legislative map as of November 3, 1992. Diamond Bar CUP, Development Review, and Oak Tree Permit with approval by City Council for all parcels within Hillside District over 10% slope. Indian Wells CUP for any development within the District with public hearing and approval of City Council; no development at 20%+ slope. Riverside County No development over 25% slopes; Grading permit review only for single family residential unit at 1 DU/10 acres. Approval by East Area Planning Council and County Planning Commission. Determination of Viewshed Staff reviewed the ordinances of other cities and found few with detailed criteria for conducting view analyses for hillside development. Examples of how other cities deal with this issue are attached (Attachment 2). Staff has had meetings with KSL Corporation, Building Industry Association, and telephone conversations with Mr. Meyer's representative from Terra Nova, regarding the various components of the proposed ordinance amendments. Staff called attention to the inclusion of access roads proposed to be allowed in areas above 20 percent slope, as well as allowing certain golf course features and flood control facilities as recommended by a project's hydrology report. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Staff has reworded Amendment 1 to clarify the Policy for transfer of density bonuses from different portions of the same property and between parcels with different ownerships. Proposed Amendment 2 has been reworded to clarify that the following: 1) less than 20%; and, 2) greater than 20% slope areas will both require a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Development Permit. FINDINGS: Staff is recommending approval based upon findings in the attached resolutions. RECOMMENDATIONS: Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- recommending to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 98-351; and, 2. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment 98-056; and, 3. Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 97-057. Attachments: 1. Minutes of May 12, 1998, Planning Commission Meeting 2. Viewshed information obtained from other cities Available in the Community Development Department: A. Planning Commission Minutes, Dec. 12, 1997 B. City Council Field Trip Minutes, Jan. 21, 1998 C. Planning Commission Field Trip Minutes, Feb. 10, 1998 D. Planning Commission Minutes, Feb. 24, 1998 Prepared by: ZL9= SUE MOURI UAND Associate Planner Submitted by: 04JI 4 A I " A * 0 / 6� iat') CHRISTI DIIORIO Planning Manager PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-351 PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056, AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-351 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of February, 121h day of May, and 9th day of June, 1998, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings to consider Environmental Assessment 98-351, General Plan Amendment 98-056, and Zoning Code Amendment 97-057; and, WHEREAS, said General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment have complied with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970"(as amended; Resolution 83-68 adopted by the La Quinta City Council) in that the Community Development Department has prepared an Initial Study (EA 98-351); and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that said General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be filed; and, WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts, findings, and reasons to justify recommending certification of said Environmental Assessment: 1 . The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts can be identified beyond those associated with the current General Plan policies and Zoning Code standards. 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important Planning Commission Resolution 98- Environmental Assessment 98-351 June 9, 1998 examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory, as no new impacts beyond those associated with the current General Plan and Zone Code have been identified. 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment do not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. No significant effects on environmental factors have been identified. 4. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Amendments. 5. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 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 constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of Environmental Assessment 98-351 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, attached hereto, and on file in the Community Development Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of June 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-351.wpd Planning Commission Resolution 98- Environmental Assessment 98-351 June 9, 1998 RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\LESLIE\pc Res EA 98-351.wpd Appendix I Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District EA 98-351 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of La Quinta 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Leslie Mouriquand, (760) 777-7068 4. Project Location: City-wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of La Quinta 6. General Plan Designation: Hillside Conservation Overlay 7. Zoning 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings. 10. Other agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) PAL.ESLIONew EA 98-351.wpd -1- Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing X Biological Resources X Utilities and Service Svstcros X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation X Mandatory Findings of Significance Determination (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared 11 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 11 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (be) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. 1,.. Synature Date � Leslie Mouriquand City of La Quinta Printed Name For Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the reference information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). Z) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. See the sample question below. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different ones. PALESI.IENew EA 98-351.wpd -3 - Sample question: I. II. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Would the proposal result in potential impacts involving: Landslides or mudslides? (1.6) (Attached source list explains that 1 is the general plan. and 6 is a USGS topo map. This answer would probably not need further explanation.) LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source#(s): ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant I'nless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) X c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) X d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands. or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ( ) X e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed officia� regional or local population projections'? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) P:\I,FSLIE\tieW EA98-351.wpd Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Vnless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction'? ( ) X d) Seiche, tsunami. or volcanic hazard? ( ) X e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) X f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation. grading, or fill? ( ) X g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) X h) Expansive soils? ( ) X i) Unique geologic or physical features'? X IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( } X b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as -T -1 flooding? ( ) X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ( ) X d) Changes in the amount of surface water in anv water body'? ( ) X e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements'? ( ) X P:\LESLIE N, ew EA 98-351.wpd V. VI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentialiv Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact 0 Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals. or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge X capability'? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation'? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) teI- I X I __1 I 1 -1 - X 1 -1 c) Alter air movement. moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate'? ( ) X d) Create objectionable odors'? ( TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( ) X c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses'? ( d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? ( ) _L , VII. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact f1 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) X g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) X BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? ( ) X b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ( c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? ( e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( VIIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State'? P:\LESI.IEWew EA98-351.wpd IX. X. XI. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Unless Significant No Impact Mitigated Impact Impact a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? X b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) X c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? ( ) I I X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass. or trees'? X NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools'? ( ) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads'? ( ) e) Other governmental services'? ( ) i I I I X I . -1 Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant I'nless Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas'? ( ) X b) Communications systems? ( ) X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) X d) Sewer or septic tanks'? ( ) X e) Storm water drainage? ( ) X f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) X g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( ) X b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ( ) X c) Create light or glare? ( ) X XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( ) X b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( ) X PALESLIEUNew EA 98-351.wpd t .) Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): c) Affect historical resources? ( d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values'? ( ) Potentially Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Uniess Significant No Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact e) Restnct existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) X XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) X b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( XVL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare to endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory'? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directory or indirectly? P:\I,ESLIE\,Ncw EA 98-351.wpd XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR. or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. PALESLIECNew EA 98-351.wpd INITIAL STUDY - ADDENDUM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98-351 Zoning Code Amendment 97-057 and General Plan Amendment 98-056 Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District Applicant: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: City of La Quinta Community Development Department 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Leslie Mo quand Associate Planner January 15, 1998 *Revised May 4, 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................3 1.1 Project Overview ................................................... 3 1.2 Purpose of Initial Study .............................................. 3 1.3 Background of Environmental Review ................................... 4 1.4 Summary of Preliminary Environmental Review ............................ 4 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................. 4 2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting ............................... 4 2.2 Physical Characteristics .............................................. 4 2.3 Operational Characteristics ............................................ 5 2.4 Objectives........................................................5 2.5 Discretionary Actions ................................................ 5 2.6 Related Projects ................................................... 5 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ..................................... 5 3.1 Land Use and Planning .............................................. 6 3.2 Population and Housing ............................................. 7 3.3 Geologic Problems ................................................. 9 3.4 Water..........................................................13 3.5 Air Quality ...................................................... 16 3.6 Transportation/Circulation.......................................... 19 3.7 Biological Resources .............................................. 21 3.8 Energy and Mineral Resources ....................................... 22 3.9 Hazards........................................................23 3.10 Noise..........................................................24 3.11 Public Services ................................................... 25 3.12 Utilities and Service Systems ........................................ 28 3.13 Aesthetics......................................................30 3.14 Cultural Resources ................................................ 31 3.15 Recreation......................................................32 4 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .......................... 33 5 EARLIER ANALYSES ............................................... 33 Page 2 SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment 97-057 to Chapter 9.140. Hillside Conservation Regulations, and General Plan Amendment 98-056 for the City of La Quinta. The proposed amendments affect all areas within the City of La Quinta that are within the current Hillside Conservation (HC) Overlay District, and other areas meeting the criteria for inclusion in the overlay district per the proposed amendments. Among the proposed amendments is a change in name to Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District. This change is proposed because areas other than just hillsides are included in the proposed regulations. The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for the project review, as defined by Section 21067 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Lead Agency is the public agency which has the principal responsibility for adopting Zoning Code Amendments and General Plan Amendments, which may have a significant effect upon the environment. The City of La Quinta, as the Lead Agency, has the authority to oversee the environmental review and to adopt Zoning Code and General Plan text amendments. 1.2 PURPOSE OF INITIAL STUDY As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendments, the City of La Quinta Community Development Department staff has prepared this Initial Study. This document provides a basis for determining the nature and scope of the subsequent environmental review for the proposed amendments. The purposes of the Initial Study, as stated in Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines, include the following: To provide the Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the amendments; To enable the applicant, or the City of La Quinta, to modify the amendments, mitigating adverse acts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the amendment to qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; To assist the preparation of an EIR, should one be required, by focusing the analysis on those issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed amendments; To facilitate environmental review early in the crafting of the amendments, To provide documentation for the findings in a Negative Declaration that the amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment; Page 3 To eliminate unnecessary EIR's, and, To determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the amendments (Source: A-25). 1.3 BACKGROUND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed Zoning Code and General Plan amendments were deemed subject to the environmental review requirements of CEQA because of the potential for land use, density, and aesthetic impacts resulting from development in the HUGO District. An Initial Study Checklist and Addendum were prepared for review by the La Quinta Planning Commission and certification by the La Quinta City Council. 1.4 SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Initial Study indicates that there is potential for adverse environmental impacts for five issue areas contained in the Environmental Checklist. These issue areas are Land Use and Planning, Geologic Problems, Biological Resources, Aesthetics, and Cultural Resources. Mitigation measures are recommended for the proposed amendments, where possible, which will reduce any identified potential impacts to less than significant levels if implemented on a project -by -project basis. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact will be recommended for this project. An Environmental Impact Report will not be necessary. SECTION 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of La Quinta is a 31.18 square mile municipality located in the southwestern portion of the Coachella Valley, in Riverside County, California. The City is bounded on the west by the City of Indian Wells, on the east by the City of Indio and Riverside County, on the north by Riverside County, and County, federal, and state lands to the south. The City of La Quinta was incorporated in 1982. The proposed Zoning Code and General Plan Amendments will apply to all areas within La Quinta designated in the Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District, or are indirectly affected by these regulations (Source: B-5). 2.2 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed Zoning Code and General Plan Amendments do not have physical characteristics, but rather are portions of regulatory documents for the City of La Quinta, California. However, their adoption and implementation could have a physical manifestation within the City. Page 4 2.3 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS The proposed text amendments would regulate development within the HUGO District within the City of La Quinta. The amendments would serve as the "local law" regarding development in the areas determined to be within the HUGO District. If approved, the proposed General Plan amendment would permit density bonuses for hillside parcels not exceeding 20% of the General Plan designation. The proposed Zoning Code Amendments would provide a clarified and simplified guide to hillside and canyon development standards and procedure for review (Source: B-6). Proposed development within the HUGO District would be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit processes, so that unique situations can be addressed individually while maintaining a sensitivity for development within hillsides, canyons, boulder fields, and other areas determined to be within the HUGO District. 2.4 OBJECTIVES The objective of the proposed Zoning Code Amendment is to maintain development in the HUGO District below the 20% slope gradient, and in areas where there are pockets of land that are under 20% slope, in order to provide the same level of preservation consideration to natural and cultural resources found within the HUGO District. All proposed development within the HUGO District would be subject to the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit processes. In addition, there are newly proposed definitions to clarify concepts and issues. The proposed General Plan Amendment would provide for density bonuses from HUGO-designated parcels not exceeding 20% of the General Plan density designation. 2.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve a project or regulatory document. For the proposed amendments, the government agency is the City of La Quinta. The proposed amendments will require discretionary approval and adoption by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.6 RELATED PROJECTS There are no other currently related projects to the proposed Zoning Code and General Plan Amendments. SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the land use compatibility and zoning consistency considerations of the proposed text amendments, for both the Zoning Code and the General Plan. The CEQA Checklist issue areas are evaluated in this addendum. For each Page 5 checklist item, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of the existing conditions within the City and the areas affected by the proposed amendments. Thresholds of significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee agencies, or by referring to criteria in CEQA (Appendix G). 3.