1998 06 23 PC�b OF M�v
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
June 23, 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 98-043
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 June 9, 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 HUGO
District
Request ....................
Amendment to Zoning Code Chapter 9.140 (Hillside
Conservation Regulations), HUGO and the General Plan Land
Use and Environmental Conservation Elements regarding
Hillside Development Density Transfers
Action .....................
Resolution 98- , Resolution 98- , and Resolution 98-
B. Item .....................
TENTATIVE TRACT 28838
Applicant ...............
KSL Land Corporation
Location ................
Southeast corner of Madison Street and Airport Boulevard
within PGA West
Request .................
Consideration of an approval of a 200 single family and other
miscellaneous lots subdivision on 133.42 acres in Specific Plan
83-002 and 90-017.
Action ...................
Resolution 98- ,
VI. BUSINESS ITEMS: None
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL
VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS
A. Commission report on the City Council meeting of June 16, 1998.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
PC/AGENDA
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, CA
June 9, 1998
CALL TO ORDER
A. This meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by
Chairman Butler who asked Commissioner Abels to lead the flag salute.
B. Chairman Butler requested the roll call: Present: Commissioners Abels, Kirk,
Seaton, Tyler, and Chairman Butler. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners
Seaton/Abels to excuse Commissioner Gardner. Unanimously approved.
Commissioner Woodard arrived at 7:10
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 Leslie Mouriquand, and Executive
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
II. PUBLIC COMMENT: None
III. CONFIRMATION OF THE AGENDA: Confirmed
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Chairman Butler asked if there were any changes to the Minutes of May 26, 1998.
Commissioner Kirk asked that Page 3, Item 8 be corrected to read, "Commissioner
Kirk stated that recreational amenities often become a phase of their own and are not
developed before the homes." Commissioner Tyler asked Page 10 be corrected to
read, "Commissioner Tyler asked to make a statement regarding his editing of tract
maps. These maps become legal documents. Even though some Commissioners
may 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. Applicants hire
professional engineers to prepare the plans and they should be correct when presented
to the Council/Commission." 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\pc6-9-98.wpd
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. General Plan Amendment 98-056 and Zoning Code Amendment 97-057; a request
of the City to amend the Zoning Code Chapter 9.140-Hillside Conservation
regulations, and the General Plan Land Use and Environmental Conservation
Elements regarding Hillside Development Density Transfers.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand presented the staff report, a copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Kirk asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if he had the
examples for presentation to the Commission. Senior Engineer Steve Speer
gave an example of how to determine the toe of slope on the site located
along Washington Street between the St. Francis of Assisi Church and the
Laguna de la Paz development, where a lot line adjustment had recently been
completed. The owners of the property had asked the City to make a
determination between the developable and undevelopable land. The
determination he came up with was based on a line that defined where the
gradient was greater than 20 percent and that area that is less than 20 percent.
They ignored the sand areas as they do not count in the Hillside Conservation
Area. He then explained the computer generated analysis superimposed on
a photograph of the site that had been prepared site to determine the two
areas. He then explained this was one method that was being proposed in the
new ordinance for determining the toe of slope. The other hand method is
more complicated and would be used on smaller parcels of land.
3. Commissioner Kirk asked if in situations where sand build up is against the
toe of slope, and the sand was removed from the toe of slope, does the toe of
slope change to the new elevation or is it where the sand previously met the
toe of slope. Staff stated that if the sand is pulled away after the analysis, the
property owner is not penalized, but will be required to prepare a new
analysis. Commissioner Kirk asked how high the sand dunes were against
the slopes. Staff stated it varies, but might be as much as 40-feet.
Commissioner Kirk stated that the possibility exists that if the sand were
cleared away, the property owner could build up to 40-feet high, up the
exposed toe of slope. Staff clarified that when you clear the sand away, the
property owner will be required to prepare a new slope analysis.
4. Chairman Butler questioned if a property owner knew he had hard rock under
the sand, and the toe of slope was determined to be 30-40 feet up the hillside,
does the property owner has the right to blast out the rock. Community
Development Director Jerry Herman stated the property owner would have
to apply under the Conditional Use Permit process to develop the land and at
that time they would be prohibited from blasting any portion of the mountain.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 2
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
5. Commissioner Woodard stated that if the sand is removed and you follow the
contour of 20 percent grade down, you have reduced the amount of land that
is developable. If the sand is left where it is, and a house has been
constructed on that sand, the owner has the right to build a home on that sand
at less than the 20 percent grade. If the sand is removed, he reduces the
amount of land he can develop. The point is that if you blast the mountain
from the original point of where the 20 percent grade was, and cut a straight
wall down to allow the property owner more land to develop, is that a
detriment to what the City is trying to achieve? In light of these questions,
he asked, what is the purpose of the ordinance? Is it an elevation question
where the City is trying to protect the view of the mountains, or is it to protect
some grade that development will not occur above. It appears the purpose is
to protect aesthetics or view corridor. The 20 percent grade is a line that was
determined to be that line to prevent development above. This is an elevation
question, not a grade question. If the 20 percent point is where the sand
exists, this is the line of demarcation between development and no
development. The developer wants to use this line, blast the mountain and
drop down 20 feet, his purpose would be to construct houses or structures.
If you look at this from the view corridor from the street, you will still see a
house or building in the dropped area. This being the case, what is the City
trying to accomplish?
6. Commissioner Kirk noted you would see exposed rock. Commissioner
Woodard then asked if it was an aesthetics issue. If so, then the Ordinance
should prevent any blasting or cutting away. Commissioner Kirk stated this
is a question that needs to be clarified.
7. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she did not believe the intent of
removing the sand was to create an artificial line someone could take away
from. One way to address this issue would be to add a sentence, stating that
"If sand is removed from against the determined hillside slope, it will
necessitate a new analysis and determination of where the toe of slope is
located.
8. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain Page 55 of the staff report
regarding the General Plan Amendments. Planning Manager Christine di
Iorio stated it is to revise the language to clarify less than 20 percent or
greater than 20 percent grade density transfer, referencing the conditional use
permit process and site development process, and changing the title of the
District. Commissioner Kirk asked if on Page 60, under boundary of the
HUGO District, there is an acknowledgment that there are areas above the toe
of slope that are flatter than the 20 percent topographic gradient, and asked
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 3
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
if these areas are treated any different than those areas that are less than 20
percent. Staff stated that slopes that are less than 20 percent are not in the
HUGO District, it is slopes above the toe of slope that are less than 20
percent that can have single family residences. Commissioner Kirk stated
there are no areas in the HUGO District with slopes less than 20 percent.
Staff stated this was correct. Commissioner Kirk stated that if this was true,
other areas that are a part of the HUGO District, such as canyons/boulder
fields are left. Staff stated they are left, but it is not the slope that is the
definition, it is the definition of being a canyon or boulder field, not that it is
less than 20 percent. Commissioner Kirk suggested dropping the last two
sentences. Either identify all of the geographic and other features that might
contribute to the boundary, or take them all out. Staff stated they should be
added to the General Plan.
9. Commissioner Kirk asked Senior Engineer Steve Speer if he had done a
similar analysis for the boulder field on any subject property. Senior
Engineer Steve Speer stated no analysis had been performed on any boulder
field. It was generally a conservative number to catch the areas that were of
interest to preserve. Commissioner Kirk suggested staff use the analysis on
a site and see if it works. Staff stated that at the recommendation of the City
Attorney, staff was asked not to go to any particular property, for fear that the
property owner(s) might feel singled out. In order to give the Commission
an idea of what would be an appropriate number, staff would have to analyze
several properties.
10. Commissioner Kirk asked if staff had done any view shed analysis to
determine the impact on an access road on our mountains. Staff stated they
had not. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio pointed out that a clarification
had been given to the Commission regarding a change staff was proposing
concerning access roads that would mitigate the view of access roads.
Commissioner Kirk stated that in these dramatic slope areas the width of the
right of way has an impact on daylighting, or the impact amount of cut and
potential fill. Has the City considered this impact in light of possibly
reducing the right of way requirements for access road. Staff stated it would
be reviewed during the conditional use permit process. Commissioner Kirk
asked if staff would have any objection to including language regarding
reducing the right of way as a possible strategy for reducing the impact of
access roads. Staff noted under the General Plan they had reduced the width
for private roads to 28-feet. Community Development Director Jerry Herman
stated that through a conditional use permit process, the City has the right to
review the width of road. At that time they would take into consideration all
CAMy Documents\WPD0CS\pc6-9-98.wpd 4
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
other aspects of the road access. Commissioner Kirk stating he is hearing a
lot about the conditional use permit process, and one of his continuing
concerns is that this ordinance offers the developer no certainty nor any
certainty to the environmental and aesthetic interest to the City. We have
examples of how to minimize the impacts of accessways such as depressing
the roadway, restoring rock coloration, and the question he is raising is
whether or not staff is amicable to including a reduction of the right of way
as an option to addressing access road on slopes.
11. Chairman Butler asked if depressing the roads created a problem with water
runoff. His understanding is that staff is choosing to address this issue in the
conditional use permit process to ensure that all areas of concern are
considered at the time of development. Commissioner Kirk stated that
depressing the road may require more right of way. However, staff has
included examples such as a tool box approach, to reduce the impact of
access roads. What he is suggesting is that staff include, as one of the tools,
the ability to reduce the width of the right of way.
12. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to explain the difference in the approval
process as it is now and when this ordinance is approved, in regard to the site
development processes. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio explained it is
currently reviewed by the Planning Commission through the conditional use
permit process. Staff noted this is a standard process under the conditional
use permit. The Zoning Code outlines how the process is handled. In
addition, as it is a specific district there are additional criteria besides the one
for processing. What staff has added is City Council approval.
Commissioner Kirk clarified that a conditional use permit would be
submitted to staff, reviewed by the Planning Commission for a
recommendation to the City Council for final action. He then asked how the
site development process was reviewed. Staff stated this process has been
added. An example is where a tract was processed in conjunction with a
conditional use permit for the hillside areas with a condition that any houses
developed for the hillside area, would come back to the Planning
Commission for review. Conditional use permits and site development
permits are both reviewed by the Planning Commission. Discussion followed
regarding clarification of how the reviewing/approval process would be
handled.
13. Commissioner Kirk asked staff how much density could be exceeded beyond
the General Plan requirements when clustering is used. Staff clarified that if
it goes to another residential area of the City, it could be exceeded by up to
20 percent; however the total number for the density figure for the entire site,
can then be transferred below the toe of slope, if it is the adjacent property or
contiguous piece of property.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 5
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
14. Commissioner Kirk questioned why sand dunes were included under
Applicability in the HUGO District. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio
stated it is to clarify that it does not fall within the HUGO District, because
sand dunes have the potential to have a 20 percent slope. Commissioner Kirk
asked how this clarified it? Staff stated that under the definition of sand
dunes and in the boundary definition. It could be clarified in this section as
well. Community Development Director Jerry Herman stated the intent was
not to find a sand dune in the middle of the City that has a 20 percent slope
and not allow development. Commissioner Kirk stated the way it reads is
that sand dunes are a part of the Applicability of the HUGO District. Staff
stated it would be clarified in Item 6 on Page 62.
