1994 11 08 PCr
• DI 2
OF TN
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
A Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chamber
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, California
November 8, 1994
7:00 P.M.
**NOTE**
ALL AGENDA ITEMS NOT CONSIDERED BY 11:00 P.M. MAY BE CONTINUED
TO THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING
Beginning Resolution 94-024
Beginning Minute Motion 94-034
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMENT
This is the time set aside for citizens to address the Planning Commission on matters
relating to City planning and zoning which are not Agenda items. When addressing the
Planning Commission, please state your name and address.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Item ................ CONTINUED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-
044
Applicant ......... City of La Quinta
Location .......... City-wide
Request ........... Amendments to Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
and to Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights
Action ............. Resolution 94- , 94-
2. Item ................ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2527E (AMENDMENT
#1)
Applicant ......... Alliance Service Station
Location .......... 77-985 Avenida Montezuma
Request ........... Approval to delete full service pumps and provide self-service
only
Action ............. Minute Motion 94-
PC/AGENDA
BUSINESS ITEMS - None
1. Item ............... PLOT PLAN 94-529
Applicant ......... Century Homes
Location .......... South of Fred Waring Drive and east of Adams Street
Request ........... Approval of circular driveways for homes at the Rancho
Ocotillo subdivision
Action ............. Minute Motion 94-
2. Item .............. SPECIFIC PLAN 94-024
Applicant ......... E. G. Williams Development Corp.
Location .......... North side of Calle Tampico, west of Washington Street
Request ........... Approval of retention basin landscape plan
Action ............ Minute Motion 94-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 25, 1994.
OTHER
1. Commissioner report of City Council meeting.
2. Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting November 15, 1994, 8:00 P.M.,
regarding the Subdivision Ordinance revision.
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, November 8, 1994
Council Chamber
4:00 P.M.
1. All agenda items
PC/AGENDA
DISCUSSION:
Staff transmitted the proposed amendments to other City departments, the City Attorney,
and to outside agencies for review and comment. Comments were received from the City
of Indio and the Building Industry Association (BIA). The City of Indio (Attachment 4)
did not have any comments. A letter was received from the BIA (Attachment 5) that
contained no comments on Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights, but did have
several comments on Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone. These comments were
considered and/or included in the proposed amendments.
An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the proposed amendments (Attachment 6)
for which there were no significant potential adverse impacts identified. Staff has prepared
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for certification by the City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution 94-_ recommending to the City Council the certification of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for Environmental Assessment 94-281.
Adopt Resolution 94 recommending to the City Council approval of the proposed
ordinance amendments and the proposed application fees.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Amended Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
2. Proposed Amended Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights
3. Proposed Application Fee breakdown
4. Letter from City of Indio
5. Letter from Building Industry Association
6. Environmental Assessment 94-281
PCST.200
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL, CERTIFICATION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-281
PREPARED FOR ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 94-044
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-281
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta,
California, did on the 27th day of September, the 11th day of October, the 25th day of
October, and the 8th day of November, 1994, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider
proposed amendments to Chapters 9.145 and 9.146 of the La Quinta Municipal Code
relating to the transfer of development rights; and,
WHEREAS, said zoning ordinance amendments 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 Initial Study EA 94-281; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Director has determined that said zoning
ordinance amendment will riot 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 recommendation for certification
of said Environmental Assessment:
1. The proposed zoning; ordinance amendments will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community, either directly or indirectly.
2. The proposed zoning; ordinance amendments will not have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory.
RBSOPC.106
3. The proposed zoning; ordinance amendments do not have the potential to achieve
short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental
goals.
4. The proposed zoning; ordinance amendments will not result in impacts which are
individually limited, 'but cumulatively considerable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning
Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission for this environmental assessment.
2. That is does hereby recommend certification of Environmental Assessment 94-281
for the reasons set forth in this resolution and as stated in the attached
environmental assessment checklist and addendum, labeled Exhibit "A" - EA.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
La Quinta Planning Commission held on this 8th day of November, 1994, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DON ADOLPH, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
tLso?c. toe
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS
TO CHAPTER: 9.145 - HILLSIDE CONSERVATION ZONE
AND CHAPTER 9.146 - TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS AND :RECOMMENDATION OF APPLICATION FEES
FOR TRANSFERS
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-044
CITY OF LA QUINTA
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 27th
day of September, 1994, and the 11th day of October, 1994, and the 25th day of October, 1994,
and the 8th day of November, 1994, hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the request
for amendments to Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone and Chapter 9.146 - Transfer
of Development Rights to permit the transfer of density credits to individuals as well as proposed
application fees for transfer requests; and,
WHEREAS, said Zoning Ordinance Amendments 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 Planning
Director has determined that after an Initial Study, the amendments will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment and that a Negative Declaration 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 approval of said Zoning Ordinance Amendments:
1. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general
welfare of the community.
2. The Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the intent and standards of the
Zoning Ordinance.
3. The proposed amendments are compatible with the goals and policies of the La Quinta
General Plan.
4. The proposed application fees are based upon the cost of staff time and expenses to
review and process a transfer request.
RESOPC.142
Planning Commission Resolution 94-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the
City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the
Commission on this case;
2. That it does hereby recommend approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-044 for
the reasons set forth in. this resolution and as stated in Exhibit "A" and "B" .
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
Planning Commission held on this 8th day of November, 1994, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
DON ADOLPH, Chairman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.142 2
ATTACHMENT A
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 9.145
HC ZONE (HILLSIDE CONSERVATION ZONE)
Rprtinnc-
9.145.005
Generally.
9.145.010
Purpose and intent.
9.145.015
Application to property.
9.145.020
Permitted uses.
9.145.025
Conditional use permit review required.
9.145.030
Design review.
9.145.035
Engineering reviews required.
9.145.040
Other studies required.
9.145.045
Grading, grubbing, and scarring control.
9.145.050
Development standards.
9.145.055
Division of HC zoned land.
9.145.060
Transfer of development rights.
9.145.065
Alteration of the location of the toe of the slope.
9.145.070
Recreational/open space ownership and maintenance.
9.145.075
Change of designation.
9.145.005 GENERALLY.
A. The Hillside Conservation (HC) zone applies to all land within the City
designated in the General Plan as "Open Space".
B. The Hillside Conservation (HC) chapter applies specifically to land meeting
the definitions of being above "the toe of the slopes", as defined in Section 9.145.015, within
the following nineteen (19) sections (San Bernardino Base and Meridian) within the City:
T5S, R7E: Sections 19, 25, 30;
T5S, R7E: Section 36;
T5S, R7E: Sections 1, 12, 13, 24, 25;
T5S, R7E: Sections 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 30
C. The HC chapter shall also apply to each and every parcel of land within the
City (without otherwise being noted on exhibit or map which is added to the City by
annexation, dedication, or other means) meeting the definitions of being above "the toe of
the slope".
D. Except as specifically provided elsewhere in this title, any and all disturbance
ORDDRFT.050 1
of natural terrain, grubbing, grading, new use, and every new building and premises or land
in the HC Zone shall be used for or occupied and every building shall be erected,
constructed, established, altered, enlarged, maintained, moved into or within such HC zone
exclusively and only in accordance with regulations set forth in the chapter. (Ord. 147 1
(part), 1989)
9.145.010 PURPOSE AND INTENT
A. The purpose of this Chapter is twofold:
1. To define those hillside areas which are not developable, from either
a public safety or engineering perspective, and to prevent inappropriate development on
them; and,
2. For those hillside areas which are developable, to ensure the safety of
the public, and to ensure that the placement, density, and type of all hillside development
within the City is suitable to the topography of the existing terrain that proposed
developments will provide for minimal disturbance of the existing terrain and natural
habitat, and that the natural hillside characteristics will be retained wherever practicable.
B. It is the further purpose of this Chapter to implement the goals and policies
of the General Plan and to achieve the following objectives:
1. To protect the public from hazards associated with hillside
development, including seismic activity, landslides, flooding, inaccessibility from fire and
emergency services, lack of water for fire control, wild fires, collapse of roads, and similar
risks;
2. To protect and conserve hillside ecosystems through the retention of
unique natural topographic features and hillside characteristics, including drainage patterns,
stream slopes, ridgelines, rock out-croppings, vistas, natural vegetation, and the habitats and
migratory routes of animals;
3. To maximize the retention of the City's natural topographic features,
including, but not limited to, mountainsides, mountain faces, skyline profiles, ridgelines,
ridgecrests, hilltops, hillsides, slopes, arroyos, ravines, canyons, prominent vegetation, rock
outcrops, view corridors, and scenic vistas, through the careful limitation and selection of
building sites and building pads on said topographic features, thereby enhancing the beauty
of the City's landscape;
4. To assure that developmental use of said topographic features will
relate to the surrounding topography and will not be conspicuous and obtrusive because of
the design and location of said developmental use;
ORDDRFT.050 2
5. To reduce the scarring effects of excessive grading for roads, building
pads, and cut and fill slopes;
6. To balance public and private interests while preserving the hillsides.
(Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.015 APPLICATION TO PROPERTY.
A. In the City's General Plan, all hillsides and some alluvial fans are designed
"Open Space". In general, the dividing line between open space and other land uses is
meant to follow and be bounded by "the toe of the slope". The area above "the toe of the
slope" includes not only hillsides, but also alluvial fans which are not protected by flood
control structures, and drainage ways and stream courses which have some potential for
flooding. In general, alluvial fans not exceeding twenty percent (20%) slope are developable
consistent with this Chapter either through the transfer of residential units from contiguous
hillside areas, by change of designation (Section 9.145.075) by providing flood protection
(Section 9.145.065).
B. For any parcel subject to the jurisdiction of the City, the City Engineer, upon
viewing the site and considering a land suitability study (containing all the requirements in
Section 9.145.035) submitted by the applicant shall determine the boundary between the
developable and the undevelopable portions of the parcel by locating "the toe of the slope",
using the following criteria (more than one criterion may apply):
1. The point where water -borne alluvial material not exceeding twenty
percent (20%) slope begins -to collect to a depth of one foot or more;
2. The dividing line between steeper rock formations and more gently
sloping alluvium, i.e., where there is a noticeable break in the angle of slope from steep to
shallow;
3. Where the angle of slope exceeds twenty percent (20%);
4. An area unprotected from flooding potential, i.e., an area above the
uppermost flood control structure which intercepts runoff (in the form of either natural
water courses or an overland. sheet flow) and directs it to a controlled stormwater diversion
channel (see Section 9.145.065). (Ord. 147 E 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.020 PERMITTED USES.
A. No development (except as provided under Subsection D of this Section) shall
be approved for slopes exceeding twenty percent (20%).
B. The following are exempt from the requirements of this Chapter: tracts, and
oRDDRFT.050 3
specific plans already approved.
C. The following uses within the HC zone shall be permitted on alluvial fans with
slopes not exceeding twenty ,percent (20%):
1. Golf courses (not including above -ground structures), but permitting
fairways, greens, tees, and golf -cart paths to access them;
2. Flood control structures;
3. Parks, lakes, and passive recreation facilities;
4. Water wells, pumping stations, and water tanks (if properly screened
or painted);
5. Power, telephone, and cable substations and transmission lines (if
properly screened or painted);
6. Television, cable, and radio antennas;
7. Hiking and equestrian trails;
8. Single family residential uses;
9. Accessory uses necessary to accomplish the permitted uses such as
roads, gate -houses, on -site subdivision signs, parking lots, noncommercial community
association, recreation, and assembly building and facilities.
D. The following uses within the HC zone shall be permitted on slopes exceeding
twenty percent (20%):
1. Hiking and equestrian trails not permitting vehicles;
2. Access roads which shall be non -visible unless applicant can prove to
the City that the only access to a non -visible area must traverse a visible area. (Ownership
or non -ownership of property is not sufficient proof of reason to place a road in a visible
area.) Roads cannot exceed fifteen percent (15%) grade. (Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.025 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW REQUIRED.
All development with the HC zone shall file and receive approval (or modification)
of plans by means of the conditional use permit approval process described in Chapter 9.172
plus all requirements of this chapter. (Ord. 147 § (part), 1989)
9.145.030 DESIGN REVIEW.
ORDDRFT.050 4
All development in the HC zone shall be subject to design review pursuant to
Chapter 9.183 of this title. "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 HC zone property. (Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.035 ENGINEERING REVIEWS REQUIRED.
A. For every home: site or for every subdivision proposed within the HC zone, the
following reports shall be prepared by a California -licensed engineer (licensed in the
appropriate discipline), and filed with the City Engineer (unless specifically waived by the
City Engineer based on a site 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
appropriateness of 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 sites;
6. Grading; plan for the construction site(s) and access routes.
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.
B. The City Engineer shall specifically approve each proposed site and access
route based on the submitted reports. (Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.040 OTHER STUDIES REQUIRED.
The following studies shall be filed with the Community Development Department
as a part of the application :process:
A. All development in the HC Zone shall be subject to a review by a qualified
biologist, which addresses the following:
1. Natural. vegetation and native plants which may be affected by the
project;
ORDDRFT.050 5
2. Wildlife habitats, migratory routes (e.g., for Bighorn sheep), and native
animal species;
3. Plan to maintain corridors for wildlife habitat and movement of animals
within HC zone.
