1993 03 23 PCA Regular Meeting to be Held at the
La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
March 23, 1993
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 93-007
Beginning Minute Motion 93-014
CALL TO ORDER - Flag Salute
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Item ............... CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 92-041, PREANNEXATION ZONING 92-
073, SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION
#9
Applicant .......... Travertine Corporation
Location ........... 2,560 acres located south of 60th Avenue and west of
Madison Street.
Request ............ A request to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use
and Circulation Maps adding a new area for a Sphere of
Influence and annexation and designating the new area as
Low Density Residential and Open Space, and zone the area
R-1 and HC (Hillside Conservation).
Action ............. Resolution 93-
3. Item ............... TENTATIVE TRACT 23773
Applicant .......... Starlight Dunes, a California General Partnership
Location ........... Northwest of the Adams Street/Starlight Lane and Fred
)Waring Drive intersection.
Request ............ Approval of third one year time extension for recordation of
final tract map for Phases 2 and 3.
Action ............. Resolution 93-
PC/AGENDA
1
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.
BUSINESS SESSION
1. Item ............... REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLANS
Applicant .......... City of La Quinta/TKD Associates
Location ........... Washington Street frontage road between Singing Palms
Drive and the St. Francis of Assisi Church.
Request ............ Review of landscaping plans.
Action ............. Minute Motion 93-
CONSENT CALENDAR
Approval of the Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held February 23,
ADJOURNMENT
STUDY SESSION
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1993
4:00 P.M.
1. All Agenda items.
PC/AGENDA 2
PH # 1
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: MARCH 23, 1993
CASE NO: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, CHANGE OF ZONE 92-073,
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT #9, ANNEXATION 119.
APPLICANT: TRAVERTINE CORPORATION
LOCATION: SOUTH OF 60TH AVENUE AND WEST OF MADISON STREET.
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATION: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-249 WAS PREPARED FOR
THESE APPLICATIONS. BASED UPON THIS ASSESSMENT, THE
PROPOSALS WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT
ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS
RECOMMENDED FOR ADOPTION. THIS DETERMINATION WAS
:MADE AFTER REVIEWING: THE GENERAL PLAN; THE AREA TO
BE ANNEXED; THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES; THE
ADJACENT LAND USES; THE PLANNED CAPACITIES OF THE
ROAD; AND RELATED MATTERS; THE COUNTY GENERAL
PLAN; AND THE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN FOR THIS AREA.
BACKGROUND:
The Travertine Corporation has requested a City Land Use Designation, Prezoning, Sphere of
Influence, and Annexation of approximately 2,560 acres. The area encompasses Sections 4 and
5 of Township 7 So th, Range 7 East, and Sections 32 and 33 of Township 6 South, Range 7
East. The property with the exception of an active vineyard with a caretakers residence, is
vacant desert land. The property is contiguous to the City of La Quinta along 60th Avenue
which is the southern City limits line.
Section 32
This Section is owned by the Bureau of Land Management and vacant. This Section is part of
the Wilderness Study area. Based upon testimony on February 23rd, the Boo Hoff Trail system
transverses this Ser:ion. Therefore, in order to limit development, this Section should be
designated Open Space and zoned as Hillside Conservation.
PCST.110
01
Section 3
Approximately half of this Section is owned by Travertine Corporation with the remainder
broken up into parcels ranging from five acres to 40 acres. The existing vineyard is located in
the southwest quarter of this Section, the rest of the area is vacant.
Section 4
This Section was owned by the BLM but was acquired by the Travertine Corporation with the
exception of the mountain outcropping located in the southwestern portion. This area is also
vacant.
Section 5
This section is broken up into five to 20 acre parcels under various ownerships and currently
vacant.
COUNTY TRAIL SYSTEM:
The County has identified Regional and Community Trails within the four sections prepared to
be annexed. These trails should be preserved. Future development must take them into
consideration. Therefore it is proposed that the Parks and Recreation and Open Space Policy
Diagrams be amended to include the major trail systems within Sections 32, 5, and 4. Future
developments within these Sections will have to address preservation of these trails.
COUNTY GENERAL PLAN:
The County has the property designated as P',anned Residential Reserve (0-5 du/ac) generally
for the following areas: all of Section 33, the north 3/4 of Section 4, the south half and the east
half of Section 32, the north and east quarter of Section 5. The remainder of the property is
designated as "Mountainous Areas" (1 du/10 acres).
PROPOSED CITY GENERAL PLAN:
The City proposes to designate the "Mountainous Areas" as Open Space including Section 32
owned by the Bureau of Land Management, and the remainder as Low Density Residential (2-4
du/ac).
COUNTY ZONING:
The County has the entire property zoned as W-2, Controlled Development Areas which permits
a wide range of residential and agricultural activities on lots not less than 7,200 square feet.
PCST.110 2
02
PROPOSED CITY ZONING:
The City proposes to zone the non -mountainous areas R-1, one family dwelling and the
mountainous areas as Hillside Conservation including Section 32 owned by the Bureau of Land
Management.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
There are no proposed development applications in conjunction with these amendments. The
applicant proposes to continue farming the grape vineyard. However, any future development
or proposal will be subject to the regulations of the City and environmental assessments. There
are archaeological sites %%ithin the area, however, these applications in and of themselves will
not disturb those sites. Future archaeological studies will be required prior to any development
that requires City approeal.
COUNTY EIR:
The Final EIR #189 for the Eastern Coachella Valley Community Plan has- indicated that intense
urbanization within the La Quinta-Coachella sub -community is encouraged.
In addition, the following are taken from the EIR: "Growth in the La Q.;inta-Coachella area is
anticipated due to a numbber of factors. These factors include the proposed Coral Point Sewage
Treatment Facility, the recent annexation into the City of La Quinta, the ?roposed expansion of
Thermal Airport and titre attractiveness of the Cove areas along the Sane Rosa Mountains"
"A Planned Residential Reserve designation is used along the Cove area where development
would be fragmented and service limited. This designation is intended :o permit development
along the Cove areas provided environmental issues are addressed and public services are
acquired. These issues will be addressed by individual specific plans and accompanying EIR's."
OTHER ISSUES:
Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted on October 4, 1988, Specific Plan 218 and EIR
#232 approving a development to the north and east of the proposed area. This specific plan
approved the development of 1,251 acres with densities ranging from :-8 dwellings units per
acre consisting of 4,262 units on 795 acres and 35 acres of commercial.
An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the Toro Canyon Lan,: Exchange (BLM and
George Berkey Associates, Inc.). This assessment dealt with Section 4. Mitigation measures
were identified stating that the Planned Residential Reserve designated properly would be further
addressed in an EIR for any future development.
PCST.110
03
PUBLIC HEARINGS OF FEBRUARY 23, 1993:
The issues raised at the February 23rd meeting were:
:. Preservation of existing trails.
Access to the Martinez Mountain Rockslide.
Zoning.
Staff has researched the County Trails System, and proposes to incorporate the trails within the
General Plan. Access to the Martinez Mountain Rockslide has access through the trail system.
Therefore any future development will be reviewed for General Plan compliance.
The Boo Hoff Trail System is contained within Section 32 which is owned by the Bureau of
Land Management and should be preserved.
The land designation and zoning has been modified to limit development of Section 34.
Therefore, the proposed land use and zoning are equal to or less than the current County land
use designation and zoning.
Letters were sent to those persons who stated they could identify and would provide trail
locations. As of this report, I have met with some of those people and the information attached
::as been provided regarding the County Trail System and the Boo Hoff Trail.
RECOMMENDATION:
Move to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 93- recommending to the City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment 92-041, Change of Zone 92-073, Sphere of Influence #9,
Annexation #9, and adoption of a Negative Declaration for these applications.
Attachments:
1. City General Plan Land Use and Zoning Map
Z. City General Plan Circulation Map
3. County General Plan Zoning Map
4. US Geological Survey Maps
5. Areal of the area
6. Environmental Assessment
7. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93
8. Trails maps
?CST.110
4
�� 04
i I
_; Avenue 54th
PGA WEST DEVELOPMENT �►
r I Air rt 1vd.
1 l� sw�+ T
�
� CwuLL
lNQ
1 ;
Avenue 58
Existing PGA West., '
Development 2F
Existing City Limits
4j
411
t.
4j
N
C
O
N
T
V
Avenue 64
LOCATION MAP
CpSEHp,SP&FPY of In JA«� µ9 NORTH
ANNEX�4Y�vN � 9
SCALE: AI&4
GZ 4 42-073 Q5
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92-249
FOR
GENERAL PLAN AMEN-DMENT 92-041
PREANNEXATION ZONING 92-073
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9
ANNEXATION #9
T:: Travertine Corporation has requested City land use designation, zoning, sphere of influence,
a:.d annexation of 2560 acres located south of 60th Avenue, west of Madison Street and north
Of 64th Avenue.
The area encompasses Section 4 and 5 of Township 7 South, Range 7 east, and Sections 32 and
33 of Township 6 south, Range 7 east.
The County currently has a majority of the property designated "Planned Residential Reserve'
permitting 0-5 dwelling units per acre and the mountains area as designated as "Mountainous
Areas" permitting one dwelling unit per ten acres.
.-e County zoning of the property is W-2, "Controlled Development Areas" permitting a range
c: single family and agricultural developments on as small as 20,000 square foot lots.
City proposes to designate the mountain property as "Open Space", one dwelling per ten
a: -es and the remainder as Low Density Residential. 2-4 dwelling units per acre.
The City zoning will be Hillside Conservation for the mountain area and R-1 (one family
cu-elling) for the remainder.
Currently a grape vineyard exists on the property with a majority of the property having been
s bdivided into as small as five acre parcels.
The City proposes to ultimately annex the property.
MIMS.007
M f
RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
EARTH: Because no new development is presently proposed. and because the
proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense
than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the Genera: Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does no: have the potential
to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
2. AIR: Because no new development is presently proposed, and bemuse the proposed
zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense than or
equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does no: have the potential
to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
3. WATER: Because no new development is presently proposed. and because the
proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense
than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does no. have the potential
to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
4. PLANT LIFE: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
5. ANIMAL LIFE: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
6. NOISE: Because no new development is presently proposed. and because the
proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense
than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the Genera Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does no: have the potential
to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE: Because no new development is presently proposed, and
because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be' annexed property
is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
ENVASS.007
1.
07
8. LAND USE: The proposed land use is generally less intense than or equal to the
existing County land use designations. The environmental impacts attendant to such land
use designations were addressed when the County approved the existing land use
designations after certifying its Final Environmental Impact Report 189 (the "EIR"). The
EIR is available for public review at City Hall and is incorporated herein by this
reference. There have been no substantial changes to those land use designations or to
the environmental setting of the areas since the EIR was certified. Likewise, no new
information has become available on this topic since the EIR was certified. Approval of
the General Plan Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and
Annexation does not have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this
category.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Because no new development is presently proposed, and
because the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property
is less intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
10. RISK OF UPSET: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
11. POPULATION: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
12. HOUSING: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the
proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense
than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential
to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: The proposed land use and zoning are
generally less intense than or equal to the existing County General Plan and zoning. The
transportation/circulation impacts attendant to such land uses and zoning were addressed
when the County approved the existing land use designations after certifying the EIR.
There have been no substantial changes to those land use designations or to the
environmental setting of the area since the EIR was certified. Likewise, no new
information has become available on this topic since the EIR was certified. Approval of
the General Plan Land Uses, Preannexation Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation
does not, therefore, have the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this
category.
ENSS.007 3 �
IAl 08
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: The City of La Quinta currently contracts for fire and police
services from Riverside County. City police services will be responsible for the "to be"
annexed area. To accommodate this additional need, the City may have to increase its
current contract for rran power. However, this impact is not significant, parks and
recreational facilities will be provided by the Coachella Valley Parks and Recreation
Board, and as appropriate, by the City of La Quinta however, approval of the project
will not have an affect on, or result in the need for new park and recreational facilities.
15. ENERGY: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the
proposed zoning and Isnd use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense
than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning. Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential
to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
16. UTILITIES: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because the
proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less intense
than or equal to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan Amendment
Preannexation Zoning. Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have the potential
to result in any of &e impacts identified in this category. Any development when
proposed will have to address utilities and their extension at that time.
17. HUMAN HEALTH 13e;zause no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning a"_.: land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equa+ to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexa.ion Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result i.^ any of the impacts identified in this category.
18. AESTHETICS: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning an land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equa: to the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexa on Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result in any of the impacts identified in this category.
19. RECREATION: Because no new development is presently proposed, and because
the proposed zoning and land use designation for the "to be" annexed property is less
intense than or equa: :o the existing County zoning, approval of the General Plan
Amendment Preannexa,ion Zoning, Sphere of Influence, and Annexation does not have
the potential to result Ln any of the impacts identified in this category.
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORICAL: The "to be" designated, zoned, and annexed
property contains some recorded sites and has a high potential for additional significant
archaeological sites. However, pursuant to standard City procedures, archaeological
studies will be required, as necessary, when particular sites are proposed for
development.