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING Regional Environmental. Vetting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, in the eastern portion of Riverside County The valley is abundant with both desert plant and animal life. The topographical relief ranges from -237 feet below mean sea level (msl) to about 2,000 feet above msl. The valley is a part of the Colorado Desert region. Surrounding the valley are the San Jacinto Mountains, the Santa Rosa Mountains, the Chocolate and Orocopia Mountains, and the San Bernardino Mountains. The San Andreas fault transects the northeastern edge of the valley. Local Environmental.Setting The proposed amendments will directly affect all areas of the City within the HUGO District, and possibly indirectly affect areas in residential zoning districts (such as* those properties that receive density credits from other parcels). Currently those areas within the existing Hillside Conservation Overlay District are also within the Open Space designated areas on the City's General Plan. The HUGO District is the proposed new name for this district that will also include canyons, geologic features, boulder fields, and other unique geologic areas meeting the criteria stated in the proposed ordinance amendments. A. Would the project conflict with the general plan designation or zoning? Less Than Significant Impact. The Zoning Code Amendment includes the proposal to maintain the slope gradient level at 20% as the line of demarcation to define the toe of slope, and include canyons, boulder fields, and other unique geologic features in addition to the hillsides surrounding La Quinta. Proposed development within the HUGO District will be subject to a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit for approval. This will allow for consideration of individual environmental and design constraints and consistency with the general plan and zoning code for each proposed project. Thus, there is no additional identifiable significant adverse impact anticipated from the proposed amendments. B. Would the project conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta has jurisdiction over the Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan. The primary environmental plans and policies pertinent to this proposed amendment are identified in La Quinta's General Plan, the General Plan EIR, and the La Quinta Page 6 Master Environmental Assessment. The proposed amendments have been transmitted to various agencies for review and comment regarding conflicts with environmental plans or policies. No comments have been received from outside agencies at the time of this writing. C. Would the project be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments provide clarification to, and expansion of, the existing hillside development policies and requirements. Definitions, analytical methods, and processural requirements are explained in the proposed HUGO District regulations. D. Would the project affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No Impact. The La Quinta General Plan does not contain an agricultural land use designation although there are a few locations with agricultural land uses extant in the south and southeastern portions of the City. Historically, there has been farming activity in several sections of the City, however, that has largely been replaced by resort, commercial, and residential development over the past 15 years. There has never been any agriculture in the local hillsides, except for the lower areas on alluvial fans, as they are typically too steep and rocky. The proposed amendments would not affect any identified agricultural land uses or policies. E. Would the project disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income minority community)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments would define the existing 20% slope gradient as the toe of slope and geologic features for application of development regulations in the HUGO District. The proposed amendment might result in the slight increase of the residential density of some parcels below the 20% slope line from the transfer of density credits from acreage above the 20% slope areas for a particular landholding or development proposal. Proposed are provisions to allow density bonus to be transferred 1) to the subdivided portion of the same property below the "toe of slope", and 2) by means of sale to any receiving parcel having residential General Plan designation. The second transfer method limits the development rights units count to not exceed 20% of the underlying General Plan density designation. This possibility will be reviewed for each development proposal by the Conditional Use Permit process required for development. 3.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING Regional Environmental. Setting Between 1980 and 1990, the population of La Quinta expanded 125%, as reported by the U.S Census, making the City the second fastest growing city in the Coachella Valley. During that time period, the number of residents in La Quinta blossomed from 4,992 to 11,215 permanent residents. From 1990 to January of 1996, the population grew from 13,070 to 18,050. During peak tourist Page 7 seasons, the population of La Quinta swells to several times the permanent resident population figure. These figures are based upon information provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, State Department of Finance, and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG). La Quinta's population ranks sixth largest of the nine cities in the Coachella Valley. Annual average growth rate has been approximately 10% in recent years. The.projected population of La Quinta by the year 2000 is anticipated to be 23,000 (Source: A-15, A-20). The average age of a City resident is 32 years. Persons over the age of 45 make up 27% of the City's population (Source: A-15, A-20). In addition to permanent residents, La Quinta has approximately 9,300 seasonal residents who spend three to six months in the City. It is estimated that 30% of all housing units in the City are used by seasonal residents (Source: A-15, A-20). The total housing stock as of 1996, is listed at 9,352 units. Single family units make up 68 percent of the available housing stock. The housing unit breakdown is as follows: 8,624 detached single family, 481 multi -family units, and 247 mobile homes. The average number of persons per household is 3.15 (Source: Department of Finance 1996). Median home prices in La Quinta are approximately $112,000 which is lower than the average for Riverside County ($120,950), but less than other Southern California counties (Source: A-26). Ethnicity information from the 1990 Census revealed that the composition of La Quinta's population is 70% Caucasian, 26% Hispanic, 2% Afro-American, 1.5% Asian, and 1.0% Native American. The 1990 Census indicates that 8 1 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 2 1 % are college graduates (Source: A-15). Local Environmental Setting The proposed HUGO District areas are sparsely populated. Currently, there are only six single family residential lots (Tradition Project) within the Hillside Conservation Overlay District. A. Would the project cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments do not include specific development, but rather regulate future development in the HUGO District. Development density allowances could be transferred from the area above 20% at a factor of 1 dwelling unit per each ten acres, if the transfer is to a portion of the same parcel or contiguous ownership. Such transfers must be deemed to be in conformance with the Zoning Code Development Standards for the appropriate residential zone. If density transfers were approved, there could be a slightly higher density in the project areas below 20% slope than normally would be permitted by the General Plan designation for some residential land use designations. This potential increase in residential density is not anticipated to create significant adverse impacts upon the environment (Sources: A-1, B-1). Page 8 B. Would the project induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments will make only a cumulative impact to the existing major infrastructure within the developed areas of the City, which could be altered or required to be extended to service particular project sites. This impact is not anticipated to be significant, as there is existing infrastructure in place. Each utility provider is requested to comment on new development proposals as they are before the City for approval. Expansion of infrastructure is reviewed on a project -by -project basis. C. Would the project displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? No Impact. The proposed amendments do not have any identifiable direct affect upon affordable housing issues and does not include the displacement of existing housing units. Thus, there is no identifiable adverse impact to the supply of affordable housing. 3.3 GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Regional Environmental .Setting The City of La Quinta has a relatively flat, but gently sloping topography, except for the hillside and canyon areas on the southern and western portions of the City. Elevations in the southeastern portion of the City reach 1,400 feet above msl. Slopes on the valley floor area of the City are gentle, except in the rolling sand dune areas. The alluvial soils that make up most of the City are underlain by igneous -metamorphic rock, as seen in outcrops in the Santa Rosa Mountains and the Coral Reef Mountains. Soils on the valley floor are made up of very fine grain unconsolidated silty sands. The Coachella Valley is underlain by hundreds of feet to several thousand feet of Quaternary fluvial, lacustrine, and aeolian soil deposits. Slopes on the hillsides extend to the very steep, exceeding 40 and 50% in certain places. The Coachella Valley consists of a trough that is bounded by high terrain. The upwind end of the trough is considered to be the San Gorgonio Pass area. From this northwestern extreme, the trough extends for about 30 miles to its downwind end. The Whitewater River is the Valley's major watercourse. The seismicity of the Valley is dominated by the San Andreas Fault, which is approximately 4 miles from the City at its nearest point. In the event of an earthquake, the intensity of groundshaking will be affected both by distance from the fault and by the thickness of alluvial and sedimentary cover overlying hard bedrock. North of the City lies the Palm Springs Sand Ridge. This large sand ridge has been formed by the strong prevailing winds that continually move sand and debris in southwesterly direction down the Coachella Valley. Page 9 Local Environmental Setting The areas where the Hillside Conservation Overlay Districts are located consist of hillside and geologic features. Many of the unique geologic features are products of the erosion of the Santa Rosa Mountains, which consist of large blocks of igneous and metamorphic complex that have been uplifted by faulting. The boundary of the HUGO District includes all hillside land, except for sand dunes, located above the toe of slope boundary. The toe of slope boundary shall be the boundary between the HUGO conservation areas and developable land. The boundary shall be determined by the Public Works Department/City Engineer per the requirements contained in the proposed HUGO District regulations. Also included in the HUGO District are those areas that are relatively flat pockets of land less than 20% slope. These areas may also be developed under an approved conditional use permit and site development permit. A. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: fault rupture? Less Than Significant Impact. There are inferred fault lines located within the City of La Quinta. These fault lines are considered potentially active, although no activity has been recorded for the last 10,000 years. A major earthquake along these faults would be capable of generating seismic hazards and strong ground shaking effects in the area. None of the inferred faults in La Quinta have been placed in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. All structures developed on the City are required to be constructed to current Uniform Building Code (UBC) seismic standards in order to mitigate risk of collapse to the extent feasible (Sources: A-1, A-2, A-3; A-22). The proposed amendments are not anticipated to significantly impact fault rupture issues, however, development in the hillsides would be reviewed on an individual project basis. Site suitability studies prepared by qualified geologists are required to be submitted with each proposed hillside development proposal. While accurate earthquake predictions are not possible, significant geologic information and statistical analysis have been complied, analyzed, and published intensely by various agencies over the past 25 years. It has been reported that a 22% conditional probability occurrence for the 30-year period from 1994 to 2024 that a magnitude 7.5 event or greater would occur along the Coachella Valley segment of the San Andreas Fault. The primary risk to the City is from the San Andreas Fault. The Coachella Valley Segment of the fault comprises the southern 115 km of the fault zone. This segment has the longest elapsed time of any portion of the San Andreas Fault, last experiencing an event about 1690 AD based on USGS dating of trench surveys near Indio. The San Andreas Fault zone is considered to have characteristic earthquakes that ruptures each fault segment. The San Andreas Fault may rupture in multiple segments producing a higher magnitude earthquake. Fault rupture is anticipated to occur at areas near the well -delineated regional fault lines as shown on United States Geological Survey and California Division of Mines and Geology maps. However, Page 10 because the City is located in a region of high tectonic activity, the potential for surface rupture on undiscovered or new faults that may underlie the City can not be discounted (Source: A-17). B. Would the 'project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismic ground shaking? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. All areas within the City are subject to ground shaking hazards from regional and local events. Any habitable structure constructed in the City will be required to meet current seismic standards of construction for the Seismic Zone that they are located in, to minimize or reduce to the extent feasible, the risk of structural collapse; this includes structures built in the HUGO District (Sources: A-1, A-2). The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have any additional adverse effect upon ground shaking issues. The primary seismic hazard in the City is strong ground shaking from earthquakes along the San Andreas and San Jacinto (Source: A-1, A-2, A-10). Strong ground motion resulting from earthquake activity along the nearby San Andreas or San Jacinto fault systems is likely to impact all structures during the anticipated lifetime of such structures. C. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: ground failure or liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment indicates that there are areas with a recognized liquefaction hazard. However, the majority of the City has a very low liquefaction susceptibility due to the fact that ground water levels are generally at least 100 feet below the ground surface. Areas within the HUGO Districts are typically not within the liquefaction hazard zones, as these hazard zones are on the flatter desert floor areas of the City, while the HUGO District is typically in the higher elevations (Source: A-2, A-10). The proposed amendments are not anticipated to expose potential development in the HUGO District to any significant adverse impact from ground failure or liquefaction events. No required mitigation measures are identified for this issue. D. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving seismicity: seiche, tsunami or volcanic hazard? No Impact. The City is located in an inland valley separated from the Pacific Ocean by mountain ranges, and would not be subjected to a tsunami. Lake Cahuilla, a man-made reservoir located in the southeast portion of the City, might experience some moderate wave activity as a result of an earthquake and ground shaking. Areas within the HUGO District are typically at higher elevations and would not likely be impacted by these kinds of natural events (Source: A-2; A-17). The proposed amendments are not anticipated to expose potential development to significant adverse the hazards from seiches, tsunamis, or volcanic episodes. No mitigation is required for this issue. Page 11 E. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving landslides or mudflows? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The terrain of HUGO District areas is typically rocky hillsides, but can include geologic features. There could be a potential danger to structures and people from landslides and rockfall from steep slope gradients that might be located adjacent to developable areas in the HUGO District. No mudflows are anticipated in the area, as the adjacent hills and mountains are formed of rocky granodioritic material that typically does not go into solution from rainfall. Much of the developed area of the City is protected from flood waters by earthen training dikes and retention basins that are located throughout the City. It is a requirement of development applications to submit a report prepared by the Registered Geologist assessing the stability of a project sites in the HUGO District that will assess each of these hazards on a project -specific basis. (Source: A-2, A-17). The recommendations of these reports serve as project -specific mitigation. F. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? Less Than Significant Impact. Any proposed development in the HUGO District is anticipated to result in potential impacts involving erosion, changes in topography, and possibly unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading and fill. Soil studies and site suitability studies are required to be submitted with each development application. These studies are used to determine physical constraints and mitigation measures. for a project which affect the design of a development. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to increase the impacts from erosion and other unstable soil conditions beyond the level of impacts that currently exist as a result of development governed by the current Hillside Conservation Overlay District. G. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving subsidence of the land? Less Than Significant Impact. Dynamic settlement results in geologically seismic areas where poorly consolidated soils mix with perched groundwater causing dramatic decreases in the elevation of the ground. Hillside Districts are not typically located in areas designated with subsidence hazards, thus there is no anticipated significant impact from the proposed amendments. (Source: A-2). H. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving expansive soils? Less Than Significant Impact. The City requires compliance with the Uniform Building Code and the recommendations of a soils investigation report prior to issuance of building and grading permits for hillside development at any slope gradient (Sources: A-6). All proposed development in the HUGO District will be required to submit a soils study for review. These studies are used to determine physical constraints and the appropriate grading and excavation techniques required for a specific area which serve as mitigation. Each development project is reviewed on an individual basis. Page 12 The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the requirement for stable soil. I. Would the project result in or expose people to potential impacts involving unique geologic or physical features` Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The local mountains represent unique geologic features in the La Quinta area. There could be direct significant adverse impact on these resources from development in the HUGO District. Each proposed development application will be reviewed for impacts to the geologic features present on specific project sites, with determinations and recommended mitigation measures, under an approved Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit. 3.4 WATER Regional Environmental .setting Groundwater resources in the La Quinta area consist of a system of large aquifers (porous layers of rock material containing water) and groundwater basins separated by bedrock or layers of soil that trap or retain groundwater. La Quinta is located above the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin which is the major water supply for the potable water needs of the City as well as a significant supply for the City's nonpotable irrigation needs. Water is pumped from the underground aquifer via domestic water wells in the City operated and administered by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The district has its own local wells and has contractual entitlements to Colorado River water. It holds future entitlements to northern California water from the State Water Project (Source: A-2). La Quinta is located primarily in the Lower Thermal Subarea of the groundwater basin. The Thermal Subarea is separated into the Upper and Lower Valley Sub -Basins near Point Happy, located southwest of the intersection of Washington Street and State Highway 111. CVWD estimates that approximately 19.4 million acre feet of water is stored within the Thermal Subarea which is available for use. Water pumped from the aquifer is treated and distributed to users through the existing (potable) water distribution system. Water is also pumped for irrigation purposes to water golf courses and the remaining agricultural uses in the City. Water supplies are augmented with surface water from the Colorado River transported via the Coachella Canal. The quality of water in the La Quinta area is highly suitable for domestic purposes. However, chemicals associated with agricultural production in nearby areas and the use of septic tanks in the Cove area affect groundwater quality. Groundwater is of marginal to poor quality at depths of less than 200 feet. Below 200 feet, water quality is generally good and water depths of 400 to 600 feet are considered excellent. Page 13 Percolation from the tributaries of the Whitewater River flowing into La Quinta from the Santa Rosa Mountains provide a natural source of groundwater replenishment. Artificial recharging of groundwater will be necessary in the near future. Surface water in La Quinta is comprised of Colorado River water supplied via the Coachella Canal and stored in the Lake Cahuilla reservoir, lakes in private developments which are comprised of canal water and/or untreated groundwater, and the Whitewater River and its tributaries. The watersheds in La Quinta are subject to intense storms of short duration which result in substantial runoff. The steep gradient of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains accelerates the runoff flowing down to the intermittent streams that drain the mountain watersheds. The majority of La Quinta is protected from this runoff by the existing flood control facilities located throughout the City. There are some hillside areas where there is no protection from flood waters to the lower elevations. One of the primary sources of surface water pollution is erosion and sedimentation from development construction and operation activities. Without controls, total dissolved solids (TDS) can increase significantly from the development activities. The Clean Water Act requires all communities to conform to standards regulating the quality of water discharged into streams, including stormwater runoff. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) has been implemented as a two-part permitting process, for which the City of La Quinta participates. Most of La Quinta is protected from storm water runoff by a stormwater system designed by Bechtel for the Coachella Valley Water District to protect currently developed and potentially developable areas of the City from damage during a major rainflood event. The system project was based on a flood control plan for the general area developed by Bechtel for the District in 1970. Construction was completed in November 1986 (Source: A-27). Local Environmental Setting The City does not have any natural standing bodies of water in the hillsides, other than Army Corps designated blue -line streams. Lake Cahuilla is a man-made reservoir located in the southeastern portion of the City and is part of the CVWD water supply system. The Whitewater River channel transects the northern part of the City, but is dry except during seasonal storms. The La Quinta Stormwater Channel is a man-made flood water evacuation channel that transects the City in a northeast to southwest trend, and is a part of the community -wide network of flood control facilities. The local hillsides provide watershed to the desert cove area on a seasonal basis. The City currently has only limited areas which are still subject to storm water flow or flooding. Flood prone areas are designated with a specific zoning district (Watercourse, Watershed, and Conservation Areas: W-1). The intent of this zoning district is to allow development in flood prone area based upon the submittal of drainage and stormwater control plan. The City also implements flood hazard regulations for development within flood prone areas. Page 14 A. Would the project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. There usually are changes in absorption rates, and sometimes drainage patterns or surface runoff as a result of proposed development projects. The absorption rate will be altered by the paving of streets, construction of buildings, and landscaping. The drainage patterns can be altered by man-made drainage facilities designed to serve a particular project. The City typically requires that stormwater falling on a development site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm shall be retained on site to protect adjacent properties from flood damage. Each project is reviewed on an individual basis, with review by the Army Corps as necessary. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to significantly alter this requirement. The City of La Quinta requires that all runoff storm and nuisance water be retained on site. There is no city-wide master drainage plan. Drainage plans are project -specific and as such are reviewed by the City Engineer prior to project approval. B. Would the project result in exposure of people or property to water -related hazards such as flooding? Less Than Significant Impact. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to the CVWD and the City Engineer for review and approval for every proposed development project, including hillside projects. Mitigation for flood hazard is project specific within the context of the community -wide flood protection system. For projects areas including blue -line streams, review by the Army Corps is required. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect upon this review process. C. Would the project result in discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Less Than Significant Impact. Storm and nuisance runoff will be required to be retained and disposed of on site in an approved percolation device. Plans for such devices are submitted on a project by project basis. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impact to the existing policies and standards for storm and nuisance runoff. D. Would the project result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? Less Than Significant Impact. It is possible that a specific development project could propose a change in the amount of water of a body of water. This issue would be assessed on a project by project basis with appropriate mitigation, if feasible, recommended for the project. There are very few bodies of water in La Quinta. The proposed amendments permitting development in the HUGO District are not anticipated to adversely impact this issue. E. Would the project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? Page 15 Less Than Significant Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have any existing natural bodies of standing water or year-round rivers that would be affected by the proposed amendments. There are many small man-made lakes and ponds on golf courses within the City. The La Quinta Evacuation Channel is a man-made stormwater channel that is usually dry except for runoff from seasonal storms. Future development of hillside areas at any slope gradient could affect, to a significant degree, existing drainage corridors (Source: A-2). A drainage plan is required for all proposed developments. This issue is considered on a project by project basis under the Conditional Use Process. F. Would the project result in changes in quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawal, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or by excavations? Less Than Significant Impact. Water supply in the City is derived from groundwater and supplementary water brought in from the Colorado River. Potable water to service hillside development will most likely come from existing groundwater wells in the near vicinity. The Coachella Valley Water District furnishes domestic water and sanitation service to the City (Sources: A-2). All development applications are reviewed by CVWD for water -related issues. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect upon domestic water issues. G. Would the project result in altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? Less Than Significant Impact. As with any project using substantial amounts of water, there will be cumulative impacts to quantity of groundwater resources. It is not anticipated that there will be any significant alteration to the direction of flow of the groundwater supply from hillside development, however, the rate of flow may be impacted due to high demand for water by large developments. Groundwater is reported to be below 100 feet in the City. Each project is considered separately by the City and CVWD for water -related issues. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect upon ground water issues. H. Would the project result in impacts to groundwater quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Development of a project site at any slope gradient will include concrete and asphalt pavement of portions of the site. This pavement will reduce the absorption ability of the ground. Storm water runoff is to be discharged into approved retention areas. Following a heavy rain, contaminates could be transported into the retention areas or into the City's storm drain system that could contribute to groundwater and/or surface water pollution. However, this potential impact is anticipated to be less than significant in most instances. A review of the drainage plan for a proposed development project should identify potential problems that will affect groundwater quality. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant affect upon impacts to groundwater quality. 3.5 AIR QUALITY Page 16 Regional Environmental.Vetting The Coachella Valley is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and in particular, the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAB) division. SEDAB has a distinctly different air pollution problem than the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). A discussion of the jurisdictional organization of SCAQMD and requirements is found in the La Quinta MEA. The air quality in Southern California region has historically been poor due to the topography, climatological influences, and urbanization. State and federal clean air standards established by the California Air Resources Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are often exceeded. The SCAQMD is a regional agency charged with the regulation of pollutant emissions and the maintenance of local air quality standards. Currently, the SEDAB does not meet federal standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (PM-10). In the Coachella Valley, the standard for PM-10 is frequently exceeded. PM-10 is a particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter that becomes suspended in the air due principally to winds, grading activity, and by vehicles traveling on paved and unpaved roads. Wind currents can carry the PM-10 into the atmosphere and into the hillside areas. PM-10 has been proved to be a health hazard to humans. Local Environmental.Setting The City of La Quinta is located in the Coachella Valley, which has an and climate, characterized by hot summers, mild winters, infrequent and low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Variations in rainfall, temperatures, and localized winds occur throughout the valley due to the presence of the surrounding mountains. Air quality conditions are closely tied to the prevailing winds of the region. The City of La Quinta is subject to the SCAQMD AQMD, a plan which describes measures to bring the SCAB into compliance with federal and state air quality standards and to meet California Clean Air Act requirements. The General Plan for the City contains an Air Quality Element outlining mitigation measures as required by the Regional AQMP. The City is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30, which includes two air quality monitoring stations, one located in the City of Palm Springs, and the other in the City of Indio. The Indio station monitors conditions which are most representative of the La Quinta area. The Palm Springs station monitors carbon monoxide in addition to ozone and particulate. A. Would the project violate any air standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The South Coast Air Quality Management District CE A Air Quality_ Handbook indicates that the threshold for significance for a single family housing development is 170 units. This threshold is applicable for hillside development as well. Given that hillside development is currently permitted at a density of 1 unit per 10 acres for areas above the toe of slope, a hillside project would have to consist of 1700 acres before an air quality study would be Page 17 triggered by the threshold. It is doubtful that a specific hillside development project would include 1700 acres of hillside in La Quinta. This would involve several sections of land in contiguous ownership for which the current ownership of hillside land is typically not more than one section per one owner. The current ownership of hillside land includes private, state and federal. With most sections owned by one entity. State and federal owned land is not designated for development, but rather various types of conservation and preservation management designations which would preclude development. Each development application in the HUGO District will be reviewed and assessed for air quality impacts during an Initial Study. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to create any significant adverse impacts on air quality issues. B. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include schools, day care centers, parks and recreation centers, medical facilities, rest homes, and other land uses that include a concentration of individuals recognized as exhibiting particular sensitivity to air pollution. The Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) are designed to protect that segment of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress or infection, referred to as "sensitive receptors." (Sources: A-1; A-2; A-8),If a proposed project exceeds the significance threshold for air quality impacts, there could be adverse impacts to sensitive receptors. It is not anticipated that proposed hillside development at any slope gradient will exceed the threshold. Therefore, anticipated impacts from the proposed amendments are less than significant for hillside single family development. However, each development application will be assessed on an individual basis under the Conditional Use Permit process, with appropriate mitigation measures required as necessary. C. Would the project alter air movements, moisture, temperature, or cause any change in climate? No Impact. Hillside development is not anticipated to result in any significant impact to climatic issues at any slope gradient. There are no known significance thresholds for this topic area in which to assess impacts to the climate, thus no definitive statements can be made on this issue regarding impacts and their significance. D. Would the project create objectionable odors? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicles traveling on nearby streets generate gaseous and particular emissions that may be noticeable on project sites. However, these would be short-term odors that should dissipate quickly. Projects might store small quantities of chemicals (cleansers and disinfectants) for which their could be odors, but storage of such chemicals is limited to inside buildings. Each project will be assessed on an individual basis. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in any significant adverse impact from odors on the environment at any slope gradient. Page 18 3.6 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Regional Environmental .Vetting La Quinta is a desert community of over 18,600 permanent residents, and approximately 9,500 seasonal residents. The City is 31.18 square miles in size, with substantial room for development. The existing circulation system is a combination of early road work constructed in the 1930's by Riverside County and new roadways since incorporation of the City in 1982. Key roadways include State Highway 111, Washington Street, Jefferson Street, Fred Waring Drive, and Eisenhower Drive. Traffic volumes in La Quinta experience considerable seasonal variation, with the late -winter, early - spring months representing the peak tourist season and highest traffic volumes. Existing transit service in La Quinta is limited to three regional fixed -route bus routes operated by Sunline Transit Agency. One bus route along Washington Street connects the Cove and Village areas with the community of Palm Desert to the west. Two lines operate along Highway 111 serving trips between La Quinta and other communities in the desert. There are only a few existing pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian facilities in La Quinta, however, these systems will be expanded as the City grows. These facilities, both existing and future, are designated in the La Quinta General Plan. Local Environmental.4etting Hillsides around La Quinta vary from alluvial fans to rocky mountain faces. The potential for road construction in hillside areas varies with project design and physical constraints. Roadways may not exceed 15% grade per the Fire Marshal's standards. Currently there are very few roadways at the 15% slope gradient in the hillside areas within the City. All new roadways within the HUGO District would be subject to review and approval through the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit processes. A. Would the project result in increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicles trips and traffic congestion is assessed on a project by project basis to determine impacts and mitigation. Density transfers from higher elevations could increase traffic in areas that receive transferred units. The proposed change from 20% slope to 15% slope are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact upon traffic congestion. Each project will be assessed for impacts to this issue on an individual basis. Page 19 B. Would the project result in hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. It is possible that hazards to safety from design features could result from proposed development projects in the hillsides. Impacts and mitigation will be determined on a project by project basis. C. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access to nearby uses? Less Than Significant Impact. Proposed projects are not permitted to obstruct emergency access to surrounding land uses. This issue will be assessed on a project by project basis for impacts and mitigation. It is not anticipated that there would be significant impacts from the proposed amendments. D. Would the project result in insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. Parking needs and requirements are reviewed on a project by project basis in accordance with Zoning Code Chapter 9.150 Off -Street Parking Requirements. It is not anticipated that there would be significant impacts from the proposed amendments. E. Would the project result in hazards or barriers for pedestrian or bicyclists? Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that hazards to bicyclists and pedestrians will be increased significantly as a result of the proposed amendments (Source: A-1). This issue will be assessed on a project by project basis for impacts and mitigation. F. Would the project result in conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant Impact. The need for alternative transportation is reviewed on a project by project basis. It is not anticipated that there would be a significant impact from the proposed amendments. There are no adopted policies requiring alternative transportation for developments unless there are over 100 employees. G. Would the project result in rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No Impact. There is no rail service in the City of La Quinta. The closest rail line is approximately nine miles to the north of the project site. There are no navigable rivers or waterways, or air travel lanes or airports within the City. Thus, there are no anticipated impacts upon these types of transportation from the proposed amendments. The closest airports are the Bermuda Dunes Airport, a small private facility located just south of Interstate 10, approximately one mile north of the City boundary, and the Thermal Airport, located approximately 3.5 miles southeast of the City boundary, Page 20 L on Airport Boulevard in the Thermal area (Sources: A-2, A-17). This issue is considered for each development application on a project by project basis. 3.