B. All development in the HC zone shall be subject to the provisions of Title 7 -
Historic Preservation, and a review by a qualified archaeologist, which addresses the
following:
A thorough examination of the site for archaeological or historic
resources;
2. A plan for the salvage of any significant resources, if avoidance of the
archaeological resource is not possible;
C. A plan for preservation of all areas exceeding slopes above ten percent (10%)
as specified in Section 9.145.045(J), including:
1. The designation of all areas exceeding ten percent (10%) slope, with
the degree of slope noted, and the calculation of the percent to be left undisturbed;
2. The designation of all water courses both natural and man-made, with
plans for the preservation and/or reintroduction of drought tolerant plants. Water courses
shall be designated as open space;
3. A monitoring program (following CEQA) for the preservation of open
spaces. (Ord.147 � 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.045 GRADING, GRUBBING, AND SCARRING CONTROL.
A. No permits shall be issued for any grading, grubbing, building or structure in
the HC zone until grading plans, slope planting and irrigation plans, and building elevations
for design review have been submitted to the Planning Commission for recommendation and
to the City Council for approval. In reviewing plans for grading, slope planting and
irrigation, native revegetation, mitigation of scarring caused by grubbing and grading,
preservation of the natural state of the hillsides and water coursed (based on slope angle)
and building elevations, the Commission and Council shall consider the purpose and intent
of this chapter and the criteria established in Section 9.145.050, together with applicable
standards and shall approve the design if all applicable provisions are met.
B. Conditions may be applied when the proposed development does not comply
with applicable standards as set forth in this text and shall be such as to bring such
development into conformity or the plans and drawings may be disapproved and the City
ORDDRFT.050 6
shall specify the standard or standards that are not met.
C. The applicant or developer shall be responsible for the maintenance of all
slope planting and irrigation systems until such time as the properties are occupied or until
a homeowner's association accepts the responsible to maintain the landscaping in common
area, or other maintenance district formation is established.
D. Any person who fails to protect the natural terrain, defaces, grades, grubs,
scars, or otherwise disrupts the natural terrain in the HC zone without prior City approval
of plans for such work, subject to this chapter, shall have created a public nuisance which
shall be abated. Abatement may include the property owner undertaking the restoration
(under City supervision and monitoring), or that failing, City -contracted restoration of the
disrupted area. The property owner may be charged the cost of the restoration together
with the direct costs of supervision and monitoring of the restoration. If the property owner
fails to reimburse the City the costs incurred, a lien against the property for payment may
be instituted and collected.
E. Any plans which are being considered by the City for possible approval of
development shall at the time of discovery of the creation of the public nuisance be denied
by the considering body. After such time as the public nuisance has been completely abated,
the plans may be resubmitted, upon payment of all required fees.
F. The provisions of this Section shall be in addition to other Municipal Code
titles and regulations applicable to grading activities within the City. No grading shall be
conducted, nor shall any grading permit be issued for any grading in the HC zone until
grading plans and special drawings showing grading and topography as viewed from critical
locations within the neighborhood or community have been submitted to the Planning
Commission for recommendation and to the City Council for approval.
G. The Commission and Council shall consider the following matters of particular
concern in their review of grading proposals in the HC zone. Conditions may be attached
to the approval of grading plans so as to achieve the purpose and intent of this chapter 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 scaring effects of grading;
4. The encouragement of sensitive grading to ensure optimum treatment
ORDDRFT.050 7
of natural hillside and arroyo features; and,
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;
6. The maximum retention of vistas, and natural topographic features
including mountainsides, ridgelines, hilltops, slopes, rock outcroppings, arroyos, ravines, and
canyons.
H. All land areas with twenty percent (20%) or greater slope shall not be graded
in any manner except at the specific discretion of the City Council, and only where it can
be shown that a minimum amount of development is in the spirit of, and not incompatible
with, the purposes and policies set forth in this chapter.
I. The following table indicates those maximum percentages of the ground
surface of a site which shall remain in a nature state (no cut or fill or grubbing) or be
developed solely for recreational purposes based on the average percent slope of a parcel:
Table of Natural Site to be Preserved
Average Percent Slope Site
10.0 - 12.4
12.5 - 14.9
15.0 - 17.4
17.5 - 19.9
20.00 or more
(Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.050 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
Minimum Percent of Site to Remain in
Natural State (no Cut or Fill or Grubbing)
or be Developed Solely for Recreational/
Open Space Purposes
70.0
77.5
85.0
92.5
100.0
A. Maximum density and minimum lot permitted. In the HC zone the maximum
density permitted shall be one residential unit per ten acres. On a contiguous parcel which
includes areas both above and below the "toe of the slope", residential units may be
clustered together below the; "toe of the slope" to take advantage of buildable areas with
lower slope angels, provided the overall density for the parcel of one unit per ten acres is
not exceeded. Structures shall remain single family, separated, on individual lots having an
area of at least seven thousand two hundred square feet.
B. Yard (setback) Requirements. The requirements for R-1 zone shall apply.
C. Heights. The requirements for R-1 zone shall apply, except that no structure
shall be placed in such a way that its outline is visible above a ridgeline.
ORDDRFT.050 8
D. Auto Storage. On -site requirements shall follow Chapter 9.160.
E. Equipment. No roof -top equipment for heating, cooling, or other purposes
will be permitted.
F. Architectural Treatment. The architectural treatment of structures within the
HC zone shall be compatible with the setting of the structure and shall be generally
consistent with requirements of the desert setting and other architectural treatments found
elsewhere in the City. Use of indigenous materials for the structure of walls should be
encouraged. Fencing and walls must follow SR Zoning requirements.
G. Landscaping. On the cut or pad occupied by the structure, landscaping may
be left to the choice of the homeowner, providing some selection of drought -tolerant species
is observed. Elsewhere on the site (or open space), native vegetation shall be undisturbed
(or recreated after approved grading).
H. Utilities. All utilities shall be placed underground, except for water tanks and
substations which shall be appropriately screened and/or painted in colors to blend into the
background. (Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.055 DIVISION OF HC ZONED LANDS.
In order to assure compliance with the provisions of this chapter, there shall be
submitted for every property within or partially within HC zoned land, along with every
conditional use permit, tentative subdivision map or parcel map filed for approval, in
accordance with the provisions of 'Title 13 of this code, a preliminary grading plan (and
other requirements of this chapter) showing at least one practical, usable, accessible building
site which can be developed in accordance with the provisions of this chapter for each lot
or parcel. (Ord. 233 § 1 (Exh. "A") (part), 1993: Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.060 TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
A. Transfer of Development Rights shall follow the procedures and standards
presented in Chapter 9.146.
B. Any owner of :property within the HC zone may transfer development rights
from the HC zone on the basis of one residential unit per ten acres.
C. Development rights may be transferred as follows:
1. To a subdivided portion of the same property below "the toe of the
slope", as presented in a conditional use permit; or,
2. 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 twenty
percent (20%) of the General Plan density designation.
3. Development rights may be retained by an individual.
oRDDRF'r.050 9
4. Transfer rights may be further sold as provided in Chapter 9.146.
D. Any owner of property within the HC zone may sell, bequeath or transfer the
development rights of the property, in accordance with this chapter and Chapter 9.146 to
any governmental jurisdiction or any properly organized nonprofit organization whose
charter allows for the ownership and/or transfer of development rights. The governmental
jurisdiction or nonprofit organization may retain or sell or transfer acquired development
rights in accordance with Chapter 9.146. (Ord. 233 � 1 (Exh. A) (part), 1993; Ord. 147
1 (part), 1989)
9.145.065 ALTERATION OF THE LOCATION OF THE TOE OF THE SLOPE.
If, as a result of an approved development project, a flood control structure is placed
higher on a hillside area so that an area of alluvial fan becomes protected from flooding
potential (or if the location of the "toe of the slope" is moved by altering some other
criterion), the new area below "the toe of the slope" shall remain zoned HC, and the
conditional use permit approved for the site shall determine the effective density of the
developable portion of virtue: of the transfer of development rights from the hillside areas
to the developable portion of the property. (Ord. 147 " 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.070 RECREATIONAVOPEN SPACE OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE
A. Those areas located within a hillside development controlled by this chapter
which are to remain as undeveloped open spaces, such as undevelopable slopes and natural
landmarks, etc., which are to be used for game preserve, recreational, or open space
purposes, may be offered, through dedication, to a governmental jurisdiction, or to a not -for -
profit land trust, conservancy„ or similar organization whose charter allows for the ownership
of development rights which will preserve the natural open space of the hillside area in
perpetuity.
B. If, however, the public agency, or City, or land trust, conservancy, or similar
organization does not accept such an offer (or if such an offer is not made), 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 separate 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. Where necessary and
appropriate, maintenance in perpetuity shall be guaranteed through the bond of the
developer. (Ord. 147 § 1 (part), 1989)
9.145.075 CHANGE OF DESIGNATION.
oRDDRFT.050 10
All lands within the Hillside Conservation Zone are designated on the General Plan
Land Use Map as "Open Space". A property owner may propose a change of designation
from "Open Space" and HC ;Zones by means of the following procedures:
A. General Plan .Amendment from "Open Space" designation in an equally
appropriate category.
B. A change of zone from HC to an equally appropriate zone.
C. Submission of a specific plan for the property.
D. Satisfaction of the engineering and other reviews required in Section 9.145.035
and 9.145.040.
E. Compliance with all other sections of this chapter except Section 9.145.020;
9.145.050(A), (B), and (C); 9.145.060, and 9.145.065. (Ord. 147 5 1 (part), 1989)
oRDDRFT.050 11
ATTACHMENT #
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 9.146
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Sections:
9.146.005
Definitions.
9.146.010
Definitions.
9.146.015
Procedures.
9.146.020
Timing.
9.146.025
Documentation..
9.146.030
Fees
Section 9.146.005. !Generally.
A. All transfers of development rights or credits shall follow the definitions,
procedures, timing, and documentation presented in this chapter, and shall observe the
restrictions and guidelines presented in other enabling chapters, such as Chapter 9.145, and
others which may be from time to time adopted enabling transfers of development rights or
credits.
B. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the process by which development
rights or credits may be transferred from donor parcels or individuals to receiving parcels or
individuals such as in open space land use designations to enable it to be preserved as open
space, and other purposes which may be adopted in other enabling legislation. Such transfers
of development rights or credits may be within the same property or between the same
individual, or may take place from one property to another by means of sale.
C. Transfe:rs shall take place under the guidance of the City and shall be
documented by means of recordation.
D. The retransfer or reversal of transferred development rights or credits back
to the donor parcel or individual may be permitted under the procedures in Section 9.146.015.
E. Development rights or credits can be transferred to non -mountainous
parcels.
Section 9.146.010. Definitions.
A. "Development right or credit" means a potential entitlement created by a
land use designation and, by adoption of a zoning category, applying to a parcel of land, to
construct one dwelling unit per a given number of square feet or per a given number of acres,
ORDDRFT.049 3
which can only be exercised when the development right or credit has been transferred pursuant
to the provisions of this chapter and the enabling chapter, from a donor parcel to a receiving
parcel, and all other requirements of law are fulfilled.
B. "Donor parcel" means a parcel, from which all potential entitlements for
residential development are transferred (by means of sale, or transfer to another parcel) and
thereby extinguished. A subdivision shall be required to separate developable from
undevelopable portions of the parcel.
C. "Receiving parcel" means a parcel, to which potential entitlements for
residential development are transferred up to the limits of the enabling chapters, and exist in
addition to any potential entitlements created by general plan land use designation and density
specification and in addition to any zoning which applies to the parcel.
D. "Fractions" means development rights or credits may be transferred as a
fraction carried to the second decimal place, rounded up or down to the second place following
the rule of the third decimal being zero through four, rounded down; five through nine rounded
up to the next digit in the second decimal place. When applied to the receiving parcel, the
number of credits (carried to the second decimal place) will be spread across the acreage of the
receiving parcel and will be translated into an increment of additional development entitlements
carried to two decimal places per acre.
E. "Density bonuses" means transferred development rights or credits shall
not be counted in the basis for density bonuses granted for providing for affordable housing or
good design or special amenities. The order in which bonuses and transferred rights or credits
are applied shall be as follows:
1. The base density ranges as per the General Plan;
2. Density bonuses applied for providing affordable housing (up to
thirty percent of the base density alone);
3. Density bonuses for good design or special amenities (up to ten
percent of the base density alone);
4. Transferred densities added to the final figure of any density
bonuses. Transferred densities shall not become a part of the base on which bonuses are figures.
5. In no case shall the sum of all density bonuses and transferred
densities (if all are maximized) exceed sixty percent of the base density in the General Plan.
F. "Enabling chapter" means a chapter of Title 9 of this code which creates
and further specifies and limits the transfer of development rights or credits, such as Chapter
9.145.
G. "Timing" means the time limits as specified in Section 9.146.20.
H. "Documentation" means the requirements for City approval, recordation
and notice to the City of such recordation, following example language specified in Section
9.146.25.
ORDDRFT.049 4
I. "Non -Mountainous" parcels are defined as those parcels that are less than
20% total slope, below the "toe of the slope", and buildable.
Section 9.146.015. Procedures.
A. The enabling chapter shall specify by class the donor parcels and the
receiving parcels, the number of residential development rights or credits which can be
transferred per square footage or per acre; and the limits of development rights or credits which
can be transferred to any one parcel.
B. The donor parcels, from which development rights are being removed
must:
1. 'Remove all development rights or credits at the same time (residual
development rights or credits cannot be left on the property);
2. :Be mappable; according to the Subdivision Map Act requirements,
i.e., a legal description and a. total acreage will be required to be recorded.
3. Record a document which acknowledges that all development rights
or credits for all involved parcels or individuals have been extinguished and that no further
residential development associates with the transfer can occur on said parcels or initiated by the
individual owner(s).