15. Commissioner Kirk asked staff if during the review of ordinances by other
cities, the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County both seem to prohibit
development over the 20-25 percent slope; is this for all development?
Associate Planner Leslie Mouriquand stated the City of Indian Wells includes
all forms of structural development and probably access roads.
Commissioner Kirk asked if either of these ordinances had been challenged
and does the City Attorney have any concerns about this type of approach.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated she is not aware of any challenges to
their ordinances and yes she would have a concern.
16. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to clarify the difference between a 20%
grade line and a 25-foot calculation band beyond that point. Senior Engineer
Steve Speer explained the calculation band was used to determine where the
toe of slope existed and by using the hand method, a person would use the
topographic map similar to the example given by staff. It is a trial and error
method until a determination has been made as to where the 20 percent area
exists.
17. Commissioner Woodard asked staff how they arrived at 200 feet for the
width. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that on the field trips with the
Council and Commission, staff asked for feed back as to what the
Commission/Council would be comfortable with. There is nothing specific
or particular about the figure. Staff would prefer the Commission, or
Council, determine the number. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to
explain how they arrived at their definition of a boulder field. Staff stated
they would meet with an applicant to determine whether the site is a boulder
field or not. Discussion followed regarding different scenarios of
determining a boulder field. Commissioner Woodard stated his concern that
a developer would have to spend a lot of money to determine whether an
area is a boulder field or not. Is there some way that staff could come to this
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 6
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
decision without requiring a developer to expend an exorbitant amount of
money. Staff stated this would be difficult. This ordinance has been in the
drafting stage for almost six months. There is no way to have a specific
definition that will cover everything that might be a concern to the City.
Therefore, staff established specific numbers that will help to define which
categories the property would be in. The topographic aberrant is an issue
where the developer may want a preliminary review by staff. Commissioner
Woodard asked the City Attorney if there was a process whereby a developer
could apply to the City for clarification before spending a lot of money. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that when the process is set up as a
conditional use permit process requiring a public hearing, you cannot take
portions of that process and predetermine the answer. Any time anyone
comes in for a conditional use permit or something that requires some
discretion as to whether the project will be compatible with the surrounding
uses, staff can only say it appears to be possible. It is not until the project
goes through the hearing process that this can be determined. These types of
properties are going to be more expensive and difficult to develop than other
properties, but it is the nature of the property.
18. Commissioner Tyler asked if the software program to make the determination
was readily available so a property owner could prepare his own evaluation.
Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated it is readily available, but it is not
something that a lay person would use. Most of the engineering firms have
it. Commissioner Tyler asked why the Coachella Valley Mountains
Conservancy legislative map was not listed as a reference in our
Environmental Impact Report. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated
they did not have an answer, but staff would look into this.
19. As there were no other questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone
else would like to address the Commission on this item.
20. Mr. Chevis Hosea, representing KSL Land Corporation, stated that from the
their perspective, they are being asked to place a significant amount of land
into a conservation district for development rights. In turn for doing this,
they are given density bonuses. What may be more beneficial is to allow
changes in zoning, or some favorable type of treatment or program, whereby
a property owner can change residential zones to tourist commercial, since
density is not an issue in tourist commercial. There should be a way for hotel
developers and tourist commercial developers, to have some consideration.
The reason they are sensitive to this issue is KSL is trying to acquire a piece
of property adjacent to the La Quinta Hotel that has 68 acres of which 36 are
developable. At some point, the furthest width from the toe of slope for this
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 7
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
property, is less than 300 feet. When you talk about the toe of slope or any
mitigation measures for environmental issues, you could render this property
undevelopable and have a "taking" by the City. It is therefore, very important
to have this defined. If they do purchase the property, they would want to
change the zone to "Tourist Commercial" and try to develop an additional
residential specific plan overlay zone within it and the Hillside Ordinance
needs to have some provision that the nonresidential developer, to whom
density is not important, has something in turn for the taking of land. The
other question they have is whether this ordinance is adjustable within a
specific plan. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the City would not was
to rezone a piece of property to "Tourist Commercial" so they would have to
pay more for that property than what it was previously zoned for, is not
something the City would do. If the property's current zoning is residential,
one unit per ten acres, the City would want to retain that zoning. In regard to
density transfers, no one knows their value. Therefore, it is not something
that can be addressed at this time. If it is within the umbrella of what the
General Plan would allow, it could be done, but it is not something staff
would want to recommend. This would be creating a specialized hillside
ordinance for each and every specific plan. Mr. Hosea asked if the City had
jurisdiction over private areas. If a development occurs next to a hillside area
they could be preventing any access to the mountains by anyone except the
property owners in front of those hillsides. Does the City have any
jurisdiction in regard to this? He then presented two analyses they had
prepared regarding their property and where the toe of slope would fall based
on the proposed ordinance. In summation, Mr. Hosea asked that golf and
golf amenities be allowed to be developed up to the 30 percent slope in non -
canyon areas. Also, can a lake be developed next to a mountain within the
30 percent grade. In regard to boulder fields, they do not understand why
they are being protected. Everyone needs to agree on what the protected view
area should be from a vertical or view shed area and restrict any development
above that point regardless of how the slope may come back to a buildable
plateau. Fencing should be prohibited anywhere on the hillside. Chairman
Butler stated he is unaware of how this ordinance could affect KSL's
development. Whether the proposed ordinance is in conflict with the
ultimate goals of KSL's development at PGA West or not. There is some
conflict as to whether or not a private golf course is able to be developed
against the hillside and toe of slope, should be excluded or modified in the
way they are handled in comparison to a private project. The City is setting
a precedent by whatever they do approve in this instance. The other issue is
how California Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service will
affect any development above the toe of slope.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 8
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
21. Commissioner Tyler asked if Mr. Hosea was requesting the City set an
arbitrary figure and require no development above that figure? Mr. Hosea
stated that was true.
22. Commissioner Woodard asked staff to explain what the question was
regarding how this ordinance would be affected by a specific plan. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated KSL was asking to have a large part of their
land that is up next to the toe of slope redesignated as "Tourist Commercial".
As there are no density limitations on Tourist Commercial, the fact that some
of their property might be transferred to a non -toe of slope area and get a
greater density bonus, has no value to it. The point is the City is not required
to change the zoning in an area that it makes no sense to have "Tourist
Commercial" because you would be unable to build in that area anyway.
Therefore, the City will not have a situation where they have something
zoned in a way that it is valueless to have any density transfer rights. It is not
clear, even as residential property, what the value of that density transfer is
in our City. Commissioner Woodard asked if the specific plan could change
the zoning. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated only if it is consistent with
the General Plan. Commissioner Woodard questioned whether or not the
reason for the ordinance was aesthetics. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated the ordinance does not state whether it is the mountain or whatever.
It is just the protection of the mountain. Commissioner Woodard asked if
there is a boulder field transfer or whether fencing should be allowed. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is a policy decision to be answered
later on.
23. Chairman Butler stated the fence issue is one that is unsolvable at this time.
City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated the only issue on the fence at this time
is whether or not it is to be allowed on any particular project.
24. Mr. John Criste, Terra Nova Planning and Research, representing Richard
Meyer, thanked staff for keeping them informed regarding the development
of this ordinance. They do have an issue with the toe of slope and the short
run of 25-feet in band width to determine a 20% slope measurement. In
addition, there is a need for more clarification on what constitutes a boulder
fields. Who is the beneficiary of the boulder fields? The criteria is still too
restrictive. The largest caliper being two feet and only one per 100 square
feet is not a difficult situation. As written, the Planning Commission could
redefine the boulder field at any time during their review of a project which
gives the developer no sense of security regarding their project. In regard to
the access road mitigation, they like the tool box approach as it gives
everyone alternatives to see how they can make it fit.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 9
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
25. There being no further public comment, the public participation portion of the
public hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
26. Commissioner Kirk stated that in his opinion, this is one of the most
important issues the Commission will address this year. There is a need to
have more certainty in the ordinance. Perhaps declaring a certain line would
solve the problems. A lot of the issues melt away if a certain line is defined.
He cannot support the amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Code
unless it provides more certainty to the development community. If a line is
defined, he could support it. The issue of fencing may not be on the slope if
they restricted development above a certain line. It may be at the toe of slope.
It is illuminating to read the ordinances from adjoining cities and the County.
It is distressing to realize the City of La Quinta does not have an ordinance
that is not nearly as certain and definite about what it is trying to protect, than
the City of Indian Wells and the County of Riverside. Chairman Butler asked
what he thought of the fencing and the slope. Commissioner Kirk stated that
if a definite percentage is defined, most of the problems go away. Discussion
followed as to how this would affect development.
27. Commissioner Woodard asked why they should require a fence at all. The
issue would be resolved by either the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or
California Fish and Game in conjunction with the developer. The purpose of
the fence is to restrict the sheep and there may be areas in the City where this
is a concern and other areas where it is not. Therefore, to require a fence
anywhere when this issue is not prevailing, is aesthetically discouraging. He
asked if Commissioner Kirk was making a point that a fence was all right at
a certain point on the hillside. Commissioner Kirk stated no. The fence is a
small, but important, part of the aesthetics. The City needs to address where
the line should be instead of having it addressed through the conditional use
permit process. As it reads, it gives the development community no certainty
at all. He would rather have the consultant be able to come to the City, read
the ordinance and determine whether or not they can do a development. He
would support eliminating that portion of the ordinance that deals with
fencing.
28. Chairman Butler stated he too agreed with his comments, but when
discussing this with staff, it was his understanding this needed to be included
in the ordinance in case it would be an issue and it could be resolved in the
conditional use permit process. If it was not put in the ordinance, the City
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 10
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
could not deal with the issue. Commissioner Kirk stated that if the fence
were eliminated from the ordinance and at some point in the future the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and/or California Fish and Game brought the issue
up, there would be a way to modify the conditional use permit to address this
issue. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this should be resolved now, as
there is a current issue where California Fish and Game want a fence and the
City needs to decide whether or not they are going to allow a fence.
29. Commissioner Tyler questioned how the Commission should respond when
an issue is before them that is anticipatory. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell
stated it was not, and the decision needs to be made now. It is a rule the City
needs to determine and not leave to outside agencies.
30. Commissioner Woodard asked if the City decides they do not want fencing,
does the Federal and/or State law preclude what the City wants; or secondly,
if the City determines fences will not be allowed, does California Fish and
Game abide by the City's decision but, state that no development is allowed
in this area due to the wildlife because fences are not allowed. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated the second scenario is the more likely. They would
not be allowed to force the City, under our local Zoning Ordinance, to allow
fences. By the same token they have their own permitting ability with people
in their designated habitat areas. If they cannot sufficiently mitigate to their
criteria then they will not allow development. Commissioner Woodard stated
then the result will be the developer gives up and installs the fence. In that
case, when California Fish and Game dictates where a fence will be installed,
the City can then look to the conditional use permit process to allow the
fence. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this is why staff worded the
ordinance as they did. There has to be a basis under the mitigation measures
to require the fence.
31. Commissioner Abels stated the fencing issues is important and should be
included in the ordinance and should be addressed when appropriate.