ENVASS.007 4 i' 09
Environmental Assessment No.
Case No.
G'L qo%- 073 Q;jiA41r J
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
I.
1.
2.
Background
Name of Proponent 4 4w,
Address i phone Number of Proponent
G�9-'7��-�srs�
3.
Date Checklist Prepared A0
4.
Agency Requiring Checklist
S.
Name of Proposal, if applicable
II.
Environmental Impacts
(Explanation of "yes" i "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
r
_.._.�
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?
q Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure or similar hazards?
FORM.009/CS -1- 10
YES MAYBE NO
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
Y
of ambient air quality?
b.
The creation of objectionable odors?
c.
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
i
temperature or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the prcposal result in:
• a.
Changes in currents or the course of
r
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,
r
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?
FORM.009/CS -2-
YES
KAYBE NO
4. Plant Life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, i aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of agricultural crops? ✓
s. Animal Life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish i
shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6. Noise. will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? .�
7. Light and Glare. will the proposal produce
new light or glare?
8. Land Use. will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. Natural Resources. will the proposal result in:
d
a. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
�.: 12
FORM.009/CS -3-
YES
MAYBE NO
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or
radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions?
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the _
location, distribution, density, or
growth rate of the h-=an population of an area?
12. housing. Will the proposal affect existing
housing, or create a demand for additional
housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
000/
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities
or demand for new parking?
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?
14. 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 S roads?
f. Other governmental services?
. � 13
FORM.009/CS -4-
YES MAYBE NO
15. 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?
16.
Utilities. will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
---
b. Communications systems?
-
c . hater?
-� --
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
-----
/
e. storm water drainage?
- ----
f. Solid waste and disposal?
-'100,
17.
Human Health. will the proposal result in:
/
a. Creation of any health hazard or
--
potential health hazard (excluding
mental health).
i8.
Aesthetics. will the proposal result in
_____ _--r
the obstruction of any scenic vista or
to the public, or will the proposal
view open
result in the creation of anaesthetically
offensive site open to public
19.
Recreation. will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality orquantityof
opportunities?
existing recreational
20.
Cultural Resources
a. will the proposal result in the alter-
.._
ation of or the destruction of a pre-
historic or historic archaeological site?
b. will the proposal result in adverse
- -A�
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
H
FORM.009/CS -5-
YES MAYBE NO
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d. will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
21. 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
history or
periods of California 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
in a relatively brief
one in which occurs
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 Froject 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
the environment is significant).
impacts on
d. Does the project have environmental
.—.
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects cn human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
III. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
15
FORM.009/CS -6-
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
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.
�i 16
FORM.009/CS -7-
MARTINEZ MTN. OUADRANOLE
CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE CO.
7.S MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
S&4 PALS W390 IV GUAORAPOW
116.15'
s ygp 000 FEES u OWN o M •i1 V371C
17'30' 'A a •e• r.5"ow
_,....,,...• 1 C i
i� `�.1 ,� ♦ i FEET
;�. e CA an...,
• ' . Sri >i ....... .
28
30
29
1
•
•�" j 1 � •� \ _ �ss ss sass
f•
G/ � 1 "•1 � "I!
i
„u
T &S
/
--- - Mo ------ ------- T 7 S
• I
I �1.
I'
I "•
k"r
35.
Palo
rose
' 1
/
V ' - I Gt• I
�-- �� — '---- � a � • i�+ . � ° of �3�1
:4
— �� — —`���_ —.r � — —' � _ _ _ — _ _ _ �T _ _ � C - � - _ _— s _ Av�n!i/L _sue '1• _ � . .
LA quInTA
13
_ell
22
Rod 2
_27 26 3
db
-
�c-- } ` t 3119 R
33
Z) / r
• l --- -- -' f---gip 21t AL- O iL ice_ s_�r_.� s_Q_•
- _� � -- _ Y - - - �„� .- _-_ " It /� • C w\ i- �' �+
2.
3715
47,
--- _----- -i 7 t5
�.�-�T_� .Y�-�-a• _-� -mil �i; -.,=5 �_'-1.<„Y- _ - i _ _ _ ) `�_
LEGEND
REGIONAL TRAILS
COMMUNITY TRAILS
CLASS 1 BIKE PATHS
PUBLICLY OWNED LAND
QUINTA
.LAKE
CAHUILLA
PARK
500
HOFF TR
CACTUS
SPRINGS
ARTICLE XV
W-2 ZONE
(CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT AREAS)
SECTION 15.1. USES PERMITTED IN W-2 ZONE.
a. Residential and light Agricultural Uses.
(1) When the gross area of a lot is less than one acre, the uses
permitted in the R-1 Zone shall be the uses permitted. When the
gross area of a lot is one acre or greater, the uses permitted in
the A-1 Zone shall be the uses permitted.
(2) When the gross area of a lot is less than one acre, the provisions
of the R-1 zone shall apply to the keeping of animals. When the
gross area of a lot is one acre or more, the provisions of the A-1
zone shall apply to the keeping of animals.
b. The following uses shall be permitted provided approval of a plot plan
shall first have been obtained pursuant to the provisions of Section
18.30:
(1) Guest ranches.
(2) Educational institutions, libraries, museums and post offices.
M3 Golf, tennis, polo or country clubs.
4 Meat cutting and packaging plants, provided there is no
slaughtering of animals or rendering of meat.
(5) An Additional one -family dwelling (including mobilehomes),
excluding the principal dwelling, shall be allowed for each 10
acres being farmed. Said additional dwelling units shall be
located on a parcel being fanned and occupied by the owner,
operator or employee of the farming operation as a one family
residence provided that:
a) The dwellings are not rented or held out for lease.
b) The dwellings are located not less than 50 feet fran any
propert line.
(c) The dwellings are screened from view from the front property
line by shrubs or trees.
(d) The arrangement of the dwellings, sanitary facilities and
utilities conforms with all of the requirements of the Health
Department, the Department of Building and Safety and State
(e) The number of dwellings for employees shall not exceed four
per established farming operation.
c. Public Utility Uses.
(1) Structures and installations necessary to the conservation and
development of water such as dams, pipe lines, crater conduits,
tanks, reservoirs, wells and the necessary pumping and water
production facilities.
(2) 'Structures and the pertinent facilities necessary and incidental
to the development and transmission of electrical power and gas
such as Hydroelectric power plants, booster or conversion plants,
transmission lines, pipe lines and the like.
133
L21
(3) Radio broadcasting stations.
4) Telephone transmission lines, telephone exchanges and offices.
(5) Railroads, including the necessary facilities in connection
therewith.
(6) Television broadcasting stations, antennas, and cable
Installations.
d. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit has
been granted:
JIJ Airport or landing field.
2Any mining operation which is exempt from the provisions of the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and
Riverside County Ordinance No. 555.
3 Cemetery, pet or human.
4; Comimercial fairgrounds and exhibitions.
5) Drive-in theaters.
6 Dune buggy parks.
1j Fruit and vegetable packing plants and similar uses.
8 Hog ranches, subject to the provisions of Ordinance No. 431.
9) Hunting clubs.
MLumber mill.
Lumber production of a commercial nature, including commercial
logging or commercial development of timber.
(12) The manufacture of:
a. Brick, the or terra-cotta.
b. Cement and cement products.
c. Gypsum.
d. lime or lime products.
(13) Menageries and animal hospitals.
(14) Migrant Agricultural Worker Mobilehome Parks.
(15 Mobilehome parks, developed pursuant to Section 19.93 of this
ordinance.
(16) Pen fed cattle operations, livestock salesyards, livestock auction
ards, and dairy farms.
(17) iace tracks, including but not limited to contests between
automobiles, horse, go-carts, and motorcycles, but not including
contests between human beings only.
(18) Recreational vehicle parks.
(19) Rifle, pistol, skeet, or trapshooting ranges.
20 Rodeo arenas.
21 Trail bike parks.
22 Trailer and boat storage.
23 (Deleted)
24 Cmmerci al stables and riding academies.
25 Recreational lakes.
26 Disposal service operations.
27 Auction houses and yards.
28 JDeleted) 29 Deleted)
30 Printers, publishers, film studios, or recording studios as
accessory uses to an educational institution, church, temple or
other place of religious worship.
134
22
(31) Extraction and bottling of welt water including the incidental
manufacturing of bottles solely for use in the permitted
extraction and bottling operation.
R321 Outdoor film studios.
3 Camps.
e. The following uses are permitted provided that the operator thereof
holds a permit to conduct surface mining operations issued pursuant to
Riverside County Ordinance No. 555 which has not been revoked or
suspended:
(1) Any mining operation that is subject to the California Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.
f. Kennels and catteries are permitted provided they are approved
pursuant -to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this ordinance.
Amended Effective:
11-11-82
(Ord.
348.2104
12-23-82
Ord.
348.2140
08-02-84
Ord.
348.2338
04-04-87
Ord.
348.2669
03-12-87
(Ord.
348.2670
04-28-88
Ord.
348.2848
06-30-88
Ord.
348.2856
07-20-89
Ord.
(Ord.
348.3043
10-05-89
348.3053
SECTION 15.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. Where a structure is erected or a
use is made in the W-2 zone that is first specifically permitted in another
zone classification, such structure or use shall meet the development standards
and regulations of the zone in which such structure or use is first
specifically permitted, unless such requirements are hereafter modified.
a. One family residences shall not exceed 40 feet in height. No other
building or structure shall exceed 50 feet in height, unless a height
up to 75 feet for buildings, 105 feet for other structures, or greater
than 105 feet for broadcasting antennas is approved pursuant to Section
18.34 of this ordinance.
b. lot size shall not be less than 20,000 square feet, with a minimum
average lot width of 100 feet and a minimum average lot depth of 150
feet, unless larger minimum lot area and dimensions are specified for a
particular area or use.
c. Animals are not permitted on existing substandard lots that are less
than 20,000 square feet in size.
d. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12
of this ordinance.
Amended Effective: 09-04-62
06-16-65 (Ord. 348.371) 12-01-75 (Ord. 348.1481)
135
`� 23
03-23-66 (Ord.
348.427
07-27-66 (Ord.
348.459
04-17-68
Ord.
348.556
07-16-69
Ord.
348.637
06-10-70
Ord.
348.737
10-10-71
Ord.
348.935
05-04-72
Ord.
348.1023
05-30-74
�Crd.
348.1327
06-20-74
Ord.
348.1340
11-07-74
Crd.
348.1377
03-20-75
Ord.
348.1429
10-02-75
Ord.
348.1470
05-19-83
Ord.
348.2162
04-21-77
Ord.
348.1564
09-08-77
Ord.
348.1588,
11-29-79
Ord.
348.1729
03-05-81
Ord.
348.1926
07-02-81
Ord.
348.1968,
11-11-82
Ord.
348.2104
12-23-82
Ord.
348.2140
05-19-83
Ord.
348.2162
08-02-84
Ord.
348.2338
10-06-89
Ord.
348.3053
136
24
i
ARTICLE XIII
A-1 ZONE (LIGHT AGRICULTURE)
SECTION 13.1. USES PERMITTED.
a. Any use permitted in the R-A zone, not including Section 6.50 (1), is
subject to the requirements set forth therein.
b. The following agricultural uses:
(1) Farms for rabbits, fish, frogs, chinchilla or other small
animals.
(2) Water works facilities, both public and private, intended
primarily for the production and distribution of water for
Irrigation purposes.
(3) Nurseries, greenhousesq orchards, aviaries, apiaries, field
crops, tree crops, berry and bush crops, vegetable, flower and
herb gardening. The drying. packing, canning, freezing and other
accepted methods of processing the produce resulting from such
permitted uses, when such processing is primarily in conjunction
with a farming operation and further provided that the permanent
buildings and structures used in conjunction with such processing
operations are not nearer than 20 feet from the boundaries of the
prenises.
(4) The grazing of cattle, horses, sleep, goats or other fans stock
or animals, not including hogs, including the supplementary
feeding thereof, not to exceed 5 animals per acre of all the land
available; provided however, the systematic rotation of animals
with more than 5 animals per acre is permitted so tong as the
total number of permitted animals is not exceeded. For the
grazing of sheep or goats, the permissible number of animals per
acre may be multiplied by 3. except that there shall be no limit
to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre
when the grazing is for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested
crops, provided that such grazing is not conducted for more than
4 weeks in any 6 month period. The provisions of this paragraph
apply to mature breeding stock, maintenance stock and similar
farm stock, and shall not apply to the offspring thereof, if such
offspring are being kept, fed or maintained solely for sale,
marketing or slaughtering at the earliest practical age of
maturity. In all cases the permissible number of animals per
acre shall be computed upon the basis of the nearest equivalent
ratio.
(5) Farms or establishment for the selective or experimental breeding
and raising of cattle. sheep, goats, and horses, subject to the
limitations set forth in subsection (b) (4) of this -section.
(6) The nay ial raising of
not roxnrorided.bever.thatthetolnumbeofai animals permited 5 ted on
parcels of less than one acre shall not exceed 2 animals except
that no animals shall be permitted on lots of less than 20.000
square feet. For the purposes of determining the number of hogs
on a parcel, both weaned and unweaned hogs shall be counted.