C. The receiving parcel, to which development rights or credits are being
transferred, must:
1. Be mappable; according to the Subdivision Map Act requirement,
i.e., a legal description and a total acreage will be required to be recorded;
2. Record a document of affixture (or attachment) which has been
attested to by the City Clerk of the City, tying the transferred development rights or credits to
a specified parcel or individual, following the sense of the example of language contained in
Section 9.146.25.
D. This document of transfer and affixture must be recorded. Evidence of
the recordation must be supplied to the City Clerk of the City within thirty days of the date of
attestation by the City Clerk.
E. The City Clerk shall only attest to a transfer of development rights or
credits upon receipt of writtc;n authorization from the City Manager. The City Manager shall
only authorize such transfer after receiving a report from the Community Development
Department containing a recommendation and a synopsis of the engineering report from the
Public Works Director.
ORDDRFT.049 5
F. If a property consists of both undevelopable and developable portions, the
applicant may apply for the subdivision of the parcel to allow transfer of rights from the
undevelopable portion to the developable portion.
G. The application fee for transfer procedures that require a public hearing
before the City Council shall be $500.00. For those transfer procedures that do not require a
public hearing, the application fee shall be $400.00.
Section 9.146.020. 'rimin .
A. A condition of approval of the development rights transfer shall specify
the donor and receiving parcels subject to the transfer which shall be recorded no later than
ninety days from the date of Council approval.
B. In the event that a parcel of hillside land (with development rights still
attached) is granted, bequeathed, sold, transferred, given or otherwise becomes the property of
a not -for -profit land trust, conservancy, or public agency, the receiving entity shall have an
unlimited period from the date: of receipt in which to dispose of the development rights by sale
or other means. When development rights are transferred to a specific receiving parcel, the
ninety day time limit shall apply as in Subsection A of this section.
Section 9.146.025. Documentation.
A. There shall be recorded for the donor parcel a document having the sense
of the following:
1. A legal description and a total acreage of the parcel or portion of
the parcel.
2. The total number of development rights or credits being removed
from the property.
3. An acknowledgement that no further residential development rights
or credits shall accrue to the parcel in perpetuity.
4. The Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) of the parcel to which the
development rights or credits are being transferred.
5. An attestation by the City Clerk (dated).
6. The signature, name, and address of the owner of the parcel.
B. There shall be recorded for the receiving parcel a document having the
sense of the following:
ORDDRFT.049 6
1. "In addition to the number of dwelling units on this parcel identified
as APN # __ (legal description and total acreage attached as Exhibit "A")
which may be permitted by the City of La Quinta by virtue of the General Plan Land Use and
Density Designations, this parcel shall be permitted (number) of additional dwelling units per
acre, which have been transferred to this parcel pursuant to Chapter 9.146 of the Municipal
Code, Transfer of Development Rights".
2. "These additional dwelling units are hereby affixed to this parcel
identified as APN # and may not be further transferred, sold, traded,
or otherwise removed from this parcel, except by the purchase by the City of La Quinta or other
public agency authorized by the City"
3. The Assessor's Parcel Numbers) of the donor parcel(s) from which
the development rights or credits have been removed and transferred and affixed to this parcel.
4. The signature of the City Clerk of the City affixed below attests to
the legitimate transfer of these development rights to this property as described in Exhibit "A",
attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter and on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 9.146.030. ;Fees.
A. The application fees shall be established by City Council resolution
(Ord.242§ 6 (part), 1994).
ORDDRFT.049 7
ATTACHMENT #3
M E M 0 RA N D U M
DATE: October 18, 1994
TO: Dawn Honeywell, City Attorney
FROM: Leslie Mouriquand-Chevy ;gym -L-
RE: ZOA 94-044 Amendments to Transfer of Development Rights and
Hillside Conservation Zone
CC: Jerry Herman, Planning & Development Director
In response to your request for a good -faith estimate of expenses in the review and
processing of a transfer of development rights, I suggest the following:
Non -hearing trasnsfer:
Staff Time
Director
Principal Planner
Associate Planner
Dept. Secretary
Clerk Typist
1 hour @ $42.18/hr.
1 hour @ $36.67/hr.
4 hours@ $32.83/hr.
1 hour @ $21.94/hr.
1 hour @ $18.67/hr.
Subtotal
Legal Review by City Attorney
Office Supplies, postage, misc.
Public Hearing transfer.
Staff Time
Director
Principal Planner
Associate Planner
Dept. Secretary
Total
1 hour @ $42.18/hr.
1 hour @ $36.67/hr.
7 hours @ $32.83/hr.
1 hour @ $21.94/hr.
42.18
36.67
131.32
21.94
18.67
250.78
100.00
50.00
$400.78
42.18
36.67
229.81
21.94
Clerk Typist 1 hour a@D $18.67/hr. 18.67
Legal Review by City Attorney 100.00
Office Supplies, postage, misc. 50.00
Total $499.27
I recommend that the applicat°on fee for non -hearing transfers be $400. and for
hearing transfers, $500.
2
ATTACHMENT
CI-F-ve ®F INDIO
RD
SEP 06 1994
CITY LA GL'N.TR
August 30, 1994 PlilNnx CtAARTt�' , T
Leslie Mouriquand-Cherry
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Ms. Mouriquand-Cherry,
The City of Indio appreciates the opportunity to comment on ZOA 94-044 and EA 94-
281. At this time we have no comment on the proposed amendments.
If you should have questions or comments, please contact me at 342-6500.
Sincerely,
Randy Floyd
Associate Planner
CITY OF INDIO • 100 CIVIC CENTER MAIL • P.O. DRAWER 1788 • INDIO, CA 92202
DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ALL 'IN 619 AREA CODE
CITY CLERK 342-6570 • CITY MANAGER 342-6580 • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT 342-6500
FINANCE 342-6560 • FIRE 347-0756 • HUMAN RESOURCES 342.6540 • POLICE 347-8522 & FAX 347-4317
PUBLIC SERVICES/ENGINEERING 342-6330 • Crn' HALL FAX 342-6556 • CITY YARD 347-105S
Desert Chapter
Building Industry Assoclat on of Southem Califomia, Inc.
September 5, 1994
Ms Leslie Mouriquand•-Cherry
City of La Quinta
78-495 Calle Tampico
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Ms. Mouriquand-cherry;
ATTACHMENT
,V .
D
SEP 0 9 1994 J
_ ,t__
I apologize for being tardy in submitting comments on "Amendment of
Chapters 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights, and 9.145 Hillside
Conservation Zone" La Quinta Case Numbers ZOA 94-044 and EA 94-281.
Our reviewing committee has no comments on Transfer of Development
Rights.
On HC Zone (Hillside Conservation Zone), we would suggest that
Paragraph 9.145.040, A. on page 5 have some cutoff for a single
residence builder. This requirement is fine for the multiple
builder, but cost prohibitive for the little guy.
On page 6, Paragraph 9.145.045, B.: Insert the words "as set forth
in this text" in second line, following the words "applicable
standards". Also on -this page in subparagraph D., second line the
word "with" should be: "without", i.e. "....in the HC zone without
prior City approval....".
Page 8, subparagraph I. Each site is unique and to dictate such
narrow requirements may be counterproductive. Please keep in mind
that reestablishment of landscape can be just as affective as the
original landscape. Note your comment at end of subparagraph g. at
top of next page (page 9).
Page 10, paragraph 9,.145.065: The meaning of this paragraph is
somewhat nebulous and perhaps might be worded better.
Thank you for allowing Desert Chapter to comment on this proposed
legislation. If 'ou have any questions, please don't hesitate to
give me a c
Respect ,y
a
1 v
E c ive Direc or
77-564 Country Club Drive, Suite 400-13, Palm Desert, CA 92211 (619) 360-2476 Fax #(619) 772-3372
I.
Background
® EXHIBIT "A"- EA 0 ATTACHMENT*(
Environmental Assessment No. 94-281
Case No. ZOA 94-044
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Name of Proponent City of La Quinta
2. Address & Phone Number of Proponent 78-495 Call e Tampico
3. Date Checklist Prepared
La Quinta, CA 92253
June 13, 1994
4. Agency Requiring Checklist City of La Quints
5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights
Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
II. Environmental Impacts
(Explanation of "yes" & "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground surface
relief features?
d. The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical features.
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
sands or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of
a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet; or lake?
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FORM.009/CS -1-
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff?
c. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
d. Change in the amount of surface water
in any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of
flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or with -
drawls, or through interception of an
aquifers by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public
water supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding or
tidal waves?
YES
MAYBE NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FORM.009/CS
U
YES MAYBE NO
4. Biological Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
X
number of any species of biological
resources?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
X
rare or endangered species of plants
or animals?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
X
into an area, or 3.n a barrier to the
normal replenishment or migration or
movement of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops?
X
e. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
X
habitat?
5.
Noise. Will the proposal result•in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
X
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
X
6.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
X
new light or glare?
7.
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
x
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
8.
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
9. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
X
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
10. Population. Will the proposal alter the X
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the human population of an area?
FORM.009/CS -3-
YES MAYBE NO
11. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing X
housing, or create at demand for additional
housing?
12. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities X
or demand for new parking?
X
c. Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Will the proposal have an
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas:
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities & roads?
f. Other governmental services?
14. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amount of fuel
or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources or energy, or require
the development of new sources of energy?
X
X
►j
X
X
_X
X
X
X
X
X
FORM.009/CS -4-
0
YES MAYBE
NO
X
15.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
X
a. Power or natural. gas?
b. Communications systems?
—�---
c. Water?
-�--
X
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
X
e. Storm water drainage?
X
f. Solid waste and disposal?
16.
Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health).
X
17.
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
18.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an
X
impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
19.
Cultural Resources
a. Will the proposal result in the alter-
X
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic or historic archaeological site?
X
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
X
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing
X
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact. area?
FORM.009/CS -5-
YES MAYBE NO
20. 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 or 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? (A
short-term impact on the environment is
one in which occurs in a relatively brief
definitive period of time while long-term
impacts will endure well in the future).
c. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
where the effect of the total of those
impacts on the environment is significant).
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
P
X
X
FORM.009/CS -6-
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
IV. 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
X significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
June 13, 1994 s/ ezt
Date 9agnature of Prep er
FORM.009/CS -7-
CITY OF LA QUINTA
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94-281
ADDENDUM
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 94-044
Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
Chapter 9.146 - Transfer of Development Rights
GENERAL DESCRIPTION:
A need for amendments to existing regulations governing the transfer of density credits or
bonuses for development has arisen in the City of La Quinta. The proposed ordinance
amendments are focused on the ability to approve the transfer of density credits to individuals
as well as to or between parcels of land. The proposed amendments have been drafted to
provide such regulations as may be allowed at the local level of government.
The proposed amendments will permit density transfers to residentially -zoned parcels in the City
of La Quinta and to the Hillside Conservation (H-C) Zone. These amendments will provide
regulation for the approval of density transfers to individuals with approval of the City Council
through a public hearing process if the transfer is processed in conjunction with a development
application, and by City Manager approval if filed alone, not in association with any
development application. Attachment 1 contains Chapter 9.145 - Hillside Conservation Zone
with the proposed amendments highlighted by italics. Attachment 2 contains Chapter 9.146 -
Transfer of Development Rights with the proposed amendments also italicized.
The purpose of this Initial Study is to identify the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed ordinance amendments. This addendum serves as a supplemental document to the
Initial Study Checklist that was prepared for the proposed amendments. Explanations are
provided in this addendum for each of the checklist items as far as known or documented
environmental resources, impacts, and available mitigation. Mitigation measures are
recommended where feasible to lessen or negate adverse impacts that may result from the
approval and implementation of the proposed amendments.
The City of La Quinta is the Lead Agency for this amendment as defined by section 21067 of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Lead Agency is the public agency which
has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project 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 approve the proposed amendments.
ENVASS.014 1
PURPOSE OF INTTIAL STUDY:
As part of the environmental review for the proposed amendments, the City of La Quinta
Community Development Department has prepared this Initial Study. This Initial Study 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
CEQA Guidelines, include the following:
o To provide the City of La Quinta with information to use as the basis for deciding
whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration for the
proposed amendments;,
o To enable the applicant or the City of La Quinta to modify the project, mitigating
adverse impacts before; an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the amendments to qualify
for a mitigated negative declaration;
o To assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by focusing the analysis on those
issues that will be adversely impacted by the proposed amendments;
o To provide documentation for the findings in a negative declaration that the amendments
will not have a significant effect on the environment;
o To eliminate unnecessary environmental impact reports.
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The Initial Study for the proposed amendments indicates that there is no potential for significant
adverse environmental impacts on the issue areas. Mitigation measures, if required, have been
recommended to reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. Therefore, a Negative
Declaration of environmental impact is recommended for certification.
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS:
A discretionary action is an action taken by a government agency (for this project the
government agency is the City of La Quinta City Council) that calls for the exercise of
judgement in deciding whether to approve a project. The proposed ordinance amendments will
not require any additional discretionary approvals other than the La Quinta City Council and
Planning Commission.
The City of La Quinta will need to approve and certify the environmental review process for the
proposed amendments.
ENVASS.014 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed
amendments to Chapters 9.145 and 9.146 of the La Quinta Zoning Ordinance. The nineteen
CEQA issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include the following:
• Earth
• Air
• Water
• Biological Resources
• Noise
• Light and Glare
• Land Use
• Natural Resources
• Risk of Upset
• Population
• Housing
• Transportation/Circulation
• Public Services
• Energy
• Utilities
• Human Health
• Aesthetics
• Recreation
• Cultural Resources
Under each issue, the environmental setting is discussed, including a description of conditions
as they presently exist within the City and the area affected by the proposed amendments. Then,
a series of questions concerning the effects on the amendment's effects on the different
environmental issues are listed. To each question, there are three possible responses:
• Yes
• Maybe
• No
Thresholds for significance are defined either by standards adopted by responsible or trustee
agencies or by referring to criteria defined in CEQA (Appendix G).