32. Commissioner Woodard stated he was for allowing a developer to develop
land in areas less than 20 percent and some areas that require them to exceed
the 20 percent to get to that area if the road system is satisfied with problems
relative to view cones and view corridors. In addition, he would like
language added which allows road systems to be reduced in width. He has
a hard time with public vs. private roads. The Commission has a
responsibility to protect the views of the mountain, but it is a distance and
elevation question. Therefore, he would support a 30 percent grade on those
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 11
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
places where there are golf courses or waterways as it enhances the view of
the mountains. He is against fences unless it is environmentally required. He
agrees with the need for more certainty and would make it a 30 percent for
nonstructure development and 20% for structure.
33. Commissioner Seaton stated she agreed with requiring more certainty in the
ordinance, but would want it to be more strict. Fencing should only be
allowed for mitigation on environmental impacts. She agrees with the
comments made by Senior Engineer Steve Speer that if the sand is removed
from the determined hill/slope, it will necessitate a new analysis of where the
toe of slope is.
34. Commissioner Tyler noted some changes that needed to be made to the staff
report. He agreed that if the sand is pulled away from the hillside, you have
to redefine the toe of slope. In regard to private versus public streets and
what the City is trying to protect, in his opinion, it is the mountain as they
exist and that includes the sand that has blown up against it. He agrees with
the precedent set by the City of Indian Wells and Riverside County that a line
should be determined and leave it at that. If the sentence is to remain
regarding fencing, it should be strengthened and made more definitive. If
sheep are involved, fencing is involved. He agreed with his fellow
Commissioners that the ordinance needs to be tightened up and made more
readable for developers to know what they can and cannot do. He would like
it to remain in the conditional use permit process.
35. Chairman Butler stated he would like to encourage the Commission to reach
a decision on this tonight. He asked if the recommendations could be
included in the motion so it could go forward to the City Council.
36. Commissioner Tyler suggested this be continued to allow staff time to put
their comments into a form they could approve.
37. Commissioner Woodard suggested having a straw vote on the major issues
to give staff direction on the areas that needed to be changed. Chairman
Butler agreed.
38. Commissioner Kirk stated there should be two line determinations: one at the
20 percent grade for nonstructural and the second at 30 percent where nothing
could be build. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell asked for clarification that
once the initial slope has been determined at 30 percent, no development is
allowed above that line. Does this include the area behind the ridgeline that
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 12
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
is perhaps 10 percent for perhaps a mile. Is the Commission saying no
development will be allowed on the ten percent slope; or, if the area behind
the ridgeline that is below the 20 percent line, is allowed to be developed.
Commissioner Kirk stated in his opinion, that if the property owner can get
to it without building a road on the hillside that is above the 30 percent, yes
it is developable. Following discussion it was determined that staff would
change the ordinance to permit the allowable uses between 20 and 30 percent,
and add a new section prohibiting any development in areas greater than 30
percent.
39. Commissioner Woodard questioned development above the 20 percent line
that falls back to below the 20 percent behind the ridgeline. Commissioner
Kirk stated he would not like to allow any development beyond the line.
40. Chairman Butler asked if Commissioner Kirk was stating that he would not
like any development above the 20 percent line. Commissioner Kirk stated
that if it can be reached without going above the 20 percent line, then it can
be developed.
41. Commissioner Tyler suggested that during the two week continuance, the
City Attorney be asked to review the ordinances for the City of Indian Wells
and Riverside County to see how they reached their decision. City Attorney
Dawn Honeywell stated some cities develop polices and wait to be
challenged. The direction the Commission is taking is to have three
categories and the primary difference being the cutting off of access roads
above the 30 percent line. This in itself is not something that on its face is a
taking.
42. Commissioner Kirk asked staff to provide options regarding the slope
determination. One being a strict reading of the 30 percent line and one a
reading of the 30 percent line that would allow the development of the upper
highland areas. If the City Attorney could check into the other city ordinance
by not only reading, but speaking with their attorney, in particular any
litigation on the issues. Other areas he would like staff to evaluate is the
pulling away of the sand from the toe of slope; the fencing for sheep if it is
needed be clarified, in that it is to be allowed only for environmental
purposes; the other area is that of boulder fields. The concern of a developer
going through this expensive process of determining what is and is not a
boulder field, and at the last minute the Commission or Council determines
just the opposite. Certainty needs to be provided as to where development can
occur and where it cannot occur and that should be based on a sound
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 13
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
technical analysis. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that if the
Commission wanted to be more specific, it will require a detailed analysis.
As it is written now, they are not required to do a detailed analysis. If the
City wants to go to a clear definition as to whether or not it is, it will require
a detailed analysis on the part of the developer/land owner so that it is
documented. The reason for writing it on the discretionary side, is that with
staff and the property owner spending some time at the site and going through
the mathematical process, a determination can be made without having a
detailed analysis.
43. Commissioner Woodard asked if staff knew how many boulder fields there
are in the City. Senior Engineer Steve Speer stated that what they are
referring to mostly is the alluvial fan area. One area he is familiar with is that
area off Avenida Montezuma and The Quarry. The calculation is only a tool
to say yes or no we do, or do not, want to have the area preserved.
Commissioner Woodard asked if a house could be built around a boulder
field and if so, what development requirements are in place to construct a
house. Staff stated it would be determine by a lot line as building setbacks
are determined from the lot line. Commissioner Woodard questioned that
with these requirements a boulder field could be quarantined off by all the
development that occurs around it. Discussion followed regarding criteria for
a boulder field. Chairman Butler suggested leaving it as written as it was user
friendly.
44. Chairman Woodard stated that if it is the desire of the City to retain boulder
fields, shouldn't the ordinance have "things" in place that will protect it. City
Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated not necessarily, because there is a
perspective that you just want to protect it because it is there. Even though
there isn't access, the site is protected. Chairman Butler stated he did not
believe there were many boulder fields that needed to be protected and in any
case staff is able to work with the developer within the present definition of
a boulder field.
45. Commissioner Tyler asked if language could be provided to allow public
access. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated this could not be done without
"taking" it. Commissioner Kirk asked if this could be provided for under an
easement. City Attorney Dawn Honeywell stated that under current U. S.
Federal Supreme Court decisions where you are requiring an easement for
public access to something that is not caused by the property being
developed, but is caused merely for the public, is a taking.
C:\My Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 14
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
City does not have access to that type of information. Staff can look at some
areas that are known to be below the 20 percent grade and provide that
information to the Commissioner.
47. Commissioner Woodard asked if staff could review were roads are allowed
in slopes greater than 20 percent, whether or not there are creative ways to
make that right of way as nondetrimental as possible.
48. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Abels/Tyler to continue this item for two weeks.
Unanimously approved.
Chairman Butler recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. and reconvened at 9:38 p.m.
B. Zoning Code Amendment 97-058(A) and 98-061(A); a request of the City for
consideration of miscellaneous amendments to Title 9 of the La Quinta Municipal
Code.
1. Chairman Butler opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report.
Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the staff report, a copy of which is on
file in the Community Development Department. Senior Engineer Steve
Speer explained that storm water retention cannot be accomplished in
conjunction with berming in the 20-foot landscape setback except in the area
along Highway I I I which has a 50-foot landscape setback. Therefore, in
revising the Code, the only area that was allowed to have storm water
retention and berming was the front setback along Highway 111.
2. Commissioner Tyler questioned staff regarding the deletion of berming in
combination with upsloping. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated they
rewrote this section to clarify staff s intent.
Commissioner Woodard stated he too did not understand how upsloping in
the landscape setback would prohibit the ability for berming for a residential
project. Planning Manager Christine di Iorio stated that a residential
development will normally construct a six foot high wall on a two foot high
berm to meet noise requirements. With the wall and two feet of berming
there is already some type of contouring/berming that is included in the
residential zone. Therefore, staff removed the requirement for berming. It
was staff s concern that berming was more important in the commercial areas
for the screening of parking areas. If the Commission so desires, the
requirement for berming in the 20-foot setback for residential could be added
back to the Code with the height of the berm at 2-3 feet.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 15
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
4. Commissioner Woodard asked staff how they make a distinction between a
commercial and RV trailer. Staff referenced the Municipal Code.
5. Commissioner Kirk asked what the impact would be on a development if they
were not allowed to have a retention basin the front setback. Staff stated they
would have to devote more land internally for retention. Discussion followed
as to the purpose of berming. Commissioner Kirk suggested the wording be
changed to "undulating terrain" with a height limit of two to three feet for
residential with no grade below curb level.
6. As there were no other questions of staff, Chairman Butler asked if anyone
else would like to address the Commission on this item.
7. There being no public comment, the public participation portion of the public
hearing was closed and open for Commission discussion.
There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Tyler/Abels to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-
042 recommending approval of Zoning Code Amendments 97-058(A) and
98-061(A), as amended above.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Kirk, Seaton, Tyler, Woodard, and
Chairman Butler. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commissioner Gardner.
ABSTAIN: None.
VI. BUSINESS ITEM: None.
VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND WRITTEN MATERIAL: None.
VIII. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS.
A. Community Development Director Jerry Herman gave a report of the Council
meeting of May 19, 1998.
B. Commissioner Woodard informed everyone he would not be present at the next
meeting and he had enjoyed working with each and everyone of the Commissioners
during his term on the Commission.
C. Commissioner Tyler asked that when revised, new copies of the Zoning Code be
distributed to the Planning Commissioners. He also asked when the Commission
would be included in the General Plan Update discussions. Staff stated they were
waiting for the consultant to prepare the necessary reports.
ADJOURNMENT:
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 16
Planning Commission Meeting
June 9, 1998
C. Commissioner Tyler asked that when revised, new copies of the Zoning Code be
distributed to the Planning Commissioners. He also asked when the Commission
would be included in the General Plan Update discussions. Staff stated they were
waiting for the consultant to prepare the necessary reports.
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 23, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. This meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. on June 9, 1998.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\pc6-9-98.wpd 17
PH #A
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 23, 1998 Continued from June 9, 1998
CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056
ZONING CODE 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 cases were continued from the June 9, 1998, Planning Commission meeting so that
additional revisions could be made per the request of the Planning Commission. The text
of the HUGO Ordinance, with staff recommended changes, is included and attached to the
Change of Zone Resolution, in which the proposed changes are highlighted. The Minutes
from the June 9, 1998 meeting are included in the meeting packet.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed changes to the HUGO District Ordinance include the following points:
• If sand is removed from against the hillside, the toe of slope will be changed, thus
a new toe of slope analysis would be required.
• The boundary of the HUGO District is to include canyons, boulder fields, and
topographic aberrants, as well as hillsides.
• Sand dunes have always been excluded from the HUGO District.
• Fencing necessary for endangered species mitigation was added to the list of
permitted uses in areas less than 20% above the toe of slope and above 20%.
• In areas equal to or exceeding 20% slopes, access roads are to be located in non -
visible areas if at all possible. A variety of design methods for reducing the visual
impact of an access road are given, including reducing the width of the travelway.
Staff has not proposed any additional changes to the proposed General Plan Amendment
attached to the General Plan Resolution.
The Public Works Department will discuss the results of the field sample survey using the
proposed boulder field criteria during the meeting (Attachment 1).
Hillside development in the unincorporated County area is addressed in the Riverside
County Comprehensive General Plan (Attachment 2). The County "discourages"
development on slopes above 25 percent, but does not prohibit it.