(See Ordinance No. 431 regarding hog ranches).
118
1 25
(7) Future Farms, 4-H or similar projects conducted by the occupants
of the premises.
(8) A temporary stand for the display and sale of the agriculture
produce of any permitted use that is produced upon the premises
where such stand is located or upon contiguous lands owned or
leased b the owner or occupant of the premises.
(9) (Del etedl
c. A sign, single or double faced, not exceeding 12 square feet in area
per face, advertising only the sale of the services or the products
produced on the premises. The sign shall not be lighted or have
flashing objects or banners.
d. The following uses are permitted subject to the approval of a plot plan
pursuant to Section 18.30 of this ordinance. The plot plan approval
may include conditions requiring fencing and landscaping of the parcel
to assure that the use is compatible with the surrwnding area.
it) Grange halls.
2) Churches, temples, or other structures used primarily for
religious worship.
(3) Private schools.
141 Li brari es.
5Public utility facilities.
6) A permanent stand for the display and sale of the agriculture
product of any permitted use that is produced upon the premises
where such stand is located or upon contiguous lands owned or
leased by the owner or occupant of the premises.
(7) An additional one family dwelling (including mobilehomes),
excluding the principal dwel 1 i ng, shall be allowed for each 10
acres gross being farmed. Said additional dwelling units shall
be located on a parcel being famed and occupied by the owner,
operator or employee of the farming operation as a one family
residence provided that:
a. The dwel 1 i ngs are not rented or held out for lease.
b. The dwellings are located not less than 50 feet from any
property line.
c. The dwel l i ngs are screened from view from the front property
line by shrubs or trees.
d. The arrangement of the dwellings. sanitary facilities and
utilities conforms with all of the requirements of the Health
Department, the Department of Bui 1 di ng and Safety and state
low.
e. The number of dwellings for employees shall not exceed 4 per
established farming operation.
181 Beauty shops.
9 Real estate offices.
10) Winery and appurtenant and incidental uses with established
on -site vineyard.
e. The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use permit Is
granted:
119
L 26
1 (Deleted)
2 (Deleted)
3 An mining operation which is exempt from the provisions of the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 and
Riverside County Ordinance No. 555.
(4 Ccmmuni auction and sales yards.
�S (Deleted
6 Farm labor camp.
(7) Feed Stores.
81 Packaged dry fertilizer storage, not including processing.
9 Menageries.
10 Oil production, not including refining or processing.
11 Mi nk fams.
12 Fraternal lodge halls.
(13) (Deleted)
R4 Commercial stables.
5 Commeecial breeding operations.
(16 Riding academies.
f. The following uses are permitted provided that the operator thereof
holds a permit to conduct surface mining operations issued pursuant to
Riverside County Ordinance No. 555, which has not been revoked or
sus nded:
(1� Any mining operation that is subject to the California Surface
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975.
g. Kennels and catteries are permitted provided they are approved pursuant
to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this ordinance.
h. Any use that is not specifically listed in subsections d. and e. may be
considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the
Planning Director finds that the proposed use is substantially the same
In character and intensity as those listed in the designated
subsections. Such a use 1s subject to the permit process which governs
the category in which it falls.
Amended Effective:
12-23-82 Ord. 348.2140
5-19-83 Ord. 348.2162
08-29-85 Ord. 348.2510
04-04-87 Ord. 348.2669
07-20-89 Ord. 348.3043
120 i 27
SECTION 13.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
a. Lot size shall not be less than 20,000 square feet. with a minimum
average lot width of 100 feet and a minimum average lot depth of 150
feet, unless larger minimum lot area and dimensions are specified for a
particular area or use, except as follows:
(1) (Deleted)
2) The uses listed in Section 13.1 (d) (1), (2). (3), (4) and (5) of
this ordinance shall not be required to have a lot area in excess
of 20.000 square feet or an average lot width in excess of 100
feet, irrespective of the minimum zone requirements for a
particular area.
b. Minimum yard requirements shall be 20 feet front yard, 5 feet side
yard, and 10 feet rear yard.
c. One -family residences shall not exceed 40 feet in height. All other
uses shall not exceed 50 feet in height,, unless a height up to 75 feet
for buildings or 105 feet for other structures is specifically
permitted under the provisions of Section 18.34 of this ordinance.
d. Animals on existing lots less than 100 feet in width. If the average
lot width of an existing lot is less than 100 feet, animals shall be
kept a minim, of 100 feet from the principal street frontage. If such
lot is a corner lot, animals shall also be kept not less than 20 feet
from the rear 1 of l i ne. For purposes of this section, the principal
street frontage is the street frontage with the shortest dimension.
e. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 18.12
of this ordinance.
Amended Effective:
01-15-64
Ord.
348.251
05-04-72
(Ord.
348.1023
06-16-65
Ord.
348.371
10-19-72
(Ord.
348.1091
09-15-65
Ord.
348.391
02-01-74
(Ord.
348.1281
01-19-66
Ord.
348.422
05-30-74
(Ord.
348.1327
07-27-66
Ord.
348.459
03-20-75
Ord.
348.1429
12-06-67
Ord.
348.534
12-10.75
Ord.
348.1481
07-16-69
Ord.
348.638
09-08-77
Ord.
348.1588
04-15-70
Ord.
348.710
04-12-79
Ord.
348.16881
09-16-70
Ord.
348.773
11-29-79
Ord.
348.1729 -
03-11-71
Ord.
348.859
operative 01-01410)
08-11-71
Ord.
348.905
12-23-82
(Ord.
348.21401
05-19.83
(Ord.
348.2162
121
.28
ARTICLE TI
R-1 ZONE (ONE-FAKILY DWELLINGS)
SECTION 6.1. USES PERMITTED.
a. The following uses shall be permitted in the R-1 Zone:
�1 One -family dwellings.
2 Field crops, flower and vegetable gardening, tree crops9 and
greenhouses used onl for p, rposes of propagation and culture,
i ncl udi ng the sale thereof from the premises and one unlighted
sign that does not exceed 2 square feet in size pertaining to the
sale of products.
(3) The noncommercial keeping of horses on lots not less than 20,000
square feet in area and 100 feet in width, provided they are kept
not less than 100 feet from any street and 20 feet from any
property line. A maximua of two horses per 20,000 square feet
and, in any event, not more than four horses on a lot will be
permitted. If a lot is one acre or more in area, poultry and
rabbits may be kept for the use of the occupants of the promises
only. The poultry and rabbits shall be kept in an enclosed area
located not less than 50 feet from any residence and shall be
maintained on the rear port'on of the lot in conjunction with a
residential use. If a lot is two acres or more in area, two
sheep or goats or combinati:n thereof may be kept in addition
thereto provided they are Dept not less than 100 feet from any
street, 20 feet from any pr:perty line and 50 feet from any
residence.
(4) Public parks and public playgrounds, golf courses with standard
length fairways, and country clubs.
t5) Nome occupations.
6) Planned residential developments, provided a land division is
approved pursuant to the prvi si ons of Ordinance No. 460 and the
deYelopment standards in Section 18.5 or 18.6 of this ordinance.
b. The following uses are permitted provided a plot plan has been
ap roved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30:
(1� Beauty shops operated dra=ndathe�onbsite sign its ants where no
kited and
assistants are employed 9 9
does not exceed two square feet in area.
(2) Temporary real estate tract offices located within a subdivision,
to be used only for and during the original sale of the
subdivision, but not to exceed a period of 2 years in any event.
(3) Nurseries, horticultural.
c. The following uses are perei tied provided a conditional use permit has
been granted pursuant to Section 18.28 of this ordinance:
(1) Mobilehome parks, developed pursuant to Section 19.92 of this
ordinance.
d. Kennels and catteries are penni tied provided they are approved
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this ordinance.
Amended Effective:
12-23-82 (Ord. 348.2140)
06-28-84 (Ord. 348.2341)
29
24
04-04-87 (Ord.348.2669)
SECTION 6.2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The following standards of
development shall apply in the R-1 Zone, except that planned residential
developments shall comply with the development standards contained in Section
18.5 of this ordinance.
a. Builtiing height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a maximum height of
40 feet.
b. lot area shall be not less than 7200 square feet. The minimum lot area
shall be determined by excluding that portion of a lot that is used
solely for access to the portion of a lot used as a building site.
c. The minimum average width of that portion of a lot to be used as a
building site shall be 60 feet with a si nimum average depth of 100
feet. That portion of a lot used for access on 'flag' lots shall have
a minimum width of 20 feet.
d. The minimum frontage of a lot shall be 60 feet9 except that lots
fronting on knuckles or culs-de-sac mq have a minimum frontage of 35
feet. Lot frontage along curvilinear streets may be measured at the
building setback in accordance with zone development standards.
e. Minimum yard requirements are as follows:
(1) The front yard shall be not less than 20 feet, measured from the
existing street line or from any future street line as shown on
any Specific Plan of Highways, whichever is nearer the proposed
structure.
(2) Side yards on interior and through lots shall be not less than 10
percent of the width of the lots but not less than 3 feet in
width in any event, and need not exceed a width of 5 feet. Side
yards on corner and reversed corner lots shall be not less than
10 feet from the existing street line or from any future street
line as shown on any Specific Plan of Highwayss whichever is
nearer the proposed structure. upoa which the main building
sidess except that where the lot is less than 50 feet wide the
yard need not exceed 20 percent of the width of the lot.
(3) The rear yard shall not be less than 10 feet.
4 No structural encroachments shall be permitted in the front, side
or rear yard except as provided for in Section 18.19 of this
ordinance.
f. Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section
18.12 of this ordinance.
imended effective:
01-15-64 Ord. MEIN'
05-06-64 Ord.
04-17-68 Ord. 348.556
03-11-70 Ord. 348.700
09-23-70 Ord. 348.777
05-04-72 Ord. 348.102 )
10-19-74 Ord. 348.1091
09-13-73 Ord. 348.1201 30
05-30-74 Ord. 348.1327
26
05-1-75
(Ord.
348.1443)
04-12-79
(Ord.
348.1688
07-02-81
Ord.
348.1965
03-16-82
Ord.
348.2074
12-23-82
. Ord.
348.2140.
05-19-83
Ord.
348.2112
08-29-85
Ord.
348.2510
07-06-89
Ord.
348.3032
31
26
x% A. '
you. r •Tr'a''v
4.
serf. us.:'Map
t
in le o
.. �:
Hiking Traik
i!C # -,� a •. , � '. ,,}, -• �x "-- •o ti�,� � �..
�: �> '4,,arfrcx. = ;{"=,:`ma`s'' '
From the eastern slops, the farm lads of the Coachella Valley ce
be seen below, along with the north and of the Salton Sea. Cependil
upon the ralnfdl, large Ocdtlllles may be seen In bloom during late
March and early April'
Qlreetlons: The tralihead may be reached from take Cahullla, a
county park located south of the Gty of la Quints. In the eastern
Coachella Valley. Take hWmM ttf east, past the Gty of Indian
Welts, to Jefferson Street, turn right to Avenue 54. left to Madison,
right to Avenue 55, and follow Ms suns to lake Cahullia County Pa
The eastern trail may be reached from the park by traveling south
through a low pass betvraen the bass of the mountains on the west
and the small mountains on the east A one tW..k sandy road will Is
you through and over the dyke and finally dead end at a canyon
mouth approximately IN miles. Proceed upon the canyon and
watch for the Soo Hoff Trail dgn on the right
For the Western Tratl, tin up the tarps wash to the west from il
entrance of take Cahulila Watch for the trill leading over a pass at
the left side, close to the dead end of the canyon. On down the slq
on the other skis, approximately w male from the top find the trail r
to the south, it is not signed and hard to find. but continue along th
hens of the mountain on the east side of the large canyon. After is
mile look for trailhead sign an the right as the canyon narrows.
�- L 32
T : E C I T Y O F
AL
Quinta
,age - I T, Carat OriaJe
March 4, 1993
Mr. & Mrs. Hal Summers
52-050 Avenida Madero
La Quinta, CA 92253
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, PREANNEXATION 92-073,
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION #9
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Summers:
As you will recall, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above project on
February 23, 1993. At that meeting several members of the audience spoke regarding the
preservation of existing trail systems through the proposed annexation area. D::ring the course
of discussion, it was stated by yourself and others, that information on these mails could and
would be provided to Staff to allow them the opportunity to present this infz)rmation to the
Commission for their review. As of this date we have only received the trail crap that was put
out by the Desert Riders.
If the Commission is to make a determination about your request, it is important that they have
any and all information available. If you still wish the Commission to review any additional
information, we must receive that information in our office no later than March 15, 1993, in
order to make the meeting date of March 23, 1993.