Explanation of responses to the Initial Study Checklist for Environmental Assessment 94-281 and
recommended mitigation. measures are as follows:
I. EARTH
No. These ordinance amendments will provide for the approval of density credit transfers to
individuals as well as to or between parcels of land. The implementation of density transfers
is not anticipated to result in any additional impact to the earth through disruption, displacement,
compaction, and over -covering of the soil as residential units are constructed. Through the
normal environmental review process of any proposed residential or other project, issues
concerning unstable earth conditions or changes in geological substructures are considered. The
buildable areas within the City of La Quinta do not have any known geological hazards,
conditions or substructures that prevent development.
ENVASS.014 3
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground failure or similar hazards due to the increased density through the transfer of credits to
a specific project is not anticipated to increase because of the transfer. Normally, new
residential units would not be permitted to be developed if there were significant geologic
hazards, regardless of the density of the project.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. All residential construction shall meet the provisions of the Uniform Building Code
Section 2312(d)2 in order to comply with seismic safety requirements.
2. All structures shall be designed according to current Uniform Building Code
requirements.
II. AIR
No. The City of La Quinta is located within the Southeast Desert Air Basin (SEDAIB) and is
under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The
climate is characterized by high temperatures, low annual rainfall, and low humidity. Prevailing
northwesterly winds funnel from the Los Angeles area into the Coachella Valley often
transporting oxidants, sulfates, and nitrates into the airshed of the City. Although the local
contribution to air quality is not substantial, the Coachella Valley area does violate State and
federal standards for ozone. In addition, particulate standards are often exceeded because of
wind -transported desert soils. The primary air quality concerns in the air basin are particulate
matter (dust) and ozone.
The PM 10 standard is exceeded as a result of activities in the Coachella Valley which
contributes to fugitive dust. The Coachella Valley has the potential for generating significant
fugitive dust as the area consists of alluvial materials and sand deposits. The air mass from the
South Coast Air Basin contributes to the PM 10 violations, but the majority of the problem is
caused locally by urban development and agricultural activities.
Suspended particulates (PM 10) are generated from either a pollution source or are formed in
the atmosphere as a result of chemical reactions driven by sunlight. In 1990, SCAQMD
prepared a State Implementation Plan for PM 10 to define control measures to reduce the local
contributions to the PM 10 violations and to bring the Coachella Valley into compliance with
federal and State ambient air quality standards. Control measures are directed toward five
categories of emissions: 1) open area wind erosion; 2) unpaved roads, including farm roads;
3) paved roads, including storage and movement of fine particulates; 4) construction and
demolition activities; 5) agricultural operations. Local government agencies are responsible for
implementation of most of the control measures.
ENVASS.014 4
Air quality will not be significantly impacted by the development of residential projects with
higher densities within the City of La Quinta. Standard mitigation measures will be required
of any projects developing with higher densities.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Grading and construction shall comply with all applicable City ordinances, including the
PM 10 Ordinance.
2. Project sites graded but not immediately constructed upon shall be planted with a
temporary ground cover to reduce the amount of open space subject to wind erosion.
III. WATER
No. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides domestic water, irrigation and
sewer service to the City of La Quinta. Irrigation water is provided to the City via the
Coachella Canal. The canal, which loops through the City on the west side of Lake Cahuilla
County Park and PGA West, receives its supply of water from the Imperial Reservoir on the
Colorado River north of Yuma, Arizona. Water is used to irrigate golf courses, agricultural
fields, and to recharge the underground aquifer. Private wells are also found within the City
that provide both domestic and irrigation water.
Drainage in many parts of the City has been altered by flood improvements, however, in the
event of a major storm some areas of the City could experience flooding conditions. For the
most part, the nature of the soils in the City allow for rapid permeability.
The proposed ordinance amendments are not anticipated to result in any significant effect upon
the surface or ground water quality in the City. The rate of absorption and drainage patterns
in the areas are not expected to significantly change because of the transfer of density credits to
another parcel in the City or to an individual. Currently policy of CVWD required that new
residential construction irregardless of density is required to contain stormwater on -site through
the dedication and construction of a storm water retention basin. Historical drainage patterns
and directions are maintained if at all possible in conduction with on -site retention basins.
Recommended Mitigation:
All residential developments shall comply with the requirements of the Coachella Valley
Water District and City Engineer regarding storm water and nuisance water resulting
from grading and construction activities and to accommodate post -construction run-off
water.
ENVASS.014
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No. The City of La Quinta is located within a Sonoran Desert Scrub environment. This
environment is generally noted as containing plants which have the ability to economize water,
go dormant during periods of drought, or both. Dominant plants in the City include:
Creosote bush
Bur -sage
Ocotillo
Barrel Cactus
Jumping Cholla
Smoketree
Mesquite
Four -wing saltbush
Agave
Desert lavender
Non -natives
Continual development and agricultural activity has disrupted much of the natural plant
environment within La Quinta.. Relic plant communities can occasionally be found along fence
rows, between fields, and in :remaining dune areas.
Mammalian species common to this area are small nocturnal animals, such as mice,kangaroo
rats, desert cottontail, jack rabbits, and coyotes. Reptiles are numerous, including the Coachella
Valley fringe -Toed Lizard. Mitigation for the disruption of this lizard's habitat is provided by
payment of a set fee (600 per acre) if the project is located within the Coachella Valley Fringe -
Toed Lizard area. This area lies mainly in the northern half of the City.
It is highly unlikely that any new species of animals would be introduced into the City as a result
of the development of residential projects with higher densities or as a result of the transfer of
density credits to any individual.
It is possible that there could be an impact upon native plant species resulting from the
development of new residential units. New plant species could be introduced into the projects
through landscaping requirements. However, all residential projects are required to install
landscaping regardless of density. With the development of new projects, there could be a
reduction of agricultural lands if projects are located in agricultural areas. Currently, there are
very few parcels left within the City that are zoned for agriculture, although there are several
large parcels that have been under agriculture for many years and continue to be under
cultivation. this continued use is a preexisting, nonconforming use and is allowed to continue
for as long as the land is actively farmed. Any new uses would have to conform to the zoning
designation.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Any application for approval of new residential units shall have an environmental
assessment prepared to determine any significant impacts upon biological resources.
2. Any project identified as having potential biological resources as identified on the
ENVASS.014
General Plan shall have a biological study prepared to asses the presence and nature of
those resources.
3. Recommendations presented in such a report shall be made a part of the Conditions of
Approval of the project, provided that they are feasible. In the event that significant or
endangered species are identified on a project site, all required consultations with local,
State, and federal agencies shall be complied with.
V. NOISE:
No. The significant noise sources in the City of La Quinta are generated primarily from
automobile and truck traffic. The existing areas of the City which are subject to noise exposure
are fundamentally along major street corridors. Rural areas with low traffic volumes typically
experience noise levels ranging from 35 to 55 dB(a), depending on the time of day.
The development of residentiaa projects at an increased density will add incrementally to traffic
and the noise generated by such traffic. Project design can mitigate much of the traffic noise
with the construction of block perimeter walls, landscape berms, increased setbacks from streets,
appropriate construction materials, and other methods.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Compliance with design requirements and recommendations by noise studies.
VI. LIGHT AND GLARE
No. Residential project with higher densities will result in increased light and glare from
exterior lighting. The City of La Quinta has a dark sky ordinance in place the regulates lights.
All exterior lighting is required to be down -cast, and shielded types of fixtures.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Compliance with the Dark Sky Ordinance.
VII. LAND USE
Maybe. The proposed ordinance amendments are not anticipated to result in any significant
changes or impacts to the present or planned land use for the City of La Quinta. Density credits
can only be applied to residential projects on residentially zoned and designated land. Although
densities for certain parcels or individuals developing residential projects would be higher if
bonuses were approved for a particular project, the impacts to land use would be less than
significant in most cases, as the receiving parcels would be limited to the number of credits that
could be applied per acre. A reduction in allowed density would result in less density permitted
on a donor parcel or individual than originally permitted prior to a transfer.
ENVASS.014
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Land use issues shall be considered during preparation of environmental assessments for
specific projects. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be included in the project
mitigation monitoring plan.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
No. The proposed ordinance amendments may impact three categories of natural resources: 1)
air mineral, and water; 2) construction -related resources (e.g. aggregate for concrete, metals,
wood, and other building materials; and 3) scenic vistas and views. The La Quinta General Plan
identifies areas of known natural resources, such as mineral resources.
Impacts upon construction -related resources will not be significant on a project -by -project basis,
as impacts upon natural resources will be incremental.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. New and alternative 'building materials could be encouraged in the construction of
residential units, as well as the conservative use of building materials. Specific
conditions shall be incorporated into the project mitigation monitoring plan.
IX. RISK OF UPSET
No. There is very little risk of upset with the transfer of development density credits or the
development of residential project with higher densities. Natural hazards are always present
regardless of the number of units per acre. All units must comply with the Uniform Building
Code and other requirements for structural integrity.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. All projects with residential units shall be required to comply with all local, state, and
federal codes governing structural integrity and seismic hazards. These requirements
shall be incorporated into a project's mitigation monitoring plan.
X. POPULATION
Maybe. The proposed ordinance amendments could have an effect upon the current and planned
location of the population of the City of La Quinta. Residential projects with higher densities
will result in more people located in smaller areas. However, this increased density could be
balanced by the reduced density permitted on a donor parcel.
The level of significance of this potential impact is not anticipated to be high. Careful planning
of future land uses and redevelopment must be considered periodically to provide the necessary
level of services and amenities to centers of population within the City.
ENVASS.014 8
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Population concerns should be considered with each specific project environmental
assessment. Any necessary mitigation measures shall be incorporated into a mitigation
monitoring plan.
2. Compliance with the state requirement to update the City's General Plan every five years
to allow for needed adjustments in future land use.
XI. HOUSING
Maybe. The proposed ordinance amendments are not anticipated to result in an adverse impact
to the City's current stock of housing units. However, there could be an impact to the
environment if new housing projects are developed at substantially higher densities than are
planned for. The City has not yet met its requirement for very low, low, and moderate income
housing. New housing developments for lower income buyers could be made more feasible if
density credits are applied.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Any necessary mitigation measures shall be included in a project -specific mitigation
monitoring plan.
XII. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
Maybe. The proposed ordinance amendments could result in impacts to transportation and
circulation. As housing development with higher densities are constructed, there will be impacts
to the environment from increased traffic. Streets will become more congested and there will
be an increased need for public transportation.
The amendments will not result in any impacts to waterborne, rail, or air traffic, as these modes
of transportation do not exist in the City of La Quinta. There are no rivers, railroads, or
airports in the City. Thermal. Airport, located several miles to the east of the City, is not near
enough to the City to cause concern about high density residential development impacting the
airport's influenced areas as defined in the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Require traffic studies on all new large residential projects to ascertain the level of
adverse impact on the environment.
ENVASS.014 9
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES
No. The City of La Quinta contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire
protection services, and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department for police protection
services. The proposed amendments could result in an adverse impact upon public services such
as fire and police protection have been planned for in the General Plan to meet the current and
projected needs of the City. Fire and police agencies are given an opportunity to comment
during the review period for all projects.
Other public service agencies include the Desert Sands School District, the Coachella Valley
Parks and Recreation District, and the City Parks and Recreation Department. The City of La
Quinta maintains public streets within the City, except for state Highway 111, which is
maintained by Caltrans. The local library is a part of the Riverside County Library System.
It is possible that the proposed amendments could result in impacts to the above agencies and
to other governmental services that are not identifiable at this time.
When specific development projects are submitted to the City for review and approval, the
preparation of an environmental assessment will examine in more detail any potential impacts
to public services. Agencies that might be affeated by a particular project are sent a project
transmittal for review and comments. Comments from these agencies typically become a part
of the project conditions of approval.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. All project applications shall be transmitted to responsible agencies for review and
comments.
XIV. ENERGY
No. The proposed ordinance; amendments will not in themselves require the expenditure of
energy or fuel. Any development in which approved density credits are applied to a project site
will result in the use of energy and fuels in the construction phase as well as in the operational
phase as residential units are occupied. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant
demand upon existing sources of energy, or that new sources of energy will need to be
developed.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. New residential construction shall utilize energy efficient materials and techniques in
order to conserve existing sources of energy and to reduce energy costs to the consumer.
ENVASS.014 10
XV. UTILITIES
No. The proposed ordinance amendments to permit the transfer of development density credits
to individuals could result in the need for expansion of existing utility systems if current
systems are not capable of handling the proposed development. Any expansion costs for
expanded utilities will be the responsibility of the developer, as required by the utility company.
No significant adverse environmental impact is anticipated as a result of the adoption of the
proposed ordinance amendments.
XVI. HUMAN HEALTH
No. There are no known hazards to human health resulting from the adoption of the proposed
ordinance amendments. Increased residential density will create less open space in portions of
projects, which could result in less recreational opportunities available for good health.
However, higher density developments often include centralized communal recreational amenities
to offset the smaller or no yard spaces.
No other potential health hazards are recognized or anticipated to result with the transfer of
density bonus credits to either parcels of land or individuals.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Recommend through design considerations that ample recreation facilities and open space
be provided in high density multiple family residential projects as feasible.