The City of Indian Wells Hillside Ordinance states that development on slopes 20% or over
is prohibited, but there is a provision for their City Council to waive requirements
(Attachment 3).
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
One letter was received since the June 9, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, from John
Criste of Terra Nova Planning & Research, on behalf of property owner Richard Meyer.
The letter is included as Attachment 4.
FINDINGS:
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Code Amendment based upon the 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. Sample Survey of Rocky Hillside Areas Using Proposed Boulder Field Criteria
2. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan - Slopes and Erosion -Land Use
standards excerpt
3. City of Indian Wells Hillside Development Ordinance excerpt.
4. Letter from John Criste, June 16, 1998
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
E. Planning Commission Minutes, May 12, 1998
Prepared by:
L SLIE MOURIUAND
Associate Planner
Submitted by: ?
CHRISTINE DI IORIO
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, 12th day of May, 9th day of June, and the 23'd 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
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-351
June 23, 1998
or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate
important 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 23rd day of June 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
":\1,ESLID\pc Res I.A 98-351.wpd
Planning Commission Resolution 98-
Environmental Assessment 98-351
June 23, 1998
ABSTAIN:
RICH BUTLER, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Community Development Director
City of La Quinta, California
1':\I,1:SI.11?\pc Res FA 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.)
PALESLIE\New 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 Seance Systems
X Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources X Aesthetics
Water Hazards X Cultural Resources
rlAir 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.
l� Sipfiature T�
Date
_Leslie Mouriquand
Printed Name
City of La Quinta
For
-2-
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).
2) 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.
P:\I.ESLIF\New FA 98-35 Lwnd -3 -
Sample question:
I.
IT.
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 Uniess 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)? ( I 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 official 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? (
) I I I X 1 -1
P: LESIADINew EA 98-35I.wpd
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact ;Mitigated Impact Impact
I -F I
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) X
e) Landslides or mudfdows? ( ) X
0 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 any water body? ( ) X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
( ) X
P^I.ESLIF\New FA 98-351.wpd
N
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
f) 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? (
c) Alter air movement. moisture, or temperature, or cause any change
in climate'? ( ) `C
d) Create objectionable odors'? (
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
M�m
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? (
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
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation
(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) X
g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts'? ( I I I I 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:\I.ESI.IE\New EA 98-351.wpd
IX.
X.
Issues (and Supporting Informtation Sources):
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant t'niess Significant No
Impact vlltigated 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? ( ) 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? (
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (
XI. 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? ( )
M��
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
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? ( )
b) Communications systems? ( )
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( )
e) Storm water drainage'? ( )
f) Solid waste disposal'? ( )
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( )
XIIL AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (
c) Create light or glare'? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources'? ( )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( )
Potentially
Potentiallv Significant Bess Than
Significant Unless Significant No
Impact :Mitigated Impact Impact
M�m
��M
P:\I.ESLIE\New EA 98-351.wpd
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 Unless Significant No
Impact Mitigated Impact Impact
e) Restrict 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'? ( )
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 Cffects on human beings, either directory or
indirectiv?
P:`.LESI.IE\tiew EA 98-35l.wpd -1(
XV111. 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 'Acre
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.
P:J.ESLIE\New 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
V L�
Leslie Mo iquand
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 ......
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 Citv_
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 Quints 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 .Setting
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.4etting
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 81 % of the La Quinta residents are high school graduates and 21 % 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 Vetting
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.Vetting
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 CEQA 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 I I 1 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. Setting
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
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.Setting
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 .Setting
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 (IID), Southern California Gas Company, and various gasoline companies.
Local Environmental.4etting
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-1; 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.4etting
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 .Vetting
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.4etting
Law enforcement services are provided to the City through a contract with the Riverside County
Sheriffs Department. The Sheriff's 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
Department utilizes a planning standard of 1.5 deputies per 1,000 population to forecast additionai
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 #70, 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 Sheriff's Department. This will generate a cumulative need for additionai
staff in the future. Each project is reviewed by the Sheriffs 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.Setting
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, -Vetting
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
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.Vettting
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 Cahuilla 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
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, 9th day of June, and the 23'd 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 environmentaB 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 adverseVy 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 23rd day of June 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
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
PALESLIMpc Res UPA 99-056.wpd
EXHIBIT "A"
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 98-056
Amendment 1:
(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 Code 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 : \Mydata\GPAwords. wpd
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, 12th day of May, 91h day of June, and the 23`d 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 23rd day of June 1998, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
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
PA\I.ESLIE\pc Res ZCA 97-057.Nvpd
9.140.040 HE HUGO Hillside/Unique Geology Overlay District Conservation Regulati
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;
2. 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
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 1:1G 1 lillside Eenservaaon
HUGO District applies to a4 land within the eity designated in the General Pian as l'opeli.
space" and shown on the Official Zoning Map as "HUGO." More speeifieally, heing--uue ,e
„the tee of the „
as defiried in this Seetion. wititin the following Seetions of land (San
Bernarditto Base and Meriditm) within the Gity:
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.
s
•]FAN
G •
i - �
G �
i
�__
- i • i _ _ _ _ _ _ : _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
i :
MN
ZOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 3
• -
IN
IN
a at am
.....
Bill M 09' *?41VA%AMj
•- •
—� �'•�•\-1.7••l-1�)\•I•�•1 :•f.\•.\-1•l�A
ago
• • • • • •
1. Boundaryof the HUGO District. HUGO District includes all hillside land, except for sand
dunes, located above the toe of slope boundary. ff satndis removed from against the hillside,
it will necessitate a new toe of slope analysis. 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. In addition, the District
shall include canyon, boulder fields topographic aberrant as defined herein.
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:
I.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 4
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 "=409 and the maximum size subarea for calculation purposes must not exceed 2,500
feet (0.057 acre); see Attachment I 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
100 feet 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. Canyons. The canyon areas where the canyon is less than 200 feet wide are included in
the HUG® 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 (1 "=100 ), topographic map, or
larger scale (i.e., 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.
I.OUPDATE-supspcpunegs 5
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 and is not included in the HUGO District
B. Permitted Uses in iC HUGO District.
ZOUPDATE-supspepurregs 6
1. The following uses within the HG 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, ;
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 for State and Federally listed
endangered species.
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 whkh shall be located in non -visible areasfivtn adjamnipowpertky unless
applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the City that the only access to a non visible are
must traverse a visible area. Acts road in visible areas shall be mitigated to a level of
insignificance (for example: depressing the road, restoring rock coloration, re -
contouring the cut and fill areas to a natural appearance, etc.) fOwnership 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 them.
d. Flood control structures.
e. Fencing necessary to mitigate environmental impacts for State and Federally listed
endangered species.
E. Conditional Use Permit Required. In addition to the requirements of this Section, all
development within the +IG HUGO District shall require approval of a conditional use permit pursuant
to Section 9.210.020, including City Council approval.
7.OUPDATE-supspepurregs 7
PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES
1. The following uses within the HG HUGO District shall be permitted in areas of
less than 20% above the toe of slope
pereent:
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, and passive reereation f4eilities;
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 for State and
Federally listed endangered species.
2. The following uses within the HUGOG district shall be permitted on slopes
emeeeding between 20 and 30 -9 percent:
a. Hiking, bicycle and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles;
b. Access roads +Mkh shall be located in non -visible areas from adjaee
properties unless applicant can prove to the satisfaction of the City that the
only access must traverse a visible area. Access road
in visible areas shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance (for
example: depressing the road, restoring rock coloration, reducing the
width of the travelway, r"ontourhtg the cut and fill areas to a natural
appearance, etc) {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 j-
c. Golf course (not including above ground structures), including tees,
greens, fairways, and cart paths to access them.
d. Flood control structures.
e. Fencing necessary to mitigate environmental impacts for State or
Federally listed endangered species.
3. No development shall occur on slopes greater than 30 percent.
CAMy Documents\WPDOCS\hillside-pcchange.wpd
F. Site Development Review Required. All development in the HUGO District shall be subject
to site development review by the PlattrAng Gantmiss 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.
G. Criteria for Review of Grading Plans.
Consideration shall be given to the following matters of paftiettlar eorteenn in reviewing of grading
proposals in the 14G 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,
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 all
development within the HG HUGO District, the following reports shall be prepared by a
California -licensed engineer (licensed in the appropriate discipline), and filed with the City Engineer;
tmless speeifiea4ly waived by the Gity 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);
7.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 8
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.
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 lG 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 HG
HUGO District.
2. All development in the 44E 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 Gommttnity Development Direete for review.
I.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 9
3. A viewshed study, including plans and (cross sections) showing visibility of proposed project
and grading, as iewed h is to include at least five locations as approved by staff, from
surrounding properties located at lower elevations.
-PPPW.-EFRPWP
Woo P.
MILLWIMILM
IMP gn
Is
-
::-
all I
ft
-- - - - 1111 PI
Ild Ovilif
it"
Pt-RNIL-1-mor NEW
NIN
- WAWM:.
--PPPW NO
J. Development Standards.
1. Minimum Lot Size. In the HG HUGO District, the maximum density
I.OUPDATE-supspepurregs 10
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
feet.e3teeeded. Stmetttres shttR remaitt single f4mily, separated, ott individual 4ots having an are -a
of at 4ettst 29,009 square
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 undergroundemeept for water taitks and sebstatiotts,
w+tieh shall be appropriately sereened and painted in eolors to blen4 into the bttekgret
K. Land Divisions in HE 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
LOUPDATE-supspcpurregs 11
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.
Transfers of development rights shall follow the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter
9.190.
2. Any owner of property within the HG HUGO District may transfer development rights from
the HG HUGO District on the basis of one residential unit per ten acres.
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 HG 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.
IV,,.r
; - -
011
ill
;ni-
Hill
M. Ownership and Maintenance of Recreation/Open Space.
1. Those areas located within a hiilside 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
I.OUPDATE-supspcpwregs 12
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 tmder PaMraph N 1 of this Seetio or if such an offer is not accepted,
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.
I.OUPDATE-supspcpurregs 13
ATTACHMENT #1
6/17/98
Sample Survey of Rocky Hillside Areas
Using Proposed Boulder Field Criteria
Survey Technique: Staff located two sample areas on three separate properties that
were representative of the rocky pattern and character to determine if they were
boulder fields. The largest rock in four to seven adjacent sample grids were measured
to obtain a consensus as tc whether the larger location is similar in character and
would be considered a bouider field.
Property #1
• Five (5) adjacent grid squares: 42", 44", 47", 25", 52"
This area had an obvious abundance of large boulders, and would be
classified a boulder field under the current boulder field definition
criteria.
• Seven (7) adjacent grid squares: 24", 31 ", 18", 16", 30", 24", 19"
This'area was very rocky, but the rocks were noticeably smaller. Since
only 50% of the grid squares had a boulder exceeding 24" in the largest
caliper size, this area would not be classified a boulder field under the
current boulder field definition criteria.
Property #2
• Four (4) adjacent grid squares: 25", 22", 20", 24"
This area was very rocky, but the rocks at this location were noticeably
smaller and in the peripheral area, which was also at a lower elevation of
the subject location and next to what would clearly be considered
developable land. Since only 50% of the grid squares had a boulder
exceeding 24" in the largest caliper size, this area would not be
classified a boulder field under the current boulder field definition
criteria.