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental.4etting The City of La Quinta lies within the Colorado Desert regional environment. Two ecosystems are found within the City, the Sonoran Desert Scrub and the Desert Transition. The disturbed environments within the City are classified as either urban or agricultural. A detailed discussion of these ecosystems is found in the La Quinta Master Environmental Assessment (1992). Local Environmental Setting The majority of the areas that would be within the HUGO District are located in the Desert Transition ecosystem. The Desert Transition areas are found on alluvial fans and slopes of the surrounding mountains. It is a transition from the Sonoran Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland at higher elevations. The transition is gradual and involves an intermingling of vegetation types typically found in the Desert Scrub ecosystem and the Pinon-Juniper Woodland near the top of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The plant species in the desert transition zone benefit from slightly higher rainfall. Where creosote bush and bur -sage dominated in the desert scrub areas, cacti become more abundant and ocotillo dominate on the upper portions of alluvial fans, bajadas, and rocky mountain slopes (Source: A-2). A. Would the project result in impacts to endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. There are designated habitats of endangered, threatened, or rare species known to be within the HUGO District areas in La Quinta (Source: A-2). Development projects are transmitted for comment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Department of Fish and Game. Each project is assessed on an individual basis. Biology studies are required for development projects in HUGO District areas. Appropriate mitigation is required for any impacts identified. B. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? No Impact. There are no locally designated biological resources within the City of La Quinta as there is no City ordinance in place with which to designate local species. All significant biological resources are designated at the state and/or federal level by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and comment on each development Page 21 application. Appropriate mitigation is required for significant impacts, which may include undevelopable habitat easements placed on portions of higher elevations (Source: A-2). C. Would the project result in impacts to locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? No Impact. There are no locally designated natural communities found in the City. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and comment on each individual project. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant adverse impact upon locally designated natural communities. D. Would the project result in impacts to wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian, and vernal pool)? No Impact. There is no known wetland habitat in the HUGO District. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and comment regarding this issue for each proposed development project. There is no anticipated significant impact from the proposed amendments on wetland habitats. E. Would the project result in impacts to wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. Wildlife corridors are open in the Coral Reef and Santa Rosa Mountains which provide access to the higher mountains (Source: A-2). The U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are transmitted to for review and comment for each proposed development project. There are no anticipated significant impacts from the proposed amendments to wildlife corridors. Increasing non -buildable hillside area by reducing slope will increase wildlife corridors. 3.8 ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental. Betting The City of La Quinta contains both areas of insignificant and significant Mineral Aggregate Resource Areas (SMARA), as designated by the State Department of Conservation. There are no known oil resources in the City. Major energy resources used in La Quinta come from the Imperial Irrigation District (III)), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies. Local Environmental Setting There are no oil wells or other fuel or energy producing facilities or resources in the City. Most hillside areas are within the MRZ-3 Mineral Resource Zone. The MRZ-3 designation is applied to those areas containing mineral deposits the significance of which can not be evaluated from available data (Source: A-2). Each development project is assessed for energy and mineral resource Page 22 significance individually. There are no anticipated significant impacts to this issue area from the proposed amendments to the HUGO District. A. Would the project conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? No Impact. The City of La Quinta does not have an adopted energy plan, however, the City's General Plan Housing Element contains requirements for efficiency in construction and materials with the goal of reducing energy consumption. Future hillside development will be required to meet Title 24 energy requirements as is all development in the City (Sources: A -I; A-22). This issue is assessed on a project by project basis. There is no anticipated significant impact to energy conservation plans. B. Would the project use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? Less Than Significant Impact. Natural resources that may be used by development projects include air, mineral, water, sand and gravel, timber, energy, and other resources needed for construction. Title 24 (of the Uniform Building Code) requirements shall be complied with for energy conservation. Any landscaping will also be required to comply with the City's landscape water conservation ordinance as well as the requirements of the Coachella Valley Water District (Source: A-2). Each development project is reviewed for impacts on an individual basis. There are no anticipated significant impact from the proposed amendments. 3.9 HAZARDS Regional Environmental.Setting Recent growth has increased the City's exposure to hazardous materials. Such exposure to toxic materials can occur through the air, in drinking water, in food, in drugs and cosmetics, and in the work place. Although large scale, hazardous waste generating employment is not present in the City of La Quinta, the existence of chemicals utilized in dry cleaning operations, agricultural operations, restaurant kitchen cleaning, landscape irrigation and exposure to large scale electrical facilities may pose significant threats to various sectors of the population. Currently, there are no hazardous disposal waste sites located in Riverside County. Local Environmental.Setting In order to comply with AB 2948-Hazardous Waste Management Plans and Facility Siting Procedures, the City of La Quinta adopted Ordinance 184 consisting of a Hazardous Waste Management Plan. There are no known hazardous waste dump sites in the City's hillside areas. A. Would the project involve a risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical, or radiation)? Page 23 Less Than Significant Impact. There is minimal risk of exposure from chemicals and pesticides used within the typical residential development project. Use of any chemicals during the construction phase or on -going operations shall be by trained personnel only according to local Riverside County Health Department, OSHA, and EPA requirements. Each development project is reviewed on an individual basis. There are no anticipated significant impacts to this issue from the proposed amendments. B. Would the project involve possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities will be confined to project sites, except for minimal off site work as permitted for project roadways, curbs, and gutters. These activities will not be permitted to interfere with emergency responses to the site or surrounding areas nor will it obstruct emergency evacuation of the area. Needed measures to divert and control traffic shall be implemented whenever required. Traffic diversions are subject to inspection by the City's Public Works Department. C. Would the project involve the creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no anticipated health hazards associated with the development in the hillsides beyond those normally associated with a construction project, which consist primarily of accidental injuries. This issue is reviewed for each development application. There are no significant impacts from the proposed amendments to this issue. D. Would the project involve exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? No Impact. There are no identifiable significant health hazards related to the proposed amendments to the HUGO District. All development will be required to conform to zoning standards and all applicable health and safety codes. Each development project is assessed individually. There are no anticipated significant adverse impacts to this issue from the proposed amendments. E. Would the proposal involve increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? Less Than Significant Impact. There is a very low fire potential from the brush, grass, or trees in the rocky hillsides or sandy alluvial fans as there is sparse vegetation. The construction of buildings will increase fire hazards for which the Fire Marshal requires conditions of approval specifying type of construction and materials. This issue is reviewed for each development project individually. There are no significant impacts anticipated from the proposed amendments to the fire hazard issue. 3.10 NOISE Page 24 Regional Environmental.Vetting Noise levels in the City are created by a variety of sources within and outside the City boundaries. The major sources of noise include vehicles on City streets and Highway 111, and temporary construction noise. The ambient noise levels are dominated by vehicular noise along the highway and major arterial roadways. Local Environmental Setting The ambient noise levels at development project sites is typically dominated by vehicle traffic noise from nearby roadways. Residential areas are considered noise -sensitive land uses, especially during the nighttime hours. The State Building Code requires that interior noise level in residential buildings do not exceed CNEL 45. The General Plan of the City of La Quinta requires that exterior noise levels do not exceed CNEL 60 for residential land uses (Sources: A-2; A-1). The existing noise level in the hillsides is very low. A. Would the project result in increases in existing noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular noise would result from residents and visitors arriving and departing the residential developments. Walls typically serve as mitigation from sound affecting and originating from proposed development project. Any hillside development will cumulatively add noise to the area. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to significantly impact this issue. B. Would the project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The La Quinta General Plan regulates excessive noise and vibration in the City by establishing allowable noise levels for various land uses. Residential land uses should have a maximum exterior noise level of up to 60 CNEL. If the ambient noise level is higher than this standard, then it will serve as the standard. Proposed development in hillside areas will result in short-term impacts associated with construction activities. During construction, heavy machinery will be capable of generating periodic peak noise levels ranging from 70 to 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. These high noise levels are short in duration and temporary with the construction phases of the project. Such high noise levels are not anticipated or permitted after construction (Source: A-1). 3.11 PUBLIC SERVICES Regional Environmental .Setting Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. The Sheriffs Department extends service to the City from existing facilities located in the City of Indio. There is a small substation located within the La Quinta City Hall. The Page 25 �.a Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additional public safety personnel requirements in La Quinta at buildout. Based on this standard, the City should have a police force of 25.5 officers, but is currently under served. Currently, there are three officers per shift with three staggered shifts per day to serve La Quinta. In addition to patrol, there is also a target team, Community Services Officer, and School Resources Officer assigned to the City (Source: A-24). Fire protection service is provided to the City by Riverside County Fire Department through a contractual arrangement. The Fire Department administers two stations in the City; Station #32 on Frances Hack Lane, west of Washington Street, and Station 970, at the intersection of Madison Street and Avenue 54. The Fire Department is also responsible for building and business inspections, plan review, and construction inspections. Based upon a planning standard of one paid firefighter per 1,000 population, the City is currently under served (Source: A-2). Currently, there are two paid firefighters per shift at each of the two fire stations in La Quinta. Volunteers supplement the paid staff Structural fires and fires from other man-made features are the most significant fire threats to the City. Hillside and brush fires are minimal as the hillsides are virtually barren and the scattered brush on the valley floor is too sparse to pose a serious fire threat. Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Coachella Valley Unified School District serve the City. There are two elementary schools, one middle school, and one high school within the City. The City is also within the Desert Community College District. Library services are provided by the Riverside County Library System with a branch library located in the Village area of the City. The existing facility opened in 1988 and county planning standards of 0.5 square feet per capita and 1.2 volumes per capita are used to forecast future facility requirements to serve the City. Utilizing this 1992 standard, the City was under served in space but over served in terms of volumes (Source: A-2). Health care services are provided in the City through JFK Memorial Hospital in Indio, and the Eisenhower Immediate Care Facility in La Quinta on Hwy. 111. The Eisenhower Medical Center is located in Rancho Mirage. The Riverside County Health Department administers a variety of health programs for area residents and is located in Indio. Paramedic service is provided to the City by Springs Ambulance Service. Local Environmental .Setting Public services would be extended to hillside areas as development occurs there. Governmental services in La Quinta are provided by City staff at the Civic Center, and by other County, state, and federal agency offices located in the desert area or region. Page 26 A. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in relation to fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Development will increase the need for fire protection due to the construction of structures. Development shall comply with the fire flow and fire safety building standards of the Riverside County Fire Code to prevent fire hazard on -site and to minimize the need for fire protection services. Unobstructed fire access is required through the design of the project streets and setbacks between structures. Other code requirements (such as sprinkler systems, construction materials, etc.) shall be complied with. The comment letter from the Fire Department shall be made part of the Conditions of Approval for Site Development Permits. B. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered government services in relation to police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. Traffic collisions, patrol requests, and calls for service generated by development will impact the Sheriffs Department. This will generate a cumulative need for additional staff in the future. Each project is reviewed by the Sheriff's Department with recommendations provided on a project by project basis. C. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to school services? Less Than Significant Impact. School overcrowding is a District -wide concern for the Desert Sands and Coachella Valley Unified School Districts. These District's ability to meet the educational needs of the public with new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state, and federal budget cuts that have had an impact on the financing of new schools. The school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all new development at the time building permits are issued is required of development project as mitigation for impacts. D. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to the maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Less Than Significant Impact. There is a potential for the need for new or altered government services from hillside development, especially landscape and road maintenance. HUGO District development will be reviewed on a project by project basis for impacts. HUGO District development will be reviewed on a project by project basis under a Conditional Use Permit. E. Would the project have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in relation to other governmental services? Less Than Significant Impact. Building, engineering, inspection, and planning review needed for proposed projects will be partially offset by application, permit and inspection fees charged to the applicant and contractors. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant impact to City staff from Page 27 proposed hillside projects. The proposed amendments would result in HUGO District development being kept at lower elevations around the City and potential for greater density. 3.12 UTILITIES Regional Environmental.'Vervices The City of La Quinta is served by the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) for electrical power supply and The Gas Company (TGC) for natural gas service. Existing power and gas lines and substations are found throughout the City. IID has four substations in La Quinta, with electricity generated by a steam plant in El Centro and hydroelectric power generated by the All American Canal. General Telephone Exchange (GTE) provides telephone services for the City. Media One serves the area for cable television service. There are several wireless communication companies that provide services in the La Quinta area. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water and sewer service to the City. CVWD obtains its water from underground aquifers and from the Colorado River. CVWD operates a water system with potable water pumped from domestic water wells in the City. The wells range in depth from 500 to 900 feet. Potable water is stored in five reservoirs located in the City. The City's stormwater drainage system is administered by the CVWD, which maintains and operates a comprehensive system to collect and transport flows through the City. The City is served by Waste Management of the Desert for solid waste disposal. Nonhazardous, mixed municipal solid waste is taken to the only open landfill (Edom Hill) within the Coachella Valley. Local Environmental Setting There are typically no utilities available in the more remote hillside and canyon areas. The extension of utilities is dependent upon development A. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power and gas service? Less Than Significant Impact. Power, water, sewer, and natural gas lines have been brought in to the community and are available to the urban areas of the City. Project developers will have to coordinate with IID and The Gas Company for the timely provision of utilities to hillside developments. Each development is reviewed on an individual basis. Page 28 B. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to communication systems? Less Than Significant Impact. It is possible that development in the HUGO District would result in a need for new systems. Each project will be reviewed on an individual basis. Any proposed development will require telephone communication. The developer will be required to coordinate the installation of telephone service infrastructure with GTE. Media One is the current provider of cable television services for which developers will have to coordinate with if a project is to have cable television service. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant impact on the environment, that can not be mitigated to an insignificant level. C. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? Less Than Significant Impact. It is not anticipated that the project will result in a significant adverse impact upon the water resources of the area. No significant impacts are anticipated by the proposed amendments. Rather, the amendment would serve as a mitigating effect by limiting where development could be located in the hillside area, thus, reducing the need for expansion to water distribution facilities D. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to sewer services or septic tanks? Less Than Significant Impact. Potential development in the HUGO District will generate sewage which will have to be transported and treated by CVWD. Developer are responsible for the cost of connection and installation of an on -site sewer system. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to significantly impact sewer systems but rather would have a mitigating effect by limiting where development could be located in the hillside areas. E. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to storm water drainage? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. It is possible that HUGO District development could require additions or changes to the existing stormwater drainage system in the City. However, this issue will be reviewed on a project by project basis. The proposed amendments could result in significant impacts on this issue from a specific development project. A careful analysis would be required with appropriate mitigation measures implemented to lessen the impact to an insignificant level. F. Would the project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alteration to solid waste disposal? Page 29 Less Than Significant Impact. Development projects require solid waste disposal services from the current franchisee. Solid waste is transported to the one existing landfill in the Coachella Valley. This landfill is reaching capacity and may be closed in the near future. Development must comply with the City's Source Reduction and Recycling policies. Any on -site programs will be coordinated with Waste Management. All projects will cumulatively impact solid waste systems and facilities. Each project is assessed for impacts individually. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a significant effect on waste disposal. 3.13 AESTHETICS Regional Environmental.Setting The City of La Quinta is located within a desert valley cove with boundaries extending to the desert floor and up into the local mountains. There are hillsides to the west and south of the City. Views of the desert and surrounding mountains are visible on clear days throughout most of the City. Dominate architectural styles found in the City are Mediterranean and Spanish Revival, with a relatively low profile for residential structures and for most commercial structures. Local Environmental.Setting The hillside areas are located in the south and western portion of the City. Views to the hillsides consists of the Santa Rosa and Coral Reef Mountains to the west and south, the Guadalupe Creek/Devil's Canyon alluvial fan area to the west, and the open valley floor and San Bernardino Mountains beyond to the north and northeast (Source: A-2). A. Would the project affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. Viewsheds are designated by the City's General Plan. The vistas with the City include the Coral Reef Mountains adjacent to the west, the Santa Rosa Mountains to the south, and the valley floor and San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast and east. Each project is reviewed for impacts to viewsheds and vistas on a project by project basis. The proposed amendments would restrict specific types of development to slopes 20% or less, with other types of development allowed with an approved Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit. B. Would the project have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? No Impact. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in negative impacts to aesthetic issues in and of themselves. HUGO District development will be required to comply at the time of development with current architectural and landscaping policies and ordinances of the City. Negative aesthetic effects will be assessed for each individual development application, with mitigation to be project -specific. Page 30 C. Would the project create light or glare? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments are not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the area from light or glare. All development proposals create light and glare. Mitigation consists of compliance with the requirements of the Lighting Ordinance for residential land uses. Each project is reviewed individually for impacts and appropriate mitigation measures (Source: A-4). 3.14 CULTURAL RESOURCES Regional Environmental.4etting A portion of the prehistory of the La Quinta area is known through the archaeological record pieced together from various archaeological investigations over the past twenty years and from extensive ethnographic information collected by various anthropologists. A discussion of the prehistory and history of La Quinta is provided in the Draft Historic Context Statement of the City of La Quinta, La Quinta General Plan, and the Master Environmental Assessment. Local Environmental.Setting There are recorded archaeological sites in many locations of the City, including the hillsides. Project sites are surveyed in conjunction with the environmental assessment prepared for individual projects. Approximately 1/3 of the Current City area has been surveyed in conjunction with development proposals. A. Would the project disturb paleontological resources? Less Than Significant Impact. It is known that marine -associated paleontological resources are found at elevations below 42 feet above mean sea level. The hillside areas are located at higher elevations. Each project is reviewed on an individual basis. However, there are no known paleontological resources in the local hillsides. The proposed amendments would serve to protect paleontological resources, if they exist, in areas above 20% slope. B. Would the project affect archaeological resources? Less Than Significant Impacts. There are several recorded archaeological sites within the local mountains, alluvial fans, canyons, and other areas. A moderate potential remains for the discovery of archaeological resources in the hillsides where hunting blinds, sheep fences, trails, astronomical rock alignments, rock art, camp sites, and resource procurement sites have been found. Proposed development projects would be required to have an archaeological survey conducted to locate. identify, determine the significance, and recommend mitigation for any such resources on a project site. The proposed amendments would keep development at 20% slopes and below, serving as protective mitigation for archaeological resources that may be found in the steeper sloped areas. Page 31 � .j C. Would the project affect historical resources? Less Than Significant Impacts. There were no known historic resources located in the hillsides as there have been very few surveys in these areas to locate such resources. The possibility exists that there are historic resources in the hillsides that could be significantly impacted by hillside development. The proposed amendments would restrict development to slopes not exceeding 20%, which may serve to protect resources at steeper slopes and higher elevations. This issue is assessed for each development proposal on a project by project basis. D. Would the project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic values? Less Than Significant Impact. There is no identifiable specific unique ethnic values associated with the hillsides, except the desire to view the hills and keep them undeveloped as expressed by La Quinta residents during the public hearings for the Tradition project and other projects in the past. Thus, there is no significant impact to this issue area from the proposed amendments. E. Would the project restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? No Impact. There are no publicly known current religious uses or sacred uses in the hillsides. The proposed amendments would serve to keep development at lower sloped areas which may result in the protection of unknown religious uses of the hillside areas. 3.15 RECREATION Regional Environmental.4etting The City of La Quinta has an adopted Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan that assesses the existing resources and facilities and the future needs of the City. The City has approximately 28.7 acres of developed parkland for Quimby Act purposes. The 845 acre regional Lake Cahuillla Park is not included in this count. There are also unimproved bike and equestrian corridors within the City and designated pedestrian hiking trails. Local Environmental.Setting Hiking and equestrian trails are the only organized recreation amenity in the local hillsides. There are informal trails and formal trails. The known recreation activities in the hillsides are hiking, rock climbing, and horse back riding. A. Would the project increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Page 32 �vt. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments will not significantly impact the need for additional park and recreation facilities. Each development project is reviewed for impacts and the appropriate mitigation, usually consisting of dedication of park lands or payment of an in -lieu fee to the City for development of public park and recreation facilities. B. Would the project affect existing recreational opportunities? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed amendments is not anticipated to significantly affect existing parks and recreation facilities in the hillsides, as there are very few such facilities in the hillsides. This issue will be reviewed for impacts and mitigation on a project by project basis. SECTION 4: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed amendments will not have unmitigable significant adverse impacts on the environmental issues addressed in the checklist and addendum. In some instances, the proposed mitigation will serve to reduce potential impacts from the existing hillside development regulations and General Plan policies. The following findings can be made regarding the mandatory findings of significance set forth in Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines and based on the results of this environmental assessment: • The proposed amendments will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, with the implementation of mitigation measures. • The proposed amendments will not have the potential to achieve short term goals to the disadvantage of long-term goals, with the successful implementation of mitigation. • The proposed amendments will not have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity. • The proposed amendments will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect human, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of mitigation. SECTION 5: EARLIER ANALYSES A. Earlier Analyses Used. Utilized in the current analysis were the following sources: 1. La Quinta General Plan (1992) 2. La Quinta General Plan Master Environmental Assessment (1992) 3. La Quinta General Plan EIR (1992) Page 33 B. C. 4. La Quinta Zoning Ordinance 5. La Quinta Municipal Code 6. Soil Survey of Riverside County, California - Coachella Valley Area, USDA -Soil Conservation Service (1979) 7. City of La Quinta Parks and Recreation Master Plan (1992) 8. SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Draft) (May 1992) 9. La Quinta General Plan - Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Program (1992) 10. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan (1989) 11. California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Report for the City of la Quinta 12. La Quinta Bike Route Plan: Existing and Proposed (1996) 13. La Quinta Subdivision Ordinance 14. City Aerial map 15. 1990 Census 16. (Deleted) 17. La Quinta Topographic Quad Sheet, 7.5' 18. 1949 Aerial Photograph 19. Paleontological Lakebed Determination Map 20. City of La Quinta 1995/1996 Department of Finance Estimates, 1990 Census 21. La Quinta Housing Element (1995) 22. Uniform Building Code 23. Draft Historic Context Statement for La Quinta 24. 101-301 Police Services Supporting Information 25. CEQA Guidelines 26. La Quinta Economic Overview, 1996 Project Specific Sources: 1. Site Visit 2. CVWD letter 3. Fire Marshal letter 4. Sheriff letter 5. Proposed Amended Chapter 9.140,040 HUGO District 6. Impacts Adequately Addressed. All potential impact/issue areas, are considered to be adequately addressed with this environmental assessment. Certification of this EA by the City Council will confirm the adequacy of the environmental assessment. Mitigation Measures. Mitigation measures are discussed in this addendum as they relate to the proposed amendments. Page 34 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ELEMENTS REGARDING HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT DENSITY TRANSFER CASE NO. GPA 98-056 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of February, 121h day of May, and 9th day of June, 1998, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings to consider amendments to the City's General Plan to add language to Policy 2-1.1.3 and change language to Page 6-1 as contained in Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, the amendment is internally consistent with those goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan which are not being amended; and, WHEREAS, approval of the amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as indicated by the environmental assessment prepared for General Plan Amendment 98-056. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend adoption of the General Plan Amendment; Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made part of; 3. The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect humans, either directly or indirectly, with the implementation of this proposal. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of June 1998, by the following vote, to wit: t- Planning Commission Resolution 98- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\LESLIE\pc Res GPA 98-056.wpd EXHIBIT "A" GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056 Amendment l: (Policy 2-1.1.3, add after the existing paragraph on Page 2-8) Any owner of property within the HUGO District may transfer development rights on the basis of one residential unit per 10 acres. Development rights may be transferred as follows: 1) To the subdivided portion of the same property below the "toe of slope"; 2) By means of sale to any receiving parcel having residential General Plan designation may be allowed a density bonus not exceeding 20%. Such a transfer must be deemed to be in conformance with the Zoning Cade Development standards for the appropriate residential zone. Amendment 2: (Change wording on Page 6-1, second column, under "Topography/Hillside Areas", line 14) per 10 acres. The following uses within the Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District shall be permitted in areas of less than 20% slope gradient, located above the toe of slope: golf courses (not including above -ground structures, but including fairways, greens, tees, and golf - cart paths to access them), flood -control structures, parks and lakes, water wells, pumping stations, and water tanks (if screened properly), power, telephone, and cable substations and transmission lines (if screened properly or undergrounded), T.V., cable and radio antennas, hiking, bicycle, and equestrian trails, single family residential uses, accessory uses to the permitted uses, and access roads. Uses permitted in areas with slopes equal to or greater than 20% are limited primarily to hiking and equestrian trails, golf course features (such as tees, greens and fairways, and golf -cart pathways), access roads, water wells and pumping stations. Areas both less than 20% and greater than 20% are subject to a Conditional Use Permit and a Site Development Permit. C AMydata\GPAwords. wpd u .1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9.140. - HILLSIDE/UNIQUE GEOLOGY OVERLAY DISTRICT ZONING CODE AMENDMENT 97-057 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 24th day of February, 121h day of May, and 91h day of June, 1998, hold duly -noticed Public Hearings to consider a Zoning Code Amendment for Chapter 9.140.- Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District; and, WHEREAS, the Zoning Code Amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan for development in the hillsides as defined by the criteria in Exhibit "A"; and, WHEREAS, approval of the Zoning Code Amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as indicated by the environmental review conducted for ZCA 97-057; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission for the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitutes the findings of the Planning Commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment 97-057 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part of. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 9th day of June 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: r- Planning Commission Resolution 98- ZCA 97-057 RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California P:\LESLIE\pc Res ZCA 97-057.wpd o t EXHIBIT #A 9.140.040 HG HUGO Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District Conservation Regulatimis. A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is as follows: 1. Ensure that development in the Hillside and Unique Geology Overlay (HUGO) District is consistent with the goals, policies, and criteria of the General Plan; Z Protect and preserve public and private open space as a limited and valuable resource; 3. Preserve significant features of the natural environmental including watersheds, watercourses, canyons, knolls, ridge lines, boulder fields, and rock outcrops, while minimizing disturbance to the natural terrain; 4. Protect significant native vegetation and wildlife; ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 2 iJ l y S. Protect significant cultural resources; 6. Limit development to a level consistent with available public services and road access that can be reasonably provided to and within each parcel; 7. Ensure that development will not create or increase fire, flood, rock slide, or other hazards to public health and safety; 8. Protect the health, safety, general welfare and property of people in the vicinity of steep hillside and unique geological building sites; This chapter establishes procedures and standards for the review of land divisions and the construction of buildings, structures, and improvements necessary to meet this purpose. AB. Applicability. The HUGO District and the provisions of this Section apply to land meeting the criteria for hillsides, canyons, boulderfields, and topographic aberrants. The HUGO District applies to al} land"Opeir spaee" an shown on the Official Zoning Map as "HUGO." More speeifieft4y, above "the tee of the slope," as defined in this Seetion. within the following Seetions of iand (San Bernardino Base and Meridiem) within f4te City: The delineation of the HUGO District has been generally identified in the Zoning Map and Ordinance, however, it is adjustable dependent upon more detailed boundary information submitted to the City. The final determination of the HUGO District boundary will be made by the Community Development and Public Works Department staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. - - NP ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs • age MjL1121. or-% —t.j M 4.9 ........ - MM or IftV."M*AM& is @VPrW% G :: -VV.%%VM ; 1__._ __ _ ____ • �• �'1/.\•l(7�•\7.)\•I.1�+••(!4;11•l•\�lA \•l•1•l•n�A►�•1•1 (•1•l.\T! 1. Boundaa of the HUGO District. HUGO District includes all hillside land, except for sand dunes, located above the toe of slope boundary. The toe of slope boundary line shall be the boundary between the HUGO conservation area and developable land. The boundary shall be confirmed by the Public Works Department per the requirements contained later in this subsection. It is acknowledged, however there are some areas located above the toe of slope which are flatter than the percent (20%) topographic gradient required for hillside conservation. These areas may potentially be developed for certain uses, if certain findings are made, under a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section G. 2. Determination of the Toe of Slope. The toe of slope boundary line is the lower elevation of a twenty-five foot (25 foot) wide calculation band where the topographic gradient within the banded area exceeds twenty percent (20%). The topographic gradient within the banded area may be calculated manually, or by digitizing/plotting software capable of producing the desired analytical documents. The calculation method and analytical documents for each method shall be as follows: Z.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 4 � ti Manual Method Using the slope formula specified herein, the topographic gradient calculation must be calculated using a map with five foot intervals between contour lines on a 40-scale map (1 11=40 ) and the maximum size subarea for calculation purposes must not exceed 2,500 feet (0.057 acre); see Attachment 1 for an example of the graphic technique used to implement the manual analysis method S = 0.00229 x I x L S=average cross slope of ground in percent A I = contour interval in feet L = combined length of all contours (in feet) A = area of the calculation subarea in acres Note: When the analysis subarea is confined to 2,500 square feet in a 25 feet by 100feet configuration using five-foot contour intervals, the maximum allowable length of contour lines passing through the analysis area (banded area) totals 100 feet. The applicant shall submit the 40-scale contour map and calculations for each subarea in the toe of slope band for review and approval by the City Engineer. If requested, the applicant shall provide on the land in question, up to one survey stake per one hundred feet of toe of slope boundary. Automated Digital Method Use computer software capable of calculating topographic gradient from digitized contour data and then outputs the calculation results by shading the map areas that have topographic gradients exceeding twenty percent (20%). The shaded calculation results shall be plotted onto two different backgrounds: 1) an 80-scale rectified color aerial photograph, and 2) an 80-scale topographic contour map with five feet contour intervals. The applicant shall submit the two 80 scale analytic documents specified herein for review and approval by the City Engineer. If requested, the applicant shall provide on the land in question, up to one survey stake per one hundred feet of toe of slope boundary, and a computer file of the analytic documents in a digitized graphic format suitable for viewing on city -owned computers. 