XVII. AESTHETICS
No. Adverse impacts to existing viewsheds and aesthetic issues are not anticipated to be a
significant concern as a result of these amendments. Aesthetics will be addressed on a project -
by -project basis through the normal project review process. Compliance with height restrictions,
landscape and screening requirements, and site location is required by the General Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance of the City of La Quinta.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Compliance with zoning ordinance development standards and policies of the General
Plan concerning aesthetic issues and project location and design to minimize any adverse
impacts to view sheds and surrounding environment.
XVII. RECREATION
No. The proposed ordinance, amendments could result in the need for additional recreational
facilities to service residents in high density developments. The Parks Master Plan provides a
long-range plan for citywide ;parks and recreation facilities. A project with high density units
will often include recreation facilities for the common use of residents.
ENVASS.014 11
Recommended Mitigation:
1. Recommend that high density residential projects include recreational facilities for the
common use of the residents.
XIX. CULTURAL RESOURCES
No. There are known prehistoric and historic resources within the City of La Quinta. The La
Quinta area has a high potential for the discovery of additional cultural resources in undeveloped
areas. It is possible that future high density developments could impact cultural resources in
undeveloped areas. It is possible that future high density developments could impact cultural
resources. These resources are required to be properly located, documented, assessed, and
appropriate mitigation before and during the construction phases of the development. The La
Quinta Master Environmental Assessment, General Plan, and General Plan EIR all document
the known, recorded archaeological sites and historic structures in the City. Previous
archaeological studies on projects in the City point to a high potential for the discovery of
additional prehistoric sites.
Recommended Mitigation:
1. All future projects shall be required to have a reconnaissance survey conducted early in
the planning review process. The recommendations of the survey report shall be made
part of the project conditions of approval. The requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall be complied with concerning archaeological
resources and their mitigation.
2. All project applications, shall be forwarded to the Historical Preservation Commission for
review and comment.
XX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
No. The proposed density transfer ordinance amendments could result in limited environmental
impacts, all of which can be mitigated through standard mitigation measures. These issues will
be considered through the environmental review process as individual project applications are
submitted to the City. The appropriate feasible mitigation measures will be required as a part
of project conditions of approval.
The proposed amendments will not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals
to the disadvantage of long-term goals. The ordinance will not have cumulative impacts of a
significant nature. Potential impacts that have been identified in this document can be mitigated
with feasible measures that will lessen individual impacts to a level of insignificance.
The proposed ordinance amendments are not anticipated to result in environmental effects that
will cause substantial effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.
ENVASS.014 12
PH #2
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1994
CASE NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2527-E (AMENDMENT #1)
APPLICANT: ALLIANCE SERVICE STATION (RUDOLPH LOPEZ)
REQUEST: APPROVAL TO DELETE FULL SERVICE GASOLINE PUMPS
AND PROVIDE SELF SERVICE ONLY
LOCATION: 77-985 AVENIDA MONTEZUMA (SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
MONTEZUMA AND AVENIDA BERMUDAS
ZONING: C-V-C (CORE AREA, VILLAGE COMMERCIAL)
BACKGROUND:
The original service station was approved and built under Riverside County jurisdiction in
approximately 1981. In late 1991, under an application by Mobil Oil, the service station
signage program was modified and brought into compliance with current requirements. At
that time several Conditions of Approval were imposed to improve the aesthetics of the
facility and bring it into conformance with the Village Specific Plan. Since that time, Mobil
Oil has been replaced by Alliance Service Station. The applicant has been the operator since
approximately early 1991.
APPLICANT'S REOUEST:
When the original applicant in 1981, proposed the service station, it was to be a self service
gas station. Due to an objection from nearby businesses, the application was modified to be
a full service gas station. Somewhere along the way it began operation as a partial self
service and full service station. When the revised signage was approved in 1991, it was
reiterated in the Conditions of Approval that at least half of the gasoline pumps were to be
full service.
The applicant is now requesting approval of a modification to eliminate the full service
pumps and become a self service station only. The applicant indicates the reason for this
request is a lack of full service business.
PCST.194
ANALYSIS:
During the sign approval in 1991, several conditions were imposed to require upgrading of
the station to an acceptable level. A condition was imposed to require the trash enclosure be
repaired and provided with solid metal gates. An inspection of the site shows that the gates
are not installed. It appears that they have been removed or never installed.
New landscaping was required within the existing planter areas in 1991. Adjacent to the
north side of the trash enclosure on Avenida Montezuma a box size tree was required. This
tree has been removed and the planter is currently full of weeds. The planter at the
intersection of Montezuma and Avenida Bermudas was replanted per an approved plan.
However, some of this landscaping has died and been removed and weeds have been allowed
to grow in the planter. Additionally, the lights for illumination of the monument sign within
this planter are damaged and appear to be non-functional. Additionally, on the day of the
site visit by staff, there was trash and debris spread around the site.
Staff generally has no objection to the proposed request provided the items as noted in the
previous paragraph are corrected prior to the pump conversion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion 94- approve the Amendment to eRiminate the full service gasoline
pumps subject to the attached conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Site plan
3. Letter of request
4. Draft Conditions of Approval
PCST.194 2
LOCATION MAP
CASE M.AP
CASE No.
►ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2527-
LOPEZ
ATTACHMENT 1
OlRTH
SCALE:
NTS
_BERMUDAS _
r1e)
D
re
81 i=4 lasts
'if" v
12
E$ xat$� av $€°ix
R v! did �€ s Er atttIWE .1;iit$ A 4a>< »'- g$ #a
e �aae AftE$a z�T: _ t i snags.»` qq$�e v oil r @� j
654M � 1 1 fiv 9 � j1-. jvi
1��6tE
MENT re
,�-------- r----
F R LANDSCAPE
018 -NNCL
ATTACHMENT
ATTACHMENT 4
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - RECOMMENDED
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2527-E (AMENDMENT #1)
ALLIANCE SERVICE STATION
NOVEMBER 8, 1994
1. Approval to convert full service gasoline pumps to self service is hereby granted, subject
to the following conditions being completed prior to the elimination.
2. The trash enclosure shall be provided with solid metal gates as required by Waste
Management of the Desert. (Painted to match the building with gates on steel poles
embedded in concrete.)
3. A minimum 24" box tree with a permanent irrigation system shall be installed in the
planter adjacent to the north side of the trash enclosure. The tree species to be approved
by the Community Development Department.
4. The planter at the intersection of Avenida Montezuma and Avenida Bermudas shall be
cleaned out, replanted 'with shrubs, and provided with a permanent irrigation system,
subject to the approval of the Community Development Department.
5. The lighting for the sign at the intersection of Avenida Bermudas and Avenida
Montezuma shall be repaired to provide lighting of the sign or shall be removed.
CONAPRVL.140 1
r
1V1[EMORAN DUM
TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1994 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 13, 1994)
LOCATION: SOUTH OF FRED WARING DRIVE AND EAST OF ADAMS STREET
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS (WITH ON -SITE
LANDSCAPIN(3) FOR CENTURY HOMES AT THE RANCHO OCOTILLO
SUBDIVISION
APPLICANT: CENTURY HOMES (DENNIS CUNNINGHAM)
CASE NO.: PLOT PLAN 94-529
BACKGROUND:
Please continue this project to your next regular meeting of November 22, 1994. The
applicant was unable to submit all the necessary items for the application.
MEMOGT.071
BI #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1994
CASE NO.: SPECIFIC PLAN 94-024
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF RETENTION BASIN LANDSCAPE PLAN
APPLICANT: E.G. W'ILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
LOCATION: NORTH SIDE OF CALLE TAMPICO, WEST OF WASHINGTON
STREET
BACKGROUND:
In compliance with the conditions of approval for Specific Plan 94-024, the landscape plan
(attachment 1) for the approved retention basin is before the Planning Commission for
review and approval. The basin is approximately 5 acres in size. The landscaping for the
basin has been designed to include a passive park environment. The basin will be
completely turfed and provide a central area for future playground equipment. A pathway
is proposed around the perimeter of the basin. Access for maintenance vehicles will be
provided as well as access to future school.
Forty (40) trees are proposed throughout the basin that will include twenty (20) 15-gallon
and twenty (20) 24-inch box sizes. Tree species will consist of Chilean Mesquite, African
Sumac, and California Pepper.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not requested any modifications to the proposed plan, and does support its'
approval by the Planning Commission.
By Minute Motion 94-__ approve the retention basin landscape plan as submitted.
Attachments:
1
PCST.201
Exhibit L
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California
October 25, 1994 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Adolph.
Commissioner Gardner led the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairman Adolph requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Abels,
Anderson, Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, and Chairman Adolph.
B. Staff Present: City Attorney Dawn Honeywell, Senior Engineer Steve Speer,
Principal Planner Stan Sawa, Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department
Secretary Betty Sawyer.
III. PUBLIC COMMENT - None
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Continued - Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-044; a request of the City for
amendments to the Hillside Conservation Zone and Chapter 9.146.
1. Staff requested that this item be continued to allow the City Attorney time
to research the issue.
2. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Anderson/Abels to
continue Zoning Ordinance Amendment 94-044 to November 8, 1994.
Unanimously approved.
B. Plot Plan 94-540, a request of Starlight Estates for approval of three new models
for construction in the Starlight Dunes Tract (Tract 23773).
1. Commissioner Anderson left the diocese due to a possible conflict of
interest.
2. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report. A copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department. Staff noted
the Vega unit included a three car garage but the third garage was only
18-feet deep. If approved, the garage should be required to be 20-feet.
PC 10-25
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
3. There being no questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the public
hearing. Mr. Bill Watson spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated he
was not aware the third garage was only 18-feet deep and he would be
willing to see that the garage was extended to 20-feet.
4. Commissioner Abels stated if the applicant addressed the issues presented
he had no objections. He asked if the driveways would be concrete and
include raised wire mesh inside the poured hardscape. Commissioner
Butler asked that this item be added to the proposed conditions.
5. Chairman Adolph asked if the applicant agreed with the conditions. Mr.
Watson stated he had no problem with the draft conditions and he would
incorporate them into the project.
6. Chairman Adolph asked if the existi ig homes were compatibile with the
proposed units. Mr. Watson stated they would be as close as possible
with a modified floor plan. Chairman Adolph stated the concerned was
not in the floor plans but in the aesthetic value of the houses. Mr.
Watson stated he felt they exceeded the criteria of what was there.
7. Mr. F. W. Schumacker, President of Starlight Dunes Homeowners'
Association, stated the association supported and approved the proposed
units. Chairman Adolph asked if the homeowners' board had an
architectural committee. Mr. Schumaker stated the board did both.
8. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public hearing.
9. Commissioner Abels asked that Condition ##11 be modified to state raised
reinforced wire mesh will be used on all future concrete driveways. Staff
stated that the Building Department does not require the raised wire mesh.
Discussion followed regarding the requirements of the Building
Department.
10. Following discussion, Commissioner Abels asked how they could
condition a project to exceed the requirements of the Building Code. City
Attorney Honeywell stated that the City cannot go beyond these
requirements unless the City amends the Building Code. She suggested
that the Commission ask staff to add this to the list of things being
consider in the updating of City Zoning Code.
PC 10-25 2
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
11. Commissioner Abels withdrew his desire to have the condition amended.
He did ask that all roll -up doors facing south and west not have lite
inserts, but be solid and those units on the north and east be given the
option to have lites. In addition, a condition should be added requiring
the Vega unit to have a three car garage measuring 30-feet wide by 20-
feet in depth.
12. Commissioner Abels/Butler moved and seconded the motion to adopt
Minute Motion 94-034 approving Plot Plan 94-540 as modified.
Unanimously approved with Commissioner Anderson being absent.
Commissioner Anderson rejoined the Commission.
C. Tentative Tract 28034; a request of Neil Kleine to subdivide + 19 acres into 25
estate single family lots in a R-1-10,000 Zone District.
1. Staff presented the information contained in the staff report. A copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked how much fill would negate the need for
a archaeological monitor. Staff explained that 4-5 feet of fill might not
require a monitor, but the trenching for the sewer or electric would have
to have the monitor. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt the problem
was more with the infrastructure and not each building pad. Staff agreed,
but stated staff would want to verify this with the site archaeologist.
3. Commissioner Abels asked if a private owner puts in a basement or wine
cellar, would that require monitoring or a study. Staff stated it would.
Commissioner Anderson asked if this should be included in the conditions.
Staff stated it should be added to the CC & R's.
4. Commissioner Gardner asked if this would be required when a building
permit is applied for. Discussion followed regarding what items would
require monitoring/study and how staff would become aware of the need
for the monitoring/study. Staff suggested that it be included in both the
CC & R's and the Conditions of Approval.
5. Discussion followed regarding the rewording of Condition 21.13 or the
need to add a new condition.
PC 10-25 3
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
6. Commissioner Butler asked who monitors the developer to see that the
buyers get a copy of the CC & R's. Staff stated the State of California
Real Estate Rules require disclosure to the buyer. Staff stated they would
review the CC & R's to be sure the conditions are included.
7. City Attorney Honeywell stated the developer is at great risk, as well as
the real estate community, to insure that the conditions and CC & R's are
followed.
8. Chairman Adolph stated the front property line shows a block wall, but
the plans do not show any for the side(s) or rear. Staff stated that the
conditions (#19) do require a perimeter wall. The Zoning Code doesn't
require it, but it can be added as part of a tract development requirements
and will be included in the new Zoning Ordinance Update.
9. Assistant City Engineer Steve Speer explained the requirements of the
Engineering Department regarding the on -site retention basin(s). He
stated that private retention basins should be on one acre or larger sites.