F.\PWDEPT\STAFF\SPEER\MEMOS\980617a.ss
Property #2 (continued)
• Five (5) adjacent grid squares: 28", 26", 26", 25", 34"
This area had larger rocks than the previous sample area on this
property, was slightly higher in elevation and may even be on a slope
exceeding 20% (which means the location is already preserved if the
slope exceeds 20%), nevertheless, this area would be classified a
boulder field under the current boulder field definition criteria.
Property #3
• Five (5) adjacent grid squares: 14", 22", 18", 20", 18"
This area was very rocky, but the rocks were noticeably smaller. Since
none of the grid squares had a boulder exceeding 24" in the largest
caliper size, this area would not be classified a boulder field under the
current boulder field definition criteria.
• Six (6) adjacent grid squares: 31 ", 32", 3411, 6311, 44"
This area was surrounded by rocks similar to the previous sample
location on this property. This particular area would be considered a
boulder field since all grids (more than 80%) had a boulder exceeding
24" in size. Since this area is surrounded by developable land, this
location could also perhaps be considered a topographic aberrant,
subject to Council discretion for preservation, or waived and released for
development. It should also be noted that some of these rocks were
fractured -in -place, but measured as a single rock.
F:\PWDEPT\STAFF\SPEER\MEMOS\980617a.ss
ATTACHMENT A
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN
Page 310: Slopes and Erosion - Land Use Standards
Amended Effective: October 29, 1985
I. Land Use Standard - Hillside Design
Development in hillside areas should be designed to follow or flow with the
natural contours of the site. Development is discouraged on slopes in excess
of 25 percent, and unstable slopes should be designed as common open space.
Major projects on ridgelines, canyon edges and hilltops are discouraged, and
any development on such areas shall be visually unobtrusive by sensitive siting
and appropriate landscaping. Buildings on major ridgelines, canyon edges and
hilltops are discouraged, and any development on such areas shall be visually
unobtrusive by sensitive siting and appropriate landscaping. Post and beam
construction and special foundations are generally encouraged for slopes of 20
to 25 percent to.e Aminate excessive grading.
ATTACHMENT #
INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE
22.04. ' "1141 20% Slope and Over. This is an excessive slope condition an(
development is prohibited. All land areas with 20% or greater slope shall not be graded it
any manner except at the specific discretion of the City Council. Development and limiter
grading can occur only if it can be clearly demonstrated that safety, environmental, anc
aesthetic impacts will be avoided, and that a minimum amount of development is in the
spirit of, and not incompatible with, the purposes and policies set forth in this Chapter.
22.04.110 Waivers.
22.04.110(a) Council Authority to Modify Requirements. The City Council m;
reduce, modify, or waive those particular requirements of this Chapter which would n
result in hazard to life or limb, hazard to property, adverse affects on the safety, use,
stability of a public way, facility, or drainage channel, or adverse impact on the natui
environment.
22.04.110(b) Procedure for Requesting a Modification. To request the modification
any of the provisions of this Chapter, the applicant shall submit a request, in writin
together with all required fees and required application. materials set forth in this Chapti
The request shall itemize each provision for which a modification is sought and shall sta
the reason(s) for which the modification is requested.
22.04.110(b)(1) The City Council may approve and/or modify a request 1
modification in whole or part, with or without conditions. At their discretion, the C1
Council may establish additional conditions to further the intent of this Chapter. (Ord. 3.
41 Exhibit A, 1994).
ATTACHMENT #
r.
TERRA Naga PLANNING & RESEARCH INC,
�i JUN 16 1998
"'ITY OP LAQ JIN TA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Ms. Leslie Mouriquand
Community Development Department
City of La Quinta
78-495 Tampico Boulevard
La Quinta, CA 92253
June 16,1998
RE: Comments on June 9th Draft of the EH side/Unique Geology Overlay (RUGO) District
Dear Leslie:
Once again, I am writing on behalf of La Quinta Ranch Partners holdings (also known as the
Meyer property) to provide comments and suggestions on the above referenced June draft of the
HUGO ordinance. La Quinta Ranch Partners continue to be concerned that their property
generally located between the Quarry project and the Green property will be adversely and possibly
unfairly impacted by the proposed ordinance. The following comments, questions and
suggestions are meant to assure equitable treatment for this property, while equally assuring the
City's capabilities to adequately regulate development on these lands.
Max. Slope Gradient: It is our understanding that the Planning Commission wishes to use two
slope criteria for differing uses. These include a 20% limit on all structures and a 30% limit on all
other potential uses, including access roads. It is unclear whether the Commission intended that
no or restricted use of slopes in excess would be permitted. This issues does not appear to directly
affect the partnership's property, however.
Toe of Slope Boundary Line: As we have stated before, we have some difficulty with the toe of slope
determination method and criteria. In partnership's case, we hope that there is room here for some
discretion. As you know, erosion on this property was accelerated and exacerbated by the County's
previous sand and gravel mining in the adjoining quarry. This has exaggerated the erosion on
portions of this site, which is unnatural and should be weighted due to this impact from a previous
adjoining use.
With regard to the toe of slope definition, we continue to support the use of the point of contact
between rocky outcroppings of bedrock and alluvium or sluffage. This is less arbitrary and can be
more consistently applied without elaborate, costly and time-consuming methods.
400 SOUTH FARRELL, SUITE B-205 ❑ PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 ❑ (760) 320-9040
TN/Meyer/City of La Quinta
HUGO/6.15.98
Boulder Fields: As we cited in our testimony at the June 9th Planning Commission hearing, we
continue to have difficulty with the boulder field issue and especially as it affects this property. It
would appear that the City may assign a "unique geology" designation to the boulder fields and
thereby give them special status. Boulder fields do not, in our judgement, seem to qualify for such a
status. Unlike rocky outcroppings or other highly visible and geologically defining
characteristics, boulder fields are not unique. In fact, boulder fields are very common in the
desert. They do not provide any unique habitat value, cultural resource value or
aesthetictviewshed value. By themselves, we do not feel boulder fields warrant such special status.
We also continue to argue that the proposed boulder field definition is overly restrictive. We
continue to believe that the standard of one boulder per 100 sq. ft. with the largest caliper dimension
being only 2 feet is arbitrary and excessively conservative. The use of this extensive grid system
to determine the extent of the boulder field and its applicability also appear to be an unnecessarily
elaborate, costly and time-consuming a method.
Boulder Field Alternative: An alternative approach to this issue might be that the City consider
boulders much as sites with extensive cactus and other valuable plant materials are considered.
That is, require that developers attempt to preserve boulders and to reintegrate them into project
designs to the greatest extent practical. This will then provide an incentive for their preservation
while not unduly restricting land use.
GENERAL CORM ENTS
Developer's Vested Interests
There is little question that market forces have shaped the resort residential market. Developers
are having to make decisions every day about what attributes of their land will enhance the
marketability of the residential product they wish to build. If boulder fields constitute a unique
asset then it would be expected that they would become integral parts of at least some development
plans. This has not proven the case despite numerous opportunities for boulder fields to be used in
this fashion.
Viewshed Analysis: The latest version of the ordinance cites that a minimum of five (5) viewshed
analyses would have to be generated. The type of analysis is not defined and could vary from
unnecessarily complex computer generated exhibits, to the substantially less expensive
elevational cross-section. Can the ordinance be enhanced to allow or provide for alternative
methods of analysis?
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this additional input. If you have any
questions or would like additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
ohn D. Criste, AICP
JDC/sw
INTENTION TO SPEAK
I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
AGENDA ITEM NO: RE:
PUBLIC HEARING NO: RE:
IN SUPPORT
IN OPPOSITION_
PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE (3) MINUTES
DATE: Z4 /��
YOUR NAME �Qx b S Ag.
ADDRESS c% 9 5 --5 7-0 V� � 4 -1
PLEASE TURN THIS FORM IN TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE
BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. THE CHAIRMAN WILL CALL YOUR NAME AT
THE APPROPRIATE TIME.
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: JUNE 23, 1998
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28838
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF A SUBDIVISION OF
133.42 ACRES INTO 200 SINGLE FAMILY AND OTHER COMMON
OR STREET LOTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF SPECIFIC PLAN
83-002 (AMENDMENT #3) AND SPECIFIC PLAN 90-017 IN PGA
WEST
LOCATION: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MADISON STREET AND AIRPORT
BOULEVARD ABUTTING THE TOM WEISKOPF AND JACK
NICKLAUS (RESORT) GOLF COURSES
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY
OWNER: KSL LAND CORPORATION
DEVELOPER: RIELLY HOMES, A DELAWARE CORPORATION
ENGINEERS: M.D.S. CONSULTING (MR. STANLEY C. MORSE, P.E.)
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28838 IS WITHIN SPECIFIC PLANS 83-
002 AND 90-017. THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PER
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 65457(A).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
NUMBERS 83062922 AND 90020727) WERE CERTIFIED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL IN 1984 AND 1991 FOR EACH SPECIFIC PLAN,
RESPECTIVELY. NO CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES, OR
CONDITIONS, EXIST WHICH WOULD TRIGGER THE
PREPARATION OF A SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION
21166.
GENERAL
PLAN/
ZONING/
SPECIFIC
PLAN
DESIGNATIONS:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE OPEN SPACE
(LDR AND G)/RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) AND GC (GOLF
COURSE) AND RESIDENTIAL AND GOLF COURSE/OPEN SPACE
STPC28838-25 Page 1 of 4
RES028838-25, CONDTTM28838-25
BACKGROUND:
Site Background
The PGA West Resort and Club is made up of numerous tract and parcel maps which
have been approved since the 1984 approval of Specific Plan 83-002 (5,000 units are
allowed per the Specific Plan). Started in 1986, PGA West is a country club community
of approximately 1,700 residences and multiple championship golf courses. The latest
amendment was approved by the City Council in 1996, under Resolution 96-67.
On December 3, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution 91-105, approving a master
planned development of 880 units on 220 acres south of the PGA West Resort and Club
(i.e., Specific Plan 90-017) in conjunction with certification of an Environmental Impact
Report. This planned community connects with PGA West by the connection of streets
and golfing facilities (i.e., Tom Weiskopf golf course). The golf course opened for play
in 1996. No houses have been built on this site.
Site Information
This map resubdivides lots created in 1989 under Tract 21643. The vacant site was mass
graded during construction of the existing golf courses. The golf courses are owned and
managed by the applicant. Currently, partial street improvements exist on Madison Street
and Airport Boulevard.
The area to the south of the project site is planned for single family houses under Specific
Plan 90-017. Properties to the east, outside the City limits, have been used in the past for
growing field crops; vacant properties to the west (across Madison Street) are located
within PGA West and planned for residential houses. The vacant properties to the north,
across Airport Boulevard, are planned for residential housing (1,060 units) and golf course
(i.e., future Greg Norman golf course) development pursuant to Specific Plan 90-015.
Proiect Request
Tentative Tract Map 28838 proposes to create 200 single family and various other
nonresidential lots in four phases on approximately 133+ acres within the boundaries of
Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017 (Attachments 1 and 2). The project density is
approximately 1.5 dwellings per acre. The proposed single family lots vary in size from
12,070 square feet to 32,733 square feet (14,266 square feet average). Lot widths are
typically 85-feet wide by 142-feet and front onto private streets. The developer anticipates
building detached single family houses on these lots.