3. Can.yons. The canyon areas where the canyon is less than 200 feet wide are included in the HUCO District. The two hundred foot width is measured on the canyon floor perpendicularly to the canyon centerline from the toe of slope boundary on one side of the canyon to the toe of slope boundary on the other side. The applicant shall prepare and submit analytical documentation on a 100-scale (I "=100 ), topographic map, or larger scale (Le., 1 inch equals less than 100 feet). The approved toe of slope shall be drawn on the map, along with a canyon centerline that reasonably approximates the center of the canyon. ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs (° 4. A boulder field is nominally defined as any area regardless of topographic gradient (above or below the toe of slope) in which there is an abundance of large loose boulders lying on the ground surface exposed to sight and possessing the visual appearance and geologic character of other rocky material readily visible on nearby hillside open space areas. Boulder fields are analytically determined by first requesting the City Engineer or appointed representative, to visit the site and confirm the visual and geologic character of the potential boulder field by making a generalized comparison of the boulders in the potential boulder field with the rocky material readily visible on nearby hillside open space. If the visual and geologic character of the potential boulder field is confirmed, the applicant shall prepare a detailed analytical document in which a proposed boundary is shown on a 40-scale rectified color aerial photograph. The City Engineer shall review the document and proposed boundary for appropriateness. In general, but detailed calculations are not required, an area shall be considered a boulder field if eighty percent (80%) of the squares in a continuous grid of 10 feet by 10 feet squares are occupied by at least one boulder, or if at least eighty percent (80%) of the squares in the grid network have a third, or more, of the ground surface containing an exposed rock outcropping. For the purposes of this section, a large loose boulder is defined as any rock material identified in the first phase of the boulder field determination, that is detached from its' place of origin and its' largest caliper dimension is two (2) feet or larger. The City Engineer's boundary review and analytical confirmation shall be the basis of a recommendation to the Planning Commission for final approval. The Planning Commission shall have final approval authority of the boulder field boundary and may make any adjustments to the boundary it deems appropriate. 5. Topographic Aberrant - Unique or potentially significant topographic or geologic features such as, waterfalls, watercourses, and rock outcroppings. These features are typically different in character with the balance of developable land and not above the toe of slope. 6. Sand Dunes - a sand dune is defined as a mound or ridge of loose sand piled up by the wind. B. Permitted Uses in HG HUGO District. ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 6 C The following uses within the 14G HUGO District shall be permitted in areas of less than 20 above the toe of slope a. Golf courses (not including above -ground structures), including fairways, greens, tees, and golf -cart paths to access them; b. Flood -control structures; c. Parks and lakes, eftd passive reereation fae4ities; d. Water wells, pumping stations, and water tanks (if properly screened); e Power, telephone, and cable substations and transmission lines (if properly screened or undergrounded); f. T.V., cable, and radio antennas; g. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting motorized vehicles; h. Single family residential uses (ten acres per lot); i. Accessory uses necessary to establish and maintain the permitted uses, such as roads, gate -houses, on -site subdivision signs, parking lots, noncommercial community association, recreation, and assembly buildings and facilities. j. Fencing necessary to mitigate environmental impacts. 2. The following uses within the HUGOG district shall be permitted on slopes exeeeding equal to or greater than 20 percent: a. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles; b. Access roads which shall be non -visible from adjacent properties unless applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the City that the only access to a non -visible area must traverse a visible area. (Ownership or non -ownership of property is not sufficient proof of reason to place a road in a visible area.) Roads shall not exceed 15 percent grade. c. Golf course (not including above ground structures), including tees, greens, fairways, and cart paths to access therm d. Flood control structures. e. Fencing necessary to mitigate environmental impacts. E. Conditional Use Permit Required. In addition to the requirements of this Section, all development within the HG HUGO District shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 9.210.020, including City Council approval. F. Site Development Review Required. All development in the HUGO District shall be subject to site development review by the Piamiing Getmnissi pursuant to Section 9.210.010. "Development" in this context shall include the following: grading, building, grubbing, or permitting any heavy equipment (equipment whose function is digging, clearing, earth -moving, grading, or a similar function disruptive to the natural terrain) access to the HG HUGO District property. ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 7 V a,y G. Criteria for Review of Grading Plans. The Plaming Commission and City Couneii shftI4 Consideration shall be given to the following matters in reviewing of grading proposals in the HG HUGO District. Conditions may be attached to the approval of grading plans so as to achieve the purpose and intent of this Section and the following objectives: 1. The health and safety of the public; 2. The preservation of vegetation and animal habitat, designation of stream courses as open space, preservation of habitat corridors, encouraging revegetation with drought -tolerant native species; 3. The avoidance of excessive building padding or terracing and cut and fill slopes to reduce the scarring effects of grading; 4. The encouragement of sensitive grading to ensure optimum treatment of natural hillside, -and arroyo and unique geological features; 5. The encouragement of imaginative grading plans to soften the impact of grading on hillsides, including rolled, sloping, or split pads, rounded cut and fill slopes, and post and beam construction techniques; and 6. The maximum retention of vistas, and natural topographic features including mountainsides, ridgelines, hilltops, slopes, rock outcroppings, arroyos, ravines, canyons, and boulder fields. 7. The addition of soil against the hillsides shall meet the City Codes for completed fill (if filling on slope). Slopes shall be graded to conform with the surrounding hillsides, mimicking the natural topography including swales, knolls, ridges, etc., in accordance with the Grading Ordinance. H. Engineering Reviews Required. For every herne site or for every subdivi i 1 4 all development within the HE HUGO District, the following reports shall be prepared by a California -licensed engineer (licensed in the appropriate discipline), and filed with the City Engineer, tmiess speeifieaRy waived by the City Engineer based an a -visit to the proposed site: 1. Hydrology, drainage, and flooding report for all sites; 2. Soil survey of the sites proposed attesting to stability of all sites and the appropriateness of the construction method proposed; 3. Underlying geology/engineering report attesting to stability of all sites; 4. Seismic analysis attesting to the stability of the site(s) and addressing the potential of material above the site(s) impacting the site(s); 5. Access plan showing the preliminary engineering for roads giving access to the proposed site(s); 6. Grading plan for the construction site(s) and access routes; and 7. A utility plan demonstrating the feasibility of providing water for domestic and fire suppression purposes, sewer, power, and other utilities, especially with regard to the scarring effects of the grading necessary to install such utilities. 8. Toe of slope study. • t� ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 8 3 I. Other Studies Required. The following studies shall be filed with the Community Development Department as a part of the application process: 1. All development in the 14G HUGO District shall be subject to a report by a qualified biologist addressing the following: a. Natural vegetation and native plants which may be affected by the project; b. Wildlife habitats, migratory routes (e.g., for Bighorn sheep), and native animal species; and c. A plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within 44G HUGO District. 2. All development in the HE HUGO District shall be subject to a review by a qualified archaeologist addressing the following: a. A review of the literature and records for any known and/or recorded historic or prehistoric resources; b. A survey of the project site for historic or prehistoric resources; and c. A final report of findings including significance determinations, and recommended mitigation and resource treatment shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission Gonmmunity Beveioptnent Direete for review. 3. A viewshed study, including plans and (cross sections) showing visibility of proposed project and grading, as viewed h is to include at least five locations as approved by staff, from surrounding properties located at lower elevations. ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 9 v .J -••-. •• • i•�• • • • • • _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ __•__ _ _ _ _ i. i • i •� _ SPRI NO G q' •i,IIII' MIA 4 i'Im I-. i" i= i •i' i J. Development Standards. 1. 2W=hnum Density an Minimum Lot Size. In the He HUGO District, the maximum density permitted shall be one residential unit per ten acres. On a contiguous parcel which includes areas both above and below the "toe of the slope," residential units may be clustered together below the "toe of the slope" with an approved conditional use permit, to take advantage of buildable areas with lower slope angles thereby, allowing for exceeding the density permitted by the General Plan provided the overall density fbr the pareel of orte uttit per ten aeres is not 7.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 10 _'tJU 2. Maximum Building Height. No structure shall exceed 28 feet and/or be placed in such a way that its outline is visible above a ridgeline. 3. Parking. Off-street requirements shall conform to Chapter 9.150. 4. Roof Equipment. No roof -top equipment for heating, cooling or other purposes shall be permitted. : 5. Utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground exeept for water tanks and 9ttbstatiefts, whieh shail be appropriately sereened and painted in eolars to blend into the baekgrei K. Land Divisions in HC HUGO District. In order to assure compliance with the provisions of this Section, the following requirements shall apply to the proposed division of any property which is partially or completely within the HG HUGO District: A preliminary grading plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Title 13 and this Section shall be submitted (together with other requirements of this Section) with every conditional use permit, tentative subdivision map or parcel map filed for approval. The preliminary grading plan shall show at least one practical, usable, and accessible building site which can be developed in accordance with the provisions of this Section within each proposed lot or parcel. L. Transfer of Development Rights. LOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 11 1. Transfers of development rights shall follow the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 9.190. 2. Any owner of property within the 1G HUGO District may transfer development rights from the 14G HUGO District on the basis of one residential unit per ten acres. 3. Development rights may be transferred as follows: a. Transferred to a subdivided portion of the same property below "the toe of the slope," as presented in a conditional use permit; or b. By means of sale to any area of the City which has been zoned for residential purposes, provided the increase for any particular parcel does not exceed 20 percent of the General Plan density designation. a. Development rights may be retained by an individual. b. Transfer rights may be further sold as provided in Chapter 9.190. 4. Any owner of property within the 1G HUGO District may sell, bequeath or transfer the development rights of the property, in accordance with this Section and Chapter 9.190 to any governmental jurisdiction or any properly organized nonprofit organization whose charter allows for the ownership of public open space. The governmental jurisdiction or nonprofit organization may retain or sell or transfer acquired development rights in accordance with Chapter 9.190. - -- - - - i Nii'v, • i � i i i • i •�� I ; _ _ - _ __: __ _ _ _ �\. � .-,I•lQ•4�,�/YI♦�\77(�\iN)\mil �i/��\; L'\i/il�i\�i\��f' M. Ownership and Maintenance of Recreation/Open Space. Those areas located within a hillside development controlled by this Section which are to remain as undeveloped open space, such as undevelopable slopes and natural landmarks, may be offered for dedication for game preserve, recreation, or open space purposes. Such areas may be offered to a public agency or to a nonprofit land trust conservancy or similar organization whose charter allows for the ownership of recreation and open space which will preserve the natural open space in perpetuity. 2. If an offer of dedication or if such an offer is not accepted, ZOUPDATE-supspcpurcegs 12 U u the developer shall make provisions for the ownership and care of the open space in such a manner that there can be necessary protection and maintenance thereof. Such area shall be provided with appropriate access and shall be designated as a separate parcel or parcels which may be maintained through special fees charged to the residents of the subject development or through an appropriate homeowner's association or maintenance district. •AM �-VMWWWMUM. I.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 13 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT #1 Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1998 A. General Plan Amendment 98-056 and Zoning_Code Amendment 97-057 amending the Zoning Code Chapter 9.140-Hillside Conservation Regulations, and the General Plan Land Use and Environmental Conservation Element regarding Hillside Development Density Transfer; a request of the City to amend Hillside Conservation Regulations and related General Plan Amendments. PC-5-14-98 5 .R l� Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1998 1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio presented the information contained in the staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Community Development Department. 2. Chairman Butler asked if there were any questions of staff. Commissioner Tyler stated that on a recent trip, he had seen a vast proliferation of hillside development and he was glad La Quinta was taking steps to prevent this from happen. The language needs to be made clear regarding the General Plan changes. Commissioner Tyler questioned Page 65, Item #65 where post and beam is used in conjunction with the hillside. Commissioner Kirk clarified that this referred to the retaining of the slopes. Commissioner Tyler stated he basically agreed with staff s recommendation. 3. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to explain "toe of slope". Senior Engineer Steve Speer displayed a drawing that best explained the formulation for determining the "toe of slope" and steepness of the slope. Commissioner Seaton asked staff to elaborate on Page 54 where single family residences would be allowed. Staff explained it is expected that property owners will want to develop their property, but it will be allowed only in an area that has a less than 20% slope gradient above the toe of slope. 4. Commissioner Woodard asked if an applicant could go through an exploratory process to review his project prior to submittal of an application. Staff stated they could review a project with an applicant before requiring an application. Commissioner Woodard asked why staff was asking the applicant to come back with a building elevation. Staff stated it is part of the Site Development review process. Commissioner Woodard asked why a boulder field was considered precious. Staff stated that during the field trips that were held with City Council and Commissioners, concern was raised about losing that unique geologic setting that is offered by a boulder field. Discussion followed as to what is reviewed during the site development/conditional use permit process. 5. Commissioner Woodard asked if an applicant could work with staff to determine the toe of slope before submitting an application. Staff stated this was correct. Commissioner Woodard questioned the use of word "adjacent property owner" on Page 64, Item 2.j. Staff stated this could be removed. Commissioner Woodard questioned Page 66, Item 1.C. 'Staff clarified this was to be required under the biology reporting. Commissioner Woodard questioned Page 68, Item 2, the building height. Staff clarified the concern was the visual impact, but the sentence could be reworded for clarity. PC-5-14-98 6 r+ Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1998 6. Commissioner Gardner asked if any land would be negated from being built upon if these changes were adopted. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the intent was to make development regulations in the hillside more clear. It is not intended to change anyones' rights, but to clarify more specifically how the calculations are done and that the conditional use permit process would be required for any construction above the toe of slope. Commissioner Gardner stated his concern that a property owner may be prohibited from developing his property due to this ordinance. Staff stated they have not changed the ordinance, only clarified. 7. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether or not any member of the Commission had a conflict of interest. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated it was clarified that the Commissioner in question had no financial gain from the changes proposed in the ordinance. Commissioner Kirk asked if the changes proposed prohibited all construction on land above the 20% toe of slope. Staff stated no. Commissioner Kirk asked if any questions had been raised regarding the "taking" of property. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated no, because any challenges had to been made in 1989, when the Hillside Ordinance was first adopted. Commissioner Kirk questioned whether the area that is less than 20% and above the toe of slope could be developed. Staff stated it could. They would, however, have to meet all the other criteria which includes Federal and State regulations. Commissioner Kirk discussed possible scenarios where development could take place under the new regulations. Commissioner Kirk asked if the City Council asked to be the final approving authority on the boulder field boundary. Staff stated it was staff s recommendation to have the City Council be the final authority. It could be changed to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirk suggested some other changes. 8. Chairman Butler asked if anyone would like to address the Commission. Ms. Nicole Criste, Terra Nova Planning, representing Mr. Meyer's property stated her concern with the lack of specifity in the ordinance. There is no specific verbiage on how the viewshed should be directed, the location and method of how this is to be done. The issue of visible roads has limited performance standards; issue of off -site locations, the difficulty of adjacent property owners getting along and unwilling to grant access all are a problem for Mr. Meyers. For Mr. Meyers would be prohibited from developing a road under the proposed changes, and he has a concern regarding the definition of "toe of slope". The calculation method should not apply to areas that are errodded rather than bedrock. Finally, regarding the issue of boulderfields, the definition allows for the development of a grid system within 100 square feet and a two foot caliper for the largest of the boulders. Their concern is about an area that happens to have large rocks at 15-20 foot intervals. PC-5-14-98 7 Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1998 9. Chairman Butler asked if these issues would be addressed during the conditional use permit application that Mr. Meyers would be required to submit. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated yes. Chairman Butler asked if Mr.. Meyers would be taking his project through the conditional use permit process. Staff stated yes, and staff would be determining the areas of study. 10. Mr. Chevis Hosea, 55-920 PGA Boulevard, stated his concern was viewshed and intrusion into the mountain. In particular as it relates to golf courses. He suggested this item be continued and offered to work with the City and other property owners, to determine finite wording that could be site specific. There needs to be a method of controlling flood debris that comes off the mountain. He would like to request a series of meetings to create better wording. 11. Chairman Butler asked if golf courses and watershed development would be affected by the ordinance. Staff stated they should be addressed. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated the reluctance has been expressed by both the Commission and City Council to allow any physical changes on the slope area of the mountain. Chairman Butler asked about the viewshed. Staff stated this is one of the issues that complicates the ordinance. 12. There being no other public comment, the public participation portion of the hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion. 13. Commissioner Kirk asked if Page 65, Item 7 allows some soil to be moved up against the hillside. Staff stated it did. Commissioner Kirk stated it was his belief this may be one of the most important decisions they make. The conditional use permit process seems to make some sense as every property is different. However, he is concerned that property owners such as Mr. Meyers are not given any amount of certainty as to what he is able to develop. He asked if the ordinance could be tightened up any further to give the property owner more definition as to what he is able to do. Staff stated no, as it is impossible to make a requirement for every possible situation. Commissioner Kirk asked if any other cities have used the conditional use permit approach. Staff stated that this ordinance is a compilation of what has been researched and received from 50 other cities. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated a lot of other cities use the conditional use permit process for a lot of different applications and most commercial projects. PC-5-14-98 a t" l Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 1998 14. Commissioner Woodard stated he shared Commissioners Kirk's concern that it is not more specific and yet he applauds staff s work. The issues raised by Ms. Criste of Terra Nova could be resolved by tightening up the ordinance even more. If the ordinance is not tightened up, it opens the City up to more difficult interpretation. It may be worth the City's efforts to hold meetings with major property owners. 15. Commissioner Tyler stated he agreed with Commissioner Kirk that this was important and he was not comfortable that it is written correctly. Based on the issues that have not been raised, he too would agree with continuing this item. 16. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Tyler to continue this item to June 29, 1998. 17. Chairman Butler stated he too believes this to be an important ordinance that needs to be adopted, and perhaps allowing property owners the opportunity to speak regarding this issue should be allowed. 18. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the ordinance should be written by what the City wants and not be developer driven. 19. Commissioner Abels stated it has been known that the Planning Commission has been discussing this issue and he is disappointed that so few people have shown up to speak. 20. Commissioner Kirk stated that in providing direction to staff, he would suggest that more certainty be given to the issues raised by Ms. Criste of Terra Nova. Staff should offer some options on the key areas such as boulder fields and toe of slope. In comparison to this he would be interested in what would happen if you were to draw a line and say nothing would be allowed above the toe of slope? He would suggest staff prepare one or two hillside properties and show the impact the ordinance would have on them. Staff stated the examples would be difficult as no contours are available and it is not known what type of development would be proposed. Commissioner Kirk again stated examples staff might use. 21. Chairman Butler asked for a voice vote and the motion to continue Zoning Ordinance Amendment 97-057 and General Plan Amendment 98-056 carried unanimously. PC-5-14-98 9 i At ATTACHMENT 2 VIEWSHED INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM OTHER CITIES E. View preservation and enhanceme.nt: One of the major focuses of Carlsbad's Hillside Development Regulations is to assure development sensitivity the view the City will have of tfie Hillside Development. There are almost as manywa s hillsidesis , The as illustrations show samethere are design solutions. Other designs can also creatistandard sensitively assure the views of hillsides and from hillsides are aesthetically pleasing. from the best way to et an understanding of view view from the hillside and writerdowno what nareas eOf nthe� s i to You can see. Then go to those places and look up City hillside area. What is good about the view to the hillside? the How can is be designed to assure the view faith. hillside is enhanced and attractivelyto the hidden within the natural hillside environment? into or is R VIEW ENHANCED I FROM HILLSIDE SITE '-�RUGAPINa OF HILLSIDE I1 R SLOPES FRAMES! HILLSIDE STRUCTURE tA[6 M 500 490 4s CM A _ !� -T' ASO --- AGO pART I - HILLSIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES A. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Existing Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance regulations allow the Planning Director to require the submittals listed below for planned development or tentative tract map applications. When applicable, the Planning Director may also require these submittals for hillside developments that are processed with a site plan review or use permit application. Additional submittals may also be required following environmental review of the proposed project. 1. A Topographic Survey that shows con- tour lines at maximum 5-foot intervals with the location of all structures, improvements, trees, natural vegetation, rock outcroppings, drainage courses, and other significant site features accurately recorded. The survey shall be prepared by a California licensed surveyor or civil engineer. 2 A Preliminary Grading Plan, based on the topographic survey, that accurately in- dicates existing and proposed finish grades, proposed structures and retaining walls" and proposed drainage provisions. Cross - sections should also be submitted showing the relationship of proposed structures (in- cluding floor elevations) to existing and proposed finish grades. 3. A Soils Engineering Reportthat evalu- ates data regarding the nature, distribution and strengths of existing soils, conclusions and recommendations for grading proce- dures, design criteria for any identified cor- rective measures, and opinions and recom- mendations regarding existing conditions and proposed grading. This investigation and report shall be performed by a Califon nia licensed civil engineer• 4. A Geology Report that evaluates the surface and subsurface geology of the site, degree of seismic hazard, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed devel- opment, opinions and recommended de- sign criteria to mitigate any identified geo- logic hazards including locations of sui fact: and subsurface fault lines in the area. This investigation and report shallbe performs-'. by a California registered geologist or engi- neering geologist. 5A Visual Analysis that analyzes the visual impact of the proposed development from critical vantage points, such as open space areas and adjacent residential devel- opment. As determined by the Planning Director, the visual analysis should include a color rendering, computer simulation, photomontage, scale model, or another graphic representation that accurately shows the scale, bulk, and relationship of the pro- posed development to the topography and surrounding area. SUBDIVISIONS J2. Viewshed. % a. View from land subject to the provisions of these development standards should be respected through design. b. Living areas of dwelling units should be faced onto open, green or view areas. c. Proposed structures should be located in such a manner as to avoid as much as possible interference with the view from other existing or proposed dwelling units. E. Ridgeline Development Standards. In order to implement the findings of these development standards, there shall be no development along ridgelines easily visible from the valley floor in order to preserve the existing backdrop to the community, and to maintain the open character of the visually prominent ridgelines surrounding Camarillo. The purpose of this section is to set forth standards for main- taining such ridgelines and their immediate adjacent slopes. 1. Areas to Remain Undeveloped. a. Structures subject to the provisions of these development standards shall not be constructed on top of any visually prominent ridgeline, unless the planning commission and/or city council after con- sidering evidence determines that there is no feasible alternative. b. No point on any structure subject to the provisions of these development standards shall be closer to a visually prominent ridgeline than one hundred and fifty feet measured horizontally on a topo- graphic map or fifty feet measured vertically on a cross-section, whichever is more restrictive, except that this requirement shall not affect the location of structures where the highest portion of the structure is below the visible elevation of a prominent ridgeline. 2. Definitions. a. A "visually prominent ridgeline" means any hill location visible from the valley floor, measured (Camarillo 11-88) 478-126 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS from a distance of five hundred feet back from the toe of the slope which is a slope of five percent or less, as determined by the director of planning and community development or his designees. F. Landscaping Standards. All hillside property -subject to these development standards shall be landscaped and irrigated, where determined necessary, in such a manner to reduce fire hazard, stabilize cut/fill slopes, reduce erosion, retain moisture, and enhance the natural scenic beauty of the valley. 1. Retention of Vegetation. Wherever possible, well - adapted, drought -resistant natural flora shall be retained. 2. Major Tree Planting. The planting of major trees in areas to remain in natural open space should include, but not be limited to, the following native species: a. Juglans California hindsi (California Black Walnut); b. Plantanus racemosa (California Sycamore); c. Quercus agrifolia (California Live Oak); d. Quercus lobata ( Valley Oak). 3. Landscaping in Application Area. Landscaping in appli- cation area should be integrated with other elements of the proposal and comply with other guidelines for the preservation of natural topographic features, the view of ridgelines from the valley floor and the preservation of vistas. (Ord. 652 § 2 (part), 1988.) 18.100.040 Required technical reports and materials. At the time of submittal for subdivision application, certain technical reports and materials shall also be submitted in addi- tion to those required by Section 18.10.030. No application for a subdivision will be accepted as complete until all required reports and materials have been submitted. Such reports and materials will be used to determine the suitability of the subject site for development and to suggest special construction and design measures necessary to mitigate identified problems 478-127 (Camarillo ti-88) CLPL ZL �� 7CiGf-C LG 18.18.100-18.18-105 II. HLC HILLSIDE LAND CAPACITY OVERLAY DISTRICT 18,18.100 Generally. The hillside land capacity overlay district established by this chapter is intended to apply to hillside parcels with a potential for substantial additional development, with a slope of more than ten percent, and which comprise any part of the ridges, sideslopes, or extensions of Corte Madera Ridge, Meadowsweet Ridge, or Tiburon Peninsula Ridge. The specific parcels within the HLC hillside land capacity overlay district are designated "hillsides, ridgelands, and related habitat" on Figure 8, Open Space, of the general plan and are shown on the town zoning map. 1$ 18 105 Development standards. The following regulations shall apply to the site of any proposed development within the district: (1) A geologic investigation and report by a qualified engineering geologist may be required for any proposed development, and shall be required for any proposed development on a site containing significant areas with slopes of 30 percent or more, and/or any site designated as "3" or "4" in the map entitled "Interpretation of the Relative Stability of Upland Slopes in the Tiburon Peninsula, Sausalito, and Adjacent Areas, Marin County, California, 1976," prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, which map forms the basis of Figure 11, Relative Slope Stability, in the general plan; In addition, the planning director may require that a geologic investigation and report be prepared for areas off the site that may cause a hazard on the site. (2) No portion of a site with a slope of 30 percent or more, and no portion of a site designated as "4" in the map entitled "Interpretation of the Slope Stability of Upland Slopes in the Tiburon Peninsula, Sausalito, and Adjacent Areas, Marin County, California, 1976," prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, shall be proposed for development except as the boundaries of these areas may be refined on the basis of an engineering geologic investigation and report prepared by a qualified engineering geologist. The report shall identify those area where unstable slopes and other geologic hazards can be eliminated with minor modification of the existing land form and vegetation, area for which elimination of the hazard would result in major modification of the existing land form, removal of, or potential damage to, established natural vegetation, or exposure of slopes that cannot suitably be revegetated, and area determined to be too hazardous for development; (3) Development shall preserve the natural qualities of sloping terrain rather than shaping a site for the purpose of facilitating development or increasing development intensity. (4) The density established on the general plan diagram for a parcel of land may be reduced if slope stability evaluation indicates a geologic or slope stability hazard, provided that in no case shall a parcel be deemed undevelopable if it can meet health and safety standards; (5) No building shall be located directly on a visible ridge unless the planning commission 1 finds that there is no other location on the site which can accommodate a building consistent with all other regulations and constraints applicable to the zone(s) in which the site is located. Any portion of any development proposed to be located within 50 vertical feet of the ridgeline as defined in Chapter 18.04, Definitions, points of elevation 50 feet below and on both sides of the ridgeline, or proposed to be located in any area identified within the scenic resources overlay district as shown on Figure 8, open space, in the general plan, shall be evaluated on the basis of a visual analysis I-9 .�vt) 18.18.105--18.18.110 prepared by an architect, landscape architect, or other qualified professional. This analysis shall include view sections from area within the town designated by the planning director and shall be subject to the special site plan and design guidelines prescribed by Chapter 18.30, Design Review. The visual analysis shall consider the type and extent of natural vegetation and tree cover on the site and shall contain recommendations on: the limits to which the vegetation and tree cover can be removed without significant adverse visual impact; the most effective method of revegetation where a slope is cleared in preparing the site for development; and the treatment of building sites on hill slopes devoid of natural tree cover. Dedication of ridgetop land and/or the provision of a trail segment through a portion of the site may be required as a condition of approval of a preliminary development plan or a precise development plan; (6) For proposed development within an area designated "high or moderately high fire hazard" by the safety element of the general plan, a study and report by a registered civil engineer and qualified biologist shall be required. The biologist's report shall include a classification of the site or portions of the site by degree of risk related to possible damage to structures from wildland fires in the existing plant communities and shall contain specific recommendations for preventing damage to structures from wildland fires. The civil engineer's report shall evaluate the adequacy of the water supply on the site for fire fighting purposes and shall contain specific recommendations for ensuring that all new development provides a water supply for firefighting meeting the standards of the town's fire chief. 1$ 18 110 Permitted density of development. The maximum number of units that may be permitted on a site shall be determined in the following manner: (1) All measurements shall be in square feet or, if in acres, to the nearest tenth of an acre, as most appropriate to the size of the site; (2) The total area of all portions of the site designated as "4" on the map entitled "Interpretation of the Slope Stability of Upland Slopes in the Tiburon Peninsula, Sausalito, and Adjacent Areas, Marin County, California 1976," prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology, shall be calculated, and no credit shall be given for these areas except as provided below. For purposes of the preliminary development plan, the boundaries of these areas may be transferred from available maps. Adjustments of the boundaries may be made at a later stage in the review process on the basis of more precise data available from an engineering geologic soil report. Where the engineering geologic soil report indicates that an identified hazardous condition can be eliminated with only minor modification of the existing land form and vegetation, the area may be considered eligible for purposes of the calculations prescribed in subsection (3) of this section; however, if the report reveals the presence of a hazardous condition that cannot be eliminated with only minor modification of existing land form and vegetation, such area shall not be considered eligible for purposes of the calculations; (3) The maximum number of units that may be permitted in a proposed development shall be determined by multiplying the area of land in each slope category by the capacity factor shown in the following schedule, adding the products of these calculations converted to square feet, and dividing this figure by the required site area per unit in square feet prescribed in the underlying zoning district; I-10 B. Projects located wholly or in part within the boundaries of the BSC Overlay Zone for which a Design Review Permit is required pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board under the following standards: 1. In order to preserve viewsheds and the open space appearance of the area from a distance, no structure shall exceed a height of 14 feet as measured pursuant to the provisions of this Code, unless the Design Review 'Board finds that scenic viewsheds and open space appearance will be unaffected by higher structures. 2. Construction, irrigation and landscaping shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board, to ensure that they will harmonize with the natural as well as the manmade environment and to ensure that the protection of the natural landfor<ms and vegetation takes precedence over architectural values. 3. No grimary scenic views or scenic views from public streets, roads or pedestrian trails shall be obstructed, unless the Design Review Board finds that there is no feasible alternative siting which eliminates or significantly reduces the obstruction, and that the bulk and scale of the proposed structure have been minimized by the greatest extent feasible commensurate with preserving the physical characteris- tics of the site. C. The following activities shall not be subject to the receipt of a Conditional Use Permit: 1. The grading of a fire break or the clearance of vegetation when required, pursuant to an order from the Del Mar Fire Department. The Fire Department's order shall require the grading or - clearance of no more material than is minimally necessary to provide for protection of public health and safety. 