Anything less would be too congested to have on -site retention basin on
the individual lots with the added amenities. Staff stated they agreed with
Engineering regarding the on -site retention basins.
10. Chairman Adolph asked what the water table was in this location. Staff
stated they did not know. Chairman Adolph stated his concern regarding
the percolation in this area. He felt the ground was too hard and on -site
retention might not be possible. Staff stated that percolation is more a
function of the type of soil and this area is silty and not given to
percolation; all properties south of 50th Avenue are required to size their
lots as if there was zero (0) percolation in terms of accumulating for storm
waters. The nuisance water that gathers from basic homeowner use is
best to get the water to a common retention basin, dry well, or sand
filters. Discussion followed regarding water percolation, etc.
11. Commissioner Abels asked if Condition #30 addressed this problem. Staff
stated there were several conditions addressing this problem.
12. Commissioner Gardner asked if this tract would have a sewer system.
Staff stated that CVWD does a calculation to determine whether sewers
would be required or not.
13. There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Adolph opened the
public hearing.
PC 10-25 4
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
14. Mr. Neil Kleine spoke on behalf of the project. He clarified that there
had been changes to the project. The street width, as requested by staff,
had been changed to a 36-foot width with curb, gutter, with parking on
both sides. He stated that originally CVWD would not install sewers so
he went to the County to design septic tanks. During the process, CVWD
offered him a temporary lift station to allow the tract to have an off -site
sewer system.
15. Mr. Kleine stated a palentologolical study was done and they would do
any monitoring that is required. He further stated the majority of the dirt
work would be iimport fill and they have made arrangements for
monitoring for trenching and excavation. Mr. Kleine asked staff to clarify
what would require an individual owner to have a study. He suggested
that if a grading permit was required an on -site monitor should be
required. Staff agreed.
16. Commissioner Anderson stated the project archaeologist should make this
determination. Mr. Kleine agreed to let the monitor make any
recommendations as the monitor he had been working with did not feel it
would be necessary as the property is low. Commissioner Anderson
agreed that the monitoring be addressed by the archaeologist during the
grading of the tract.
17. Mr. Kleine stated his concern for a central on -site retention basin
recommended by the Engineering Department. He felt that drainage is
designed to go to a certain location and that location can become a
nuisance and a liability to the future homeowners' association. The
advantage to an estate lot is that the retention basin can be located at each
home site. His engineer reports that individual retention basins will work.
Mr. Kleine asked that the Planning Commission leave the condition as it
is until they prove it cannot be done, or they can prove it will work to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Department. He would like to have private
on -site retention basins on each lot.
18. Chairman Adolph stated his concern about the individual retention basins,
but if the studies by the developer provide proof it can work, then he
would be satisfied. Mr. Kleine stated that they would submit the test
results to the Engineering Department before proceeding, and if the
Engineering Department did not agree, they would alter the plans.
Chairman Adolph stated he had no problem with this proposal.
PC 10-25 5
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
19. Commissioner Barrows asked where the conditions require this to take
place. City Attorney Honeywell asked staff if the conditions currently
require a separate off -site retention basin. Steve Speed stated that
Condition #28 addressed the retention basin in addition to four other
conditions. Discussion followed regarding the retention basin issue. Mr.
Kleine asked that the conditions be changed to read "to the satisfaction of
the Engineering Department". Chairman Adolph asked that Mr. Kleine
would see that all water problems would be address. Mr. Kleine stated
he would.
20. Commissioner Anderson stated he felt it was reasonable to allow the
applicant the opportunity to prove his system could work and if staff still
felt it would not work, then they will be required to provide a common
retention basin(s). Discussion followed.
21. City Attorney Honeywell stated this could be added to the condition to
allow the developer an alternative for the developer to show to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer that a system could be design for each
site. This is an option that could be approved by the City Engineer. It
would create a policy issue that creates additional time for staff to review
each individual lot versus the one common lot and this may not be
something the Planning Commission wants to encourage.
22. Commissioner Anderson asked the applicant if the study will show what
percentage of the lot that will need to be set aside to retain the water on
the individual lots so not to create a problem for the retention basins by
having too many amenities constructed on the lot. Mr. Kleine stated it
could be accomplished by building a requirement into the CC & R's to
ensure that all lots conform. Commissioner Anderson stated his concern
that in 25-years this condition will be lost. Mr. Kleine stated the
homeowners' association will require an engineered retention basin before
it will be approved by the Building and Safety Department.
23. Commissioner Butler asked who maintains the individual retention basins
until they are sold. Mr. Kleine stated that as the house is built the
retention basins are developed and the vacant lots will be graded so they
drain into a common source for each lot. The lots will be maintained
during the sales process to see that they do not drain onto adjacent lots.
24. Commissioner Anderson asked if a 6-foot high masonry wall will be
required. Mr. Kleine stated this was a new staff condition to him and his
plans only showed a wall on 58th Avenue. He stated he had recently been
told it was a mandatory requirement and he thought it would be
determined by the noise study.
PC 10-25 6
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
25. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph closed the
public hearing.
26. Commissioner Anderson stated he did not wish to waste staff time in
regards to the retention basin, but if the applicant is willing to bear the
expense and he has the competence in his staff that they can do this, then
he should have an opportunity to prove his case. If he can prove this,
then staff time is well spent.
27. Steve Speer stated that staff time goes on 25 different times as each lot is
designed. Again at a later date as improvements are requested. The
homeowner (being the second or third, etc.) may not be aware, or
understand the purpose of the retention basin. It can become a drainage
problem to the City as well as the property owner.
28. Chairman Adolph asked if this could be included as part of each Grant
Deed so a prospective buyer is made aware at the time of purchase. Steve
stated it could. There are a number of ways to handle the problem, but
the Building and Safety Department does not require an engineering
review before permits are issued on some projects (e.g., pools, etc.). The
potential is there to create a processing problem for staff.
29. Commissioner Anderson stated it was the Planning Commission's intention
that if the developer can prove his point then each lot will have in its
recorded map an area provided for retention. This may be a way for staff
to maintain control of the retention basin. Could staff work this process
out with the applicant? Staff stated they would look into the matter.
30. Mr. Kleine stated that his proposal was supported by his studies and the
CC & R's will be enforced by the homeowners' association. No building
permit will be issued until the Building and Safety Department receives
the homeowners' association approval. The homeowners' association will
govern themselves in this matter.
31. Commissioner Barrows asked how the developer was going to handle the
basin on the individual lots. Mr. Klein stated that each retention basin
will be created with creative landscaping to create the basin.
32. Commissioner Butler asked if this was incorporated into the conditions
and CC & R's or was this a matter of fact. City Attorney Honeywell
stated her concern that the Planning Commission was ignoring staff's
recommendation. The Planning Commission would have to add
requirements within the CC & R's that deal with the designation of
specific locations to be maintained as retention basins as approved by the
original lot design incorporated in the conditions (Condition #28).
PC 10-25 7
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
33. Commissioner Butler stated the applicant would need to provide staff with
the necessary documentation regarding the individual retention basins or
it will resort back to a single retention basin. Chairman Adolph stated
a condition should be added that if all lots cannot maintain their own
retention basin then they will all resort back to a common retention basin.
City Attorney Honeywell stated this was at the discretion of the City
Engineer that this was adequately addressed.
34. There being no further discussion it was moved and seconded by
Commissioners Barrows/Gardner that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution 94-024 concurring with the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact be recommended to the City Council
for approval.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson,
Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Chairman
Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
35. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Butler/Abels to adopt
Resolution 94-025 approving Tentative Tract 28034 subject to the
conditions being met to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
incorporation into the CC & R's that the individual retention basins cannot
be altered in any way unless approved by the homeowners' association and
and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. This would be added to
Condition #28.
ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Abels, Anderson,
Barrows, Butler, Gardner, Newkirk, Chairman
Adolph. NOES: None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN: None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Interpretation of Definition of a Church Facility; a request of Rick Johnson
Companies for approval to allow a chapel/mortuary (non -cremation) in
conjunction with a church.
1. Staff provided the information contained in the staff report. A copy of
which is on file in the Community Development Department.
2. Commissioner Anderson asked staff what the area in question was zoned.
Staff stated it was zoned R-1 and there was a church site approved for this
site but that approval has expired and a new application would have to be
applied for.
PC 10-25 8
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25, 1994
3. Ms. Barbara Erwin, Camino La Cresta resident, stated her objection to the
request as the residents felt this location was not appropriate for a
mortuary. The General Plan called for a church at this location and a
mortuary is not a primary place of worship. It should be built in a
location for commercial uses.
4. Mr. Russell Robertson, Tortolla Circle, stated he agreed with Ms. Erwin's
comments. Many of the residents abutting this proposal are opposed to
this type of use. He read aloud advertising from a telephone book
regarding the services of other mortuaries in the Valley and these uses
were not appropriate for a residential area.
5 Mr. Robert Tyler, Valletta Drive, stated it was "OK" for the Planning
Commission to say no. He felt this was a rapidly growing area with
homes, schools, parks, etc. and it was not appropriate for a mortuary in
this area.
6. There being no further public comment, Chairman Adolph asked if the
Commissioners had any comment.
7. Commissioner Anderson stated a mortuary was a commercial endeavor
and a chapel associated with a mortuary is adjunct facility enhancing the
commercial use and not a neighborhood church.
8. Chairman Adolph stated Miles Avenue has been designated as a residential
thoroughfare and he would not want to see that change. It is not the right
place for this commercial use.
9. Commissioner Abels stated he was in agreement. This was not the place
for a commercial project.
10. City Attorney Honeywell reminded the Commission that the motion must
state whether the Planning Commission agrees that the definition for
churches, temples, and other places of worship include mortuaries.
11. It was moved and seconded by Commissioners Abels/Butler that the
interpretation of churches, temples, and other places of worship should not
include mortuaries in any residential zone requiring a public use permit
by adoption of Minute Motion 94-035. Unanimously approved.
PC 10-25 9
Planning Commission Minutes
October 25. 1994
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR:
A. Commissioner Gardner asked that the Minutes be corrected on Page 4, Item #6
that the wording be changed from "six feet" to "sixteen feet". There being no
further corrections to the Minutes of October 11, 1994, it was moved and
seconded by Commissioners Gardner/Barrows to approve the minutes as
corrected. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -
A. Commissioner Gardner reported on the Council meeting of October 18, 1994.
B. Commissioner Anderson thanked staff for seeing to the require of the "Q" on the
Civic Center sign.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, a motion was made and seconded by Commissioners
Abels/Barrows to adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting
of the Planning Commission on November 8, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall
Council Chamber. This meeting of the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 8:47
P.M., October 25, 1994.
PC 10-25 10
(619) 564-3312
Fax (619) 564-6433
ROMER ASSOCIATION
B
'AN. Proddent
OMAN. tel V. P.
MITH, Snd V.P.
'GENSBORO. Treasurer
FL NO. SeraetuY
UIRONER. Ezec. V. Preddeat
VE COMMITTEE
WAN
ONO
IGMAN
IOENSSORO
TTEOAHL
IMITH
ISWARTZ
IRS AT LARGE
I BEACH
ONO
(BROWN
rTERFIELO
AROWELL
COWLING It
frAIN,JR.
ROOSHAM
UV"L
7 E HAWTHORNE
S JEMNS
JOHNSON
AULUN
MORK
IRAN,JR.
'URCt1L
,PEEK
ETTEOAHL
UNAN
E SWARTZ
;TEMPLE
10EALER-0IRECTORS
E SWARTZ
E CHAMPION. ALT.
IREOTORS
r
INES
Ontub. Pemone
W- AWAY
it
tE CHAMPION
bW VeHey
LL FRITCHEY
I Vdlsy
BMR
mrd W
R SAUtAANN
rwn Son Diew
UMEAUGH
Z Oier Crony
EN WEXLER
de
IOROENSSORO
Semem • VW""
i HAOL E
e ceumy
FAST
V HIOMAN
emudo VeO"
SMYERS
UWSTRONO
IESALE DIRECTORS
rAOAMSOH
OMON ANMNSON
IAA E R SON
IAM JONES
KLOFLANO
NE SMITH
STOSAUGH
MoCAY, ProsWwrl
! MONAA:O. Abe Preelderd
iY ttA►UK TM-WW
0 POLIAM Se OMY
P.O. BOX 1122
LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253
October 28,, 1994
DON ADOLPH
Chairman
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
55-105 Riviera
La Quinta CA 92253
Dear Don:
A33OCC!
• vui>`u[nma
N q\[AA\V�S/llll/ <
0
yERN CAWY
On November 8, 1994, the date of the next Planning Commission
meeting, I will be attending the 44th Annual Management Conference
of the Dumber Association of Southern California.
Although the conference is here in the desert, there is an event
scheduled for Tuesday evening, which precludes my being at the
Planning Commission meeting.
Please accept my apologies for not being able to attend. It does
appear that my schedule over the next year is such that I will be.
able to be at most, if not all of the meetings.
See you ot, the 22nd of November. Thanks for your understanding.
Sincerely,
L69 'r UU
WAYNE GARDNER, CAE
WG/mh
cc: Jerry Herman
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
Best, Best 5.Krieger
PUBLIC LAW
NEWSLETTER Summer/Fall 1994
REDEVELOPMENT: TIME IS RUNNING OUT TO COMPLY WITH AB 1290
5y :ionia Rubio Ca1valho'
Assembly Bill 1290 (AB 1290), which took effect on January 1,
1994, significantly changed California redevelopment law by
imposing a number of new requirements and restrictions on
redevelopment agencies. Two such requirements must be satisfied
before December 31, 1994: adoption of "implementation plans"
and amendment of pre-1994 redevelopment plans.