Gated site access occurs on Madison Street, approximately 2,300 feet (0.43 miles) south
of Airport Boulevard. To insure safe vehicular travel between this project and PGA West,
a traffic signal is required.
Various landscape and cart path lots have been provided to enhance the streetscape
appearance and provide cart access on the golf course fairways. Common Lots "R " and
STPC28838-25
RES028838-25, CONDTTM28838-25 Page 2 of 4
"S" are identified as golf course fairway lots. A Coachella Valley Water District well site
is proposed at the northeast corner of the development.
Public Notice
This map application was advertised in the Desert Sun newspaper on June 10, 1998. All
property owners within 500-feet of the site were mailed a copy of the public hearing notice
as required by the Subdivision Ordinance of the La Quinta Municipal Code. To date, no
comments have been received.
Public Agency Review
All written comments received are on file with the Community Development Department.
All applicable agency comments received have been made Conditions of Approval for this
case.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES:
Based on the provisions of the General Plan, Specific Plans 90-017 and 83-002, Zoning
Code and the Subdivision Ordinance, the following overview of the project is provided:
Issue 1 - General Plan and Specific Plan Consistency
The City's General Plan designates the subdivision as Low Density Residential (2-4
dwellings per acre) which allows single family housing (e.g., attached or detached housing
units). Past development approvals by the City reflect a lower number of housing units
planned within both Specific Plan areas (5,000 units within SP 83-002 and 880 units within
SP 90-017). Currently, no housing units are built in SP 90-017 and 1,700 units are built
within SP 83-002. Therefore, adding 200 residential units will not exceed the allowed
number of units analyzed in the Environmental Impact Reports or allowed in the Specific
Plans.
Madison Street and Airport Boulevard are designated as Primary Arterial streets by the
General Plan Circulation Element requiring widths of not less than 100-feet, nor exceeding
1 10feet. Additionally, an equestrian trail shall be built along Madison Street as required
by Chapters 3.0 (Circulation Element) and 5.0 (Park and Recreation) of the General Plan.
Proposed conditions require compliance with these standards.
This map proposes lots greater than 12,069 square feet which exceeds the plan's minimum
requirements of 6,500 square feet for each Specific Plan. As designed, the proposed
single family development is consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code.
Traffic generation from the development is expected to be 2,000 vehicle trips per day or
less. The number of vehicles planned for the ultimate build -out of SP 83-002 and SP 90-
017 is 0.039%. The interior private street circulation plan is consistent with the
requirements of both adopted specific plans. Traffic access will be restricted on Madison
Street through the use of a traffic signal at the project entry.
STPC28838-25
RES028838-25, CONDTTM28838-25 Page 3 of 4
Issue 2 - Tract Design/Improvements
Private interior streets and residential lots have been designed around the existing golf
course fairways as required by adopted Specific Plans. Design standards of the City's
General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance have been included into the project's design.
Street and other infrastructure improvements are required for this project and are readily
available. Impacts associated with development of the project can be mitigated through
adherence to the recommended conditions.
Issue 3 - Health and Safety
All necessary infrastructure improvements for this project will be constructed as required
by the attached conditions. This includes water, sewer, streets, and other necessary
improvements. All electric services will be installed in underground .piping and will meet
all requirements of the service agencies (gas, electric, water, etc.). The health, safety and
welfare of residents is ensured based on recommended conditions. Condition #86
requires permanent restroom buildings to be built prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the 3Vh housing unit.
CONCLUSION:
This development request is a logical expansion of PGA West. The tentative tract map,
as conditioned, is consistent with adjacent development in the immediate area, and in
conformance with City and Specific Plan requirements. Findings for a recommendation
for approval, as noted in the attached Resolution, can be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution 98-_, recommending to the City Council approval
of Tentative Tract Map 28838, subject to finding and conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. TTM 28838 (Reduced)
3. Large Exhibits (Planning Commission Only)
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
STPC28838-25
RES028838-25, CONDTTM28838-25
,1V L �• 4�
Christine di lorio, Planning Manager
Page 4 of 4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF 200 SINGLE FAMILY
AND OTHER COMMON LOT SUBDIVISION ON 133.42
ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
MADISON STREET AND AIRPORT BOULEVARD
CASE NO.: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28838
APPLICANT: KSL LAND CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California,
did on the 23rd day of June, 1998, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing for KSL Land
Corporation for development of 200 single family residential and other common lot
subdivision on 133+ acres, generally located at the southeast corner of Madison Street
and Airport Boulevard, more particularly described as:
Being a subdivision of Lots 20-32, 41 and 43 of Tract No.
21643 as filed in Book 203, Page 37-50, City of La Quinta,
County of Riverside, State of California (APN: 761-500-001-
010, 761-500-012 and 013, and 761-510-001-009)
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said
Planning Commission did make the following mandatory findings recommending approval
of said Tentative Tract Map 28838:
Finding Number 1 - Consistency with General Plan:
A. The property is designated Low Density Residential (LDR). The Land Use
Element of the General Plan allows residential land uses. The project is
consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the La Quinta General Plan
Land Use Element (Chapter 2) because attached and detached residential
units are proposed. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan Circulation Element.
Findinq Number 2 - Consistency with Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90-017
and City Zoning Ordinance:
A. The proposed single family lots exceed the minimum size requirement of
6,500 square feet. Specific Plan 83-002 allows 5,000 houses and SP 90-
017 allows 880 houses oriented around golf courses and other resort
commercial land uses. The proposed 200 residential lots are consistent with
and will not negatively impact the overall growth and development of PGA
West.
B. The proposed single family lots are consistent with the City's Zoning Code
in that development standards and criteria contained in the PGA West
Specific Plans supplement and/or replace those in the City's Zoning Code.
Detached (or attached) single family houses will be built as required.
RESOPCTTM 28838-25
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
Tentative Tract Map 28838
June 23, 1998
Conditions are recommended ensuring compliance with both the PGA West
Specific Plans and Zoning Code.
Finding Number 3 - Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act:
A. Tentative Tract Map 28838 is within Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017. The
project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Public
Resources Code Section 65457(a). Environmental Impact Reports (State
Clearinghouse Numbers 83062922 and 90020727) were certified by the City
Council in 1984 and 1991 for each specific plan, respectively. No changed
circumstances, or conditions, exist which would trigger the preparation of a
subsequent Environmental Impact Report pursuant to Public Resources
Code 21166.
Finding Number 4 - Site and Landscape Design:
A. The proposed site design conforms with the design guidelines identified in
SP 83-002 and 90-017 and provides a harmonious transition between other
approved residential houses in PGA West.
B. The proposed common landscaping will be privately maintained. The
landscape design complements the surrounding residential areas in that it
enhances the aesthetic and visual quality of the area.
C. The site is physically suitable for the proposed land division.
Finding Number 5 - Site Improvements:
A. Stormwater runoff will be diverted to the existing golf course to ensure off -
site properties are not impacted from seasonal storms.
B. The proposed private street serves all proposed lots and connects to other
existing streets in the PGA West development. Internal access is provided
as required ensuring public safety vehicles proper access to this residential
area.
C. Infrastructure improvements such as gas, electric, sewer and water will be
extended to service the site in underground facilities as planned under the
Specific Plans. No adverse impacts have been identified based on letters
of response from affected public agencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the Planning
Commission in this case;
RESOPCTTM 28838-25
Planning Commission Resolution 98-_
Tentative Tract Map 28838
June 23, 1998
2. That it does hereby require compliance with those mitigation measures required for
Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended;
3. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion that the Environmental Impact Reports
for the Specific Plans 83-002 and 90-017, as amended, assessed the
environmental concerns of this tentative tract; and,
4. That it does recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 28838
for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
City Planning Commission, held on the 23rd 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
RESOPCTTM 28838-25
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 98-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 28838
KSL LAND CORPORATION
JUNE 23, 1998
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
GENERAL
Upon their approval by the City Council, the City Clerk is directed to file these Conditions
of Approval with the Riverside County Recorder for recordation against the properties to
which they apply (i.e., Assessor's Parcel Numbers 761-500-001 thru 010, 761-500-012 and
-013, 761-510-001 thru 009).
2. This approval shall expire and become null and void within two years of approval unless
an extension of time is granted according to the requirements of Section 13.12.150 of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
3. Tentative Tract Map 28838 shall comply with the requirements and standards of §§ 66410-
66499.58 of the California Government Code (the Subdivision Map Act) and Chapter 13
of the La Quinta Municipal Code (LQMC) unless otherwise modified by the following
conditions.
4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or building permit for construction of any building
or use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall obtain permits and/or clearances
from the following public agencies:
• Fire Marshal
• Public Works Department (Grading Permit, Improvement Permit)
• Community Development Department
• Riverside Co. Environmental Health Department
• Coachella Valley Unified School District
• Coachella Valley Water District
• Imperial Irrigation District
• California Regional Water Quality Control Board (NPDES Permit)
The applicant is responsible for any requirements of the permits or clearances from those
jurisdictions. If the requirements include approval of improvement plans, applicant shall
furnish proof of said approvals prior to obtaining City approval of the plans.
The applicant shall comply with applicable provisions of the City's NPDES stormwater
discharge permit. For projects requiring project -specific NPDES construction permits, the
applicant shall include a copy of the application for the Notice of Intent with grading plans
submitted for plan checking. Prior to issuance of a grading or site construction permit, the
applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed Storm Water Pollution Protection Plan for
review by the Public Works Department.
C ONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
PROPERTY RIGHTS
5. All easements, rights of way and other property rights required of the tentative map or
otherwise necessary to facilitate the ultimate use of the development and functioning of
improvements, shall be dedicated, granted or otherwise conferred, or the process of said
dedication, granting, or conferral shall be ensured, prior to approval of a final map or
parcel map or a waiver of parcel map. The conferral shall include irrevocable offers to
dedicate or grant easements to the City for access to and maintenance, construction, and
reconstruction of all essential improvements which are located on privately -held lots or
parcels.
6. Prior to approval of a final map, parcel map or grading plan and prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the applicant shall furnish proof of temporary, or permanent, easements
or written permission, as appropriate, from owners of any abutting properties on which
grading, retaining wall construction, permanent slopes, or other encroachments are to
occur.
7. If the applicant proposes vacation or abandonment of any existing rights of way or access
easements which will diminish access rights to any properties owned by others, the
applicant shall provide approved alternate rights of way, or access easements to those
properties, or notarized letters of consent from the property owners.
8. The applicant shall dedicate public and private street right of way and utility easements
in conformance with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, applicable specific plans,
and as required by the City Engineer.
9. Dedications required of this development include:
A. Madison Street - Fifty-five feet (55') right-of-way on east side of existing centerline,
from the south boundary of Tract Map 21643 to the south boundary of this Tentative
Map.
B. Airport Boulevard - Fifty-five foot half of one -hundred -ten foot right of way along the
frontage of this development.
Dedications shall include additional widths as necessary for dedicated right and left turn
lanes, bus turnouts, and other features contained in the approved construction plans.