Should you have any questions concerning the above information, please feel free to contact the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
I
RRY ERMAN
Planning & Development Director
JH:bja
City of La Quinta
LTRJH.250 Fist office Box 1504 • 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92253 V
34
Phone (619) 564-2246, Fax (619) 564-5617
Design R Proc_c^or Ma+ ca ^ , Des a^ 619 346 07"2
T H E C I T 1• O F
La,,Ttn Qinta
ievl :�r:ads
`Mara. 4, 1993
Ms. Joan Taylor
Consermation Chairman
Sierra Club San Gorgonio Chapter
568 N. Mountain View Avenue, Suite 130
San Bernardino, CA 92401
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, PREANNEXATION 92-073,
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION #9
Dear Ms. Taylor:
As you will recall, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the above project on
February 23, 1993. At that meeting several members of the audience spoke regarding the
preservation of existing trail systems through the proposed annexation area. During the course
of discussion, it was stated by several people that information on these trails could and would
be pro%ided to Staff to allow them the opportunity to present this information to the Commission
for their review. As of this date we have only received the trail map that was put out by the
Desert Riders.
If the Commission is to make a determination about your request, it is important that they have
any and all information available. If you still wish the Commission to review any additional
information, we must receive that information in our office no later than March 15, 1993, in
order to make the meeting date of March 23, 1993.
Should you have any questions concerning the above information, please feel free to contact the
undersigned.
Very truly yours,
�X2L -e`
RRY HERMAN
Planning & Development Director
JH:bja
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504 • 78-105 Calle Estado 3 5
LTRJH. 250 La Quinta, California 9225.3 �- L
Phone (619) 564-2246, Fax (619� 564-5617
Desq. y;1,06_UM Maw Pa" :�V 61' ---2
T H E C I T Y O F
LaQuinta
�82 - I0Tim Goal [ .
March 4, 1993
Ms. Bern Schwerin
P. O. Box 1547
Palm Desert, CA 92260
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, PREANNEXATION 92-073,
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION #9
Dear Ms. Schwenn:
As you will recall, the Plann:nng Commission held a public hearing on the above project on
February 23, 1993. At that meeting several members of the audience spoke regarding the
preservation of existing trail systems through the proposed annexation area. During the course
of discussion, it was stated by several people that information on these trails could and would
be provided to Staff to allow teem the opportunity to present this information to the Commission
for their review. As of this date we have only received the trail map that was put out by the
Desert Riders.
If the Commission is to make a determination about your request, it is important that they have
any and all information available. If you still wish the Commission to review any additional
information, we must receive that information in our office no later than March 15, 1993, in
order to make the meeting date of March 23, 1993.
Should you have any questions concerning the above information, please feel free to contact the
undersigned.
Very truly you s,
JERR HERMAN
Planning & Development Director
JH:bja
City of La Quinta 31
LTRJH.250 Pc-zoffice Box 1504 • 78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92253
Mine (619) 564-2246, Fax (619) 564-5617
Desq� d Pro0�ct.o, MaM Pa me, Des+a- ?'a 346 C-2
T H E C 1 T 1' O F
March 4. 1993
Mrs. Ir%in M. Patterson
79-320 Eisenhower Way
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 92-041, PREANNEXATION 92-073,
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND ANNEXATION #9
Dear Mrs. Patterson:
As you will recall, the Planning Commission held a pug*: hearing on the above project on
February 23, 1993. At that meeting several members o: the audience spoke regarding the
preservation of existing trail systems through the proposed annexation area. During the course
of discussion, it was stated by several people that informaton on these trails could and would
be provided to Staff to allow them the opportunity to preset - this information to the Commission
for their review. As of this date we have only received *,ye- trail map that was put out by the
Desert Riders.
If the Commission is to make a determination about your request, it is important that they have
any and all information available. If you still wish the Commission to review any additional
informa5on, we must receive that information in our oft:: no later than March 15, 1993, in
order to make the meeting date of March 23, 1993.
Should you have any questions concerning the above info= -nation, please feel free to contact the
undersigned.
Very truly
Y
& Development Director
JH:bja
Cite of La Quinta (� r)
Post Office Box 1504 • 78-105 Carr Estado
LTRJH.250 La Quinta, California 9225r
Phone (619) 564-2246, Fax (619) 5c-4-5617
Des 9^3P•oo.r:- Ma'. Pa—D^,w E'934'
RICHARD E. HERRMAN
149M FooTHILL Ro � n
GOLOE". COLORADO U
(303) 279.6076 MAR 15 1993
Planning Catmission, City of La Quinta n u fMHaT� 3 0193
K-AMMO OfPARTMOff
La Quinta, CA ....a
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence #9 annexation #9.
Environmental assessment #92-249
Sirs:
.,he Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the related Negative
Declaration that has been prepared, are completely inadequate. Developments of
this size, given the proposed zoning, may have severe impacts on wiMife and
would seemingly prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that
adjoin these sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Department's Environmental Assess-
ment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Cclmissiaz,
and prior to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annootlon*
a full Environmental Impact Report should be prepared that completely addresses
the effects of this proposed real estate project.
As a "desert city" property owner and winter resident I frequently hike the
trails that will be -affected by this development. Recently, hiking the "Boo'
Hoff" trail, I observed flags and stakes indicating portions of a golf course
survey which would completely block this trail. At the least, alternate siting
of of these trails must be effected and the integrity of the trail system pre-
served •
Sincerely, - �- - • ,
411
L 38
Coachella Valley . 0
Cycling Associa ion
MAR 12 IS�J
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA.92253
March 10, 1993
RE: General Plate Amendment 92-041; Pre -annexation Zoning 92-073; Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9
Environmental Amssnneat #92-249
Dear Commission Members,
I thought that sane attending your Planning Commission meeting on 2-23-93 that I could share some of my observations
about trail use within the area which has been proposed for the City's annexation -
The Boo Hoff trail has been used by many of my fellow members. The trail is one of the southern California desert's fin
mountain bicycling trails. Scenic vistas from the trail, especially from ifs highest elevation, just north west of Devils
Cam•on is one of a kind It offers the user the opportunity to look deep into wild and rugged country within an hour ride
from the southern end of the La Quinta cove. This loop trail of approximately 12 miles offers various trail conditions fr
sand wash to rock% hard pan. Challenges abound for the bicyclist, especially climbing steep switch backs directly south
the cove. I always reed users to traverse the trail in a counter clock wise direction. This allows the bicyclist,
equestrian, or kl= the ease of travel through the eastern section of the trail, which is sand wash, in a downhill direction
I have personaII% ridden most of the non -wilderness trails within the Santa Rosa Mountains. Many do not offer the plea
of a loop route The Boo Hoff trail does. Equestrian use is very common on the trail. Since the loss of many opportm
for my equesu= friends to ride and care for horses in the upper valley have been lost, the trail offers a retreat from the
difficulties of maintaining their sport.
As a user of the Boo Hoff Trail I know why some would want to develop these lands along it's eastern flanks. The view
the mountains is ! This is also why the trail users are attracted their too!
I think that it probably matters little to the trail users if possible housing development along the Boo Hoff is limited to a
just trail access is not the entire issue that you will find in the discussion
density of 2, 4.6 or eves 8 per acre. Certauilythe new• the and wild values that exist in the area uses of dus land. Development along the trail will destroy open space
today.
Howerer, if &%viopawd is in the future for this area, please consider the need for public easement for this important tr
route.
Sin
L 39
MAR 0 9 99bs
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission.
2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation # 9.
Enviromental assessment g 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on themanytrail
wildlife. Additionally
and publiclandsthatadjoin development
would probably these
prevent public access to
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
�lvci
�� 40
City of La Quinta.
Planning Commission.
MAR 0 8 1993
2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence f 9 annexation # 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La QAnta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any fzrther action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely.
lti^. e/y1�5 j � 5 'i nq 41
4f_3os /4c. y N
PIW-m i1 E5rZ_r fA 1. 1 1
MAR 0 3 493
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission.
2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation # 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent wegative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size. given the proposeddevelopmenlmost would alwayshave
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
prevent public access to the zany trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quints Planning and Development Departments Enviromental eSaLdnprior
and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission
to any further action on the be x addresses fully the g and ffects
any annexation, 3 full
Enviromental Impact Report shouldprepared that
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
4
1
L<<<�:�s
i 42
City of La Quanta,
Planning commission.
MAR 0 1 1993
2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
nt
p dramatic impact access to thee. manydtrailsaand publy any iclandsthatould adjoinobably
these
prevent public
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further pact poannexation, a full
rt ort sh n on the uld be p epared that address Enviromental Imp preannexation zoning and any es fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely. �f
Qom` l� "GAL
L 43
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission.
2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence 4 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment 4 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
eent. Developments of this size. given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impas access tothemanye. trailsrai is Additionally nd public vlandse thatnt adjoin probablyuld a join these
prevent public
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further actp
annexation. a full
pRe port should bn the e
Enviromental Imppprepared that addressxation zoning and any fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
sincerely,
C
m
44
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation s 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
l
7'X, Ice 'D r
. . . ........
FEB 2 3 1993
k6kC'/+-,,i
l/i 14 LS cuC-L
City of La Quanta, Sto t f 'J4 S'� Cn�L�c
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence # 9 annexation # 9.
Enviromental assessment # 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
nent. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
O
FE 8 2 3 E1993
u QUIN A
PtI mN6 WMTMW
°'1 a
City of La Quinta.
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment # 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
� zo ado - .- 60
CA-
O
FEB 2 3 9993
OffiNa KPAUMUT
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
Z/11 &It� - / N_'O
FEB 2 3 1993
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning. almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence 8 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
r,.
l
J
/-S/ ' � Ice �D r -
� s7
FEB 2 3 1993
L L 50
C '�_ 4/+-,,i
I l%i 6-:I-S c Lt C-L
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation * 9.
Enviromental assessment ! 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
FEB p 3 S93 ID
M
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence # 9 annexation # 9.
Enviromental assessment # 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
C A-
FEB 13 1993
0
OTY OF
LA rul" .:
PIJW INS UPAR11 3.11i
r1.
City of La Quinta,
Planning Commission. 2/22/93
RE: General plan amendment 92-041 preannexation zoning 92-073 sphere of influ-
ence * 9 annexation s 9.
Enviromental assessment * 92-249.
The Enviromental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is completely inadequate. The effects of
the development of these four sections will have a major impact on the enviro-
ment. Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost always have
a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any development would probably
prevent public access to the many trails and public lands that adjoin these
four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Enviromental Assessment and
Negative Declaration should be rejected by the Planning Commission, and prior
to any further action on the preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full
Enviromental Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
AlL
FEB 2 3 1993
CONCHILLA VALLEY NATURAL H18TORY ASSOCIATION
P.O. Box 1962, Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
February 23, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calls Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041;
Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Planning Commission Members:
FEB 23 I93
A
PIAN11M MATMOIT
The Conchilla Valley Natural History Association wishes to
express the concern of its members regarding the Environmental
Assessment refer-enced above. We feel the subsequent Negative
Declaration that has been prepared is totally inadequate.
Development of these four sections (Sections 32, 33, 4, & 5) will
have a major impact on the environment.
The proposed density for development -- with its consequent
increased intrusion into the adjoining natural areas by people,
dogs and cats, night-time lighting, and non-native, invasive
plants -- will have a major impact on the adjacent natural
areas. Developments of this size, given the present zoning, can
have a major impact on wildlife, including in this area, bighorn
sheep. In addition, any development adjacent to the proposed
Santa Rosa Wilderness Addition and the existing Santa Rosa
National Scenic Area would probably prevent or impede public
access to these areas and public access to the numerous trails on
the adjoining public lands. Several of these trails have been in
continuous use for at least 700 years and are on the County trail
map. Additionally, public access to the Martinez Mountain
Landslide, ancient Lake Cahuilla shoreline and shoreline
features, such as a back -bay lagoon would probably be impeded or
prevented. Geological sites of this type and in this state of
preservation are rare in Southern California. This site is used
for the instruction of students by numerous geology and earth
science teachers from California colleges, including College of
the Desert and Cal Tech. Public access to the trails, the
geological sites, and the adjacent wilderness and National Scenic
Area should be guaranteed. Finally, the sections proposed for
development contains significant archaeological sites which
should be identified and protected.
Page 2 - Conchilla Valley NHA
February 23, 1993
The La Quinta Planning and Development Department's Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addresses fully the effects
that this proposed developpment will have.
Sincerely,
,4paA-4�
M.H. Schwenn
Conchilla Valley Natural History Association
cc: file
FEB 2 3 1993
Jerry Kerman, Director
city of La Quint&
Planning Counisaion
February 23, 1993
Dear Sir,
As per our telephone conversation of yesterday, please
be advised that I wholeheartedly support the proposed
pre -annexation and zoning changes with regard to
General Plan Aamendment 92-041.
My property is located in section 33, and the parcel
number is 761120012-4.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Timothy V. Kraushaar
115 bth Street
6eai Heaeh, Ca 90740
FAX, 2/23/93, TO 619-564-5617
f} q
52065 Avenida Navarro
La Quinta, California
Feb. 231 1993
City of La Quinta
78405 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
Re: General Plan Amendment #92041
Pre -Amendment Zoning #92073
Sphere of Influence #9
Annex #9
Dear Commissioners:
We object strongly to the Environmental Assessment #492-
249. We object to the negative declaration in this matter.
We want to stress three points against this annexation:
1. The significant damage to the wildlife habitat.
2. The elimination of long -used hiking and eques-
trian trails.