Implementation Plans
Among other things, AB 1290 requires redevelopment agencies
to adopt implementation plans every five years. Such plans must
do all of the following:
Set forth goals and objectives for each project area for the
following five years.
• Describe specific projects and expenditures to be made during
the five-year period for each project area.
Explain how the stated goals and objectives, projects, and
expenditures will eliminate blight within the project area and
meet certain statutory low and moderate income housing
requirements.
The portion of an implementation plan that addresses the low
and moderate income housing requirements must include an
annual housing program for five years with enough detail so that
performance under the implementation plan can be measured.
The implementation plan must also describe the number of
housing units to be developed, rehabilitated, price -restricted or
otherwise assisted or eliminated, and must describe the agency's
plans for using the annual deposits made to its Low and Moderate
Income Housing Fund.
If a project described in the implementation plan will eliminate
existing affordable housing, then the implementation plan must
also identify locations suitable for replacement housing.
In preparing an implementation plan to meet the December 31st
deadline, redevelopment agencies should bear in mind that at
least one noticed public hearing is required before they may adopt
the implementation plan. Notice of the public hearing must be
published at least once a week for three successive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation and notice must be posted in at
least four permanent places within the project areas for a period of
three weeks. The publication and the posting must be completed
at least ten days before the public hearing date.
Fortunately, redevelopment agencies do not have to hold a
separate public hearing for each of their project areas. Multiple
project areas can be included in the same implementation plan, for
which only one public hearing is necessary.
Amendment of Pre-1994 Redevelopment Plans
Redevelopment agencies must also amend their pre-1994
redevelopment plans before December 31st if such plans contair
time limits that exceed those required by law or if they do nol
contain time limits regarding the following: establishment of
loans, advances and indebtedness; the effectiveness of the plans
or the agency's ability to repay indebtedness or receive ta)
increment under the plans. Thankfully, such amendments are no
subject to the standard procedures for amending redevelopmen
plans.
Best, Best & Krieger acts as legal counsel for many redevelopmen
agencies and is assisting them in meeting AB 1290's Decembe
31st deadline. Persons desiring more information or assistance
regarding AB 1290 and other redevelopment matters should contac
a public lawyer at their nearest Best, Best and Krieger office.
I Ms. Caraalho is an associate public lam attorney in the firm'
Ontario office.
373O UNWERSM AVENUE goo NORTH HAVEN AVENUE 39700 BOB HOPE DRIVE 60o BAsr TAHQ=CANYON WAY sw WEST "C 577tEE
RIVERSIDE,Ch. 92502 ONTARIO,CA. 91751 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA. 92270 PAIMSPRINMCA 92263 SANDOXXXCA9211
(909) 68&14so (9o9) 9g9mm (619) SW2611 - (619) 325-72N (619) 59&1333
A FAVORABLE TREND IN CEQA CASES
by Dorothy L Anderson '
The California courts have decided some new cases dealing with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that are favorable
to public agencies. Perhaps the two most significant of these cases
are laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of
California ("laurel Heights 11") and Concerned Citizens of South Central
Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Unified School District ( "Concerned Citizens').
Each is worth studying in some detail.
"Laurel Heights II"
The most significant CEQA case during the past twelve months
is the California Supreme Court decision in laurel Heights II. With
this decision, the California Supreme Court has clarified the thorny
issue of recirculation of an environmental impact report (EIR).
The case has a long, tumultuous history. The Regents of the
University of California had purchased a 10-acre site on which
they sought to relocate the biomedical research facilities of the
School of Pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.
The final EIR was successfully challenged during the late 1980s,
culminating in a decision by the California Supreme Court in
Laurel Heights 1.
In its Laurel Heights I opinion, the Court found that there were
deficiencies in the EIR's project description and discussion of
alternatives. As a result, the Regents prepared a new EIR in 1990,
which plaintiffs again challenged on various grounds. The Court
of Appeal held that the 1990 EIR contained "significant new
information" that required the final EIR to be recirculated for
additional public comments. The California Supreme Court granted
review and has now reversed.
Significant New Information
The Court held that recirculation of a draft EIR for public comment
is required where "significant new information" is added to the
EIR after the close of the public comment period but before
certification. The court stated that new information is significant
when the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project.
More specifically, the Court held that recirculation is required
when the new information added to an EIR discloses any of the
following:
• A substantial new environmental impact resulting from the
project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be
implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental
impact unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce
the impact to a level of insignificance.
• A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure that
clearly would lessen the environmental impacts of the project,
but which the project's proponents decline to adopt.
• The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate
and conclusory in nature that public comment on the draft
was in effect meaningless.
The Court further stated that new information is not significa
when it merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignifica;
modifications in an otherwise adequate EIR.
Substantial Evidence For Non -Recirculation
The laurel Heights 11 Court also held that substantial evidence mu
support an agency's decision not to recirculate an EIR. Such judid
guidance is helpful since the State's CEQA Guidelines do not addre
the question of recirculation.
The plzintiffs had contended that the EIR should have be
recirculated because significant new information was added i
noise studies; potential toxic emissions; the use of loading dod
night light glare; and an expanded analysis of an alternative. T
court concluded that substantial evidence supported the defendan
decision not to recirculate the EIR, because none of the five categori
of new information contained in the revised EIR were "significan
For example, the court found that the noise studies merely sery
to amplify the information found in the draft EIR, and the studies
toxic air emissions were provided at the request of the public in t
interest of clarifying the discussion of cumulative toxic air emissie
in the draft EIR.
Thus, the Court's opinion confirms that if an agency carefu
explains its reasoning and supports its conclusions concerning t
significance of new information with substantial evidence,
environmental review and project approval should be upheld in 1
face of a challenge. As such, the decision is consistent with that
several other Supreme Court CEQA cases (such as Goleta , whi
tend to interpret CEQA narrowly, in favor of defendant agencies
`Concerned Citizens"
In Concerned Citizens, the California Court of Appeal approve%
school district's EIR regarding its evaluation of the loss of housinf
a proposed school site.
The plaintiff had sought to compel the District to set aside its I
regarding planned construction of an elementary school at a site
a low-income minority neighborhood in South Central Los Angel
The construction threatened to eliminate 67 units of afforda
housing and displace 280 people. Despite such an impact,
District proceeded with the project based on findings which it mi
in a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." In essence,
District .`ound that although the project would cause a signific
loss of affordable housing in the area, the need for a new schoo
reduce cvercrowding in the District overrode that concern.
The Court of Appeal found that the EIR's evaluation of
cumulative loss of affordable housing was adequate, noting
following:
• Minor understating of cumulative loss of housing did not
render the analysis inadequate, a good faith effort, not
perfection, is required in an EIR
See "Prend" next pag
TIPS ON DEALING WITH THE MEDIA
by Douglas S. Phillips'
Many years ago, I was upset by a judge's ruling. On my way out
of the courthouse, a reporter stopped me and asked my opinion
about the case. I explained in detail why I thought the judge was
completely wrong, short sighted, and so forth. The next morning I
received a call from the judge asking me to meet him in his chambers
right away. When I arrived at the judge's chambers, I saw a
newspaper spread out on his desk. The discussion that followed
convinced me to use care when talking to reporters in the future.
Officials of cities and other public agencies are sometimes
approached by members of the media seeking news about agency
business. Should you find yourself in that position, I offer the
following suggestions.
Return telephone calls from the press promptly.
Even if your response is that you have no comment, it is better to
read that in the newspaper than to read something like "several
telephone calls to Councilmember Jones were not returned."
Be friendly and courteous, but careful.
Remember that the reporter has the last say in what will be in the
newspaper. It serves no purpose to be condescending or rude to a
reporter. You may be paid back when you read tomorrow's morning
edition. Take some time with the reporter to explain the issues and
to give your agency's side of the matter. But be careful. Never
forget that everything you say may end up in print and be
memorialized forever.
Beware of "off the record" comments.
Certain reporters whom you know well and trust will honor your
request to keep certain comments out of print. Smart reporters who
want to keep an open door with you will do likewise. Unfortun-
ately, not all reporters meet such descriptions. In an abundance of
caution, it is advisable to either avoid "off the record" comments
altogether or to make them only to reporters that you have known
a long time and have grown to trust. In any case, remember that it
does not good to call a comment "off the record" after you have
made it ... an agreement with the reporter first is crucial.
Remember there are laws regarding defamation and the public
exposure of private facts.
A discussion of such laws is beyond the scope of this article.
Suffice it to say that false and defamatory statements of fact are
generally actionable by the defamed party. While everyone is
entitled to his or her opinion, statements of opinion can easily be
construed as statements of fact. Better to avoid defamatory remarks
altogether than to risk liability. Ditto with respect to any offensive
and unjustified public disclosure of private facts.
When talking to a tele%zsion reporter, try to keep an "open" face.
In other words, maintain eye contact with the reporter and
remember that you are not talking just to the reporter, but to a large
and unseen audience. If you are speaking of behalf of a city or
other public agency, then as far as the viewers are concerned, you
"are" the agency — at least for purposes of that interview. The way
you look, the way you respond to questions, and your voice should
all convey a proper image of your city or agency.
Naturally, the foregoing list is not exhaustive. But following such
fundamental guidelines will help ensure that your contact with the
media is rewarding for both you and your agency.
' Mr. Philips is a public law partner in the firm's Rancho Mirage office.
"Trend" from previous page
• The number of housing units that might be demolished as a
result of other agencies' activities did not have to be added
to the list of projects included in the EIR.
• Oppcnents failed to demonstrate which other housing units
might be lost in the future.
The Court also found that the District's mitigation measures for
the loss of affordable housing were adequate, which included:
• Payir g property owners the fair market value for any property
acquired by the Distria
• Affording relocation assistance.
• Surveying residents with special needs, such as elderly and
handicapped persons.
• Monitoring the relocation efforts with follow-up interviews.
Finally, the Court found that the EIR's evaluation of alternative
sites was adequate. The Court held that the EIR did not have tc
include new alternative sites made available by the Los Angele!
riots because the EIR already evaluated a reasonable range of
alternative sites, nor did it have to include the results of ar
unsuccessful search for additional sites. Significantly, the Courr,
held that information regarding new alternative sites was not "neH
information" triggering a supplemental EIR.
As lead and special counsel for numerous public agencies, the
firm's public law attorneys provide ongoing advice on CEQA matter!
and the latest CEQA developments. We also prepare and annuall}
update a volume of local CEQA guidelines for public clients who sc
desire it.
' Ms. Anderson is an associate public law attorney in the firm's Riversid
office.
CLARIFICATION REGARDING BROWN ACT
REVISION
In the Spring issue of the Public Law Newsletter, it waE
inadverta:ntly reported that a recent revision to the "labor negotiator
provision of the Brown Act (Gov. Code Section 54957.6) prohibited
closed session discussions of the compensation of unrepresented
employees. Actually, the revision only prohibits final actior
regarding such compensation during a closed session, discussion,
are still permissible. We regret the error.
Best, Best & Krieger publishes this newsletter as a service for clients and friends. It is not intended as legal advice. If
you need additional information on the topics discussed in this issue, please contact your attorney or any member of the
Firm's Public Law Department.
Riverside
Arthur L. Littleworth
Dallas Holmes
Richard T. Anderson
John E. Brown
Michael T. Riddell
Anne T. Thomas
William W. Floyd
Clark H. Alsop
Gregory W. Wilkinson
Brad E. Neufeld
Jeannette A. Peterson
Steven C. DeBaun
Eric L. Gamer
Janice L. Weis
Michelle Ouellette
Bernie L. Williamson
Glenn P. Sabine
Dorothy I. Anderson
Dina O. Harris
Public Law Department
Dean R. Derleth
Juliann Anderson
Patricia B. Cisneros
Alexandra F. Lopez
Rancho Mirage
David J. Erwin
Douglas S. Phillips
Robert W. Hargreaves
Marshall S. Rudolph
John Pinknev
Jennifer O. '
Ontario
Wynne S. Furth
Stephen P. Deitsch
Kevin K. Randolph
Sonia R. Carvalho
San Diego
Scott C. 5mith
Timothy M. Connor
C. Michael Cowett
Bruce W. Beach
Arlene Prater
Dearing D. English
Theodore J. Griswold
Copyright 1994 by Best, Best & Krieger. For permission to reprint contact Marshall Rudolph, Rancho Mirage Office.
Printed on recycled paper.
Law Offices
Best, Best E Kr eger
400 Mission Square
3750 University Avenue
Post Office Box 1028
Riverside, CA 92502
j4" !1N
Pt mkgp Dkeetw
Cry of le OVte
". an 104
Le Oaf CA 922M
Bt;uc RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
RNHERsIDE, CA
PswT No. 2338
PUBOFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC LAW SECTI
Vol. 18, No. 2 • Summer 1!
t;13:U
.ark
The Public Attorney's Duty
to Protect Personal Privacy
Iby C. Michael Coweu*
Introduction
®he private behavior of individual citizens has become the
subject of vivid, lurid and unremitting television and newspa-
per coverage.
The government, in its police, medical, social services, public
safety and regulatory activities necessarily obtains information about
individuals' private lives. This information regularly becomes a
public record.
The news media's demand for all the information it can print and
video tape often conflicts with individuals' right of privacy. The
public attorney is the professional who must balance the interests
of the media and the privacy of individuals when public records
contain private information. California's Constitution and statutes
provide both the public attorney's guidance and mandate for bal-
ancing these conflicting interests.