If the City Engineer determines that public access rights to proposed street rights -of -way
shown on the tentative map are necessary prior to approval of final maps dedicating the
rights of way, the applicant shall grant temporary public access easements to those areas
within 60 days of written request by the City.
10. The applicant shall dedicate 10-foot public utility easements contiguous with and along
both sides of all private streets.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
11. The applicant shall create perimeter setback lots, of minimum width as noted, adjacent to
the following street rights of way:
A. Madison Street - Twenty feet (20'), from the south boundary of Tract Map 21643 to
the south boundary of this Tentative Map.
B. Airport Boulevard - Twenty feet along the frontage of this development.
Minimum widths may be used as average widths if meandering wall designs are approved.
Required setback areas or lots shall apply to all existing and proposed street frontage of
the parcel, or parcels being subdivided including, but not limited to, remainder parcels and
lots dedicated or deeded to others such as water well and power substation sites.
Where public sidewalks or equestrian trails are placed on privately -owned setback lots,
the applicant shall dedicate blanket easements over the setback lots.
12. The applicant shall vacate abutter's rights of access to the following streets from lots
abutting the streets:
A. Madison Street
B. Airport Boulevard
Direct access to these streets shall be restricted to those access points as approved by
the City.
13. The applicant shall dedicate any easements necessary for placement of and access to,
utility lines and structures, drainage basins, mailbox clusters, and common areas.
14. The applicant shall cause no easements to be granted, or recorded, over any portion of
this property between the date of approval by the City Council and the date of recording
of any final map(s) covering the same portion of the property unless such easements are
approved by the City Engineer.
FINAL MAP(S) AND PARCEL MAP(S)
15. Prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the
complete map, as approved by the City's map checker, on storage media and in a program
format acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu
choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program.
If the map was not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the map.
CONDTTW 8838(Reilly)-25
IMPROVEMENT PLANS
16. Improvement plans submitted to the City for plan checking shall be submitted on 24" x 36"
media in the categories of "Rough Grading," "Precise Grading," "Streets & Drainage," and
"Landscaping." All plans except precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for the
City Engineer. Precise grading plans shall have signature blocks for Community
Development Director and the Building Official. Plans are not approved for construction
until they are signed.
"Streets and Drainage" plans shall normally include signals, sidewalks, bike paths, gates
and entryways, and parking lots. If water and sewer plans are included on the street and
drainage plans, the plans shall have an additional signature block for the Coachella Valley
Water District (CVWD). The combined plans shall be signed by CVWD prior to their
submittal for the City Engineer's signature.
"Landscaping" plans shall normally include landscape improvements, irrigation, lighting,
and perimeter walls.
Plans for improvements not listed above shall be in formats approved by the City Engineer.
17. The City may maintain standard plans, details and/or construction notes for elements of
construction. For a fee established by City resolution, the applicant may acquire standard
plan and/or detail sheets from the City.
18. When final plans are approved by the City, and prior to approval of the final map, the
applicant shall furnish accurate AutoCad files of the complete, approved plans on storage
media acceptable to the City Engineer. The files shall utilize standard AutoCad menu
choices so they may be fully retrieved into a basic AutoCad program. At the completion
of construction and prior to final acceptance of improvements, the applicant shall update
the files to reflect as -constructed conditions including approved revisions to the plans.
If the plans were not produced in AutoCad or a file format which can be converted to
AutoCad, the City Engineer may accept raster -image files of the plans.
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
19. The applicant shall construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations, or furnish an
executed, secured agreement to construct improvements and/or satisfy obligations
required by the City prior to approval of a final map, or parcel map, or issuance of a
certificate of compliance for a waived parcel map. For secured agreements, security
provided, and the release thereof, shall conform with Chapter 13, LQMC.
Improvements to be made or agreed to shall include removal of any existing structures or
obstructions which are not part of the proposed improvements.
20. If improvements are secured, the applicant shall provide approved estimates of
improvement costs. Estimates shall comply with the schedule of unit costs adopted by City
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
resolution or ordinance. For items not listed in the City's schedule, estimates shall meet
the approval of the City Engineer.
Estimates for utilities and other improvements under the jurisdiction of outside agencies
shall be approved by those agencies. Security is not required for telephone, gas, or T.V.
cable improvements. However, tract improvements shall not be agendized for final
acceptance until the City receives confirmation from the telephone authority that the
applicant has met all requirements for telephone service to lots within the development.
21. If improvements are phased with multiple final maps or other administrative approvals (p0ot
plans, conditional use permits, etc.), off -site improvements and development -wide
improvements (e.g., retention basins, perimeter walls & landscaping, gates) shall be
constructed, or secured, prior to approval of the first final map unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer. Improvements and obligations required of each phase shall be
completed and satisfied prior to completion of homes or occupancy of permanent buildings
within the phase unless a construction phasing plan is approved by the City Engineer.
22. The applicant shall pay cash or provide security in guarantee of cash payment for
applicant's required share of improvements which have been, or will be, constructed by
others (participatory improvements).
Participatory improvements for this development include:
A. Madison Street and Airport Boulevard - 25% of the cost to design and construct
traffic signal improvements.
B. Madison Street and Gated Entry (Street "U) - 50% of the cost to design and
construct traffic signal improvements.
C. Airport Boulevard - 50% of the cost to design and construct an eighteen foot (18')
wide raised, landscaped median in that portion adjacent to this Tentative Map.
The applicant's obligations for all or a portion of the participatory improvements may, at
the City's option, be satisfied by participation in a major thoroughfare improvement
program if this development becomes subject to such a program.
23. Graded, undeveloped land shall be maintained to prevent dust and blowsand nuisances.
The land shall be planted with interim landscaping or provided with other wind and water
erosion control measures approved by the Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
24. Prior to occupation of the project site for construction purposes, the applicant shall submit
and receive approval of a Fugitive Dust Control plan prepared in accordance with Chapter
6.16, LQMC. In accordance with said Chapter, the applicant shall furnish security, in a
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
form acceptable to the City, in an amount sufficient to guarantee compliance with the
provisions of the permit.
25. The applicant shall comply with the City's Flood Protection Ordinance.
26. The applicant shall furnish a thorough preliminary geological and soils engineering report
(the "soils report") with the grading plan.
27. A grading plan shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and must meet the approval
of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. The grading plan shall conform
with the recommendations of the soils report and shall be certified as adequate by a soils
engineer or an engineering geologist. A statement shall appear on the final map(s), if any
are required of this development, that a soils report has been prepared pursuant to Section
17953 of the Health and Safety Code.
28. The applicant shall endeavor to minimize differences in elevation at the interface of this
development with abutting properties and of separate tracts and lots within this
development. Building pad elevations on contiguous lots shall not differ by more than
three feet except for lots within a tract, but not sharing common street frontage, where the
differential shall not exceed five feet. If compliance with this requirement is impractical,
the City will consider and may approve alternatives which minimize safety concerns,
maintenance difficulties and neighboring -owner dissatisfaction with the grade differential.
29. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a separate document,
bearing the seal and signature of a California registered civil engineer or surveyor, that
lists actual building pad elevations for the building lots. The document shall list the pad
elevation approved on the grading plan, the as -built elevation, and the difference between
the two, if any. The data shall be organized by lot number and shall be listed cumulatively
if submitted at different times.
DRAINAGE
30. The design of the development shall not cause any increase in flood boundaries, levels,
or frequencies in any area outside the development.
31. Stormwater falling on site during the peak 24-hour period of a 100-year storm (the design
storm) shall be retained within the development unless otherwise approved by the City
Engineer. The tributary drainage area shall extend to the centerline of adjacent public
streets.
32. Stormwater shall normally be retained in common retention basins. Individual -lot basins
or other retention schemes may be approved by the City Engineer for lots 2'/ acres in size,
or larger, or where the use of common retention is determined by the City Engineer to be
impracticable. If individual lot retention is approved, the applicant shall meet all individual -
lot retention provisions of Chapter 13.24, LQMC.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
33. Storm flow in excess of retention capacity shall be routed through a designated overflow
outlet and into the historic drainage relief route.
34. Storm drainage historically received from adjoining property shall be received and retained
or passed through into the historic downstream drainage relief route.
35. In design of retention facilities, the maximum percolation rate shall be two inches per hour.
The percolation rate will be considered to be zero unless the applicant provides
site -specific data indicating otherwise.
36. Retention basin slopes shall not exceed 3:1. If retention is on individual lots, the retention
depth shall not exceed two feet. If retention is in one or more common retention basins,
the retention depth shall not exceed six feet.
37. Nuisance water shall be retained on site. A trickling sand filter and leachfield of a design
approved by the City Engineer shall be installed to percolate nuisance water. The sand
filter and leach field shall be sized to percolate 22 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet
of drainage area.
38. In developments for which security will be provided by public safety entities (e.g., the
Riverside County Sheriff's Department), all areas of common retention basins shall be
visible from the adjacent street(s). No fence or wall shall be constructed around retention
basins except as approved by the Community Development Director and the City
Engineer.
39. If the applicant proposes drainage of stormwater from a design storm directly or indirectly
to public waterways, the applicant and, subsequently, the Homeowners' Association shall
be responsible for any sampling and testing of the development's effluent which may be
required under the City's NPDES Permit, or other city- or area -wide pollution prevention
program and for any other obligations and/or expenses which may arise from the such
discharge of the development's stormwater or nuisance water. The tract CC & R's shall
reflect the existence of this potential obligation.
UTILITIES
40. All existing and proposed utilities within or, adjacent to the proposed development shall
be installed underground. High -voltage power lines which the power authority will not
accept underground are exempt from this requirement.
41. In areas where hardscape surface improvements are planned, underground utilities shall
be installed prior to construction of surface improvements. The applicant shall provide
certified reports of utility trench compaction tests for approval by the City Engineer.
STREET AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS
42. The City is contemplating adoption of a major thoroughfare improvement program. If the
program is in effect 60 days prior to recordation of any final map or issuance of a
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
certificate of compliance for any waived final map, the development or portions thereof
may be subject to the provisions of the ordinance.
If this development is not subject to a major thoroughfare improvement program, the
applicant shall be responsible for all street and traffic improvements required herein.
43. The following minimum street improvements shall be constructed to conform with the
General Plan street type noted in parentheses:
A. OFF -SITE STREETS
1) Madison Street (Primary Arterial -110' right-of-way) - Construct the east three -
quarter's, (s/) of full right-of-way improvements along the frontage of this
Tentative Map, consisting of: half width street improvements (east of centerline)
with a six foot (6) wide meandering sidewalk; an eighteen foot (18') wide,
raised, landscaped median; and a sixteen foot (16') wide southbound lane
adjacent to the west side of the median.
2) Airport Boulevard (Primary Arterial - 110' right-of-way) - Construct the south
half (1/) of full right of way improvements along the frontage of this Tentative
Map, consisting of: half width street improvements (south of centerline) with a
six foot (6) wide meandering sidewalk. The eighteen foot (18') wide, raised,
landscaped median is deferred for construction by others.
B. PRIVATE STREETS AND CULS DE SAC
1) Residential - 36 feet wide if double loaded (building lots on both sides), 32 feet
if single loaded
2) Collector (z300 homes or 3,000 vehicles per day) - 40 feet wide
3) Cul de sac curb radius - 45 feet
C. EQUESTRIAN TRAIL - The applicant shall construct an equestrian trail along the
Madison Street frontage. The location and character of the trail shall be as approved
by the City.