3. The destruction of proven archaeological sites.
We would like to add the overcrowding of the already crow-
ded streets, as well as the increased pollution and the reduc-
tion in value of the already established residences.
Yours sincerely,
FEB 2 3 Ow
57
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calls Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
V1- ;-'-, �-� t�i � oC\
�. O
FEB 2 3 1993
-CITY :1F I.A 0U1WTA
pLApjWi ":PAR?W%",
�3 �5
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
f' F
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
l /
�a 9G> �i1tiAU�
FE B 2 3 1993
c1 -OF u► ou�nra
RMNIN8 DEPARTMENT
P)o
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calls Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsegrient
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
� V�
Sincerely, �. �f
R-E '3
Ji
[FF E 8 23 1993
CITY Of LA CUIVA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
JW&WEA�+.�
vl
M de
2 Aso
P ra
D O
FE B 2 3 1993
CITY OF LA OUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
640
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSIION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
a
FEB 2 3 !1993
CITY OF u OUINTA
KANNING DEPARTMENT
Ei I
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMU SSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
-ti Grp
f
O
FEB 2 3 1993 11
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calls Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
9aa��
nn
U�
FEBI CITY
ATY OF 2 3 1993 1
r
LANNING D&AATAIEMT
615
February 22, 1993
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of La Quinta
78-105 Calls Estado
La Quinta, California
RE: General Plan Amendment 92-041; Preannexation Zoning 92-073;
Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9.
Environmental Assessment #92-249.
Dear Commission Members:
The Environmental Assessment referenced above, and the subsequent
Negative Declaration that has been prepared is completely
inadequate. The effects of the development of these four
sections will have a major impact on the environment.
Developments of this size, given the proposed zoning, almost
always have a dramatic impact on wildlife. Additionally any
development would probably prevent public access to the many
trails and public lands that adjoin these four sections.
The La Quinta Planning and Development Departments Environmental
Assessment and Negative Declaration should be rejected by the
Planning Commission, and prior to any further action on the
preannexation zoning and any annexation, a full Environmental
Impact Report should be prepared that addesses fully the effects
that this proposed development will have.
Sincerely,
r�t.4 d`
fm QuI,`ticr. CA 4zas3
D O
FEB Z 3 1993
CITY Of LA OutNTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Theda Lundquist
r4
N
N
Al
Q February 23, 1993
U
t City of La Quinta Planning Commission
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, California 92250
E
To Members of the Commission:
Re: General Plan Amendment
U) 92-041
and pre -annexation zoning
92-073
® Sphere of influence #9
• and annexation #9
I object to environmental assessment 92-249 and strongly
oppose a negative declaration based on that assessment.
Quality of life for animals and for humans presently there
should have greater consideration. I am convinced that
there will be significant damage to the big horn sheep
and to other wildlife. Additionally, long use of the area
by hikers, equestrians and nature lovers would dictate
that the trails be kept in the public domain.
Building over proven archeological sites is a crass dis-
regard of the past and an insult to the present because
such building inevitably will result in congestion,
traffic tie-ups and air pollution.
I have walked the disturbed area and seen the stakes. Is
the juggernaut of development to trample all other inter-
ests and values? I am saddened and appalled that a huge
construction, of the dimensions of this project, should
be encouraged. This degradation is unneeded and uncons-
cionable. Shame, shame, to the promoters. Do not permit
it to go forward.
Sincerely,
D u
F"3693
MMIOI14 67
R -LYA
O
Jti�. Jam. J1z. t� FEB 2 3 693
79-320 \IismfwiNei l��a.
9"Mu" atJut�ae, La is 9�t08 ARTMEENT
Im —i�zb
���,U-4-�
1
Colle ` . �Pesert
43-500 Monterey Avenue K >> Palm Desert, California 92260
/y51t
February 19, 1993
f -,e F .p
Planning Commission
Planning and Development Department.; ,F
La Quinta City Hall FEB 21 1993
78-099 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253 .-
Subject: Comments for hearing, Feb. 23, 1993 n tte;1*61lowii4g.
General Plan Amendment 92-041, Preaniiexs"ion honing
92-073, Sphere of Influence #9, Annexation #9 by
applicant, Travertine Corporation, for sections 4 & 5,
T7S, R7E and sections 32 & 33 of T6S, R7E, San Bernardino
Base Line and Meridian.
I have just found out about the above hearing and must make
comments. I probably will not be able to attend the hearing so
please consider this letter in lieu of my participation.
I have been the Professor of Geology at College of the
Desert in Palm Desert since 1969. I have also had considerable
involvement in areas of environmental studies. Since 1969, I
have found that the geologic resources of the Coachella Valley
are world -class. I and my students visit them on field trips as
do others from various colleges and universities in the south-
west and beyond. Geologic conventions such as that of the
Geological Society of America commonly conduct field trips to
these resources. Researchers from throughout the world visit
these resources as well. The potential also exists to make
these into significant draws for tourists attracted to the
natural environment.
The reason I mention geologic resources is that the southern
portion of section 4 contains the toe of the Martinez Mountain
Rockslide, one of the most significant features of its type in
the world. The slide started at about 6000 feet on Martinez
Mountain. It travelled laterally about 6 miles and down about
6000 feet and contains over 300 million cubic yards of rock
debris. It happened 15 to 20 thousand years ago and was
probably triggered by a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault.
For geologic resources to remain undiminished, they must
remain associated, with their surroundings, for only then may
they be studied in context, which is absolutely necessary for
their interpretation. Specifically, for the Martinez Mountain
Rockslide, The "in context" surroundings are the wash and
alluvial. fan surface to the east, the old alluvial fan remnant
to the northeast that the slide rests upon, the alluvial fan
surfaco to the north which overlaps the toe of the slide, and
the canyon mouth and fan surface to the west of the toe of the
slide, to which an original drainage across the toe of the slide
0
-8041
Desert Community College District 9 6191346
Page 2 of 2
was diverted thousands of years ago. To provide a proper
"frame of reference", this surrounding unmodified zone should
be at least several hundred yards wide. unmodified includes
preservation of the fragile desert varnish surface and all
native vegetation.
A very critical matter is that of continued access to the
area. Access must be retained for the various uses as listed
above. The resource obviously loses considerable value as a
resource if it cannot be visited!
I must point out a few other items as well. There are
some hiking/riding trails that start from the proposed develop-
ment area which subsequently cross public lands in the mountains
to the west and South. These trails include Lost Canyon, Palm
Oasis, and Boo Hoff. I am troubled by any private action
that limits or denies access by the public to established uses
of public lands.
I am also concerned about the proximity of bighorn sheep
and the effect of this development upon them. This is an aspect
of the very obvious, the effect on the wildlife in a rather
pristine ecosystem if a large development is built immediately
adjacent, with all its lights, noise, vehicles, people, and
domestic pets. I would much rather see a non -leapfrog type
development built farther from the mountain front adjacent to
already developed land. Impacts are much more limited and
manageable under those circumstances.
I am compelled to disagree with Environmental Assessment
92-249 (Negative Declaration). I would encourage postponing
consideration of this declaration until proper time has been
afforded to consider further information, including that
which I have stated above.
I have long thought that the rockslide and its surroundings,
the nearby shoreline features of prehistoric Lake Cauhuilla,
and the biological resources of the area were of sufficient
uniqueness and value for them to be preserved in their original,
natural undeveloped state through some mechanism, perhaps
developed in concert between the city of La Quinta and other
governmental and private agencies and organizations.
Please contact me if for any reason you wish to confer with
me on any of the topics which I have discussed. My direct line
phone number at College of the Desert is (619)776-7272,
home phone is (909)659-3569.
Sincerely,
George L. Meyer
Professor of Geology
cc: Russell L. Kaldenberg
Joan. Taylor
VA
Sierra Club
Sall Gorgonio Ch;
Serving Riverside and San Bernardino Counties
Tahquita Group • Los Serranos Group
San Bernardino Wtns. Group • Mojave Group
Moreno Valley Group
568 N. Mountain View Ave., Suite 130
San Bernardino. CA 92401
(714) 381-5015
February 17, 1993
Jerry Herman
Planning Dept
City of La Quinta
78-106 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
FEB 2 2 1999 Y
Re: Negative Declaration, Travertine properties, General Plan
Amendment, Spere of Influence expansion, and Annexation
Dear Mr. Herman:
Thank you for sending information on the above -referenced proposed
action, as requested in our phone conversation last week. The
Sierra Club has briefly reviewed the documents, and must go on
record as objecting to the action. We feel that a negative
declaration on this action is not legally supportable, and that
there are mandatory findings of significance in view of the changes
proposed from the status quo.
We believe the initial study is deficient in its findings, and we
object to the negative declaration for several reasons, including
but not limited to the following:
1. Changing the allowable use on the non -mountainous portions of
the project from the present Planned Residential Reserve, 0-5 u/ac
under the County General Plan to a proposed Low Density
Residential, 2-4 u/ac as part of the annexation has definite
potential environmental impacts. The minimum entitlements are far
greater, and these additional entitlements are the "first step in
a chain of events" that could result in greater intensity of
development with consequent direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
to habitat, archeology, air and water quality, etc, in addition to
the ones identified in the EA.
72
(W
'� To explore, enjoy and preserve the nation's forests, waters, wildlife, and wilderness ... IsPrinted on Recycled Paper.
CEQA requires adequate envrionmental review at the earliest point
in a sequence of events leading to an environmental impact. The
o
repetitive disclaimers that "no development is presently proposed;
and that the proposed zoning and uses are "less intense or equal to
the existing" are not valid.
2. Unless the entire property has been surveyed with appropriate
protocol, the proposed action and its increase in entitlements
creates the definite potential for increased impacts to desert
tortoise and thus requires a mandatory finding of significance.
3. The project area is rich in archeological sites and aboriginal
trails systems, in use today for recreational hiking. The current
County general plan, trails element, provides for trails access in
and adjacent to the project area. We see no such guarantees
afforded by the proposed action, hence there are potential
significant recreational impacts.
Conclusion
The Sierra Club realizes that this area is zoned for eventual
development; however, the proposed action does not address the
environmental issues involved in the proposed annexation/ land use
changes. We would appreciate the opportunity to sit down and
discuss the options with you at your earliest convenience. We
would also like to review the entire file on the matter, including
the Riverside County EIR referenced in the initial study. I can be
reached at 323-9974, or 327-1221, for leaving a message.
Ve ruly yours,
Joan Taylor
Conservation Chairman
T -I
JP���v UNIf�Eo sC
�vP yOOr
V
Y
COACHELLA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 847 THERMAL, CALIFORNIA 92274 519) 399 5137
February 2, 1993
Jerry Herman
Planning Director
City of La Quinta
Planning and Development Division
78-105 Calle Estado
La Quinta, CA 92253
RE: GP-92-041, CZ-92-073
Dear Mr. Herman:
We have completed our review of the above referenced project. We concur in the
land use redesignation for preannexation zoning.
John E. Ford III
Facilities Coordinator
M
Q
qESTABLISHED IN 1918 tS A PUBLIC AGENCY
Gt
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1o58 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (619) 398.2651
DIRECTOR: OFFICERS
TELLIS CO:r_KAS PRESIDENT THOMAS E. LEVY, GENERAL MANAGER -CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND a RUMMONDS, VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON. SECRETARY
JOHN W MADDEN OWEN MCCOOK ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
DOROTHYV DELAY February 2, 1993 REDWINE AND SHERRILL. ATTORNEYS
THEODORE . FISH
File: 0163.1
Planning Commission /cFe
City of La Quinta
Post Office Box 1504 08 I`99
La Quinta, California 92253
Gentlemen:
Subject: General Plan 92-041, Change of Zone 92-073,
Annexation No. 9, Portion of Sections 4 and 5,
Township 7 South, Range 7 East, and Sections 32 and 33,
Township 6 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian
This area is subject to stormwater flows from the canyons to the west. These
canyons are not owned, operated, or maintained by this district.
The developer shall abide by Riverside County Ordinance No. 458, as amended in
the preparation of on -site flood control facilities for this project.
The developer shall execute a release agreement with this district regarding
approval of the flood control plans by this district.
Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley
Water District for review.
A portion of this area is adjacent to the right-of-way of the West Side Dike. We
request that the developer be required to install suitable facilities to
prohibit access to this right-of-way.
The developer shall obtain an encroachment permit from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation prior to any construction within the right-of-way of the West Side
Dike. This includes, but is not limited to, surface improvements, drainage
inlets, landscaping, and roadways.
The district will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in
accordance with the current regulations of this district. These regulations
provide for the payment of certain fees and charges by the subdivider and said
fees and charges are subject to change.
TRUE CONSERVATION " t"
a �
USE WATER WISELY
Planning Commission
City of La Quinta
-2-
February 2, 1993
The district will need additional facilities to provide for the orderly
expansion of its domestic water system. These facilities may include wells,
reservoirs and booster pumping stations. The developer will be required to
provide land on which some of these facilities will be located. These sites
shall be shown on the tract map as lots to be deeded to the district for such
purpose.