Although recent articles (Public Law Journal, Spring Edition
1994) have dealt with developments in the interpretation of the
Public Records Act recent events have illustrated the fragile nature
of the right to privacy and the damage resulting from the violation
of that right.
The Constitution and the Public Records Act
The California Public Records Act is the primary statute which
allows the public to access government records. Government Code
section 6250 articulates the Act's foundational legislative findings:
In enacting this chapter, the Legislature, mind-
ful of the right of individuals to privacy, finds
and declares that access to information concern-
ing the conduct of the people's business is a
fundamental and necessary right of every per-
son in this state.
Article I, Section I of the California Constitution, which guaran-
tees all persons the inalienable right to privacy, mandates the Act
protect the individual's right to privacy.
The Constitutional Right To Privacy
California voters added the guarantee of the inalienable right to
privacy to Article I, Section 1, of the California Constitution in
1972. Thus the California Constitution, unlike the Federal Consti-
tution, provides privacy an explicit constitutional status. California
courts have refused to rely upon federal precedent to restrict the
ambit of California's right to privacy because the federal right "ap-
pears to be narrower than what the voters approved in 1972 when
they added 'privacy' to the California Constitution". California
courts have held the right to include the right to not disclose a
psychotherapist's patients; the right to live with whomever one wants
and a woman's right to have a child.
In Whit.- v. Davis (1975) 13 Cal.App.3d 757 - its most detailed
analysis of California's constitutional right to privacy to date and its
attempt to determine the intent of the Constitutional Amendment in
adding the right to privacy to the Constitution - the Supreme Court
quoted the Amendment's proponents' election brochure statement:
The right of privacy is the right to be left alone.
It is a fundamental and compelling interest. It
protects our homes, our families, our thoughts,
our emotions, our expressions, our personalities,
our freedom of communion and our freedom to
associate with the people we choose. It prevents
government and business interests from collect-
ing and stockpiling unnecessary information
about us and from misusing information gath-
ered for one purpose in order to serve other
purposes or to embarrass us.
The Court there identified the principal "mischiefs" at which the
proponent's directed the Act, stating:
(1)"Government snooping" and the secret
gathering of personal information; (2) the over-
broad collection and retention of unnecessary
personal information by government and busi-
Summer 199
PUBLIC LAW JOURNAL
ness interests; (3) the improper use of informa-
tion properly obtained for a specific purpose, for
example, the use of it for another purpose or the
disclosure of it to some third party; and (4) the
lack of a reasonable check on the accuracy of
existing records.
1'he Court clarified however, the proponent's intended the Act to
y intervene individual privacy when required to do so by a "com-
ling interest". Thus the intent of the constitutional right to privacy
California, as interpreted by the courts, includes the right to pre-
r►t the "improper use of information properly obtained for a
-cif purpose..... for another purpose or the disclosure of it to
me third party...." in the absence of a compelling interest.
Courts have consistently reiterated that the right to privacy may
infringed only when confronted with a compelling interest. In a
se concerning associational privacy, the California Supreme Court
3icated the strength of the right to privacy. The Court indicated
it when constitutional interests are at stake, the burden for com-
lling disclosure is particularly severe. The case deals with First
mendment rights, but its analysis also applies to privacy rights at
e Constitutional level:
[T]o justify any impairment there must be a compelling state
terest... [which] justifies the substantial infringement of ... First
mendment rights. It is basic that no showing merely of a rational
lationship to some colorable state interest would suffice; in this
ghly sensitive constitutional area [o]nly the gravest abuses, en -
angering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible
mitations... (citing Huntley v. Public Util. Com. (1968) 69 Ca1.2d
7, at p.74.)
In 1981, the Court re -stated the sanctity of the right to privacy, in
case about the confidentiality of communication between a psy-
hotherapist and a patient. In addressing the right to keep the
Dmmunications private, the Court states: "The state's interest in
icilitating the ascertainment of truth in connection with legal pro-
eedings is substantial enough to compel disclosure of a great deal
f confidential material..." but that such an intrusion requires a
balancing of the juxtaposed rights, and the findings of a compel-
ing state interest."
The Public Records Act
The Public Records Act broadly defines public records to in -
Jude "any writing containing information relating to the conduct
A the public's business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any
;tate or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics."
Numerous governmental records are specifically exempt from
public disclosure for a variety of reasons relating to personal pri-
vacy, litigation, investigation and prosecutorial interests. Many
other "public records" which are not specifically exempt contain
extraordinarily personal and private informatior which public agen-
cies must withhold nonetheless. The Act provides many of these
records may also be exempt if a public interest withholding them
serves a public interest.
Government Code section 6255 provides:
The agency shall justify withholding any record
by demonstrating that the record in question is
exempt under express provisions of this chapter
or that on the facts of the particular case the pub-
lic interest served by not making the record
pubic clearly outweighs the public interest
served by disclosure of the record.
These courts have construed this provision to protect individual
privacy.
Balancing Interests Under Public Records Act
New York Times Co. v. Superior Court, Times Mirror Co. v.
Superior Court and Rogers v. Superior Court helped to define what
"public interests" are necessary to justify withholding public
records. The agency seeking to withhold a public record has the
burden of showing that the public interest served "clearly out-
weighs" the public interest served by disclosure. The courts thus
require disclosure of any record containing private information
about individuals serve a public interest.
Both the Times Mirror Co. and Rogers cases dealt with records
of public officials. In concluding the withholding of public records
was proper, the courts relied upon the chilling effect which disclo-
sure would have upon the deliberative process. These cases
identified a "deliberative process privilege" for public decision
makers. Although the privacy interest alleged in New York Times
was the privacy of individual citizens, the court held the public
interest in a water district's enforcement of its water conservation
ordinance outweighed any embarrassment the users of large
amounts of water might suffer.
"Public interest" is not defined as merely "interesting to the pub-
lic". The cases have unanimously defined the "public interest" as
the interest of the public to be informed about the conduct of pub-
lic affairs. Many personal, family and medical details of individual
citizens' personal lives are of great interest to the public. The in-
clusion of those details in some public record by virtue of the use
of governmental services must not subject the records containing
those personal facts to general public disclosure, absent some pub-
lic interest related to the conduct of government affairs.
In New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (218 Cal.App.3d 1579).
the court addressed this balancing test between the constitutional
right to privacy and the public's right to access public information,
holding the public interest in disclosure of documents must relate
to the "conduct of public business" not merely to the ghoulish in-
terest of the public to peer into the private lives of its citizens.
Although rejecting the sheriff's attempt to withhold applications
for concealed weapon permits, in CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42
Cal.App. 3d 646, even the majority opinion recognized the inter-
ests of the individual's privacy, stating:
For example, the records may contain intimate
information concerning an applicant's own or
his family's medical or psychological history.
Summer 1994
PUBLIC LAW JOURNAL
In such special cases, the confidential informa-
tion may be deleted.
"Public interest" is not defined as
merely "interesting to the public."
In his dissent in that case, Justice Mosk quoted Black Panther Party
v. Kehoe 42 Ca1.App. 3d 645, stating:
If citizenship in a functioning democracy re-
quires general access to government files, limited
but genuine interests also demand restricted ar-
eas of nonaccess. Decisional law on the subject
accepts the assumption that a statute calling for
general disclosure may validly define reasonably
restricted areas of nondisclosure, provided that
the latter are justified by genuine public policy
concerns. One concern is the privacy of citi-
zens whose information gets into government
files.
Overbroad claims to disclosure may threaten the
privacy of individual citizens and accelerate the
advent of the Orwellian state.
Since the infringement on privacy requires a "compelling interest"
a public record should not be disclosed unless the requestor seeks
the record to review the government's conduct of its business.
The Roll Of The Public Attorney Under
The Public Records Act
Dual Representation - Who Is The Client?
Clearly, a public attorney represents the public entity for whom
he/she is employed or retained. Unlike a lawyer representing a
private client, however, a public attorney must play an additional role.
A public attorney has a dual responsibility derived from com-
mon law to represent the agency as well as the public interest. In
D'Amico, the court addressed the Attorney General duties stating:
In the course of discharging this duty he [the
Attorney General] is often called upon to make
legal determinations both in his capacity as a
representative of the public interest and as statu-
tory counsel for the state or one of its agencies
or officers. In the great majority of such cases
no conflict will result because in representing
the interest of his "client" the Attorney General
will take a position consistent with he deems to
be in the public interest.
Indeed, courts have held the Attorney General's duty to repre
sent and protect the public interest is his "paramount duty....."
Although there are many potential conflicts and difficulties in
volved wi?h the concept of representing the "public interest", whet
confronted with a public records request, a public attorney has the
professional responsibility to balance the public interests representec
by the requestor against the public interest represented by the pro
tection of individual privacy.
The pujlic attorney is sworn to uphold the constitution an(
charged with the professional responsibility of representing thi
,.public interest". In that capacity the public attorney is the onli
person available to protect the privacy of individual citizens.
A public attorney can fulfill his/her professional responsibilit,
by a good faith balancing of the interests presented. However, thi
courts have held this balance to be a very delicate one. Whethe
the public attorney advises the agency to release the record or with
holds it may thus be less important than the fact he or she made ;
good faitt_ effort to balance the interests involved.
The public attorney's job is further complicated because a suc
cessful challenge to the withholding of a public record i
accompanied by the award of attorneys fees. Nevertheless the public
attorney's responsibility to consider the individual's privacy can
not be overstated.
Individuals whose private lives are the subject of public recon
usually have no legal representation. Unless such an individual i
notified when the press requests his or her records, the individua
is unrepresented. Therefore, unless the public attorney consider
the individual's privacy interests in determining whether to releas
the document, the individual's right to privacy is lost.
Worse yet, once the record is released to the press the individual'
privacy has been irretrievably violated. There is no due process t,
regain the right, and thereafter the individual has no remedy or reliel
Conclusion
If our citizens cannot utilize government services without fear
ing the government will disclose their most personal, medica
family and psychological information to the press, citizens will nc
use such services and the goverment can no longer serve the put
lic interest.
How is the public served by hearing the gory details of a 911 ca
in which a citizen is seeking help for a personal, medical, or famil
problem? Whether the citizen's problem is the subject of a polic
investigation, whether the caller is a public figure, or whether th
tape merely provides an interesting and marketable subject for th
press, the individual right to privacy clearly outweighs any cot
ceivable public interest served by disclosure of the record.
It is the public attorney, who has both the opportunity and n
sponsibility to balance the interests of the press to public recorc
and the interests of individuals to privacy.
Summer 195
PUBLIC LAW JOURNAL
ENDNOTES
Mr. Cowen is Of Counsel with the firm of Best, Best & Krieger,
ian Diego. Mr. Cowett is a member of the Executive Committee of
he Public Law Section.
Although the disclosure of judicial records is, regulated (Code of
_'ivil Procedure, section 1904) courts regularly deny public and a
nedia pretrial access to records which will impair criminal investi-
;ations or deprive the defendant a fair trial. Times Mirror a United
itates 873 F.2d 1210 (9th Cir. 1989); Allegrezza u_Superior Court
1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 948, 941, Rosato v. Superior Court (1975) 51
: W.App.3d 190, 207; Freedom Newspapers a Superior Court (1986)
186 Cal.App.3d 1102.
Scull a Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 784.
Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v Myers (1981) 29
Zal.3d 252.
29 Cal.3d at 263, citing City of Santa Barbara v Adamson (1980)
?7 Cal.3d 123, 130.
206 Cal.App.3d 784.
27 Cal.3d 123.
29 Cal.3d 252
s White v Davis (1975)
13 Cal.3d 757, 774.
' 13 Cal.3d at 775.
10 13 Cal.3d at 775.
1 Britt v Superior Court (1978) 20 Cal.3d 844, 855.
12 Jones v Superior Court (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 534.
" 119 Cal.App.3d at 550. See also, People is Stritzinger (1983) 34
Cal.3d 505, 511, [citing Jones, supra, 119 Cal.App.3d at p. 5341.
14 Government Code section 6252(d).
15 Government Code section 6254.
16 Times Mirror Co. v. Superior -Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1325;
Rogers v.-Superior Court (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 469; New York
Times Co. v: Superior Court (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1579.
n
1" 19 Cal.App.4th at 477; 218 Cal.App.3d at 1586.
19 218 Cal.App.3d 1579,53 Cal.3d 1325; 19 Cal.App.4th 469; CBS,
Inc.v. _Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646; Black Panther Pam v Kehoe
(1974) 42 Cal.3d 645.
'01. 42 Cal.3d at 655.
'1 42 Cal.3d at 666.
22 13 Cal.3d at 775.
2' People v. Oakland Water Front Co. (1897) 118 Cal. 160, 240;
Pierre v.-Superior Court (1934) 1 Cal. 2d 759, 762; Savings Bank
is Superior Court (1896)103 Cal. 27, 32; People v.-Stratton (1864)
25 Cal. 242, 246; Camp_v. Board of Supervisors (1981) 123
Cal.App.3d 334, 353; D'Amico a Board_ of*Medical Examiners
(1974) 11 Cal. 3d 1.
24 11 Cal.3d at 16.
25 11 Cal.3d at 14-15.
26 53 Cal.36 1325; 42 Cal.3d 645.
2' Government Code section 6259(d).
28 Government Code section 6254(f) provides that certain
information surrounding arrests and calls for help to pub-
lic agencies shall be made public. § 6254(f)(2) then carves
out an exception prohibiting disclosure of information
surrounding arrests and calls for help concerning certain
specified crimes including crimes involving corporal in-
jury to spouse or cohabitant of opposite sex.
Summer 1994