Entry drives, main interior circulation routes, turn knuckles, corner cutbacks, bus turnouts,
dedicated turn lanes, and other features contained in the approved construction plans may
warrant additional street widths as determined by the City Engineer.
44. Access points and turning movements of traffic shall be restricted as follows:
A. Full turning movements shall be allowed at the main gated entrance (Street "L")
located on the east side of Madison Street, approximately one-half mile south of
Airport Boulevard.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
45. Improvements shall include all appurtenances such as traffic signs, channelization
markings and devices, raised medians if required, street name signs, sidewalks, and
mailbox clusters approved in design and location by the U.S. Post Office and the City
Engineer. Mid -block street lighting is not required.
46. The City Engineer may require improvements extending beyond development boundaries
such as, but not limited to, pavement elevation transitions, street width transitions, or other
incidental work which will ensure that newly constructed improvements are safely
integrated with existing improvements and conform with the City's standards and practices.
47. Improvement plans for all on- and off -site streets and access gates shall be prepared by
registered professional engineer(s) authorized to practice in the State of California.
Improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the LQMC, adopted
Standard and Supplemental Drawings and Specifications, and as approved by the City
Engineer.
48. Street right of way geometry for culs de sac, knuckle turns and corner cut -backs shall
conform with Riverside County Standard Drawings #800, #801, and #805 respectively
unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
49. All streets proposed to serve residential or other access driveways, shall be designed and
constructed with vertical curbs and gutters, or shall have other approved methods to
convey nuisance water without ponding and to facilitate street sweeping.
50. Street pavement sections shall be based on a Caltrans design for a 20-year life and shall
consider soil strength and anticipated traffic loading (including site and building
construction traffic). The minimum pavement sections shall be as follows:
Residential & Parking Areas 3.0" a.c./4.50" a.b.
Collector 4.0"/5.00"
Secondary Arterial 4.0"/6.00"
Primary Arterial 4.5"/6.00"
Major Arterial 5.5"/6.50"
The listed structural sections are minimums, not defaults. Street pavement sections shall
be designed using Caltrans design procedures with site -specific data for soil strength and
traffic volumes.
The applicant shall submit current (no more than two years old) mix designs for base
materials, Portland cement concrete and asphalt concrete, including complete mix design
lab results, for review and approval by the City. For mix designs over six months old, the
submittal shall include recent (no more than six months old at the time proposed for
construction) aggregate gradation test results to confirm that the mix design gradations
can be reproduced in production of the base or paving material. Construction operations
shall not be scheduled until mix designs are approved.
CONDTTM2883 8(Reilly)-25
51. Final inspection and occupancy of homes or other permanent buildings within the
development will not be approved until the homes or permanent buildings, have improved
access, including street and sidewalk improvements, traffic control devices and street
name signs, to publicly -maintained streets. If on -site streets are initially constructed with
only a portion of the full thickness of pavement, the applicant shall complete the pavement
when directed by the City, but in any case prior to final inspections of any of the final ten
percent of homes within the tract.
LANDSCAPING/PERIMETER WALLS
52. Perimeter walls and required landscaping for the entire perimeter to be enclosed shall be
constructed prior to final inspection and occupancy of any homes within the tract unless
a phasing plan, or construction schedule, is approved by the City Engineer.
53. The applicant shall provide landscape improvements in the perimeter setback areas or lots
adjacent to the frontage of this Tentative Map along Madison Street and Airport Boulevard.
The landscape improvements for Madison Street shall be designed to comply with Policy
3-4.1.6 of the General Plan (i.e., Agrarian Image Corridor).
54. Landscape and irrigation plans for landscaped lots, landscape setback areas, medians,
common retention basins, and park facilities shall be prepared by a licensed landscape
architect and comply with Chapter 8.13 of the Municipal Code.
Landscape and irrigation plans shall be approved by the Community Development
Department. Landscape and irrigation construction plans shall be submitted to the Public
Works Department for review and approval by the City Engineer. The plans are not
approved for construction until they have been approved and signed by the City Engineer,
the Coachella Valley Water District, and the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner.
55. Slopes shall not exceed 5:1 within public rights of way and 3:1 in landscape areas outside
the right of way unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
56. Landscape areas shall have permanent irrigation improvements meeting the requirements
of the City Engineer. Use of lawn shall be minimized with no lawn or spray irrigation within
5-feet of curbs along public streets.
57. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, common basins and park areas shall be
designed with grades and turf grass surface which can be mowed with standard tractor -
mounted equipment.
58. The applicant shall ensure that landscaping plans and utility plans are coordinated to
provide visual screening of above -ground utility structures.
59. The developer and subsequent property owner shall continuously maintain all required
landscaping in a healthy and viable condition as required by Section 9.60.240 (E3) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
PUBLIC SERVICES
60. The applicant shall provide public transit amenities along Madison Street and Airport
Boulevard as required by Sunline Transit and/or the City Engineer. These amenities may
include, as a minimum, a bus turnout location and passenger waiting shelter. The location
and character of the turnout and shelter shall be as determined by Sunline Transit and the
City Engineer.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
61. The applicant shall employ construction quality -assurance measures which meet the
approval of the City Engineer.
62. The subdivider shall arrange and bear the cost of measurement, sampling and testing not
included in the City's permit inspection program, but which are required by the City to
provide evidence that materials and their placement comply with plans and specifications.
Testing shall include a retention basin sand filter percolation test, as approved by the City
Engineer, after required tract improvements are complete and soils have been
permanently stabilized.
63. The applicant shall employ, or retain, California registered civil engineers, geotechnical
engineers, or surveyors, as appropriate, who will provide, or have their agents provide,
sufficient supervision and verification of the construction to be able to furnish and sign
accurate record drawings.
64. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall furnish the City reproducible record
drawings of all plans which were signed by the City Engineer. Each sheet of the drawings
shall have the words "Record Drawings," "As -Built" or "As -Constructed" clearly marked on
each sheet and be stamped and signed by the engineer or surveyor certifying to the
accuracy of the drawings. The applicant shall revise the plan computer files previously
submitted to the City to reflect the as -constructed condition.
MAINTENANCE
65. The applicant shall make provisions for continuous and perpetual maintenance of all
required improvements unless and until expressly released from said responsibility by the
City.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
66. Fire hydrants in accordance with Coachella Valley Water District Standard W-33 shall be
located at each street intersection paced not more than 330 feet apart in any direction with
no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a fire hydrant. Minimum fire flow
shall be 1,500 g.p.m. for a 2-hour duration at 20 psi. Blue dot reflectors shall be mounted
in the middle of streets directly in line with fire hydrants.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
67. Applicant/developer will provide written certification for the appropriate water company that
the required fire hydrant(s) are either existing or that financial arrangements have been
made to provide them.
68. Prior to recordation of the final map, applicant/developer shall furnish one blueline copy
of the water system plans to the Fire Department for review/approval. Plans shall conform
to the fire hydrant types, location and spacing, and the system will meet the fire flow
requirements. Plans will be signed and approved by the registered Civil Engineer and the
local water company with the following certification: "/ certify that the design of the water
system is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Riverside County Fire
Department."
69. The required water system including fire hydrants will be installed and accepted by the
appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an
individual lot.
70. A temporary water supply for fire protection may be allowed for the construction of the
model units only. Plans for a temporary water system must be submitted to the Fire
Department for review prior to issuance of building permits.
71. Prior to the issuance of the 30h building permit, the developer shall provide alternative or
secondary (temporary) access to the project for emergency vehicles. The location and
design of the temporary accessway shall be approved by the City Engineer. Gated access
may be permitted.
72. Gate entrances shall be at least two feet wider than the width of the traffic lane(s) serving
that gate. All gates providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least
30-feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing
traffic on the road. Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a
gate entrance, a 40-foot turning radius shall be used. Gates shall be power operated and
equipped with a Fire Department override system consisting of Knox Key Operated
switches, series KS-2P with dust cover, mounted per recommended standard of the Knox
Company. Improvement plans for the entry street and gates shall be submitted to the Fire
Department for review and approval prior to installation.
FEES AND DEPOSITS
73. The applicant shall pay all deposits and fees required by the City for plan checking and
construction inspection. Deposit and fee amounts shall be those in effect when the
applicant makes application for plan checking and permits.
74. School impacts shall be mitigated in accordance with the provisions of AB 1600, Section
53080 and 65995 of the Government Code, or the them existing legislation and/or local
ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, or any applicable Mitigation Agreement entered into
by the developer and the Coachella Valley Unified School District. In addition, the City,
developer and District shall cooperate in exploring alternatives to provide lands or facilities
to the District, through joint use agreements, dedications, or Mello -Roos District formation.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
75. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's adopted
Infrastructure Fee program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
76. Plan check fees required by the Riverside Country Fire Department shall be paid when
plans are submitted for review and approval.
77. Prior to final map approval, parkland mitigation fees for houses within SP 90-017 shall be
paid to the Community Development Department.
MISCELLANEOUS
78. All public agency letters received for this case are made part of the case file documents
for plan checking purposes.
79. Applicable conditions of Specific Plans 83-002 (Amendment #3) and 90-017 as amended
shall be met prior to building permit issuance.
80. The layout and design of the permanent tract access gates shall be approved by the
Community Development Department after review and approval by the Fire Department.
81. The project's Homeowners' Association (HOA) will be organized to administer and
maintain common open space, private roads, security, and architectural consistency
pursuant Section 12.0 (phasing and Implementation) of SP 90-017 and as required by SP
83-002.
82. On -site signs (temporary or permanent) shall comply with Chapter 9.160 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Permanent tract identification signs shall be approved by the Planning
Commission prior to installation.
83. Temporary on -site sales facilities are subject to the requirements of Section 9.60.250 of
the Zoning Code (i.e., Minor Use Permit).
84. Detached guest houses within the tract shall comply with the requirements of Section
9.60.100 of the Zoning Ordinance.
85. Prior to building permit issuance, housing plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Commission pursuant to Sections 9.210.010 (Site Development Permit) and
9.60.300 (Compatibility Review) of the Zoning Code.
86. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 3e housing unit, permanent
restroom buildings for golfers and golf course maintenance workers shall be constructed,
if they do not exist at that time. A minimum of two common area restroom buildings shall
be provided.
87. Developer (or property owner) agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of
La Quinta in the event of any legal claim or litigation arising out of the City's approval of
this project. The City of La Quinta shall have the right to select its defense counsel in its
sole discretion.
CONDTTM28838(Reilly)-25
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1
52nd 1 AVENUE
va
53rd AVENUE
0
z
54th AVENUE Z
m �
a
PGA WEST Z
AIRPORT BLVD.
PROJECT
SITE
58th AVENUE
VICHTY MAP
NOT TO SCALE 0
0
Z
CASE No.
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 28838
Y
t
PGA WEST
MUM
uF,LLY RH liomEs
MMLTANI
'RACT
IAP
10. 28838
PGA WEST 2
'
ATTACHMENT 2 LOT R.
4 —4
. ...........................
LOT 'S*
'Lu
co
16 Sw
%
TOM - - 40 '4
J" Noma 0 !7 7F=-