This area shall be annexed to Improvement District No. 55 of Coachella Valley
Water District for sanitation service.
There are existing district facilities not shown on the development plans.
There may be conflicts with these facilities. We request the appropriate public
agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have
been made with the district for the relocation of these facilities.
Plans for grading, landscaping, and irrigation systems shall be submitted to
Coachella Valley Water District for review. This review is for ensuring
efficient water management.
If you have any questions please call Bob Meleg, stormwater engineer,
extension 264.
Yours very truly,
C6P'04
om Levy
/1 General Manager -Chief Engineer
RCM:cb/e3/gp92.-041
cc: Don Park
Riverside County Department
of Public Health
79-733 Country Club Drive, Suite D
Bermuda Dunes, California 92201
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
AQ
al socim
t a FEB 02 1993
k p ..{t
ARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW
DATE: January 30,. 1993
TO: CITY OF LA QUINTA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT -
P.O. BOX 1504
LA QUINTA, CA 92253
ATTENTION: Jerry Herman
PROJECT: Travertine Corporation Development
REF: 6P-92-041, C2-92-073
DESCRIPTION: Review
RENL4R CS: The applicant has indicated that an archaeological assessment has been conducted
on only a portion (section 4) of the project area. There is no indication that sections 5, 32, 33
have been surveyed and assessed. If they have, evidence of this should be submitted. If the
sections have not been surveyed and evaluated they should be. This is an archaeologically
sensitive area with some 25 sites having been recorded within the general vicinity of the project.
Several rock art sites are located just north and west of the project while the section 4
'archaeological study found prehistoric rock shelters, trails, camp sites and other•important sites
associated with the shoreline of ancient Lake Cahuilla.
DATE RECEIVED: 1/25/93
DATE REVIEWED: 1/29/93
BY: Jim Toenjes
CVAS. Fieldchair
Post Office Box 2344 • Palm Springs, CA 92263 9 619/329-6242
-,f Ymt-
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE • PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
To: City of La Quinta
Planning Division
Attn: Jerry Herman
Re: General Plan Amendment 92-041
Change of Zone 92-073
February 2, 1993
With respect, of the review of the above referenced cases, the proposed
project will have a cumulative adverse impact on the Department's
ability to provide an acceptable level of service. These impacts are
due to the increased number of emergency or public service calls
generated by additional buildings and human population.
This project will contribute to the need for additional fire
equipment, personnel, and/or a fire station. A funding source should
be identified for the portion of the impacts associated with capitol
improvements or one-time costs such as land, buildings, and equipment.
If the annual costs necessary for an increased level of service are
not off -set by the additional county structural tax, an increase in
the Fire Department's annual operating budget will be required.
All questions regarding the above requirements should be referred to
the Fire Department Planning & Engineering staff at (619) 863-8886.
jp/TH
cc: B-7
❑ INDIO OFFICE
79.733 Country Chub Drive, Suite F, Indio, CA 92201
(619) 342AN 0 FAX (619) 775.2072
Sincerely,
RAY REGIS
Chief Fire Department Planne-
By
/ ow,,, #ad-_ k_
Tom Hutchison
Fire Safety Specialist
PLANNING DIVISION
❑ RIVERSIDE OFFICE
3760 12th Street, Riverside, CA 92501
(714) 275.4777 0 FAX (714) 369.7451
7q
Q T EM ECLL 4 OFFICE
41002 County Center Drive, Scums 225, Tomoculs, CA 9235
(714) 694-5070 • FA.`ti (714) 694.5076
Ct xinted on recycled pal
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
92-041, AND PREANNEXATION ZONING CASE
92-073; SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, AND
ANNEXATION #9.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CASE 92-041
PREANNEXATION ZONING CASE 92-073
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE #9, ANNEXATION #9
TRAVERTINE CORPORATION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La
Quinta, California, did, on the 23rd day of February, 1993, hold a
duly -noticed Public Hearing and a continued Public Hearing on the
23rd day of March, 1993, to consider the request of property
owners to amend the La Quinta General Plan Land Use Map and
Circulation Element, Zoning Map, Sphere of Influence #9,
Annexation #9 for an area consisting of approximately 2,560 acres,
located south of 60th Avenue, and west of Madison Street. The
area is proposed to be designated Low Density Residential (2-4
du/ac), Open Space, and zoned R-1, and Hillside Conservation; and,
WHEREAS, said Preannexation Zoning, the General Plan
Amendments, Sphere of Influence and Annexation complies with the
requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) by Resolution
83-68, in that the Planning Director has determined that after
reviewing the General Plan, the area to be annexed, the proposed
residential densities, the adjacent land uses, the planned
capacities of the roads and related matters, the County General
Plan, and County Environmental Impact Report, no significant
environmental adverse impact will result from the proposed
Amendments; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, 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 and reasons to justify the approval of said
Preannexation Zoning, General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence
and Annexation:
1. The properties to be designated Low Density Residential are
suitable for development under that designation and R-1
Zoning.
2. The portions of the properties to be designated Open Space
should be limited to certain developments under that
designation and Hillside Conservation Zoning.
CS/RESOPC.052
3. The Riverside County General Plan designates the Low Density
Residential areas as Planned Residential Reserve, and
designates the Open Space areas as mountainous areas.
4. The proposed City zoning classifications are
compatible/consistent with the existing County General Plan
Land Use classifications.
5. The environmental review foresees no significant adverse
environmental impact from the proposed Preannexation Zoning,
General Plan Amendment, Sphere of Influence and Annexation
applications.
6. The properties are not within the La Quinta Sphere of
Influence, but are however contiguous to La Quinta's present
corporate limits, and, are a part of a logical extension of
La Quinta and its General Plan.
7. The designation of 60th Avenue, 62nd Avenue, Monroe Street
and Madison Street are consistent with the current City
designations of Primary Arterial, four lane divided road
requiring 100-110 feet of right of way.
8. Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted on the 4th day
of October, 1988, Specific Plan 218 and EIR #232 approving a
development to the north and east of the prezoned area. This
Specific Plan approved the development of 1,251 acres with
densities ranging from 2-8 dwelling units per acre consisting
of 4,262 units on 795 acres and 35 acres of commercial.
9. The existing County zoning of W-2 permits a wide range of
residential and light agricultural uses on lots not less than
7,200 square feet.
10. An Environmental Assessment was prepared for the Toro Canyon
Land Exchange (Bureau of Land Management and George Berkey
Associates, Inc.). This Assessment dealt with Section 4.
Mitigation measures were identified stating that the Planned
Residential Reserve designated property would be further
addressed in an EIR for any future development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission
of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows:
1. The: the above recitations are true and correct and constitute
the findings of the Commission in this case;
2. That it does hereby confirm the conclusion of Environmental
Assessment 92-249, in that the Preannexation Zoning, General
Plan Land Use Map, Circulation Element Amendments, Sphere of
Influence, and Annexation will not result in a significant
adverse impact on the environment, and that a Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption;
CS/RESOPC.052 -2-
3. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the
City Council approval of the Sphere of Influence #9;
Annexation #9; Zoning Case 92-073, subject to the condition
that it be annexed to the City of La Quinta; and General Plan
Amendment 92-041, consisting of a Zoning Map, Land Use Map,
Circulation System Policy Diagram, and Parks and Recreation ,
Open Space Policy Diagrams as illustrated in Exhibits "A",
and "C" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
La Quinta Planning Commission, held on this 23rd day of February,
1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
13 '
CS/RESOPC.052 -3-
CIRCU./►T ON SYSTEM
POLICY DIAGRAM
32 3t
.. MAJOR ARTERIAL
PRIMARY ARTERIAL \ �
® SECONDARY ARTERIAL
\ \
IIU COLLECTOR
.• MAJOR ARTERIAL WITH SPECIAL CALTRANS \
RKIKT-OF-WAY REOUIREMENTS �� \
ftNpmrlov 4 eu*4
a
007 / .,*" o&)
0
1N bAcvgA#k.,
� ��
I4
.= � am
E-3
t 9".
GP- 62-04 1 � ,
AMENDMENT TO THE
PARK AND RECREATION POLICY DIAGRAM
AND THE OPEN SPACE POLICY DIAGRAM
PH #2
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DATE: MARCH 23, 1993
PROJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT 23773, STARLIGHT DUNES
APPLICANT: STARLIGHT DUNES, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL
PARTNERSHIP
REPRESENTATIVE: RICK JOHNSON CONSTRUCTION, RICK JOHNSON
ENGINEER: ARTHUR SWAJIAN, CIVIL ENGINEER
LOCATION: NORTHWEST OF THE ADAMS STREET/STARLIGHT LANE
AND FRED WARING DRIVE INTERSECTION
REQUEST: APPROVAL OF THIRD ONE YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR
RECORDATION OF FINAL TRACT MAP FOR PHASES 2
AND 3.
BACKGROUND:
This tentative tract map for 154 single family lots was originally approved on March 21, 1989.
Subsequent to that approval a minor modification was granted to the tract on September 6, 1989.
Phase 1, which consists of 53 lots, has been recorded to date. The balance of the tract which
would make up Phases 2 and 3 (101 lots on 28 acres) is in plan check for final recordation. The
Applicant's first one year extension of time was approved by the City Council on April 16,
1991, and the second one year extension of time was approved on May 5, 1992.
The major street and perimeter improvements to Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street/Starlight
Lane on the east side of the property have been installed.
ANALYSIS:
This request is the third and last one year extension for this subdivision. To date, all applicable
requirements have been complied with. No on -site activity has occurred since last year.
All Departments have evaluated the phasing plan and the plan as prepared is a logical completion
of the tract. However, all requirements of the Engineering and Fire Departments shall be met.
CONCLUSION:
The Planning and Development Department, Engineering Department, and Fire Marshal have
no changes to the existing Conditions of Approval. Staff has modified Condition #11, deleted
PCST.048
Condition #34, and added Condition #35 in order to update the project to current standards. If
the Planning Commission grants the time extension request, this will be the last time extension
permitted as the map would have been permitted for five years.
Findings necessary to recommend approval of this time extension can be made and are attached
to the draft Planning Commission Resolution.
RECOMMENDATION:
By adoption of the attached Planning Commission Resolution 93- recommend to the City
Council approval of the third extension of time for Tentative Tract 23773, subject to the attached
revised conditions.
Attachments:
1. Location map
2. Tentative Tract layout
3. Letter from Starlight Dunes
4. Draft Planning Commission Resolution 93- with Conditions of Approval.
PCST.048
FEB 21 Po"
February 22,, 1993
Greg Trousdell, Associate Planner
C/O City of La Quinta
P.O. Box 1504
La Quinta, CA. 92253
RE: Third time extension request for TTM 23773 (Phase II)
Dear Greg:
Per your request of 1-28-93, please let this letter serve
as our formal time extension request.
We hereby request the time extension based on the current
marketing conditions affecting the entire Coachella Valley as
well as the financial conditions of the various lending
institutions in Southern California.
We have completed construction on and sold forty seven (47)
homes in the project as well as the outerscape improvements
and retention basin.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to
contact me.
Respectfully,
Starlight Dunes, A California General Partnership
by: Rick Johnson Construction, Inc.
by:.,'
Rick E. Jo nson - President
P.O. Box 329 • La Quinta, California 92253
Development Location: 43-845 Galaxy Drive • La Quinta, California 92253
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO
THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT
23773 EXTENSION OF TIME (THIRD REQUEST)
CASE NO. TT 23773 - STARLIGHT DUNES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did on the 23rd
day of March, 1993, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Starlight
Dunes Partnership for their third one year extension of time for Tentative Tract Map 23773, a
project located at the northwest corner of Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, did, on the 28th
day of March, 1989 and the 22nd day of August, 1989, hold duly noticed Public Hearings, to
consider the request of Starlight Dunes Partnership to approve and modify Tentative Tract 23773
respectively, generally located northwest of the Fred Waring Drive and Adams Street
intersection, more particularly described as:
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 4 OF
PARCEL MAP NO.5361, P.M. 11 /79, PORTION
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
18, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 7 EAST,
SAN BERNARDINO BASE MERIDIAN, IN THE
CITY OF LA QUINTA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the
23rd day of March, 1989, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing, and the 6th day of September,
1989, hold a Public Hearings to consider the Applicant's request and recommendation of the
Planning Commission concerning Tentative Tract 23773 and modified Tentative Tract 23773
respectively, and on both occasions made findings to justify the approval of the applications;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 16th day of April, 1991, approve the
Applicant's first one year time extension and on the 5th day of May, 1992, approved the
Applicant's second one year time extension request; and,
WHEREAS, said Tentative Map has complied with the requirements of "The
Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" (as amended) and
adopted by City Council Resolution 83-68, in that the Planning Director conducted an initial
study, and has determined that the proposed Tentative Tract will not have a significant adverse
impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been adopted; and,
RESOPC.016 1
WHEREAS, the owners, Starlight Dunes Partnership, have applied for this Third
Extension of Time for Tract 23773, in accordance with Section 13.16.230 of the La Quinta
Municipal Code relating to time extension on tentative maps; and,
WHEREAS, at said Public Meeting, said Planning Commission did find the
following facts to justify the recommendation for approval of said Tentative Tract Map Third
Extension of Time:
1. That Tentative Tract 23773, as conditionally approved, is consistent with the goals,
policies, and intent of the La Quinta General Plan for land use density, unit type,
circulation requirements, R-1 zoning district development standards, and design
requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.