2. The replacement or removal of vegetative material when such activities are carried out in a manner which does not threaten the preservation of sandstone bluffs, canyons, and related slopes that characterize properties within the Bluff, Slope and Canyon Overlay Zone and when such activities are carried out in a manner that does not create the potential for adverse erosion to adjacent properties or downstream resources. (Ord. 582) K.--d S.Pt-, . ; 34 APPENDIX A SCENIC RIDGELINE ANALYSIS GUIDELINES :'he analysis of scenic ridgelines required by Policy 1 X A.4 shall be conducted according to the following guidelines: i' 1. A visibility analysis shall be required for creation of new Iots and for other projects over which the City exercises discretionary authority located within 200 feet of either side ' (based on a horizontal projection) of the center line of a major scenic ridgeline as shown on Figure 11-7, \Major Scenic Ridgelines. Such analysis shall include a cross-section drawing at a horizontal scale of I "=200' and a vertical scale of 1 "=40' showing all existing and proposed tree cover and structures. Cross -sections shall be constructed at 500 foot intervals perpendicular to the ridgeline using a topographic base map with a contour interval of no greater than 5' on the subject property and 20' on the balance of the section. A sight line shall be shown on the section illustrating a ground -level line -of - sight view of the ridgeline as viewed from a distance of three quarters of a mile (4,000 feet) as measured perpendicular to the ridgeline (see Figure A-1), or i 2. A computer -simulated photo montage showing before and after views of the ridgeline from pertinent vantage points may be substituted for the cross -sections. 201 GROUNC LEVEL VIEW POINT 3/4 MILE (4,000 ft.) Figure A-1 RIDGELIKE DIAGRAMS 'ROJECTION ill INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.060(b)(1) Natural Features Map. A natural features map identifying all slops banks, ridgeiines, natural drainage courses, rock outcroppings, existing vegetation anc other natural features determined to be worthy of consideration for preservation. Alsc depicted shall be landslides and other existing geologic hazards. Each feature depictec shall be noted for its visual (V) significance, environmental function (E) or both. 22.04.060(b)(2) Review t!y Biologist. All development shall be subject to a review bi a qualified biologist, who shall address the following: (1) natural vegetation and nativc plants which may be affected by the project; III) wildlife habitats, migratory routes (e.g. for Bighorn sheep), and native animal species; (ill) plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals within designated hillside areas. 22.04.060(b)(3) Review �y Archaeologist. All development shall be subject to review by a qualified archaeologist, who shall address the following: (I) a througt examination of the site for archaeological remains; (11) a plan for the salvage of an) significant findings; (iii) a review of the site for any significant historic or cuitura resources. 22.04.060(b)(4) Preservation Plan. A plan for the preservation of all areas slopes tc remain in natural state including the designation of all water courses both natural and man made, with plans for the preservation and/or reintroduction of drought tolerant plants. 22.04.060(b)(5) Conceptual Landscape Plan. A conceptual landscape plan whict addresses entryway treatments, streetscapes and other overall landscape elements. l 22.04.060(b)(6) Other Analytic and Illustrative Techniques. To aid in the analysis o, the proposed project to illustrate existing or proposed conditions or both the followinj items shall be required: (1) a topographic model; ()i) a line of sight or view analysis; (ii11) photographic renderings; (iv or any other illustrative technique determined necessary to aid in review of a project. 22.04.060(c) Additional Required Items. As part of the application process the following items shall be filed with the Director of Community Development: 22.04.060(c)(1) Statement of Conditions for Ultimate Ownership and Maintenance. A statement of conditions for ultimate ownership and maintenance of all parts of the development including street, structures, and open spaces; 22.04.060(c)(2) Topographic Map of Possible Future Design. In the event that nc grading is proposed, i.e. custom lot subdivision, a statement to that effect shall be filec with a plan which shows possible future house plotting, lot grading, and driveway desigr for each parcel proposed, to be prepared on a topographic map drawn at the same scale a., the conceptual grading plan; March, 1995 TITLE 22-7 INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE 22.04.092(f)(2) View Corridors from Downslope Lots. Whenever possible, dwelling units and structures, parking areas, and associated landscaped areas shall be arranged in manner which preserves or enhances view corridors from downsiope lots. 22.04.092(f)(3) Skyline Profiles. In order to retain skyline profiles, no point on an structure subject to the provisions of this document shall be closer to a ridgeline than onf hundred and fifty feet (150') measured horizontally on a topographic map or fifty feet (50 measured vertically on a cross section. 22.04.092(f)(4) Natural Hillside Profile. In order to retain the integrity of the nature hillside profile, the following techniques are to be taken into consideration: 22.04.09210141(1) Whenever possible, the natural ridgeline shall be used as a backdro for structures. 22.04.092(f)(4)(ii) Whenever possible, graded areas shall be designed wit manufactured slopes located on the uphill side of structures, thereby, hiding any grade slope behind the structure. 22.04.092(f)(4)(iii) When appropriate, landscape plant materials should be used as supplement or substitute for a ridgeline backdrop in the event that a natural ridgeline i altered. 22.04.092(f)(5) Excessive Slope Conditions. In excessive slope conditions (fiftee percent 115 %] slope and greater), minimum spacing requirements for building envelope adjacent to a street (public or private) may be reduced to a minimum of 19 feet from bac of curb or back of sidewalk, whichever is more restrictive, in order to minimize rear yar grading. 22.04.092(f)(6) Site Planning Techniques. Whenever possible, development project shall incorporate clustering, variable setbacks and building heights, multiple buildin orientations, and other site planning techniques to preserve open space, protect nature features, and allow view opportunities. 22.04.092(a) Building Envelopes. 22.04.092(g)(1) To promote a more sensitive building design and reinforce the nature slope profile, the permitted building envelope for all structures within a hillside area shall b as follows: 22.04.092(g)(1)(1) Permitted Height. An overall maximum height of eighteen feet 0 8 is permitted, as measured from the average percent slope of the building site. 22.04.092(g)(11(H) Calculation of Average Percent Slope. The method for computin average percent slope of the building site shall be calculated extending a line through th mid -point of the building site perpendicular [at right angles] to the natural slope prior to an site disturbance. For each pair of contour lines which intersects [crosses] the mid-poir March, 1995 TITLE 22-20 PH #B PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 9, 1998 CASE NO.: ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 97-058 (A) AND 98-061(A) INITIATED BY: CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 9 (ZONING CODE) OF THE LA QUINTA MUNICIPAL CODE ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: SAID AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE EXEMPT PER SECTION 15061 (B, 3) OF THE GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. BACKGROUND: Previous Review These cases were previously reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 26,1998. The Commission took action to recommend approval by adoption of Resolution 98-040 with the exception of Section 9.100.040 (Landscaping). At that time, staff was asked to restudy how earth berming and storm water retention requirements could both be achieved in landscaped setback areas adjacent to streets. Staff has determined that for residential projects, berming is not needed since there is a upslope away from the street. This upslope is normally two feet of fill with a six foot wall adjacent to or within the landscaped setback. In this case, the effect of any berming is minimal at best. In the case of commercial property fronting on Highway 111, a 50 foot landscaped setback is required. Staff has determined that berming of three to four feet in height over 65% of the setback area in combination with on -site retention of adjacent street and landscaped setback area storm water can be achieved. However, the combination of three foot to four foot high berming and storm water retention of setback cannot be accomplished within 20 foot wide landscape setbacks. Staff is recommending not allowing retention within 20 foot wide setbacks in order to ensure adequate screening of the parking lots with berms. Staff also recommends two further changes to the Zoning Code as a result of recent events. The current definition of a "Recreational Vehicle or RV" includes among others p:\stan\pc rpt zca 97-058 (a) & 98-061(a) 6-9 things, "all trailers or any vehicle placed on a trailer such as a boat, watercraft, or other vehicle ...." (Section 9.60.130 D.). As written this definition includes trailers used for commercial purposes such as construction or gardening. In the RC (Cove) Residential Zone, these recreational vehicle trailers are allowed to be parked in the front yard on or adjacent to the driveway, as well as the side and rear yard. This conflicts with Section 12.32.110, of the Municipal Code (Title 12-Vehicles and Traffic) which prohibits "towed commercial or construction equipment" from being parked in the front yard area in all areas of the City. Staff recommends that the Recreational Vehicle definition be revised to specifically exclude trailers used in a business or for commercial purposes. They would continue to be regulated under Section 12.32. 110. Under Chapter 9.190, Transfer of Development Rights, Section 9.190.010 (5 and 5c.) refers to allowances for residential density bonuses for "good design or special amenities". This provision was based on a policy in the General Plan. In 1996, the policy was removed, and therefore, reference to "good design or special amenities" should be taken out of the Zoning Code. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98- , recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendments 97-058 (A) and 98-061 (A), amending the La Quinta Zoning Code (Title 9). CONCLUSION: The changes as noted above are necessary to update the Zoning Code. Findings as note in the attached resolution can be made to recommend approval to the City Council. Attachment: 1. Recommended Zoning Code changes Prepared by: Stan B. Sawa, Principal Planner Submitted Ob Christine di lorio, Planning Manager pAstan\pc rpt zca 97-058 (a) & 98-061(a) 6-9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF CHANGES TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (TITLE 9) ZONING CODE AMENDMENTS 97-058 (A) AND 98-061 (A) CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did, on the 9" day of June, 1998, continued from the 26" day of May, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider Zoning Code Amendments; and, WHEREAS, it has been determined that changes to the Zoning Code are needed to ensure development of high quality ; and, WHEREAS, changes to various sections are needed to be clarified to allow better development practices; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to minimize and control these adverse impacts and thereby protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens, preserve quality of life, preserve property values and the character of the City; and, WHEREAS, said Amendments have been determined to be exempt per Section 15061 (b,3) of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined the following findings can be made: 1. The proposed code amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan in that the amendments will provide for enhanced residential and nonresidential development throughout the City. 2. The proposed code amendments will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare in that they are created to enhance the developed City, thus ensuring the protection of the cities citizens. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California as follows: p:\stan\pc reso-zca 97-058 (a)& 98-061(b) Planning Commission Resolution 98- 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Planning Commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendments 97-058 (A) and 98-061(A) for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as noted in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made part of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission, held this 9th day of June, 1998, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RICH BUTLER, Chairman City of La Quinta, California ATTEST: JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director City of La Quinta, California p:\stan\pc reso-zca 97-058 (a)& 98-061(b) a ina..cnppi.FMFNTAL NONRESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 3. Permanent automatic irrigation facilities shall be provided for all landscaped areas. 4. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, clean and healthy condition at all times, including proper pruning, mowing of lawns, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants when necessary, and regular watering. 5. Height of landscaping along all streets and boundaries shall comply with Section 9.100.030 (Fences and Walls). 6. The majority of the plant material used in landscaped areas shall be water efficient and drought tolerant. Z Perimeter setback and parkway areas in the street right of way shall have berms and mounds to screen parking areas in the adjacent comfnercial property. One hundred percent (100%) of the longitudinal length adjacent to the street shall have berms and mounds exceeding three feet, but not more than four feet The berms and mounds shall be undulated and fluctuating in position to accommodate the meandering sidewalk and shall cover not less than 65 % of the landscape setback area. C. Use of Landscape Setback Areas for Retention along Highway 111 only. The landscape setback area shall not be used for storm water retention for storm water falling on the project site, but may be used for some storm water retention for storm water falling within the setback area itself and the adjacent street right of way provided the retention areas are designed to the following guidelines: 1. The maximum depth of the depressed areas for storm water retention shall not exceed Z.0 feet below the adjacent street curb Z. The maximum slope steepness shall not exceed 4:1 anywhere in the landscaped setback area, and shall not exceed 8.1 in the first six feet adjacent to the curb in the right of way. 3. The basin areas shall have a curvilinear perimeter. 4. The sidewalk shall not enter any retention area where the sidewalk may be subject to inundation by any 50 year storm. 9.100.050 Screening. A. .Screening Required. Screening shall be provided for all nonresidential uses in accordance with this Section. The Planning Commission may also require screening beyond that required in this Section as a condition of approval for a development project if it determines that such measures are necessary to mitigate adverse visual impacts created by the project. CAMy Documents\WPDO-CS\zoupdate-nonresidential.wpd 100-4 9.60. SUPPLEMENTAL RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS 9.60.120 Pets and Other Animals. In addition to the required setbacks for structures set forth in this Code for the applicable zoning district, all pens, cages (except dog runs), and other structures specifically for keeping animals overnight, other than in the residence, shall be located at least 50 feet from any adjoining existing residential structure, or, if no residential structure exists, at least 50 feet from such areas where a residential structure may be legally located. Such areas may be defined by any combination of zoning setback requirements, easements or recorded CC&R's. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, the keeping of horses shall be regulated by Section 9.140.060 (Equestrian Overlay Regulations). 9.60.130 Recreational Vehicle Parking. (Revised 5/97) A. Intent. It is the intent of this Section to provide for the orderly storage of recreational vehicles. It is intended to supplement any applicable State and/or local regulations which may be applicable. B. Purpose. Recreation vehicles may be parked or stored on residentially zoned property only in accordance with the provisions set forth in this Section. Recreational vehicles parked within a validly established recreation vehicle storage facility are exempt from the requirements of this Section. C. Definition. For purposes of this Code, a "Recreational Vehicle" or "RV" shall mean all trailers or any vehicle placed on a trailer such as a boat, watercraft, or other vehicle, plus any vehicle designed and used for temporary habitation, including motor homes, travel trailers, "5th wheels", and camper shells that extend more than 12-inches above the roof of the pickup truck on which it is located. Passenger vans which have been converted for use as a recreational vehicle and do not exceed nine feet in height are exempt from this Section. This section shall not apply to commercial or construction vehicles which are regulated by Section IZ32.110- IZ32.130. D. Storage of R I''s. 1. ,Street Parking. No RV shall be parked, or stored, for more than 72 consecutive hours or for a combined total exceeding 72 hours during any seven (7) day period, at any public street location or combination of public street locations within the City. 2. ,Storage on Residential Property. No person shall store, park, or maintain any RV or parts thereof in any required front yard area of any property zoned RVL, RL, or RM. The recreational vehicle or parts thereof may be stored or parked in a side or rear yard provided that a lawfully installed and permanently maintained solid wall or fence six feet in height screens such RV, or parts thereof from abutting property and from the public right-of-way. The area in which the RV is parked or stored, must be paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, or similar materials, and must extend to the width and length of the RV. Areas containing grass or native soil are not approved for the parking or storage of RV's. RV's may be parked or stored in the front, side, or rear yards of residential properties located in the RC Zone, provided that the area in which the RV is parked or stored is paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, or similar materials, and must extend to the width and length of the RV. A property 7.oupdate-residential&supresidential 60-14 9.190. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS 4. "Fractions" means development rights or credits may be transferred as a fraction carried to the second decimal place, rounded up or down to the second place following the rule of the third decimal being zero through four, rounded down; five through nine rounded up to the next digit in the second decimal place. When applied to the receiving parcel, the number of credits (carried to the second decimal place) will be spread across the acreage of the receiving parcel and will be translated into an increment of additional development entitlements carried to two decimal places per acre. 5. "Density bonuses" means transferred development rights or credits shall not be counted in the basis for density bonuses granted for providing for affordable housing or goeKi design or speeial ame es. The order in which bonuses and transferred rights or credits are applied shall be as follows: a. The base density ranges as per the general plan; b. Density bonuses applied for providing affordable housing (up to thirty percent of the base density alone); d-.c. Transferred densities added to the final figure of any density bonuses. Transferred densities shall not become a part of the base on which bonuses are figured. e.d. In no case shall the sum of all density bonus and transferred densities (if all are maximized) exceed sixty percent of the base density in the general plan. F. "Enabling Section" means a Section of Title 9 of this code which creates and further specifies and limits the transfer of development rights or credits, such as Section 9.140.040 (Hillside Conservation Regulations) G. "Timing" means the time limits as specified in Section 9.190.040. H. "Documentation" means the requirements for City approval, recordation and notice to the City of such recordation, following example language specified in Section 9.190.050. 9.190.030 Procedures. A. The enabling Section shall specify by class the donor parcels and the receiving parcels, the number of residential development rights or credits which can be transferred per square footage or per acre; and the limits of development rights or credits which can be transferred to any one parcel. CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\zoupdate-tdr.wpd 190-2