2. That the subject site has a rolling topography because of the sand dunes, with the overall
slope going from the west to the east side of the property. The proposed circulation
design and single family lot layouts, as conditioned, are suitable for the proposed land
division.
3. That the design of Tentative Tract 23773 may cause substantial environmental damage
or injury to the wildlife habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard, but
mitigation measures in the form of fees for a new habitat area will lessen this impact.
4. That the design of the subdivision, as conditionally approved, will be developed with
public sewers and water, and, therefore, is not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
5. That the design of Tentative Tract Map 23773 will not conflict with easements acquired
by the public at large for access through the project, since alternate easements for access
and for use have been provided that are substantially equivalent to those previously
acquired by the public.
6. That the proposed Tentative Tract 23773, as conditioned, provides for adequate
maintenance of the landscape buffer areas.
7. That the proposed Tentative Tract 23773, as conditioned, provides storm water retention,
park facilities, and noise mitigation.
8. That general impacts from the proposed tract were considered within the MEA prepared
and adopted in conjunction with the La Quinta General Plan.
WHEREAS, in the review of the Third One Year Time Extension of this tentative
tract map, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action of the
housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing the needs against the public service needs
of the residents of the City of La Quinta and its environs with available fiscal and environmental
resources.
RESOPC.016 2
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 in this case;
2. That it does hereby reconfirm Environmental Assessment 88-104, approved with the
initial Tentative Tract, is adequate.
3. That it does hereby recommend approval to the City Council Tentative Tract 23773 Third
One Year Time Extension for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the
attached conditions.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta
]Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of March, 1993, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATIE BARROWS, Chairwoman
City of La Quinta, California
ATTEST:
JERRY HERMAN, Planning Director
City of La Quinta, California
RESOPC.016 3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 93-
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - PROPOSED
TENTATIVE TRACT 23773, THIRD ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME
MARCH 23, 1993
* Modified by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1993.
** Added by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1993.
*** Deleted by the Planning Commission on March 23, 1993.
GENERAL:
1. Tentative Tract 23773 shall comply with the requirements and standards of the State
Subdivision Map Act and the City of La Quinta Land Division Ordinance, unless
otherwise modified by the following conditions.
2. Design and improvement of Tentative Tract 23773 shall be in substantial conformance
with Exhibit A.
3. This tentative tract map approval shall expire on March 21, 1994.
4. The Applicant acknowledges that the City is considering a City-wide Landscape and
Lighting District and, by recording a subdivision map, agrees to be included in the
District and to offer for dedication such easements as may be required for the
maintenance and operation of related facilities. Any assessments will be done on a
benefit basis, as required by law.
ENGINEERING/GRADING/DRAINAGE:
5. The Applicant shall have a grading plan prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, who
will be required to certify that the constructed conditions at the rough and final grade
stages are as per the approved plans and grading permit. This is required prior to
issuance of building permits.
6. The developer of this subdivision shall submit a copy of all proposed landscaping and
irrigation plans to Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) for review and comment
with respect to CVWD's water management program.
7. A thorough preliminary engineering geological and soils engineering investigation shall
be done and the report submitted for review along with the grading plan. Pursuant to
Section 11568 of the Business and Professions Code, the soils report certification shall
be indicated on the final subdivision map.
8. The developer of this subdivision of land shall cause no easements to be granted or
recorded over any portion of this property between the date of approval by the City
without the approval of the City Engineer.
CONAPRVL.053 1
Conditions of Approval
TT 23773
March 23, 1993
9. Drainage disposal facilities shall be provided as required by the City Engineer. The
Applicant shall comply with the provisions of the City Master Plan of Drainage,
including payment of any drainage fees required therewith. All drainage runoff for 100-
year storm shall be retained in basin on -site, including runoff from Fred Waring Drive
and Starlight Lane.
10. All utilities will be installed and trenches compacted to City standards prior to
construction of any streets. The soils engineer shall provide the necessary compaction
test reports for review by the City Engineer.
*11. The City shall retain a qualified archaeologist, with the Developer to pay costs, to
prepare a mitigation and monitoring plan for artifact location and recovery. Prior
archaeological studies for this site as well as other unrecorded information shall be
analyzed prior to the preparation of the plan.
At a minimum, the plan shall: (1) identify the means for digging test pits; and (2)
provide for further testing if the preliminary results show significant material are present.
The final plan shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for final
review and approval.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall have retained a qualified
cultural resources management firm and completed the testing and data recovery as noted
in the plan. The management firm shall monitor the grading activity as required by the
plan or testing results.
A list of the qualified archaeological monitor(s), cultural resources management firm
employees, and any assistant(s)/representative(s), shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department. The list shall provide the current address and phone number
for each monitor. The designated monitors may be changed from time to time, but no
such change shall be effective unless served by registered or certified mail on the
Planning and Development Department.
The designated monitors or their authorized representatives shall have the authority to
temporarily diver, redirect, or halt grading activity to allow recovery of resources. In
the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains, there shall be no further
grading, excavation, or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent human remains until appropriate mitigation measures are completed.
CONAPRVL.053 2
Conditions of Approval
TT 23773
March 23, 1993
Upon completion of the data recovery, the Developer shall cause three copies of the final
report containing the data analyses to be prepared and published and submitted to the
Planning and Development Department.
12. Applicant shall submit an erosion and dust mitigation program for review by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of permits for any grading activity.
13. Any earthwork on contiguous properties requires a written authorization from the
owner(s) (slope easement) in a form acceptable to the City Engineer prior to any grading
permit issuance.
14. Prior to recordation of a final map, the applicant shall pay the required mitigation fees
for the Coachella Valley Fringe -Toed Lizard Habitat Conversion Program, as adopted
by the City, in the amount of $600 per acre of disturbed land.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION:
15. The Applicant shall dedicate all necessary public street and utility easements as required
by the City Engineer:
16. That the Applicant shall have prepared street improvement plans (for public and private
streets) that are prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer. Street improvements, including
traffic signs, markings, and raised median island, shall conform to City standards as
determined by the City Engineer and adopted by the La Quinta Municipal Code as set
forth in these conditions.
17. Street name signs shall be furnished and installed by the developer in accordance with
standards of the City Engineer.
TRACT DESIGN:
18. The tract layout shall comply with all the R-1 zoning requirements, including minimum
lot size and minimum average depth of a lot. The minimum lot size to be recorded in
a final map shall be 9,000 square feet.
19. Plans for tract phasing of public improvements shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Public Works Department.
CONAPRVL.053 3
Conditions of Approval
TT 23773
March 23, 1993
MAINTENANCE:
20. The subdivider shall make provisions for maintenance of all landscape buffer and storm
water retention areas via one of the following methods prior to final map approval.
a. Subdivider shall consent to the formation of a maintenance district under Chapter
26 of the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets and Highways Code, Section 5820
et. seq.) or the Lighting and Landscaping Act of 1972 (Streets and Highways
Code 22600 et. seq.) to implement maintenance of all improved landscape buffer
and storm water retention areas. It is understood and agreed that the
Developer/Applicant shall pay all costs of maintenance for said improved areas
until such time as tax revenues are received from assessment of the real property.
b. The Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department a
Management and Maintenance Agreement, to be entered into with the unit/lot
owners of this land division, in order to insure common areas and facilities will
be maintained. A unqualified right to assess the owners of the individual units
for reasonable maintenance costs. The association shall have the right to lien the
property of any owners who default in the payment of their assessments.
The common facilities to be maintained are as follows:
1.) Storm water retention system.
2.) Twenty -foot perimeter parkway lot along Fred Waring Drive and Adams
Street/Starlight Lane.
3.) Interior private street system, including access gates and related common
lots.
PUBLIC SERVICES/UTILITIES:
21. Applicant shall comply with the following requirements of the Fire Marshal:
a. Schedule A fire protection approved super fire hydrants (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-
1 /2") shall be located one at each intersection spaced not more than 330 feet apart
in any direction with no portion of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from any
hydrant. Minimum fire flow shall be 1,000 GPM for two hours duration at 20
PSI.
CONAPRVL.053
Conditions of Approval
TT 23773
March 23, 1993
b. The required water system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by CVWD prior to any combustible material being placed on any individual lot.
C. Prior to the recordation of the final map, Applicant/Developer shall furnish the
water system improvement plans to the Fire Department for approval. Plans shall
conform to the fire hydrant types, location, and spacing, and the system shall
meet the required fire flows.
d. All access gates shall be power operated and equipped with a radio -controlled
override system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special
transmitter located in emergency vehicles. System shall be designed to unlatch
gates in the event of power failures or be equipped with backup power facilities.
Developer to provide four transmitters to the Fire Department.
22. The Applicant shall comply with all requirements of the CVWD. Any necessary parcels
for District facility expansion shall be shown on the final map and conveyed to the
CVWD, in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act.
BUILDING AND USE DEVELOPMENT:
23. If a specific dwelling product is envisioned or if groups of lots are sold to builders prior
to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant/Builder shall submit complete detail
architectural elevations for all units. The Planning Commission will review and approve
these as a Business Item. The basic architectural standards shall be included as part of
the C C & R's.
24. Seventy-five percent of dwelling units within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of
Fred Waring Drive shall be limited to one story, not to exceed 20 feet in height. The
Applicant shall submit to the Planning and Development Department for approval a siting
plan showing the location of all unit types proposed by the developer. No dwelling units
within 150 feet of the ultimate right-of-way of Washington Street shall be higher than one
story, not to exceed 20 feet.
25. The appropriate planning approval shall be secured prior to establishing any of the
following uses:
a. 'Temporary construction facilities.
b. ]Private access gates and guardhouse(s).
C. Sales facilities, including their appurtenant signage.
d. On -site advertising/construction signs.
CONAPRVL.053
Conditions of Approval
TT 23773
March 23, 1993
26. Tract and building permits shall incorporate the recommendations of the acoustical
analysis prepared by Ultrasystems, dated December, 1988.
WALLS, FENCING, SCREENING, AND LANDSCAPING:
27. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning and
Development Department an interim landscape program for the entire tract, which shall
be for the purpose of wind erosion and dust control.
28. Prior to final map approval, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division for
review and approval a plan (or plans) showing the following:
a. Landscaping, including plant types, sizes, spacing, locations, and irrigation
system for all landscape buffer and common areas including gates. Desert or
native plant species and drought -resistant planting materials shall be incorporated
into the landscape plan.
b. Location and design detail of any proposed and/or required walls.
C. Exterior lighting plan, emphasizing minimization of light and glare impacts to
surrounding properties.
29. Prior to building permit approval(s), the subdivider shall submit criteria to be used for
landscaping of all individual lot front yards. At a minimum, the criteria shall provide
for two 15 gallon trees and an irrigation system.
MISCELLANEOUS:
30. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and building permit for construction of any
building or use contemplated by this approval, the Applicant shall obtain permits and/or
clearances from the following public agencies:
o City Fire Marshal
o City of La Quinta Public Works Department
o Planning and Development Department, Planning Division
o Coachella Valley Water District
o Desert Sands Unified School District
o Imperial Irrigation District
CONAPRVL.053 6
Conditions of Approval
TT 23773
March 23, 1993
]Evidence of said permits or clearances from the above -mentioned agencies shall be
presented to the Building and Safety Department at the time of the application for any
permit for any use contemplated by this approval.
31. Provisions shall be made to comply with the terms and requirements of the City's
adopted Infrastructure Fee Program in effect at the time of issuance of building permits.
32. Applicant shall provide the City a signed set of "as built" reproducible drawings of all
grading and improvements except water and sewer.
33. The City is contemplating adoption of a quality -assurance program for privately -funded
construction. If the program is adopted prior to the issuance of permits for construction
of the improvements required of this map, Applicant shall fully comply with the quality -
assurance program.
34. The time extension request shall be subject to the developer complying with the
*** requirement to correct the problem of soil, rock, rubbish, and concrete storage on the
subject property, prior to approval by the City Council.
**35. Prior to final map approval by the City Council, the Applicant shall pay the remaining
parkland fees per Section 13.24.030 of the La Quinta Municipal Code. The remaining
amount is $28, 895.18.
CONAPRVL.053 7
BI #1
DATE:
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT:
BACKGROUND:
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MARCH 23, 1993
REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLANS FOR FRONTAGE ROAD
ALONG WASHINGTON STREET SOUTH OF SINGING PALMS
DRIVE.
CITY OF LA QUINTA
TKD ASSOCIATES (TOM DOCZI)
At the request of the City, TKD Associates has prepared preliminary planting plans for the
Washington Street frontage road between Singing Palms Drive and the St. Francis of Assisi
Church. Along a majority of this area a stucco covered sound wall has recently been
constructed. A small portion of the wall along the northern end north of Singing Palms Drive
has not yet been constructed since the permanent street improvements in that area have not yet
been installed. However, the landscaping for this area along with the future wall is indicated.
The planting scheme has been designed to be compatible with the City Landscape Guidelines as
well as the landscaping plans for the Washington Street center medians which were recently
reviewed. There has been a slight amendment to some portions of the center medians with the
incorporation of Crape Myrtle trees. These trees are also utilized on the frontage road medians.
The primary tree materials ,utilized along the frontage road are California Peppers, Date Palms,
Evergreen Pears, Crape Myrtle, with some accent use of California Fan Palms at the intersection
of Highland Palms and Washington Street. Shrubs and ground cover utilized are low water
native types of plants. Due to the narrow width of some planter areas there will be use of vines
on the walls also. A small amount of turf has been incorporated in the frontage road area in
front of the church. The meandering area of turf is utilized to blend in with the turf utilized in
front of the church. Additionally a small amount of turf is used at the intersection of Highland
Palms Drive and Washington Street.
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ACTION:
The Design Review ]Board reviewed this request at their meeting of March 3, 1993. The only
request that the: Design Review Board had was regarding the long lawn area near the southern
portion of the project site. They requested that the lawn area be reduced by approximately 50%
along the curb line with some type of hardscape mow strip provided adjacent to the curb in the
areas of the lawn. The plans have been revised to reflect this revision.
PCST.112
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff would recommend approval of the plans as submitted and recommended by the Design
Review Board. This recommendation will be forwarded on to the City Council for final
approval.
Attachments:
1. Landscaping plans
PCST.112
CC
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY OF LA QUINTA
A regular meeting held at the La Quinta City Hall
78-105 Calle Estado, La Quinta, California
February 23, 1993 7:00 P.M.
I. CALL 'r0 ORDER
A. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairwoman Barrows who led
the flag salute.
II. ROLL CALL
A. Chairwoman Barrows requested the roll call. Present: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, and Chairwoman Barrows.
B. Staff Present: Planning Director Jerry Herman, Principal Planner Stan Sawa,
Associate Planner Greg Trousdell, and Department Secretary Betty Anthony.
III. ]PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Tentative Tract 26444, Extension #1; a request of La Quinta Estates Partnership
for approval of a one year extension of time for a subdivision of approximately
32 acres into 98 single family lots.
1. Associate Planner Leslie Cherry presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Marrs inquired about the school fees being increased. Staff
explained why the fees had been increased.
3. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and
seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Resolution 93-005
recommending to the City Council approval of one year extension of time
for Tentative Tract 26444, Extension #1.
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, &
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
PC2-23 1
Planning Commission Minutes
February 23, 1993
B. General Plan Amendment 92-041, Preannexation Zoning; 93-073. Sphere of
Influence #9, and Annexation #9; a request of Travertine Corporation to amend
the La Quinta General Plan Land Use and Circulation Map adding a new area for
a Sphere of Influence and Annexation and designating the new area as Low
Density Residential and Open Space, and zoning the area R-1 and HC (Hillside
Conservation).
l.. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
?,. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff to clarify the County zoning and projects
they had approved for the area.
:i. Commissioner Adolph stated his concern that if the property was not
annexed, the County could zone the property for whatever density they
desired. Staff clarified the annexation process and what the City proposed
to zone the property as.
4. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. Commissioner Adolph asked Mr. Berkey if he
intended to parcel/sell off any of the land. Mr. Berkey stated he did not
have any plans for the land.
S. Ms. Kathryn Kelly, representing the Sierra Club, stated her concern that
the annexation could affect the future of the existing trails and the
environmental damage that could take place if an environmental analysis
is not done. Commissioner Ellson asked Ms. Kelly to identify the trails.
is. Ms. Bern Schwenn, representing the Coachella Valley Natural History
Association, identified the trails for the Commissioners. Ms. Schwenn
went on to explain to the Commissioners the problems that could be
imposed on the public for accessibility, the danger to the different animal
species that exist, and her concern for the zoning density that was
proposed.
7. Commissioner Adolph questioned Ms. Schwenn as to whether she was
opposed to the annexation or the zoning. Ms. Schwenn stated she had no
objection to the annexation but wanted to be sure that a complete
environmental assessment was done on the area. She felt that if a
Negative Declaration was passed on the area that when a project was
proposed for the area, an environmental assessment would not be done.
PC2-23 2
Planning Commission Minutes
February 23, 1993
8. Commissioner Ellson asked Ms. Schwenn what she would suggest the City
do to protect the area. Ms. Schwenn stated she felt the Federal
government should buy the land and/or acquire easements.
S>. Commissioner Mosher stated he felt that an extensive environmental
impact report was premature at this time. The City should wait for a
development application in order to determine what the affect on the
environment would be at that time. Staff clarified for those attending
what a negative declaration and environmental impact report were and
how and when they are completed.
10. Mr. Hal Summers, La Quinta resident representing the Coachella Valley
Hiking Club, stated his concern about the zoning and the possible loss
and/or access to the trails.
11. Commissioner Ellson asked Staff if development of the area would
improve the roads and open the area up for more traffic to the trails.
Staff explained that a project would bring access to the area but would not
guarantee that accessibility to the trails would be provided.
12. Mr. Paul Leyn, property owner in the annexation area, stated that some
consideration should be given to the property owners to allow them to
develop their land as they desire.
13. Mr. Richard Meyer, property owner in Section 33, stated he supported the
annexation and also wanted to preserve the hiking trails and felt the area
would be better served by the City of La Quinta rather than the County.
14. Mr. Jack Becker, property owner in Sections 33, 3, and 32, stated his
support of the annexation as he felt it would give the City better control
over what happened to the land. He further stated that these property
owners put their money into this land in hopes of being able to someday
develop the property as an investment.
15. Mr. Roger Downing, property owner in the annexation area, stated that
he had tried to construct a road to his property under the County but was
unable to get approval. He stated he was in favor of the annexation but
wanted very low density.
16. Mr. Sean Abaii, property owner of 160 acres to the southeast of the area,
stated his support of the annexation.
17. Mr. Steve Merritt, property owner in the annexation area, stated his
support of the annexation.
PC2-23 3
Planning Commission Minutes
February 23, 1993
1.8. There being no further public comment, Chairwoman Barrows closed the
public hearing.
19. Commissioner Adolph asked Staff if the area had to be rezoned. Staff
stated yes and explained the annexation and prezoning process.
Commissioners discussed with the Staff the reasons for zoning and filing
a negative declaration at this time. Commissioner Ellson inquired if there
was a way to add a stipulation to require protection of the trails and
wilderness. Staff stated a policy could be made in the General Plan to
flag this.
20. Commissioner Mosher stated he felt language should be added to protect
the trails.
21. Commissioner Ellson moved and Commissioner Adolph seconded a
motion to continue this matter to their next meeting of March 23, 1993,
in order to give Staff time to review ways of protecting the trails and
wilderness in the area. Unanimously approved.
Chairwoman Barrows recessed the meeting from 8:48 P.M. to 8:52 P.M.
C. Toning_ Ordinance Amendment 93-033; a request of the City to amend the
Municipal Code (Title 9, Planning and Zoning) pertaining to screening and/or
prohibition of roof mounted mechanical and similar equipment in commercial and
residential zones.
1. Principal Planner Stan Sawa presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Marrs asked Staff asked if the existing equipment and
satellite dishes would be grandfathered. Staff stated that satellite dishes
would be addressed separately at a later time.
3. There being no further questions of Staff, Chairwoman Barrows opened
the public hearing. There being no one wishing to speak on the subject,
Chairwoman Barrows closed the public hearing.
4. Commissioner Mosher moved and Commissioner Adolph seconded a
motion to adopt Resolution 93-006 recommending to the City Council
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 93-033 regarding screening
and/or prohibition of roof mounted and ground installed mechanical and
similar equipment and confirmation of the environmental determination.
PC2-23 4
Planning Commission Minutes
February 23, 1993
ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Mosher,
Ellson, Marrs, Adolph, &
Chairwoman Barrows. NOES:
None. ABSENT: None.
ABSTAINING: None.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENT: - None
V. BUSINESS SESSION:
A. Continued General Plan Consistency Finding for Coachella Valley Water District;
a request of the Coachella Valley Water District for General Plan Consistency
Finding for CVWD projects.
:t. Mr. John Corella, Domestic Engineer representing CVWD, explained that
the District had 9 wells that pump to a main reservoir off Bermudas and
they will be working with the City on the aesthetics and street
improvements regarding the construction of the projects. He stated that
the proposed reservoir would be below grade level visually; the reservoir
would have a berm if it is visible; and they will submit plans to the City
when CVWD proposes to build. They are looking into the erosion of the
current berm to see why the well is now visible.
2. Commissioner Adolph asked if the pumping stations are above ground.
Mr. Corella stated they were and went on to explain the process. He
stated the well sites are usually a half acre in size and soundproofed to
ambient level at the perimeter wall.
.3. Commissioner Ellson asked if the landscaping would be replaced on the
existing and future sites. Mr. Corella stated they would plant native
landscaping.
4. Chairwoman Barrows stated she would like to see native landscaping used
in all instances. She further stated her concern about the new roads being
constructed. Mr. Corella stated they will be using the existing roads
except for the lower well which will have some scaring but the alternative
would be to create a new site for the well which would create a greater
disturbance.
5. Commissioner Mosher asked if the system was a gravity flow. Mr.
Corella stated it was.
6. Discussion followed between the Commissioners and Mr. Corella
regarding the operation of the reservoirs.
PC2-23 5
Planning Commission Minutes
February 23, 1993
7. Following the discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Mosher and
seconded by Commissioner Marrs to adopt Minute Motion 93-012
determining that the projects as proposed by CVWD are consistent with
the General Plan. Unanimously approved.
B. Street Vacation 93-023; a request of Keith Companies to vacate Wagon Road and
a public easement in favor of the Southern Pacific Land Company south of 52nd
Avenue, east of the Coachella Canal.
].. Planning Director Jerry Herman presented the information contained in the
Staff report, a copy of which is on file in the Planning and Development
Department.
2. Commissioner Ellson inquired about a discrepancy in the maps. Staff
stated they were an earlier version.
3. There being no further discussion, it was moved by Commissioner Ellson
and seconded by Commissioner Adolph to adopt Minute Motion 93-013
approving Street Vacation 93-023 as being in compliance with the General
Plan and the Vista Santa Rosa Specific Plan. Unanimously approved.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Commissioner Ellson asked that the Minutes of February 9, 1993, be amended
on Page 6, Item #B to read "....of colors being installed throughout the City and
there should be some way of requiring the shopping centers to have the centers
exterior colors neutral." There being no further corrections, it was moved by
Commissioner Marrs and seconded by Commissioner Ellson to approved the
Minutes as amended. Unanimously approved.
VII. OTHER -None
VII1. ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Adolph and seconded by Commissioner Mosher to
adjourn this regular meeting of the Planning Commission to a regular meeting on March 23,
1993, at 7:00 P.M. at the La Quinta City Hall Council Chambers. This meeting of
the La Quinta Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:34 P.M., February 23, 1993.
PC2-23 6
Audrey Ostrowsky
P. O. Box 351
La Quinta, CA 92253
619-564-4483
March 8, 1.993 SECOND REQUEST. PLEASE REPLY TO FEBRUARY 18th
LETTER.
Mayor Pena.
and City Council Members
City Hall
La Quinta, CA 92253
Dear Mayor, Pena and City Council Members:
I have obtained a copy of the plans dated May 26, 1992, by the
Redevelopment Agency for the street improvement plan for the
Cove. To my surprise, a pocket of the Cove has been left out.
Since I attended all the meetings on the infrastructure
improvements, I cannot understand why this information was not
made known to the affected property owners.
When the downtown commercial property owners years ago requested
infrastructure and roads, we were told that it is improper to
plan sewers and roads uphill, but now it seems that lower areas
are proposed, while this pocket has been eliminated from the
street improvement plan. This plan seems a waste of the City's
funds, as a completion of this half -circle should cost the City
two to three times. It appears that the Engineering Dept.
consistently has made mistakes and/or cost the City additional
money; such as: forgetting to put the sewer line to my property
on Madero (which cost the City $3,000 to $5,000 to repair besides
tearing up a new street), and the fiasco on La Fonda, which cost
the City up to half a million dollars.
At a meeting, Joe Daniels threatened the City with a lawsuit if
the Yucatan area didn't get its scheduled street improvement and
sewer. It is my opinion that the City should not have allowed
homes to be built there. (I might add that the value of their
lots and homes has tripled and quadrupled even without streets,
while the area which is presently omitted from the City's
redevelopment plan has barely increased in value.)
Hopefully, the City Council will take action to rectify this
mistake by the Engineering Dept. A $14,000,000 mistake is too
much for one small city, but continued mistakes must be
prevented.
Your immediate reply is requested, before any action is
undertaken by the residents of this affected area.
Very truly yours,
�1 Jj
Audrey Ostra'wsky
AO/ns